My understanding of the Powell Doctrine, simply put, is " go in with overwhelming force and a clear exit strategy". Seems like: 1) we are not going in, we are there and 2) the exit strategy remains the problem.
If we confront the apparent reality of Iraqi civil war on the basis of Sunni vs. Shiite, with a few Kurds, Syrians, Saudis, Palestinians, and Iranians tossed in for good measure, we have to accept that it is a middle eastern problem. Our presence apears to inflame all sides. We want the oil, we want the peace and prosperity, and as happened with Vietnam, it may be best for us to depart and leave them alone. Rightly, many countries around the world worry that the US has visions of empire, and the question is how do we step out but keep trade open and free, without inflaming local populations?
Ford's death has reminded many of us of our ungainly departure from Vietnam--but as ugly as it looked, it was time to go, and the years have smoothed out the relations. Perhaps that is the map.

If I was president, I wouldn't be so bogged down in the idealistic view that one cannot debate or open diplomatic terms with the "enemy". Bush and his followers, and may others for that matter, refuse to ever accept that peopel don't do bad things against other people for what they at least consider to be valid reasons. They come up with silly reasons like "they are jealous of us" and "they are against democracy" etc etc instead to justify a crusade like theological if not ideological war. I would open dialogue with the parties involved, plain and simple.

One thing those that support the ideological factions in the US fail to realize is that IF the "enemy" were actually on their own crusade against the west, their affluence and democracy, they would have been bombing all sorts of other nations in the same positions.. Switzerland, Denmark, CANADA...

Dialogue.

divide the courty up. divide the oil revenues up. iraq is done like dinner.

Portland: Divide the country up? So, create new nations, just like the West created the ever democratic, ever revered country of Kuwait?

"Kurdistan = Slovenia" except "Turkey << Austria". My favorite Balkan war moment, other than Slobo dying in a Dutch cage, was the Serbs getting the news from Vienna about the train load of howitzers and other munitions it was putting together to defend Slovenia if it were attacked by the rump Yugoslavian Red Army.

[Edit]

Portland's point is an excellent one, but unlikely unless the factions divide the place up themselves.

[Edit]

Nobody has asked them what is on their mind, what do they think is wrong, where do they want to go?

May I remind the honourable member for Ithaca that "leaving them alone" incurred some pretty awful costs for the local population. Vietnam appeared to end peacefully for the United States, but hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamese got involuntary relocation and indoctrination in reeducation camps. And let's not forget Laos, which became a North Vietnamese client state and whose Khmer Rouge butchery eventually became too much for their former Vietnamese allies to stomach. There are horrific costs to these things, but we will not be the ones to bear it.

And may I also remind the honourable member for Hastings that indeed,
several other countries have been attacked, namely Indonesia (12 October 2002), Spain (11 March 2004), and the UK (7 July 2005). I think one could argue that the Madrid and London attacks were rather explicitly tied to the war in Iraq but no such connection is possible for Bali in 2002. It was just good old-fashioned Western tourist-hunting.

With all due respect, fellas, Islamist militants <b>are</b> on a crusade, and it is not aimed solely at western countries. Hence the destruction of the Bamyan Buddhas and the more-or-less monthly attacks against tourists and tourist sites in Egypt since the early 1990s. They don't like the notion of Pharonic statues on Muslim turf any more than they like the idea of Buddhist ones. They're not stupid. They know tourism is Egypt's most lucrative industry, and they are trying to destabilize its government. And the Egyptian government, despite massive financial aid from the United States, could hardly be considered its most stalwart ally in the region.

Chris:

Yes, those countries were attacked, but in reaction to their support of or involvement in the war in Iraq as well both SPain and Indonesia already have a few nasty ideological conflicts happening that made it easy to fuel the fire of those looking for a reason to place a bomb.

What I meant was, no-one attacked Switzerland even though it is a much easier target. When dealing with persons with an axe to grind based on perceived historical wrong doings perpetrated against them, you are best to dull the axe with discussion rather than start a fight you cannot win until you eliminate every one of them.

