Posted by: escott on May 11, 19103 at 23:49:37 In Reply to: Escott--comments? posted by Eric on April 30, 19103 at 09:00:33

Hi Eric,.... sorry I've been away.... been writing busily.... maybe you'll see some of it somewhere soon.... :}

I recall that Friedman essay, one of my least favorite of his.... (he portends to write a memo from Saddam to Bush....)

Some of the column was fine - particularly the parts about Iraq's ARAB Shia being ANYTHING but inherently subservient to Iran's PERSIAN Shia.... Yes, there are numerous critical dividing lines, only a few of which Friedman mentions.... And yes, Iran indeed has more than a few solid reasons (from assorted Iranian perspectives) to wish to keep a lid on Iraq becoming an "Arab Shia Republic" .... (even as events could yet spiral in that dangerous direction - esp. if some of the more radical firebrands were to gain strenght - radicals, who are NOT well liked in Iran)

Where Friedman went off course though was the nonsense about seeing Iraq now as the "51st state of the United States." And that we had to RULE over it with the same IRON FIST that Saddam used to rule over IRAQ.... Yes, I agree we're now responsible for what happens in that horrendously fractious artificial state... (a state in search of a nation)..... But as I'm arguing in forthcoming articles, the U.S. should NOT:

1. emulate Saddam Hussein with heavy handed security measures....
2. Act like an Iranian "Counsel of Guardians" in vetting Iraqi aspirants to political leadership....

Both tactics will be counter-productive.... and have already been.... as we keep alienating more and more of those who initially welcomed the USA

I AM guardedly hopeful that the initial US efforts to seek greater international peacekeeping forces (so far Italy and Poland are interested - and curious, Poland last week "impertently" invited Germany and Denmark to join them.... apparently without checking with the US neocons first.... !) The pending US resolution before the UN is a start, though the UN is hardly accorded the promised "vital" role. (instead, its relegated mostly to an auditor of how the oil money is spent, and humanitarian relief provider)

But this is not enough: IMHO, the US should contemplate the early convening of exactly the same thing WE (meaning the US w/ our much large coalition) then did for Afghanistan.... in cooperation with (gasp) the UN.... As has been almost forgotten, that confab, held in Bonn, Germany, was attended by nearly every major Afghan faction AND by all six of Afghanistan's neighbors AND by the US and Russia.... And much to America's pleasant surprise, Iran was later recognized as a very positive contributor to the suprise compromise result of Hamid Karzai becoming Afghanistan's initial leader....

Why not the same sort of approach for Iraq?

es

PS: Friedman's op-ed in today's Sunday New York Times is excellent - the one about the need for the US to get serious with the real problem in the Israel-Palestinian morass.... one that the neocons & Likudniks will try to change the subject on....

Read the Follow Ups:

Create a new Followup:

 Title: 
    Name: 
  E-Mail: 
     Verification text:
Type above verification text in lowercase: 

 Text of the Post:
 
     Hyperlink Title: 
       Hyperlink URL: 
 Hyperlink Image URL: 
 .GIF to be Uploaded: