PLAN A WAS A PRODUCT OF THE NEOCONSERVATIVE THINK TANK “PROJECT FOR THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY” (PNAC). PNAC came off the shelf when GW Bush became President. As had been hoped, it was jumpstarted by a catastrophic catalyzing event-a New Pearl Harbor. Its website may still be googled but it has remained deafeningly silent lately. Its basic premise was that the USA and the world would be better off under American leadership. To achieve that, its authors advocated a massive military buildup and agressive diplomacy to position the USA so that no other nation could challege its power. The invasion of Iraq part of that strategy.

Plan A does not seem to be going very well. As a result of the Iraq invasion , the USA now has LESS credibility than previously. I would submit that while I could agree with the basic premise of the Neoconservatives namely that the world might indeed be better off with American leadership, it becomes important where the world is being led and that it benefit the world rather than those who would benefit from American imperialism.

As the worlds only superpower, the USA could be in a position to bring peace to the Mideast. In the Israel/Palestine conflict the USA should be an honest broker.. There are powerful arguments on both sides that should be argued out on their own merits rather than to have the issues confused by the American unconditional support of Israel.

In Iraq, the question of partition should be thoroughly explored for two basic reasons.

1. Perhaps, it is the worlds dumbest idea but unless we have the right people (especially Arabs) sit down and define the problems and determine what the parties can accept and under what conditions, we will never know if it could have worked.

2. Even if partition is not the answer , the process of coming to grips with the issues can be helpful in resolving the problems that can persist in any case.

The United Nations and possibly the Arab League can play a huge role here. Just as we need local laws to govern how individuals behave in society , so too do we need international law to guide the behavior of nations.

Advertisements

Instead of the conclusions reached by PNAC, the Neoconservative think tank whose members included Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, John Bolton, Scooter Libby and Jeb Bush, let us start with THEIR premise that the world would be better off with American leadership and consider what type of American leadership would actually make the world a better place.

If instead of buildup of the US military (as advocated by PNAC) to the point that no other country would even think about challenging the USA and aggressive foreign policy placing permanent US miltary bases in the Mideast suppose ,instead, we used our military superiority to promote peace and stability in the Mideast.

Our unconditional support of Israel is one of the sources of trouble. There are powerful arguments on both sides of the Israel/Palestine conflict that need to be argued out on their own merits rather than having the USA unconditionally on the side of Israel, confusing the issues.

In Iraq, it is clear to most of the world what were the real reasons for the US invasion of Iraq. The one thing that everyone can agree on is that removing Saddam from power was a good thing. A viscious dictator, like Saddam, could hold Iraq together. A benevolent dictator like Tito was able to hold together Yugoslavia. But how often do brilliant benevolent dictators come along?

It is questionable whether it is possible for Iraq, which was artificially created by Winston Churchill after World War One will be able to survive as one entity. If the USA were to lead a coalition of countries, including Arabs, in discussion of the issues involved in partitioning Iraq. Maybe the idea is impossible but there are at least two reasons why we should go ahead with discussions even if this were determined to be the case. The first would be to determine that ,indeed, the idea is unworkable and the other is that out of the discussions of the issues involve may come insights into as how resolution of conflict may be achieved by some OTHER means than partition.

BUT THE DEVIL IS EVERYWHERE IN “STAYING THE COURSE” OR “CUTTING AND RUNNING”.

At the end of World war 1 when the British were sorting out the spoils of war and dividing up the Turkish Ottoman Empire, Churchill took a yardstick to a map of the Mideast and drew out the borders of Iraq with total disregard to the three different ethnic groups he was forcing into one entity.

Figuratively he leaped to his feet and shouted “IT’S ALIVE!”

THE REST IS HISTORY.

AND THE TRIPLETS DO NOT LIKE EACH OTHER. Radical surgery is indicated.

Fortunately shared organs can be divided . It will be lengthy complicated surgery calling for collaboration of surgeons, anesthesiologists, internists, hematologists, radiolologists and many others of many nationalities.

OVER 3500 HAVE DIED ON THE FOOLS MISSION THAT THEY WERE SENT ON BY GW BUSH AND THEY ARE STILL COMMITTED TO THAT MISSION. Unfortunately, there is little, if anything, that indicate that we are getting any closer to the end.

WE NEED A CHANGE OF COURSE. WE ARE ON THE WRONG COURSE . THE SHIP OF STATE IS A MESS.

