He condemns the U.S. for not committing the troups necessary to secure the border with Syria. He says that over half a million troups would have been needed if we were to have done the job right.
He condemns the U.S. for it's stubborn resistance when it came to utilizing the resources of the United Nations.
Wouldn't a draft have been necessary to provide that many troups in Iraq in addition to the troups required for other foreign policing actions the U.S. is currently involved in? In the article Mr. Diamond was not saying that the U.N. could have provided those additional troups. He was talking about the U.S. providing those troups.
Mr. Diamond was saying that the U.N. had particular expertise in building democracies worldwide and that they should have been brought in to smooth the transition to democracy in Iraq.
So Mr. Diamond wants a larger U.S. military, and he wants the U.S. to turn the nationbuilding phase over to the U.N. He wants the U.S. to foot the bill in blood and money, while the U.N. sets the agenda.
I would guess that since it was published in Foreign Affairs, Mr. Diamond's article must reflect the thinking of The Council on Foreign Relations as a whole.
Does it bother anybody that both Republican and Democratic candidates in presidential elections for the past twenty-plus years have been members of the Council on Foreign Relations?
Does it bother anybody that the foreign relations plank of both political parties involves committing U.S. troups to support the U.N.'s worldwide democratic nation-building and policing agenda?
Is anybody fooled by promises from both candidates that there will be no reinstatement of the draft?
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
I guess I'll just have to say that in the first few paragraphs there's a lot more to what he's saying than you've added to your summary. That bit about State Department planning for dealing with Iraq security post invasion seems interesting, no?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's cool Teshi. So the CFR has found its way into our textbooks?
Bob:
He basically wants more troops...
quote:Bush administration compounded its initial mistakes by stubbornly refusing to send in more troops
...or more of the blood and guts variety of troups...
quote:should have deployed vastly more military police and other troops trained for urban patrols, crowd control, civil reconstruction, and peace maintenance and enforcement
posted
You know we did go to the UN and we did get a resolution authorizing force. The fact that Russia, France, and Germany became unwilling to actually back up their votes doesn't make the United States stubborn for somehow refusing UN help.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
