The debate about what to do in Iraq has been raging and will continue to rage for years. When I watch politicians and policy wonks discuss the issue, I’m often blown away by how far off I think they are to seeing the core of the problems, and asserting a reasonable solution.
I think that the weakness of the analysis and the proposed solutions is the result of the politicization of the war, and the resulting need to over-simplify the issue. People have basically been pushed into two camps: 1) endlessly extend the occupation 2) pull out now or in the next year.
I could write for hours about the war in Iraq, but I’d like to focus here on the proposed solution to the crisis.
While greatly oversimplified, the major discourses/arguments are:
1) Surge will create stability. Stability is needed to allow for a political solution.
2) A political solution is the only way that Iraq can “work.” The surge or armed intervention will do nothing.
3) We need to show the Iraqi government and people that we are not staying indefinitely and start to withdraw if they don’t show any signs of success
4) We need to give the Iraqi government confidence that we will stick it out and not leave them hanging.
5) We need to focus more on civilian development projects to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people.
6) You break it you own it.
What I think everybody is missing is that elements of what all these experts say are correct.
The problem is that people only focus on their one solution, without conceding or realizing that there solution/idea is a necessary but not sufficient element of the ultimate solution.
More in tomorrow’s post.
1 Comment
August 3, 2008 at 3:13 am
Thanks for the post