A MODEST PROPOSAL
A N. Y. Times editorial (1/14/07) said: "It was surreal how
disconnected Pres. Bush was the other night, both from
Iraq's horrifying reality and America's anguish over this
unnecessary, mismanaged and now unwinnable war.
Indeed, most Americans seem far ahead of the President.
They understand that what the country urgently needs is
for Mr. Bush to chart a way out of Iraq that also limits the
chaos that will be left behind.
It's true that B. said little new, and even less that made
sense. For example, he warned: "If the Iraqi gov't
does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the
support of the American people." As if that hadn't
already been lost, along with everything else. As a former
high B. aid remarked: it's really "repackaged stay-the-course
dressed up to make it look more palatable."
So what's to be done? Actually, it is not incumbent on
those of us who strongly opposed this misadventure
from the beginning to now come up with a solution. It's
as if we're on a bus speeding down a dead-end road
that will take us over a cliff if we continue on that
course. The majority of us are now screaming "STOP!"
But the Pres. complains bitterly that no one offers a
better idea than continuing steady as she goes.
My suggestion has three parts, two of which are urged
in the report of the I. S. G. They are all aimed at curbing
the incredible hostility toward us that is growing in the
Muslim word. First, and most important, we must use
our substantial leverage on Israel to force a just and
lasting settlement with them and the Palestinians. We
are giving them $3 billion a year, plus armaments like
cluster bombs, which they used on civilians in Lebanon.
Please read Jimmy Carter's excellent new book on this
issue, and you'll understand that there's nothing
mysterious about the form such a settlement must have.
This has long been established and agreed on by all sides.
Israel simply refuses to end their illegal occupation of
the West Bank, and remove their illegal settlements
from that territory. Until and unless that happens,
nothing else of significance can be accomplished.
Anything short of this is nonsense!
The second step, also hard, and also advocated by the
I. S. G., is establish a working and civil relationship
with Iran. We have something in common: our
mutual concern about the resurgence of the Taliban.
Iran is hostile to the Taliban because of its oppression
of Shiites in Afghanistan. Iran is equally opposed to
al Qaeda for the same reason. We can find ways to
join forces with Iran against those mutual enemies.
The young people in Iran like us, and admire the U. S.
They are the majority. There is little support among
them for their flaky president. (Sound familiar?) He
talks a lot, but has little real power. The country is
completely controlled by the ruling Ayatollahs and
they are cautious: they don't want trouble with us,
and in fact, would like better relations. Let's go for
it. Sure it's risky. Pushing them toward war, as we
are doing now isn't?
My third suggestion will blow your mind, but I'm
serious about it: we need to choose sides in Iraq
and make sure the side we pick wins decisively
(and quickly). Otherwise civil war will destroy
that country utterly! In line with suggestion
two (above), the side we pick must be the
majority Shia, against the Sunnis, who are the
main insurgency, but less than 20% of the
population. We're for democracy, remember?
Bonus: The Shia will make short work of al
Qaeda in Iraq! They'll be gone! Downside:
85% of the world's Muslims are Sunnis.
They will not be happy about this, and may
cut off our oil. But if suggestion two works,
we'll be able to get oil from both Iran and Iraq.
The Kurds will join the Shia vs. Arab Sunnis,
if as a result they end up with the oil in their
area. The Arab Sunnis in Iraq need to be
warned of what's coming, and given 90 days
to end the insurgency or else. Otherwise
they will be without oil income, and without
much voice in affairs. They will be in a
situation similar to that of the Shia under
Saddam. That is what the insurgency has
earned them. If they want to keep it up, it will doom
them.
Well, let me know what you think: jgoodwin004@centurytel.net
A N. Y. Times editorial (1/14/07) said: "It was surreal how
disconnected Pres. Bush was the other night, both from
Iraq's horrifying reality and America's anguish over this
unnecessary, mismanaged and now unwinnable war.
Indeed, most Americans seem far ahead of the President.
They understand that what the country urgently needs is
for Mr. Bush to chart a way out of Iraq that also limits the
chaos that will be left behind.
It's true that B. said little new, and even less that made
sense. For example, he warned: "If the Iraqi gov't
does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the
support of the American people." As if that hadn't
already been lost, along with everything else. As a former
high B. aid remarked: it's really "repackaged stay-the-course
dressed up to make it look more palatable."
So what's to be done? Actually, it is not incumbent on
those of us who strongly opposed this misadventure
from the beginning to now come up with a solution. It's
as if we're on a bus speeding down a dead-end road
that will take us over a cliff if we continue on that
course. The majority of us are now screaming "STOP!"
But the Pres. complains bitterly that no one offers a
better idea than continuing steady as she goes.
My suggestion has three parts, two of which are urged
in the report of the I. S. G. They are all aimed at curbing
the incredible hostility toward us that is growing in the
Muslim word. First, and most important, we must use
our substantial leverage on Israel to force a just and
lasting settlement with them and the Palestinians. We
are giving them $3 billion a year, plus armaments like
cluster bombs, which they used on civilians in Lebanon.
Please read Jimmy Carter's excellent new book on this
issue, and you'll understand that there's nothing
mysterious about the form such a settlement must have.
This has long been established and agreed on by all sides.
Israel simply refuses to end their illegal occupation of
the West Bank, and remove their illegal settlements
from that territory. Until and unless that happens,
nothing else of significance can be accomplished.
Anything short of this is nonsense!
The second step, also hard, and also advocated by the
I. S. G., is establish a working and civil relationship
with Iran. We have something in common: our
mutual concern about the resurgence of the Taliban.
Iran is hostile to the Taliban because of its oppression
of Shiites in Afghanistan. Iran is equally opposed to
al Qaeda for the same reason. We can find ways to
join forces with Iran against those mutual enemies.
The young people in Iran like us, and admire the U. S.
They are the majority. There is little support among
them for their flaky president. (Sound familiar?) He
talks a lot, but has little real power. The country is
completely controlled by the ruling Ayatollahs and
they are cautious: they don't want trouble with us,
and in fact, would like better relations. Let's go for
it. Sure it's risky. Pushing them toward war, as we
are doing now isn't?
My third suggestion will blow your mind, but I'm
serious about it: we need to choose sides in Iraq
and make sure the side we pick wins decisively
(and quickly). Otherwise civil war will destroy
that country utterly! In line with suggestion
two (above), the side we pick must be the
majority Shia, against the Sunnis, who are the
main insurgency, but less than 20% of the
population. We're for democracy, remember?
Bonus: The Shia will make short work of al
Qaeda in Iraq! They'll be gone! Downside:
85% of the world's Muslims are Sunnis.
They will not be happy about this, and may
cut off our oil. But if suggestion two works,
we'll be able to get oil from both Iran and Iraq.
The Kurds will join the Shia vs. Arab Sunnis,
if as a result they end up with the oil in their
area. The Arab Sunnis in Iraq need to be
warned of what's coming, and given 90 days
to end the insurgency or else. Otherwise
they will be without oil income, and without
much voice in affairs. They will be in a
situation similar to that of the Shia under
Saddam. That is what the insurgency has
earned them. If they want to keep it up, it will doom
them.
Well, let me know what you think: jgoodwin004@centurytel.net
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home