Question: What is the way out?
Ross: I think we should be . . . I think we need a three-fold approach – three means employed when it comes to Iraq. One is negotiate with the Iraqi government and sectarian leaders a timetable for the U.S. to withdraw, which gives them an input. But it also says we’re getting out. Secondly, there should be a national reconciliation conference in parallel with this that involves also not just the national leaders in the center, but also the leaders who are being empowered by what we’re doing in the local areas right now. Because you need to create a bridge between the two, and that shouldn’t be disbanded until they reach an agreement. Now if they do reach agreement, we can be flexible in terms of how we approach the timetable for withdrawal. If they don’t reach agreement, then we can be much less flexible in terms of how we approach withdrawal. And the third – which should really be three parallel negotiations at once – we should be trying to broker with the neighbors, principally like between the Saudis and the Iranians, a set of understandings at least that can contain what’s going on in Iraq, because again you can play upon their mutual needs.
Discuss
Kristopher S. on January 16, 2008, 6:45 PM
It is a nice quaint diplomatic approach, that I agree with. Would it be done? My thoughts, no. Simply to say its a matter of gathering that many people that you describe all together to agree on sections of land, that they believe individually, have rights to hold themselves under the guidance of their beliefs. I could imagine as you described a deal being brokered between certain higher controlling neighbors. I don't imagine smaller sects being involved to their own liking. Obviously your talking about what might be referred to as a hot button issue "cut-and-run". This to me is at least "play roulette-and-run". As we can see being in Iraq is not a gamble, it's a known loss. What does it matter then to gamble on an at least ANY exit strategy.
Kristopher S. on January 16, 2008, 11:45 PM
It is a nice quaint diplomatic approach, that I agree with. Would it be done? My thoughts, no. Simply to say its a matter of gathering that many people that you describe all together to agree on sections of land, that they believe individually, have rights to hold themselves under the guidance of their beliefs. I could imagine as you described a deal being brokered between certain higher controlling neighbors. I don’t imagine smaller sects being involved to their own liking. Obviously your talking about what might be referred to as a hot button issue “cut-and-run”. This to me is at least “play roulette-and-run”. As we can see being in Iraq is not a gamble, it’s a known loss. What does it matter then to gamble on an at least ANY exit strategy.
Renaud Orban on January 28, 2008, 6:28 PM
The problem is that we don't even know the real reason of the U.S. presence in Iraq. They don't explain anything except the propaganda speech of preventing it from being a safe heaven for terrorist. I don't think the United States would spend billions on something, having 4000 of their young people die (and its not finish), and not expect anything in return…
I don't understand why the political elite never tells the real things when it comes to foreign policies…
Renaud Orban on January 28, 2008, 11:28 PM
The problem is that we don’t even know the real reason of the U.S. presence in Iraq. They don’t explain anything except the propaganda speech of preventing it from being a safe heaven for terrorist. I don’t think the United States would spend billions on something, having 4000 of their young people die (and its not finish), and not expect anything in return…
I don’t understand why the political elite never tells the real things when it comes to foreign policies…
Add a Comment
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or Register