Iraq: Peace Process or Bust Posted by Lorelei Kelly

With the White House still linking Iraq to 9/11 and an "Out of Iraq" group forming in Congress--our war policy at the moment is not a real discussion between the left and the right but a rhetorical battle between the leftovers and the righteous. No elected leaders yet have an enduring strategic plan for ours and Iraq's future. The one glimmer of creative possibility in this bleak landscape has been recent news about the US military initiating talks with the Iraqi resistance. Hala Jabar, reporting for the Sunday Times of London writes: 

The talks appear to represent the first serious effort by Americans and Iraqi insurgents to find common ground since violence intensified in the spring.

Kudos to the military for taking this important first step. Now the question is how can we support this initiative with a comprehensive and coordinated peace process for Iraq?  Patrick Doherty has some excellent suggestions based on Northern Ireland's experience.. We don't lack for solid baseline knowledge and good advice. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of individuals in the United States and around the world who are specialists in conflict resolution and who have on the ground experience engineering processes that shift the critical mass of a population toward stability instead of violence.  The 1990's provide several examples.

We need to pull together our military and civilian experts on peace processes--plus individuals from academia and the non-governmental world--to jointly develop a plan to shift the critical mass in Iraq. One British organization, Conciliation Resources, even specializes in engaging armed groups. Although difficult to countenance and always controversial, non-state armed groups are often central figures in conflict resolution.  In the last two decades, armed groups have participated in peace processes on every continent, resulting in a wealth of experiences of dialogue and peace negotiations. So we have a large menu of formats and ground rules to choose from. The criteria for the stakeholders should be anyone who could be a spoiler. There are limits to participation, however. As Robert Dreyfuss writes, Zarqawi jihadists are irredeemable and would never be allowed.

And these conflict resolution folks aren't namby pambies living in academe--most are on the ground practitioners. Some have been kidnapped, held hostage, threatened and otherwise endangered on their missions. They are serious peace-ninjas. They know how to recognize the auspicious signs of a workable peace and they know when to call it off.  Recommendations for steps forward in Iraq are plentiful. A comprehensive peace process could draw on different individual ideas...say Richard Clarke's notion of rapid response garrisons combined with social recovery lessons learned in the Balkans.

Back to elected leaders: focussing on withdrawal instead of a real strategic plan is just wandering close to the ethical black hole without stepping off the edge.  I don't know many progressives who honestly rule out some level of military presence in Iraq to protect the civilian population.  In fact, if we are to remain--it will be with mostly military personnel. But our military does more than kill people and break things. It also knows how to build.  Seeing the military as a talented resource for a negotiated peace is what progressives must  learn to do.  Conservatives, on the other hand, must accept that we need to take steps that they might deem distasteful or ideologically unfit--like negotiating with insurgents.

There is still time to steer Iraq in the direction of hope and opportunity.  But Americans have to stop with the strategy of killing Iraqis and begin the hard and risky work of negotiating with them.  It can be done.

Comments

[rosignol]

They are serious peace-ninjas.

If your goal is to be taken seriously, avoiding phrases like that would help.

[keys]

http://novus-ordo-seclorum.us/2005/06/bush-speech-on-iraq-trust-in-me-only.html

[Rob]

It can't be done.

Iraqis are our mortal enemies. They are so because they are the true owners of that which is beneath their feet.
We need their oil to live the life we have become accustom to. They have shown over and over that they will not sell it to us below market. So we will kill them and take the oil from them.

That is Bush's clear strategy for Iraq. He will not tell this to anyone outright, but you can see it in his actions.

We need an alternate energy policy, on the ground and running, before any talk of exit from Iraq can begin. We need to be prepared for an oilless America.

Here are the scenarios...

1. We depart Iraq, and middle east power strengthens. Iran tests their first nuke and claims influence over Afganistan and Iraqi oil fields.

New muslim power puts U.S. bids back on the market. 05 put's gas at 7$ - 9$ per gallon. U.S. declares a national emergency, tapps the oil reserve to buffer market prices and rations oil for the food fleet. U.S. citizens rush to the supermarket to stock up on canned and jarred goods.

Emerging China & India drive the oil market through the roof. Supermarkets cannot stay open, long lines form at rural food distribution centers.

