The Greenstock "solution" in Iraq
Wretchard at the Belmont Club does a first rate job of analyzing the proposals of Jeremy Greenstock for a conference on Iraq where the US must invite others but not push an agenda.
I have an additional thought. If the purpose of the meeting is to bring about stability by ignoring the elected Iraq government, there is a much more certain way of achieving that objective. The US could push the Iraqi government aside and put its troops back in charge of destroying the enemy in Iraq. What people are ignoring is that much of the breakdown in Iraq cam about after the Iraqi government took charge. It took place not because that was what the government wanted, but because it did not have the capacity to stop it in the Baghdad and Anbar areas. The US has turned responsibility for other parts of the country over to Iraqi forces, but it has resisted taking effective action in the troubled areas deferring to the Iraqis.
...Oh yeah, those pesky Iraqis and whatever they want from such a conference.
Greenstock's article, perhaps because of the way it was written, very nearly edits out the American interest, as expressed in a warning not to "dominate the agenda". But it entirely omits any discussion of the role of Iraq. Remember Iraq? A country with an elected -- who else invited to the conference, including the UN practitioners can say the same -- and internationally recognized government?
...
...There is much more in the essay/Fisking of the Greenstock proposal.
Again we hear that it is not in any of the neighboring country's interests to destabilize Iraq. And on this premise we base the hopes of the conference. But that is not enough. It is almost as important to declare the process of "staying the course" dead. And here perhaps is the reason why the Iraqi government is given such short shrift. It is entirely the product of "staying the course", the end result of countinsurgence, elections, constitutional ratifications and parliamentary governance of the last three years. To include the Iraqi government in a conference would be to legitimize it, and by extension the Bush policy of the last 3 years. And that must on no account be done. That removed, we come to the glue which is to bind all the conference participants together. A deep desire to prevent the unrest spilling over into other countries, like Syria and Iran.
...
I have an additional thought. If the purpose of the meeting is to bring about stability by ignoring the elected Iraq government, there is a much more certain way of achieving that objective. The US could push the Iraqi government aside and put its troops back in charge of destroying the enemy in Iraq. What people are ignoring is that much of the breakdown in Iraq cam about after the Iraqi government took charge. It took place not because that was what the government wanted, but because it did not have the capacity to stop it in the Baghdad and Anbar areas. The US has turned responsibility for other parts of the country over to Iraqi forces, but it has resisted taking effective action in the troubled areas deferring to the Iraqis.
Comments
Post a Comment