Bob Schieffer opened with an impromptu interview with a Scotland Yard counter terrorism expert named John O’Connor. The important conclusion the actual expert urged was the constantly threatening nature of the War on Terror and its capacity to strike anywhere, any time. That is the sad reality of our time however much we all wish it weren’t.
Sen. Dick Lugar (R-Indiana) then appeared to discuss his almost childlike vision of future Iraq policy and ended up proving why our own Senate accomplishes so little, under either party. The Senate, hidebound in debate at almost all times, is where process is elevated over substance; logical consequence and reality are subordinated to the false premises necessary for a process-oriented dialogue and good law goes to die.
Lugar laid out a plan where the US would convene a diplomatic panel of all of Iraq’s neighbors to discuss Iraq and then use the opportunity of the discussions to withdraw most combat forces while leaving some force (of undefined size and composition) behind to enforce whatever comes of the diplomatic negotiations. So when the Iranians say they need the US out now (so they can dominate at least southern and eastern Iraq); and the Syrians say that they need the US out now (so that they can dominate at least western and central Iraq); and the Turks say they want the US out soon if not now (so they can dominate Kurdistan); and the Saudis say that they will further militarize Sunni groups when the US leaves to prevent the Shia militias from exterminating the Sunnis; and none of the neighbors have any intention of so policing Iraq as to prevent Al Qa’eda from finding safe haven, whatever do you say Dick?
I’d also like to ask for some definition for the residual US military role? What does “support” mean. When a bomb goes off we don’t clear the neighborhood? We don’t let the Shia militia overthrow the legally elected government and massacre their leaders like Hamas did last month in Gaza? If we leave a force behind there will still be casualties-only those will be murder because we won’t be trying to win, just hanging around.
Sen. Dick Lugar (R-Indiana) then appeared to discuss his almost childlike vision of future Iraq policy and ended up proving why our own Senate accomplishes so little, under either party. The Senate, hidebound in debate at almost all times, is where process is elevated over substance; logical consequence and reality are subordinated to the false premises necessary for a process-oriented dialogue and good law goes to die.
Lugar laid out a plan where the US would convene a diplomatic panel of all of Iraq’s neighbors to discuss Iraq and then use the opportunity of the discussions to withdraw most combat forces while leaving some force (of undefined size and composition) behind to enforce whatever comes of the diplomatic negotiations. So when the Iranians say they need the US out now (so they can dominate at least southern and eastern Iraq); and the Syrians say that they need the US out now (so that they can dominate at least western and central Iraq); and the Turks say they want the US out soon if not now (so they can dominate Kurdistan); and the Saudis say that they will further militarize Sunni groups when the US leaves to prevent the Shia militias from exterminating the Sunnis; and none of the neighbors have any intention of so policing Iraq as to prevent Al Qa’eda from finding safe haven, whatever do you say Dick?
I’d also like to ask for some definition for the residual US military role? What does “support” mean. When a bomb goes off we don’t clear the neighborhood? We don’t let the Shia militia overthrow the legally elected government and massacre their leaders like Hamas did last month in Gaza? If we leave a force behind there will still be casualties-only those will be murder because we won’t be trying to win, just hanging around.
Lugar was critical of the Iraqis inability to resolve difficult political issues like revenue sharing, etc… in an environment of violence and hatred. The United States Senate hasn’t passed meaningful energy policy in 35 years and no one is threatening to kill them for the “wrong” decision. Lugar is demonstrating weakness, in both policy and politics, and weakness never wins.
No comments:
Post a Comment