Food runs out, people are killed, women are raped, people starve, in the U.S. alone 326,700,000 die.

It can not be done.

[Lorelei Kelly]

Rosignal: are you cranky all the time? just wondering.

[Rob]

Lorelei,

How do we depart the middle east without our discount coupon for oil?

Even if we get an alternate energy platform started now, it'll take years before we are able to face market prices for oil, if ever.

The only thing I can see us doing now, is reducing are appropriations to Iraq, since the money is just going into republican fat, and not to any war effort.

[Hyrin Hat]

Negotiating is better than fighting, true. But sometimes things is just broke, and can't be fixed.

[Rob]

So Bush wins? is that it. See the scariest part of this whole thing, is that The Bush Plan works.... for himself, his friends, and about 1 in 10 people worldwide. That's how much an oilless technology can support.

I call his plan "The Great Golf Course" You have the golfers, and the caddys. He's cutting programs for the poor and middle class because he considers us a non-entity. At least not when things start to go really bad.

[Rob]

Am I being fooled here? Is there in fact plenty of cheap oil?

Why am I not getting engaged in this factor that seems to be missing from both conservative and liberal argument.

Can you blame people for thinking that there vote doesn't matter and that you guys pretend to look busy, all while keeping people asleep with half fact half spin.

Al Franken, not Rush Limbaugh hosted discussions with Rich Heinberg. If his points are invalid say so, but at least do me the courtesy of not ignoring me.

If we leave Iraq, how do we keep the oil cheap, and if we don't have cheap oil, how do we working class and poor Americans survive?

[doc]

“Am I being fooled here? Is there in fact plenty of cheap oil? Why am I not getting engaged in this factor that seems to be missing from both conservative and liberal argument?”

…let me hazard a guess.

i have stated (elsewhere on this site) that it is my belief that the invasion of iraq was for 2 basic reasons: oil and the strategic means by which to defend it(long term occupation).

others have posited similar thoughts.

however, you will not get mainstream media (whether it be traditional news outlets or some sort of web presentation)to seriously present these assertions and then engage the public in a discussion on the possible scenarios and outcomes derived from them.

why?

for anyone serious about working (or trying to assert influence)atthe national level, or anyone who designs to work at the national level, talk of a straight oil grab is simply beyond the pale: mouthing such heresy would kill the career of any up and comer. period.

the reason for that is twofold.

first, it might, just might, ignite a national discussion. a discussion that in turn might become such a clamor that an uneasy conscious in the administration comes clean (yeah – i know, i’m talking about bush and co: one does hope). a discussion that might cause other nations to force the UN to reexamine the material used to justify the invasion.

second, and more importantly, for that national discussion to happen AND be useful, the american public would have to take a good, hard look at itself and answer the following question: “just what are we prepared to do to keep our overall quality of life (assuming we don’t have to actually 1) make that decision, 2) get our own hands dirty, or 3) feel too guilty about the people who will inevitably suffer for our convenience)?”

i mean, truly, what do you think the answer would be?

[rosignol]

Rosignal: are you cranky all the time? just wondering.
-Lorelei Kelly

I'm not cranky... mostly, I'm frustrated. The US political system works best when there are (at least) two viable sides on an issue. When one side goes off the deep end, the system loses the 'check' that keeps the other side honest, and they start to go off the deep end, too. That's not good for the country.

The Democrats have been weak on foreign policy since viet nam, and foreign policy and national security have become two of the most critical issues at the federal level. In an ideal world, the Democratic response would be to rise to the occasion, say "okay, we were wrong about a lot of things during the cold war, we've learned our lesson, here are the Democratic foreign policy positions going forward", and the electorate could decide if the liked those positions better than the Republican ones next election.

Instead, a lot of Democrats seem to have opened up the vietnam-era playbook and seem to be trying for a repeat, spending most of their time thinking at the tactical 'Democrats vs. Bush' level and praying for another Woodward and Bernstein to come along.

That's not going to rebuild the Democratic party's credibility on foreign policy or national security- it's going to wreck it for decades. Maybe permanently. To me, that means the Democrats won't be viable at the federal level for a long time, and I won't have a viable alternative to vote for to remind the Republicans that I'll only put up with a certain amount of BS from them.

