--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Doug <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The single most effective thing we can do to reduce the threat of terrorism is to leave > Iraq and other Middle Eastern nations. We can't change our energy requirements overnight, > but the energy policy of the Bush administration has led us in exactly the opposite direction > that we need to go. We either start finding alternatives and promote conservation now > or we face a tremendous shock some time in the future when prices skyrocket.
Its my understanding that Bush has actually rather aggressively supported research into alternative energy. > >> What's yours stay the course? > > > Ah, the classic partisan buzz phrase. > > Pardon me? Wasn't that _the_ administration policy up until about a month and a half ago? "Month and a half ago" being the operative words. You accused me of proposing an already-abandoned policy... and I'm sure you recognize the partisan overtones to that. > > Anyhow, I'd discuss my policy, > > but I haven't been elected President of the United States, so why should > > I? > > Quite the cop out considering you're the one who originally asked the question, but I can > understand your reluctance to reply here where anything you propose is likely subject to > attack from several directions. > > Of course that's the case just about anywhere you go these days, isn't it. It was also a friendly dig at a fellow list-member. I won't pretend that I have the answers to Iraq - if I did, I suppose that I probably wouldn't be here. In general, though, I see two broad policy options in regards to Iraq. On one hand, there is a set proposals of the variety that if we were to just leave Iraq, the ensuing vacuum would just simply force the Iraqis to sort out their problems, because America (et al.) wouldn't be around to bail them out any more. On the other hand, there is a set of proposals of the variety that Coalition forces can play a positive role in controlling sectarian violence. In general, while I find the first set of proposals tempting, I find them to also be ultimately unconvincing. I just don't think that there is much support for the notion that a security vacuum would force Iraqis to sort things out. I also look at what happened in "vacuum" situations in places like Somalia, Congo, etc. and think that disintegration could be a very real possibility. There is also the specter of the substantial evidence that Osama bin Laden was greatly emboldened by our loss of will and withdrawal from Somalia, and that similarly withdrawing in disagrace from a disintegrating Iraq would have an even greater effect. I also think that there is substantial evidence that Coalition forces can play a positive role. There have been many reports that the deployment of Coalition forces to an area reduces sectarian violence in that area. The overwhelming problem seems to be that nearly four years later, we're still trying to do this thing on the cheap, and we just don't have enough troops. So, what sort of policy options does that lend us to? In the short term, there may perhaps be some beneficial changes in tactics that could be effected - such as perhaps greater integration of Coalition and Iraq forces. In the medium term, I think that we should be increasing the pay of our soldiers substantially in order to boost recruitment, certainly I think that soldiers' pay should be growing at a faster rate than pay for other federal employees not in danger zones. I also would consider looking at perhaps seeing what forces could perhaps be raised by substantially underwriting some kind of UN, African Union, or League of Arab States peacekeeping force. Lastly, I would also be reminding, at every opportunity, that while not all of our Allies may have wanted to get into Iraq, they do all stand to lose almost as much as we do if the Iraqi enterprise were to fail.... I can't say that these are answers to our problems, but I think that they are starts.... _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