Mr. Taylor, I am aware of the costs in Southeast Asia after 1975. Would our remaining have solved any problems there? The same question applies here. Things are terrible, could get worse, but is a US presence likely to help or hurt?
In terms of overall foreign and domestic policy, I believe also US troops are stretched very thin across the globe, and economically we are also starting to stretch thin. Do billions spent in Iraq do much for American schools or healthcare? I am with the majority of Americans: US troops don't seem to be helping, bring them home, spend our dollars more wisely.

The US is screwed no matter what they do on this. Blundering into a 1300-year-old factional blood feud was idiotic to begin with, but thinking they can impose a solution is sheer fantasy. Like his methods or not, Saddam kept the lid on things in Iraq. Dubya and his neo-con brethern were oblivious to the fact and the Iraqis are paying the price for their arrogance. The sooner the US gets out, the sooner things can reach an equilibrium again.

<i>no-one attacked Switzerland even though it is a much easier target</i><p>Not true. Mountain passes and every adult male is a member of the militia with a government issued machine gun at home as well as a bicycle. Mountain passes are loaded with explosives to collapse them. A very tight little castle of cookoo clock makers.

I think if one were Vietnamese or Laotian the calculus would be a little different, Gary. The former South Vietnamese citizens I have been acquainted with would much rather have continued to live under an occasionally brutal and imperfect South Vietnamese government than a routinely inhuman North Vietnamese government. And I think one could argue that the Khmer Rouge purges might not have reached their greatest heights if there were an American presence in neighbouring Vietnam keeping tabs on them. So certainly one genocide could have been averted. Would it have resulted in more American dead? Absolutely, but with a small benefit of fewer Cambodians being purged and worked to death.

For America I think the withdrawal worked out just fine, but I wouldn't make the same claim for the South Vietnamese nor the Laotians.

There is nothing wrong at all with America seeking own best interests, but it's a bit of a stretch to claim that everybody else's interests are served by it, too. Sometimes that is the case, and sometimes it is not.

The evidence suggests that islamic fundamentalism is not precipitated by poverty or disenfranchisement, but rather is actually a genuine faith based movement. Therefore, massive injections of money and infrastructure into the country withthe aim of improving everone's economic stake would seem to be a poor investment.

Rightly or wrongly the US and UK seem to have built an arena in Iraq for confrontation with islamic extremism. If foreign policy goals are to neutralize this brand of extremism because of the threat it poses to the west then it would seem to me that they are in a good position to do so by increasing both conventional, and perhaps more importantly, unconventional force strengths in the area and beyond.

If foreign policy goals are to strike a balance between the west and islam, then they might best just pack up and leave, keep saying that "we can all get along" and "we have respect for all faiths", and start building fortress West.

Remember that what makes you and I infidels with Koran-sanctioned expiry dates of now, is not that we are actively engaged against islam or that we might indirectly support Israel. It is only that we are not "believers".

Alan, I recall reading that the Swiss shot down as many Allied as Axis planes during WWII. THey were tired of bombers blundering over the border and dropping their loads, so they became belligerently neutral and shot at anything that ventured in.

Fortress west construction doesn't bother me at all, nor does blowing up nuke bases, research facilities and airfields from a distance, but by on-site interfering in a centuries old war with the "you are just plain wrong and we are right" ideology won't fly with the believers. Kill one and three more sign up to get revenge. Better to open our borders to refugees, build a happy free hemisphere that is WELL protected, and let the fundys whack the hell out of each other. Eventually, they may see the light as it were and make changes from within to create their own more modern Islam.

I honestly think that if dialogue was a zero chance option, the groups wouldn't be issuing any communiques or demands. It just doesn't make sense from a psychological POV. Leave em be, protect our people, invite refugees to the free west, let them fight it out and see the error of their ways. Obvert interference only invites retaliation.

As long as the Western fundies are so involved in the political process, that won't happen. Sadly.