What the Democrats need to be doing is think at the strategic "US vs Terrorists" level and come up with some positive things we can try to win this thing, while recognizing that the 'exit strategy' is victory, the withdrawal schedule will be comparable to WW2 (60 years on, there are STILL troops in Germany and Japan- now that's a 'quagmire'...), and that the Democrats' job is not to provide endless criticism of the Administration's plans and predict disaster, but to criticize the Administration's plans and come up with improvements.

They're not doing it, and that makes me frustrated. And, you're right, just a little bit cranky.

Just to be clear: I'm not a democrat, or one of the 'progressives' this site thinks it caters to. I am an American citizen, and I have the same interest in keeping the politicans honest and minimizing the BS coming out of DC as every other US citizen. I hope the intellectual rennisance in the Democratic party that this website is trying to get started will help to do that, because it is desperately needed.

[paperwight]

[I'm not a democrat, or one of the 'progressives' this site thinks it caters to. I am an American citizen, and I have the same interest in keeping the politicans honest and minimizing the BS coming out of DC as every other US citizen.]

What a fascinating and decidely telling contrast: Rosignol distinguishes between Democrats and Progressives on the one hand, and American Citizens on the other. Classic.

[fat sam]

i have taken Rosignol to task before, as I think he sometimes takes cheap shots. But, he obviously reads this site religiously, he thinks about these issues, and he tries to engage others; for that, I say well done.
(i also agree the term "peace ninjas" should be taken out to a plowed field and dealt with.)

[fat sam]

for the record, though, while recognizing that the 'exit strategy' is victory: this sentiment is about 20 months too late. All our military officials agreed when Baghdad fell that we had about a 6-month window to get things right. It was a valid assessment, and that window has now closed. The only effectual argument left, in my mind, is how to draw down and bug out with the least possible damage. If it takes 5 years, well, shit, but OK. But step 1 is give up on the "14 bases" dream, and start planning how the hell we can pack up and go home without leaving behind a 21st century version of post-soviet afghanistan...

[Minh-Duc]

This is a whole lot of theories with little consideration on reality. Just because there are factions of the insurgency seem willing to negotiate does not mean that most of them are. Beside, the path of political participation have always been opened to the insurgents; they turned it down last January. There are nothing to negotiate. They alway had the option of dropping their arms and participate in politic.

[Lorelei Kelly]

Rob: I don't know what we're going to do about our oil-addiction. I started riding my bike everywhere in March, 2003 and paying attention to new groups like www.apolloalliance.org

Rosignol: Thanks for the comments. I agree with you.
I think part of the problem you point out is the fact that on the left we have academics and operatives (and not much in between) and they don't talk to each other, translate jargon nor reality-test theories that may turn into policy recommendations. The right, on the other hand, has legions of these intermediaries.
If the left doesn't come up with something improved or equivalent, we'llhave a hard time ever finding balance in the political debate and the left position will be lowest common denominator i.e. "out now" sigh.
The other piece of this is the finance arm of conservatism...the corporate boards who "individually" (undisclosed donors) fund groups like Norquist's goon squad operations or Heritage Foundation have a huge money advantage. Unless we get the super rich on our side and giving for the long term, it will be hard to beat the K-Street Project. These guys will sell off the entire public sector before some of my good government Republican friends will wake up to the scam.

"peace ninjas" will be jettisoned forthwith.

[Rob]

Excellent replys!!

Thank you Doc, Hyrin, Lorelei. While I realize oil won't actually get talked about, dems may be scaring voters by...

a) Joining a peace movement before locking in a coupon for cheap oil or,
b) Running an all to successful war, thus leaving us with no reason to remain in the region, and get cheap oil as payment.

Winning this war means legitamizing the theft of oil in such a way that the world community respects it. I suggest flooding the world with heroin or something.

[rosignol]

I think part of the problem you point out is the fact that on the left we have academics and operatives (and not much in between) and they don't talk to each other, translate jargon nor reality-test theories that may turn into policy recommendations. The right, on the other hand, has legions of these intermediaries.

