Iraq, an alternative view

APRIL 10, 2006
The administration is in an all out effort these days to resell its
Iraq policy to the American people. Like a number of months ago,
this PR offensive has to do with the correctly perceived fact an
increased national frustration with the Iraqi war. At
this time, it is fair to say
that a majority of Americans see as confirmed all their initial
misgivings about going into this war. Their list is long and, worst,
one senses that their discouragement has finally sunk into the
collective consciousness as to make any administration campaign to
revive faith in its current policy doomed.
The picture that now emerges is indeed very difficult for the
White House to erase. The prevalent perception in our streets today
is that President Bush had predetermined to go into Iraq, WMD or not.
That is, Iraq was simply chosen as the most strategic location from
where to launch his "democracy project". In this context, it follows
that definitively faulty, incomplete intelligence was used to justify
intervention. At the time,that realization escaped to most who
honestly believed in an imminent WMD attack, our solid justification
for immediate action.
Now,in complete justice to the president, it is the proper time to
give due consideration to his democracy goal, the very basis of
our foreign policy in the Middle East and therefore, in Iraq. For
as a concept to eradicate terrorism and protect our security and way
of life results as comprehensive and sound and noble as to even
appear God inspired. The administration understood well that the
breeding of terrorism in the Middle East stems from the despotic
nature of the government systems in the area and never from poverty
or "imperialism" as ourdear leftists explain it. It is indeed a goal
and a vision worth
keeping for future administrations, regardless of the outcome of the
current Iraq dilemma. Therefore, it is important to conclude that the
White House has not failed in its final goal these years, nor in its
first strike doctrine (a survival necessity in this age), and not
even "per se" in its going to war in Iraq.
The White House has abysmally failed in its carrying out of a very
clear vision through what can only be termed a quite amateurish,
inexperienced foreign policy decisionmaking component. From the
initial days of the postIraq war period, Americans learned that the
insurgency had been a surprise! My God, what our regional experts
at State, Defense and CIA know about the Middle East, about war
tactics in our time? And that was the beginning of what has been a
continuous policy of improvisation, from dissolving the Iraqi
military to the faulty reconstruction effort to the recent
amazingly "unanticipated" victory of Hamas. The American people
today have every right and every reason to feel upset about Iraq.
But, what can be done? Few people have more respect in the House
than Congressman John Murtha. Yet, his contention that we should
withdraw altogether has to be one of a desperate man. Many feel the
same way. But desperation doesn’t trigger good decisions. Calm
analysis does. For to cut and run not only would be a devastating
blow to our country in the struggle against terrorism but would
render as useless the American and the Iraqi blood lost and, worst of
all, ruin the very
real possibility of victory, of accomplishing our goal in Iraq: the
establishing a democratic beachhead in the Middle East.
In my very modest opinion, there are two things that the
administration may well do to win in Iraq and turn the tide of public
opinion. The first one is military and has a two prong approach,
withdraw our troops from the cities while simultaneously negotiate
with the Iraqi government the establishment of a long term base in
the country. The second is strictly diplomatic, building on the
foundation of the new cooperation forged with our European allies
strive to work together towards the formation of a government of
national reconciliation. In our lifetime, we have seen this
accomplished not once but at least twice in Central America,
guerrillas joining the political process.
In recent days, rumors have been running around about major shifts
in the administration leadership. But changes in people is not what
is needed unlees it means changes in direction. Bill Clinton was in
his time humble (and wise enough)to call a Republican, David Gergen,
when
help was needed. Sadly, one doesn’t perceive that same humbleness in
the current White House. For, why not calling one of the many
Republican stellar
foreign policy experts or even Bob Graham, a Democrat who knows
"a little bit" about terrorism?
A number of decades ago, I had the opportunity to hear from one of
the philosophers of the School of Madrid the following: "Absolute
order only may lead to stupidity and death". I dont know, but I have
the restless inkling that "stay the course", the administration mantra,
squarely falls in the philosopher’s observation.
Felipe Fernandez
Cutler Bay, Florida
_____________________________________________
Search for businesses by name, location, or phone number. -Lycos Yellow Pages
http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.asp?SRC=lycos10
');
document.write('');
document.write('HTML graphics in this message have been blocked. [Show HTML Graphics Edit Preferences]');
document.write('');
} else if (imgblocked=="no") {
document.write('');
document.write('');
document.write('HTML graphics in this message have been displayed. [Edit Preferences]');
document.write('');
}
//-->
As AttachmentInline Text
Previous Next
INBOX
':'');
//-->

renderAdJS("skyscraper");