26 May 2007

7 Steps to Disaster

1. Let neocon ideologues manufacture a war, launching an invasion of Iraq with no plan other than sweeping up the flowers thrown by adoring masses upon liberation from the rule of a tyrant.

2. Let pragmatic problem-solvers work with Iraqis to equip them and train them, ensuring that they'll be an effective and deadly fighting force. Don't worry much about the political forces that will define how this military might will be deployed.

3. Let responsive politicians engineer a pullout of American troops to appease an American public tired of lies, ineffectual promises, and a situation that shows no signs of abating. Argue that the Iraqi Civil War is an Iraqi affair.

4. Decry the genocide that follows once well armed Shiites avenge themselves of decades of abuse under minority Sunni rule. If you argued for a pullout, wring your hands and say, "It would have been so much worse if our troops were in the middle of that." If you argued for keeping American troops there until 2058, wag your finger and say, "If we would have stayed, Baghdad would already look like Dallas."

5. Decry the regional instability and political chaos that follows from a stream of refugees out of Iraq and a stream of religious warriors into Iraq. Insist that the Iraqis, Iranians, and other countries do what we could not - control the violence.

6. Furiously negotiate to avoid the Arabic equivalent of World War Three. Make ultimatums that we can't enforce.

7. Watch as G-8 nations are drawn into the conflict in order to protect oil reserves. Gradually and rationally, introduce NATO forces into the region in an attempt to protect oil supplies to the industrialized nations. Helplessly watch as the Arabic equivalent of World War Three becomes World War Three.

Note that the only thing that makes sense in this entire disaster is the fact that future generations begin to use terms like "bush," "wolfowitz," "rumsfeld," "kristol," and "cheney," as curse words.


Dave said...

So Ron, what you're saying is, it's too late? I think you're right and you've said it eloquently.

Ron Davison said...

I hope I'm wrong. I also think it's possible to intervene at any one of these steps, but we can't do what we should have done in the previous step. Our policy seems to have trouble catching up to the present.

Life Hiker said...

I, too, hope you are wrong, but clearly some knowledgeable people are worried about the kind of outcome you describe.

Yet maybe there is some hope in the aftermath of our debacle in Iraq.

Some years ago I sat next to a beautiful young Saudi businesswoman on a plane to JFK. After getting ackquainted a bit, I asked her how her people felt about Saddam and Iraq following Gulf War I, when Iraq conquered Kuwait and threatened Saudi Arabia. She replied, "It's not a problem. You don't understand that we are all brothers and sisters, and this disagreement is over. Our people visit Iraq all the time."

Perhaps when we leave, the Arabs and the Persians will make accomodations. After all, with their oil they are rich and powerful. With war they will make themselves subject to eventual takeover by the great powers. Are they so foolish as to squander their position in the world? I hope not.