The left isn't lacking intermediaries, it lacks leadership. Clinton was smart, charismatic, and a great communicator, but he wasn't much of a leader... he had little willingness to take an unpopular or painful position to achieve a long-term goal. Usually, when it happened, it was because Congress forced him to, and Clinton was a master of making a virtue of necessity.

We probably disagree on how smart Bush is, but we probably agree that he isn't exactly charismatic, and that he communicates poorly... but Bush is very willing to take a painful position- and stick to it- to achieve a long-term goal. A good leader needs to be able to do that, and I don't see many people like that on the left.

One other thing- use of jargon should be avoided. Jargon can expedite communication between specialists, but it is a serious obstacle to comprehension by laymen. In the political arena, people tend to vote 'no' if they don't understand what is being discussed. I don't know if that's why Bush seems to be oversimplifying so much of what he says in public, but it may be part of the reason.

If the left doesn't come up with something improved or equivalent, we'llhave a hard time ever finding balance in the political debate and the left position will be lowest common denominator i.e. "out now" sigh.

The left needs a leader who can convince them that deposing Saddam was a good thing for both the US and Iraqis. If you can't find one, the Democrats are going to be a minority party until 1) Iraq is pacified, and 2)'Terrorism' isn't one of the major concerns of the US electorate.

Unfortunately, this would involve contradictiong some fairly senior figures on the left. Good luck finding someone who can pull it off, and I'm not kidding.

The other piece of this is the finance arm of conservatism...the corporate boards who "individually" (undisclosed donors) fund groups like Norquist's goon squad operations or Heritage Foundation have a huge money advantage. Unless we get the super rich on our side and giving for the long term, it will be hard to beat the K-Street Project. These guys will sell off the entire public sector before some of my good government Republican friends will wake up to the scam.

Yes, the Democrats need money, but getting it from the super rich just makes it easy for the Republicans to portray the Democrats as the party of billionaires like George Soros and the Hollywood celebrity crowd who are constantly saying mind-blowingly stupid things.

Remember, money is a means used to achieve the end- it is not the end in and of itself. Getting cozy with the super-rich will get the Democrats money, but it will cost them votes.

The Republicans spent a decade or so rebuilding their grass-roots fundraising, and it's paid off. The Democrats need to do the same. Thankfully, someone at the DNC knows this, and it's probably why Howard Dean is where he is today.

As far as selling off the public sector is concerned, well, if the private sector can do something more efficiently, why not? IMO, the only government employees who deserve a better benefit package than I have are the ones in the military.

[goonzu gold]

I once have a lot of goonzu money in the game and i will go to buy goonzu gold to add my stock. I like the game very much and i like to earn the goonzu online gold with my friends together. I want to join the cheap goonzu gold and i can get a lot of equipment to arm myself. I like the game very much come on to join us!

[dofus kamas]

I hope i can get kamas in low price.

[ghost online gold]

I likeghost gold, it brings me many happiness. If you haveghost online gold, you can help others.

[age of conan gold]

I hope i can get aoc gold in low price,
Yesterday i bought conan gold for my friend.

[buy wonderland Gold]

I like the wonderland Gold, my brother usually
wonderland online Gold for me. I appriciate him.

[TrackBack URL for this entr]

I like the wonderland Gold, my brother usually
wonderland online Gold for me. I appriciate him.

[muhtar]

Thank you for your sharing.! seslichat seslisohbet

[cheap coach handbags]

Thank you for your sharing! I like i very much!

[nike air max]

0314
The Nike air max Shoe lives up to its name with plush cushioning and a sleek silhouette. It brings you just what you need to style it up wherever you go. you can look at the Air max 2009,air max 90,Air max 95,Air Max 2010
Features:
* Minimalistic construction of leathers and synthetics in the upper
* Nike Shox technology for optimal cushioning
* Rubber outsole for excellent grip

[bvlgari watches]

The FRANCK MULLER Watch Santa FRANCK MULLER Watch Monica-based

[rokettube]

en güzel rokettube videoları,
en muhteşem sex izleme sitesi
en kral rokettube yeri
kaliteli pornoların bulunduğu tek mekan
yabancı sitelerden özenle seçilmiş muhteşem ötesi porn sitesi...