Open Source » Blog Archive » How Do You Leave a Country? [...]

“Jane, get me off this crazy thing!”

How about “this” followed by this?

Frankly I don’t care HOW we leave – by bus, train, automobile, armored personnel carrier or from the roof of the US embassy via helicopter. But let’s leave NOW!

A minority then was active, but it did make a difference, sometimes in way those involved could not have predicted.

Bush doesn’t like to admit it, (and Nixon didn’t either) but those protests really do matter.

jkenqhoja ygufgkvus ghdjghsuee hjhfcuobis okfuuvry hztydhsjs vwggvympjk avaimtfc

- this is an American problem
- it is about security, and it’s a military problem

Both are off the mark. We have broken it, but we don’t own it. First off, we were not ever invited to Iraq. Second, this has always, and remains an Iraqi problem, not American. Therefore, what we need to do is just pull out – not militarily, but politically and psychologically. Leave the military about as it is, but turn the entire process of building a new government over to a group analogous to our Continental Congress. We are trying to force a government on Iraq that is based on our own form of government because that is what we understand. Our government was formed by the Continental Congress at the end of the 18th century over several years. Iraq In the 21st century will require a different solution, but the process can be similar. A majority rule will not work. Until each of the three major groups in Iraq – the Shiites, the Sunnis, and the Kurds – feel respected and included, no peaceful and democratic solution is possible. Therefore, think win-win, and think “What’s best for Iraq?” Assemble a congress composed of:

- representatives proportional to population from each of the three ethnic groups — the Shiites, the Sunnis, and the Kurds. This will be the essential core of the group.
- a facilitator appointed by the president of the UN. This must be someone who holds no current political position and has no vested political or financial interest in the outcome of this process.
- representatives from regional interests such as Iran and Syria
- an advisory group made up of political scientists from around the world, again with no vested interest in the outcome. This group includes at most one American.

This group hashes out a constitution and form of government acceptable to all groups. In the meantime, the military is turning over security over to Iraqis and gradually withdrawing. This will now be more successful than it has been because there is buy-in from all groups.

“…The building blocks for peace should include the appointment of a peace envoy: probably a senior official from the Arab world trusted in the US and the Middle East and acting on behalf of the UN. He should start talks about calling an international conference at which all the players inside and outside Iraq can meet.

A central theme of the conference should be the total withdrawal of US and British forces from Iraq, leaving no bases behind. Any final agreement should be in the shape of an international treaty including guarantees for minorities such as the Iraqi Kurds and Sunni. Finally Iraq should be neutralized like Austria in Europe in the 1950s.

There is no chance of this happening under Mr Bush. The reversal of policy would be too great and the admission of failure too humiliating…”

“We are also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region”.

This is a much more serious escalation than the 20,000 troups. The carrier group will not be much use for street fighting in Bagdad; it’s a direct threat to Iran.

This is a bold assertion of personal authority; especially in the face of the recent elections. Despite clear indications of public opinion, he is moving to effect contrary ends. This arrogance is not inconsistent with other bold moves he’s taken against the constitution, the military, the public and Iraq. Public opinion no-longer matters, no need to worry about re-election, he commands the military, he’s going to sweep the board.

How do we leave a country? – indeed.

1. There are no Abrabs in Algeria. There are Amazigh or Numidian Moslims, but no Arabs. Get that straight ! By the way, today is our Calendar New Year’s Celebration. If you don’t know who the Numidians are, then go take a close look at the Hadrian Wall, you will find my ancestor’s footprint, inscription and it is not Latin. No we did not all come out of the fertile crescent, that’s a myth. I invite you to visit http://www.makabylie.info/

2. The attempt to make of Numidians Arabs and Moslims is Napoleon’s projet, and he has miserably lost that project and his imaginary kingdom or commonwhealth, or whatever –

3. Shame on you and your “Sir” in 2006, to not mention WHY did that war last an extra 4 years, i.e the role of the Lobby and which one(s) – Addreess that as A CORRUPT CULTURE OF ALL SYMPATHISERS OF DEGAULE.

4. The Islamists in Algeria and all of Africa, in Iraq and in many other places are the inventions of the governments mentioned in 3 above. That’s it, igniting conlict for your energy and other goods profits IS OVER.

I am listening, and I am Algerian-American.

Have you read Frantz Fannon – Have you read Mouloud Feraoun, a native Algerian in a book titled “The Journal” 1954 to 1962.

“Our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principal reasons: There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents, and there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have.”

“Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity and stabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge.

This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.”

I would have the rate be computed by the IRS in November based on past deficits, or surpluses, in the war tax funding the prior year, and the future projected costs for the current year. The tax payer would compute his tax as usual, then just before figuring out the amount due or refunded, multiple that value by the war tax rate and add.

I’m sure that this approach would turn both conservatives and liberals into pacifists that proactively seek to avoid all wars, and together would provide unified advice to the President take the action needed to avoid US entanglements in the affairs of foriegn nations.

Chirac Says Time Proves France Was Right to Resist War

From back in 2003: Wimps, weasels and monkeys – the US media view of ‘perfidious France’

“There is nothing inherently wrong in limiting the use of force as long as the means employed are connected with strategic goals and objectives. The process of determining the means to employ must begin with a clearly stated policy goal or objective. Senior military advisers and commanders should then develop a military strategy that contributes to or achieves that goal or objective. Then, military commanders determine the level of force necessary to carry out that strategy.

During the Vietnam War, Lyndon Johnson and his advisers did precisely the opposite. LBJ determined what level of military force was politically palatable in the short term, made it available to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and told them to do the best they could with what they got. That is why we had lots of military activity in Vietnam (bombing North Vietnam and killing the enemy in South Vietnam)without a clear idea of how that activity represented progress. That is also why many brave, patriotic men took risks and made sacrifices without knowing how those risks and sacrifices were contributing toward an end of the war. That is why, along with the recognition that they had been lied to for years, many Americans lost faith in the effort.”

Regarding our further responsibility, decide where that begins and ends in Iraq.
Swallow pride,leave humbly (“we did the best we could” ).
Say we will work with the international community to help where and when we can.
Promise to take action against any neighboring country invading. ( see link below)
Allow Iraqi refugees into our country.

As for “the new plan Stan” – a serious multi-pronged domestic energy policy that includes conservation. Turn our attention towards resolution of Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

I linked this article for Monday’s show: Time to Offshore our Troops

Juicy and catchy … very catchy … very juicy … has this been vetted … where’s the redactor

We generally assume no responsibility for our breakage, but in the Iraq case the world may thrust responsibility upon us. Iraq is a major oil producer. It is the boundary between the Sunni and Shiite nations. It matters to Europe, to China, to Russia, and to the Arab and Muslim worlds, and they are the ones who will make us treat Iraq as a responsibility we can’t so easily shirk. If we either stay and fail or leave and let Iraq fail, our national reputation will suffer in a way that it has never suffered in the past. Iraq marks our coming of age, where we will be punished as an adult after 100+ years of being a minor and getting off without hard time.