I have a hypothesis about them as well. Something along the lines of that like the Islamic Fundamentalists, the Xian ones are not so much feeling the a groundswell of support for a worldwide crusade as feeling the pinch as in the change in world opinions among the average Joe, Juan or Abu that organized religion is not the way to go. How better to reel in the wandering mmbers of the flock than to falsify or trump up an attack on their members by others. Its how Hitler got the support of the people of Germany behind his party during the depression..

All this still points to my thoughts that continuing a direct assault on the rebellion driven in Iraq will do naught but to confirm what they tell their supporters. By pulling back and opening dialiogue with the religious leaders (and not the rebel leaders) you pull the rug from beneath the feet of the nasties.

Dialog with them isn't what the Falwells of the West want. As long as one of their own calls the shots, it's not going to happen. Especially when that one has a pathological need to never admit mistakes.

Summarize the go forward, then, please. Is there anything other than withdrawal? How about part withdrawal? Can the Kurds hold their region with air support only? Can Basra move to that? What is the endgame?

The go forward may already have gotten going.

Some interesting thoughts here tha tlead me to posit that an option for moving forward might involve tactics to neutralize the fundamentalist movement that are subversively stealthy enoug hto not provide recruitment fodder fior the baddies. Just like the bad old hay days of the CIA.

A staged withdrawal is the only way to do it. Get the trainer's arses in gear to get the Iraqi stormtroopers up to standard and then turn it over to them. 18 months or so. If the Kurds try to do too much, Turkey will invade, so I guess the no-fly zones Will have to remain to ensure good behviour on the Ottoman's part.

Paul, I have no doubt that the black bag boys will remain in operation for a very long time to come.

Bad old days, good old days..

Well, we survived the cold war didn't we? Since teh day we were informed that we "won", it is hard to say things have improved internationally. Mayhap, small stealthy actions, nipping buds here and there, are more profitable from a "world peace" POV than large military incursions.

Alan, I think we were partly withdrawn into Fortress mode prior to 9/11. There were Westerners flying air patrols <i>over</i> Iraq but marginal military presence within Iraq. Afghanistan was 100% Taliban owned and operated without anyone seriously threatening its existence. And yet, 9/11 still occurred absent all of these latter-day provocations. According to the A.Q. we would have to withdraw from all Muslim lands, really. Saudi, Kuwait, Turkey, Indonesia, Iraq, Afghanistan etc.

I would speculate that a partial withdrawal into Iraqi Kurdistan merely creates a second Israel -- a state viewed by its neighbours as a illegitimate colony of the West and the root of all evil that plagues the Islamist <i>ummah</i>. Withdrawal in my mind means permanent withdrawal of military and civil support from lands with majority Muslim populations, as designated by A.Q., else we have merely gone back to pre 9/11 lines without addressing the <i>casus belli</i> they used to knock down the WTC. In thier minds it would provide justification to knock down the Sears Tower (or any other landmark center of commerce).

The question is, is everyone willing to abandon Muslim lands and peoples to that fate?

I am more interested in the fate of me and my friends and family - infidels all.

Chris, the real question is do we have any business being there in the first place?

Sure, Gordo. The people of Turkey, who requested membership in NATO through their government in 1952, have a right to be there -- whether or not some guys in Afghanistan or Iraq think it's appropriate. And I have no illusions about what would happen to Israel if the United States were to sever that military alliance.

Do a bunch of guys living in the wilds of Afghanistan and Pakistan have any right to tell the citizens of other countries that they ought not to be breaking bread with the Zionist Crusaders? Or that 13 million Jews ought to go homeless or be pushed into the sea?

I would not be comfortable with such a large-scale withdrawal into a Fortress North America. The slaughter would make Darfur and Rwanda look like a kid's birthday party at Chuck E. Cheese.

So what do you do? Is the US going to have to annex Dubai or another piece of property and create another beach head that does not come with a civil war?

