|
I am posting this here in full, but since it is mine, there are no copyright issues. Go With the Flow
Like the power of a mighty river contained by the steel and concrete structure of a man-made dam, the potency of ethnic discord in pre-war Iraq was held at bay by the strongman Saddam Hussein for many years. Once the dam was breeched and then destroyed, this raging river of bitter rivalry and strife was let loose to wreak its destruction on the land. Throughout history, the strength of the water’s flow has often been harnessed to achieve attainable goals. Carefully guided, the river’s might can irrigate parched fields or be transformed into hydroelectric power. At times, a river might be partially rerouted, but always in accordance with the general direction of the water’s momentum. No one has ever attempted to force a river to flow in the opposite direction. That would be sheer folly. Unfortunately, the Bush administration’s present policy in Iraq is much like an attempt to force a river to reverse course. Disbanding the militias, trying to prevent the growing partnership between the Shia majority and its natural ally Shiite Iran, and refusing to acknowledge the increasing separation of the three indigenous ethnic groups are all policies doomed to failure. They each push fruitlessly against the momentum of events.
Moreover, the administration’s stubborn refusal to bring together the many neighboring nations peripherally involved in the growing disaster is a recipe for an even greater catastrophe. Up until now, the national discourse on the war has been framed by the Bush administration’s obsessive militarism and little else. Some critics are giving lip service to the idea of “increasing diplomacy,” but there is little fleshing out about what this can mean. Instead, we seem to be stuck on military issues: a surge in troops or no surge, the withdrawal of troops on a timetable or no withdrawal, redeployment of troops from the center to the periphery or no redeployment. It is all about where to put the troops and for how long. No one is talking about what diplomacy might actually mean. Perhaps this is because true diplomacy is abhorrent to and the antithesis of the central thesis of the Bush Doctrine: shoot first and then see what happens when the smoke clears. Nonetheless, it is important to at least think about what is still possible before George Bush pushes us over the rim of an erupting Middle East volcano with his militant posturing and his aggressive fantasies aimed at Iran.
What many fear, and rightly so, is a regional conflagration in the Middle East that draws in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Syria, and perhaps others. Already, these nations are greatly concerned about unfolding events, and some are indirectly involved. Either we continue to ignore these players, and in the case of Syria and Iran, threaten and provoke them, assuring that the present dangerous trend will only intensify, or we attempt to engage them by supporting a positive rather than destructive manifestation of their vested interests. To begin with, a regional conference should be called with two primary goals. The first is to accomplish a clear agreement among all participants that the goal is to bring stability and stem the violence in the region. The second is to help define what each participant can do to accomplish that goal.
We already know that Saudi money is going in to bolster and help arm the Sunni insurgency. Perhaps, the Saudis can directly influence their Sunni brethren, offering to rebuild and economically strengthen the Sunni area in trade for a moratorium on the violence. We know as well that the Iranians are supporting the Shiite militias with various resources. Perhaps, they can also work towards convincing their religious brethren to refrain from violence, with the aim of channeling the tremendous energies of the Shiite militias into local administrative and constructive pursuits. Perhaps the Turks can be convinced by some deft diplomacy and some well-placed carrots not to invade when Iraq ultimately splits into three parts and an independent Kurdistan lies at the Turkish doorstep.
Any attempt to quell the violence along these channels, however, can only work in tandem, hence the need for a vigorous and productive conversation among nations. Recently, the http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/06/AR2007020601544.html>Saudis and the Iranians have actually begun talking, heroically attempting to fill the diplomatic vacuum left by a recalcitrant American administration. Unfortunately, US participation is also necessary for such diplomacy to work, including an American agreement to pull its soldiers back in concert with the diplomatic impact of any Saudi and Iranian efforts. But for any of this to take place, the American attitude toward Iran must make a radical shift, away from escalating confrontation and towards increasing dialogue and working together on shared goals, the greatest of which right now is keeping the current conflict from spiraling further out of control. The problem is that the Bush administration is unwilling and probably incapable of working with other nations for the greater goal of peace. They prefer threats, bullying, and, ultimately, violence as the sole way of pursuing their ends. Unless both Bush and Cheney are forcibly removed from office, it seems there is little hope for a sane or constructive conclusion to the Iraq fiasco until the next president takes over in January 2009, and by then it may be too late. The most that can be hoped for at this point is to contain the present situation and keep George Bush from inflaming it further. To this end, I am suggesting: that Congress pass a binding resolution that prevents the president from attacking Iran or its interests in any way without clear Congressional approval; that Congress fully investigate the administration’s claims about Iran, demanding concrete proof of any claims from multiple sources; and, finally, that Congress very clearly assert that if Bush and his gang unlawfully attack Iran or any other sovereign nation without absolute proof given to Congress of a clear and imminent danger to the US, as well as a supportive resolution from Congress, then both Bush and Cheney will be impeached and convicted of war crimes. Although this may seem radical to some, I see no other way to restrain what has become an administration that has consistently acted in defiance of American and international law, all precedent, and the will of Congress. Without specifically defined restrictions imposed by Congress that include significant consequences, this administration could easily lead the planet into World War lll.
The best possible outcome of the present dire situation in Iraq would be for the anger and aggression there to one day be channeled into rebuilding the country rather than destroying it. But this will never happen without the neighbors’ support and their guiding influence on their respective allies within the country. And it will never happen with a constant background of threats and militarism from the American government. This only feeds the fires. One can greatly hope that our next president will know better.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
