Bush's New Way Forward
Bush has made his speech, and the state department has released a freely available summary.
It seems he’s decided to shake things up. No more being cushy on Shiite militias, increased presence and action in Anbar province.
What I found most worrying was when he discussed the broader picture, he is going to engage other countries in the region as many have proposed, but not quite as has generally been suggested saying that:
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.
This goes even further than the previous periodic accusations aimed at Iran. He also brought up the recent deployment of another carrier in the Persian Gulf.
Are strikes on targets in Syria and Iran really being considered? Hard to say but it is certainly worrisome.
He also has further outlined the crucial position of Iraq in his view of the “global war on terror”, and while many here in the U.S. have been describing this as the last serious effort to fix Iraq the U.S. has the patience to make (the Iraqis government is generally blamed here for not trying hard enough), Bush’s words have made it abundantly clear that he does not share that opinion, or at least won’t admit it if he does.
Join the Conversation
there is too much in the President’s speech to begin an intelligent discussion. Why? because every point is tied to another. The whole region is interconnected politically to the problems in Israel and Palestine, and civil repression in Sunni countries, and Israel’s wall. All these elements are connected to America in Iraq. I am equally worried about waving a sword at Iran and Syria, but the issses are all connected. The only solution is a spiritual solution that begins at the grassroots levels of small communities getting together and learning about their purpose for being alive now. Almost all the people I have contact with are in disconnect with their purpose. We with Western education traditions or influences , including myself, are educated to be divided within ourselves. Even if we begin to recognize our purpose for why we are alive, this doesn’t shorten the journey. In fact I used to believe that understanding myself more fully made me more sensitive to the chaos and blindness around me. It is totally hypocritical to be engaged in political solutions when we are spiritually corrupt within our own lives. Why? Because if the (spiritual) foundations of our lives are made of sand, the political strategies and tactics such as the ones mentioned here are worth less than the time it takes to describe them to people, let alone convince them to be supported.
Do we support political leaders and their recommendations because they seem no less corrupt than we are ourselves? Is this the best advice we can give to one another? Choose between the lesser evils? WRONG. This is another version of despair..a very worthy feeling if it means suppporting the collapse of the old world order, but not very useful if it freezes you from supporting the arising of a non-political, spiritual solution.
I don’t think it is wise to not seriously try solving anything until we can solve everything.
If the Arab-Israeli conflict ended tommorrow I think ethnic cleansing in Iraq would continue apace, they just aren’t that closely connected. It is an excuse for failure by claiming a strong connection with a conflict in which so many reputable would-be peacemakers have failed before.
Joel,
I thought later you might misinterpret my comment, because I don’t clearly finish analogies, and comparisons or mental models….
The network of MEvproblems is not one where attempts to solve one problem node distributes that effort over all the problem nodes and thus little traction is gained because the effort appears to be tryint to solve everything.
The failure to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict does judge the success probability in Iraq. Why? Because the lack of spiritual considerations at all in mediation approaches of both US/Israel and Arab/Palestine in both scenarios are the same.
To state it stupidly simply, because there is complexities LACK OF TRUST.
This is the same in both cases. This is a spiritual poverty. This has not been addressed by ignoring it all together, or lack of consistency and commitment, or failure to put into deeds what is described in words . by ” so many reputable would-be peacemakers so the results ARE THE SAME. There will not be peace in IRAQ, just as there will not be peace in Israel/Palestine.
This is as simply as I know how to explain it.
peace brother.
Um, I said “at all” in my second paragraph, but in the third I give 3 conditions, rather than just all or nothing regarding the lack of trust between the two (multiple) parties.
You will probably say this is a RESULT and not a cause. So if we negotiate about the causes then the result will be a buildup of trust. Um….we are getting tangled up in words, if this is your line of arguement. There is a spiritual loop here, as well as a physical feedback loop. So after so many “betrayals” (going back thousands of years
right?) the effort to break into the loop is not a free lunch.
Are you saying they’re connected or that they’re similar?
It’s almost funny how the government of the USA uses the ‘saftey at home’ excuse, considering that they’re the ones invading countries for implementing blind democracy, false WMDs, clean nuclear programs and sheer stupidity (Vietnam).
I said it before and I’ll say it again, New strategy = Old Strategy + 22,000