The smart thing to do would be to focus on places that have already started down the road to liberalization (Qatar, for instance) and convince their ruling class/royal family that, if they end up championing liberty for the average Joe, they stand a better chance of ending up like the Windsors versus the Romanovs.

England's monarchy wasn't always the staunchest defender of individual liberty, but compared to guys like Cromwell, Robespierre and Napoleon they came off pretty well in popular opinion. Some of the Gulf state monarchies might have the same opportunity if they were willing to loosen their grip gradually, incrementally, with constitutional monarchy as the final goalpost.

Certainly a Qatar cast in the mold of Britain would have far greater appeal when competing with neighboring religious authoritarian regimes for investment dollars and immigrants. It's really up to the ruling class whether they want to get there or not, though.

I have no idea what this means for Iraq and Afghanistan because we have already decided for them that constitutional monarchy is out and republicanism is in, and it's harder to convince the traditional tribal and religious autocrats to seek validation via the ballot box.

To continue Chris's thought, perhaps the way forward is to use what diplomatic advantages we have. Jordan and its king are imperfect, but pretty darn good in many ways, and exactly in the middle of the middle east. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_II_of_Jordan
So, help from Qatar, help from Jordan, help from Turkey.

This way there be Tigers, Chris. I can't imagine the Qatari Emir being any more open to westernizing than the Afghan warlords are. Wha't in it for them? They're not a target now, why should they paint that bullseye on their country? To satisfy the infidel's distates for their way of living? No traction at all.

Turkey can't even live up to their own past misdeeds. Just ask the Armenians. Not to mention their designs on the lands of Iraq.

Moderation in islam requires convenient interpretations of the Koran. These can be prompted along by the economic trappings of the western world but sooner or later some pious person comes forward selling paradise to only those who get back on the path of the literal Koran.

I suppose that if an age of reason was had by the west in this fashion then economic and democratic advancement could be a solution for the islamic world as well as long as there is an somewhat even distribution of wealth and opportunity.

If this is the goal then the way forward involves strategic investment in muslim countries to develop the engine that keeps people's minds and hands busy while creating a consumer-based society all hankering for that white picket fence. All pretty gauche but it seems to have worked for us.

The Emir of Qatar created Al-Jazeera, granted women the vote and ended press censorship. But then he came to power in a coup against his dad, in 1995. =) So make of that what you will. Honest liberal, or convenient cover for a power move against the elders?

Even if it was a mere fig leaf to cover the sins against the father, it still puts Qatar further along the road to liberal democracy than any other place (excepting Israel) in the Middle East.

Interesting. The do filter the Internet, though.

Paul's right: in a "free" country you will always have someone preaching against you. How to fix this? I have no idea. I don't think it can be.

You know, I thought you were insane for launching this Group Project thing but apparently, it can work (as long as we all know and obey the host's ground rules).

Monday's and today's big threads were pretty good.

I have been trying to figure an angle to trigger thing and I think we have done it.

What I would do: fight it like a war. Turf out the Syrian and Iranian interests where they can be identified, and dismiss or defeat all the militias.

I have long held the view that the most likely counterfactual history for Iraq would have resembled Yugoslavia's: strongarm dictator holding together artificial nation of historically antagonistic ethnic factions dies; country dissolves with unrestrained civil war and ethnic cleansing. The reaction to events in the Balkans from the rest of the world was to try to go in after the fighting started to restore order. What the US has done in Iraq is pre-empt the civil war and place itself in a position to govern (as in throttle) the level of conflict. This shortens the establishment of the preconditions for the political solution.

Which is: either Iraq must become three independent nations, or a federation of three highly autonomous regions. It is up to Iraqis to decide what they want, and the US policy must be to help birth the result. At this point, in practical terms the decision must be agreed by the Sunnis and Shi'ites; the Kurds could be happy either way and are prepared to enforce the first course if necessary.

