posted
It's really quite simple. Take each of the factions attempting to cause havoc in the country and hand over part of running it to them.
We should take each of the local groups and make a big show of agreeing to let them invest in the success of the country. Hand over the running of the electrical utilities of Baghdad to al Sadr, the water and sewer systems to the Baathists and so on. Do it on the local scale based on who is causing the most trouble.
A big ceremony should be done each time, broadcast on Iraqi TV, with great pomp and circumstance. We should openly say that we feel that each of these groups, as representatives of part of the populace should have a bigger stake in the running of their communities.
Why do this? Well, it's a lot harder to keep the lights on than it is to make car bombs or to shell a marketplace. It also puts each group in the limelight, right in front of the populace that each group hides among and gets support from.
One thing the Palestinian Authority taught us was that running a country is much harder than fighting to create one. The PLO lost much of its clout among the Palestinian people after it came to power in the Palestinian Authority. They were exposed for being the crooks and cronies they truly were. They had no interest in being engineers and bookkeepers and tax collectors.
In Iraq, many of these groups would fail spectacularly and publicly. Their support bases would erode quickly and many would simply dry up overnight. Would you support your local government if you didn't have running water when you woke up tomorrow morning?
In the case of al Sadr and many other groups, they do receive massive funding from Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia. Those groups could, at first, throw money at their new white elephants. And it would hold the line, at least for a time, but money alone can't pay for all of the sweat equity they would have to build in maintaining a public infrastructure.
That money, which should be allowed to filter in unfettered, would also take away from the stream that finances many of the weapons of the terrorist groups.
A few groups, however, will make a go of it, and their support will grow. And rightly so it should. Who will need to lead Iraq in the future? Whoever can maintain the many workings of a nation that we so often take for granted.
Let's face it, in the US, the people that make our lives so good aren't necessarily the politicians, but moreso the sanitation workers, ambulance drivers, social workers, civil engineers and so on.
And perhaps we should let the various Iraqi factions turn their swords into plowshares.
Posts: 45 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
can't the factions just refuse your offer and continue fighting? It's very generous of you to offer them positions in running their own community, but I don't think they would accept. Accepting your offer would still be submitting to American power.
On the same topic, how does any country win a war?
Remove their ability to fight and leave them powerless, or annex them (or both). This is assuming you are on the offense, which we are.
I say we annex them. let them divide their country into states and force them to join the union. Sure, it might go against some things or country traditionally stands for, but maybe we should stop worrying about that kind of thing and just try to become the next Roman Empire.
We'll take Mexico next. If we make all of them citizens, that eliminates the immigration problem.
Posts: 247 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your dream is already a reality. al-Sadr has his fingers deep into several departments of the current government, and many of the politicians in it are little more than puppets for various factions. Only the baathists are without real representation in the government corruption, which is rampant, and they certainly won't settle for being given the Iraqi Monopoly equivilant of Water Works.
The various groups already have their hands in several different pots, and corruption is ridiculous there. Even if Iraq were to become stable today, they have years of work ahead of them to root it out.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think we're devoting enough resources to Iraq. 145 billion a year in American tax dollars just isn't enough.
As Americans, I think we just need to make more sacrifices to protect freedom and liberty; to do our duty for our country and support our troops. Stay the course and put faith in our leaders to do what is best to fight terror.
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Besides, 145 billion is the requested budget for 2007, newly elected democratic senator Conrad Burns is thinking about introducing legislation to cut funding by 20 billion.
The White House says we need 145 billion in 2007, 100 billion in 2008, 50 billion in 2009, and zero in 2010 and after. Burns says that's unrealistic, and cutting it, using CBO estimates, is fair, doesn't shortchange the soldiers, and in fact will help supply more funding in the long term. Republicans have pledged to block ANY measure that cuts funding, regardless of the circumstances.
Both sides are arguing over whether or not we should keep having "emergency" funding bills to fund the war, and say that the funding should be put into the regular budger, and not kept separate. I agree.
Damned obstructionist Republicans, they don't want any legislation at all to pass, they're just there to gum up the works and stop government from functioning!
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
We should take each of the local groups and make a big show of agreeing to let them invest in the success of the country. Hand over the running of the electrical utilities of Baghdad to al Sadr, the water and sewer systems to the Baathists and so on. Do it on the local scale based on who is causing the most trouble.
I think this is a bad idea. What would stop groups from causing more havoc in an attempt to gain more power?
And relying on the public support base to turn on their faction leaders when they fail to maintain infrastructure is unrealistic. Sure, Americans would be very upset with their local government if the running water stopped. Most Iraqis too, but probably not so much the militant Iraqis we're concerned about here.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
