Sunday, December 10, 2006
COMMON SENSE AT LAST!
The airing of the report of the bi-partisan Iraq policy commission is like a fresh breeze, a shift in the prevailing southerly winds, while stranded on the north side of the trash dump. It is a remarkable change from the accustomed stench in the air from past voices. The commission's assessment of the mess in Iraq squared with that which nearly everyone believed to be true -- other than those 30% diehard partisans who vote in every poll that Bush is doing a good job in the presidency.
The commission's assessment of the sitution appears to be receiving more universal acceptance than its blueprint for improving the chances for "success," although that has been well received also.
One noticeable improvement is the commission's use of "success" insted of "victory" or "winning," and the clarity of its definition of "success" as the achievement of a stable Iraq government capable of keeping order and tending to its own affairs. This clarifies the mission.
Under Bush's leadership team, we have had a wandering, meandering notion of what constitutes our goal there. "Mission Accomplished," the sign in Bush's famous staged aircraft carrier photo-op might have been true if we had just stayed with the original idea of toppling Saddam, who was considered by them as a threat to peace, and finding non-existent " weapons of mass destruction." But then our goal seemed to change to nation building, which Bush deplored in his campaign, and the "establishment of a democracy which would be a beacon of liberty for the peoples living under tyranny in the Middle East." All this, of course, was while the country was spinning out of control.
The commission's report should have stressed more vigorously the principle of "self-determination" for Iraq, as viewed by the ethnic and sectarian groups there. Our notion of a constitutional republic and representation according to population is unlikely to work in a tripartite situation where one group has a 60% dominance over the other two. We helped set up a government which is really under the control of the majority Shiite group, and the Sunnies have never accepted it.
Any form of structure which does not give the direct governance most affecting the lives of the people to their own sectarian or ethnic group has problems from the start. If this is what the Iraqis want, then let them work out how. We can be facilitators of the process, and not designers of the outcome. Once a form of government with popular support among all sectors has begun, the can deal with the foreign-influenced Al Quaida terrorist remnant.
Regardless of what we have been told by our president, sectariean violence, Sunni insurgency against a government dominated by their opposition, and Shiite reprisals are the major causes of violence. If we eliminate these three by allowing a desired tripartite structure of government, the the real terrorists will become a less formidable problem.
Just now it appears that the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites are near an agreement among themselves on distribution of oil revenues. This could be the beginning of something good.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
The commission's assessment of the sitution appears to be receiving more universal acceptance than its blueprint for improving the chances for "success," although that has been well received also.
One noticeable improvement is the commission's use of "success" insted of "victory" or "winning," and the clarity of its definition of "success" as the achievement of a stable Iraq government capable of keeping order and tending to its own affairs. This clarifies the mission.
Under Bush's leadership team, we have had a wandering, meandering notion of what constitutes our goal there. "Mission Accomplished," the sign in Bush's famous staged aircraft carrier photo-op might have been true if we had just stayed with the original idea of toppling Saddam, who was considered by them as a threat to peace, and finding non-existent " weapons of mass destruction." But then our goal seemed to change to nation building, which Bush deplored in his campaign, and the "establishment of a democracy which would be a beacon of liberty for the peoples living under tyranny in the Middle East." All this, of course, was while the country was spinning out of control.
The commission's report should have stressed more vigorously the principle of "self-determination" for Iraq, as viewed by the ethnic and sectarian groups there. Our notion of a constitutional republic and representation according to population is unlikely to work in a tripartite situation where one group has a 60% dominance over the other two. We helped set up a government which is really under the control of the majority Shiite group, and the Sunnies have never accepted it.
Any form of structure which does not give the direct governance most affecting the lives of the people to their own sectarian or ethnic group has problems from the start. If this is what the Iraqis want, then let them work out how. We can be facilitators of the process, and not designers of the outcome. Once a form of government with popular support among all sectors has begun, the can deal with the foreign-influenced Al Quaida terrorist remnant.
Regardless of what we have been told by our president, sectariean violence, Sunni insurgency against a government dominated by their opposition, and Shiite reprisals are the major causes of violence. If we eliminate these three by allowing a desired tripartite structure of government, the the real terrorists will become a less formidable problem.
Just now it appears that the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites are near an agreement among themselves on distribution of oil revenues. This could be the beginning of something good.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