It is as if the captain is spending most of his time in his stateroom. Rumor has it that he is back on the bottle. The vessel is listing dangerously to starbooad and is in danger of foundering. There are reefs and shoals everywhere. Pirates ready to board. Fistfights are breaking out among the crew. Some of them are eying the fireaxes on the wall. There is talk of mutiny. Fuel is low. The plant is being held together with baling wire. The GPS is down and no one remembers how to do celestial navigation………

STAY THE COURSE? MY FANNY !

THESE ARE THE OPENNING WORDS IN THE PNAC WEBSITE.

I have no probem with those words but I do have a problem with the way the Project for the New American Century agenda has been executed by the Neoconservative Bush administration.

As the world’s only surviving superpower , the USA is in the position of strongly influencing world affairs for the better in the 21st century.

As a result of our preemptive invasion of an oil rich Arab country which had not attacked us and was no danger to us the world has shown little inclination of following or supporting the USA.

If the USA could take the lead in resolving the instability in the Mideast, we could regain our previous good standing in the world community.

There are things we could do differently in Israel and in Iraq. At present , we seem to be bitterly divided and blocked at opposite poles between stating the course and cut and run. There ARE other possibilities.

WE REALLY NEED TO START APPROACHING THE PROBLEMS OF THE MIDEAST A LOT MORE INTELLEGENTLY AND WITH OPEN MINDS.

THE NEOCONSERVATIVES THOUGHT ABOUT THE ROLE OF THE USA IN THE 21ST CENTURY AND ESTABLISHED A THINK TANK CALLED THE PROJECT FOR THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY (PNAC) IN 1997.

Members of PNAC included Cheney, Rumsfeld, Libby, Wolfowitz , John Bolton, Jeb bush and other prominant GW Bush advisors .It is possible to access the website of PNAC by googling PNAC.

I have no problem with some of their openning words to the effect that “the USA and the world would be better off under American leadership.

HOWEVER I feel that the kind of leadership the USA provides is going to make all the difference.

There is no question in my mind that as the world’s sole surviving superpower , the USA can and possibly should be the dominant force in the world provided that it not act to the detriment of the rest of the world.

The preemptive invasion of an oil rich Arab country which had not attacked the USA and was no danger to the USA did nothing to make the world want to support and/or follow the USA.

The USA could regain its prior status of world leader if it would take positive steps toward restoring order in the Mideast.

My feeling is that whether or not we actually partition Iraq into three countries, we need to bring together the right participants and discuss the issues involved if for no other reason that to rule out partition.

Partition could conceiveably be the world’s worst idea. Even if that were true, in the course of dealing with the issues we could define problems and flesh out positions which would help us to find other solutions.

Staying the course is at best wishful thinking and there could be some dire consequences from cut and run.

Check out its website. It starts out by saying that the world would be better off under American leadership. Clearly the world does not agree with the present US leadership which has consisted of a preemptive invasion of an oil rich Arab country which did not attack the USA and was no threat to the USA.

HOWEVER IF THE USA USED ITS STRENGTH TO BE A STABILIZING FORCE IN THE MIDEAST BY ACTUALLY BRINGING PEACE TO THAT REGION, THE WORLD I THINK WOULD OVERWEALMINGLY SUPPORT THE USA.

I claim that by working with the international community ,including Arabs, and making three independant countries out of the former Iraq.

Thyere are many problems to be sure but I claim that they are not unsurmountable.

NOT JUST AS AN INSTRUMENT TO CARRY OUT OUR OWN AGENDA. We need it for the greater good of everyone. We need international law just as we need local laws.

It is very annoying to see flashing red and blue lights in our rearview mirrors and know that we are going to be delayed, have to pay a fine and perhaps worse.

Just imagine that if there were NO highway patrol and it were every man (and woman) for him (her) self. Then extend that to the rest of own living. Might makes right…law of the jungle…dog eat dog…

As the world gets smaller and smaller and flatter and flatter (in the Thomas Freidman definition) we are seeing more and more of that kind of chaos.

The arrogant, bullying attitude of those who got us to thumb our noses at the world community, international law and the United Nations in our unilateral preemptive invasion of Iraq has now come back to haunt us.

We would have been far better of if we had gone through the UN and had people at the worst sitting around scratching their heads and then their butts with the result that the Iraq invasion not taken place.

would we not have been better off if we had not invaded iraq?