In Vietnam, the US won its counterinsurgency war and then turned over responsibility to South Vietnam for its own security, backed by US arms but not US fighting men (while the North was backed by Soviet arms). In 1972 South Vietnam successfully demonstrated its ability to defend itself against the North. (The Viet Cong insurgent threat was ineffectual after the 1968 Tet Offensives.) In 1975, Congress removed nearly all of the backing (armaments and munitions) and South Vietnam was unable to defeat the North's second attempt (its armoured divisions having been re-armed and equipped by the USSR).

The US has still not won its war of occupation/counterinsurgency in Iraq. When Iraq (or the nations formerly known as Iraq) are each capable of defending themselves (with US armaments, and possibly finances and air power) against each other, and against Syria, Turkey, and Iran (depending on who is on whose shit list, respectively), the US will have won its war of occupation and can withdraw its forces. It will still be possible for the US to throw away the victory by prematurely halting deliveries of military aid. Unlike South Vietnam, Iraq may be able to afford to buy the necessary materiel on a cash-and-carry basis.

Last para, second sentence should read: "When the regions of Iraq (or the nations formerly..."

Well, Chris, you think these threads have been interesting, and I have to admit I now see what Alan is up to. He wants a clear and concise intellectual discussion, in one corner. By putting up Calvin and Hobbes above, the humor and popular culture corridors of gen x at 40 remain vigorous as well, but seperate.
IrC: I agree, One Iraq, 3 highly autonomous regions, but is it possible? Doing so would require cooperation and hopefully little blooshed, and some people would find themselves moving, such as what happened when India after empire became Pakistan, India, and East Pakistan (Bangladesh). That was not an easy transition.

'blooshed'!!! Noooo, sorry, 'bloodshed'.

Exactly. Room for all but each in their own room.

The hard part will be getting said groups to happily go to their rooms and basically stay there. The West certainly doesn't have the credibility to suggest such a partitioning scheme, so who will it lie with? The Turks have stated that they won't stand for an autonomous Kurdish region, so now what?

Do we truly care what the Turks want I ask and not completely tongue in cheek. I mean, if the US has a place to get oil and a place to open up a biggish base (New Kurd Land) will they not just badger Turkey into being good else face the wrath of a gazillion well armed and protected Kurds?

I think the Turks have a million soldiers in the army. That is a reason to care.

>Doing so would require cooperation and hopefully little blooshed, and some people would find themselves moving

The Swiss did it once.

Alot to handle. So rapid fire style. Shitty thing to do, and so I appologize for that.
"Mr. Taylor, I am aware of the costs in Southeast Asia after 1975. Would our remaining have solved any problems there? The same question applies here. Things are terrible, could get worse, but is a US presence likely to help or hurt?"
Knowing what I know(know, not aware of, but know) about Vietnam and the refugees US influence there would've been better than leaving. How many died, ala the Hue round up and mass slaughter, between 1975 and 1979? Depends on who you talk to, but the most conservative estimate is half a million while the upper extreme is around 5m. In 20 years, 1954 being the beginning of US involvement in a low intensity conflict, we didn't kill that many civilians. They did that in 4 years. We don't know much after 1980. But the picture from refugees isn't much better or rosier.
Seeing little girls, not more than 13 or 14, as recent immigrants in the early 1990s(get that, 15 years after the wars end) showing up with scars on their necks where soldiers held knives as they raped in Ho Chi Minhs workers paradise is undelible comdemnation of abandoning Vietnam---not the removal of US troops, but denying them the means to protect themselves(the money and air power that only the US had to give).
I dated a girl, Phoung "Pauline" Nguyen whose father was an officer in the Vietnamese Navy(the communist Vietnamese Navy) who saw her father shot as they fled----in 1994. What prompted them to flee? Being Catholic. Would US aid and involvement have prevented this? YOu bet since the bastards who did it wouldn't be the ones in power. It may have been a shitty regime that mistreated its people in the name of capitalism and sweetheart deals, but it wouldn't have been this.

What's AIDS and the human sex trade done for Vietnam? Well, HST, before the US trade deal a few years back, was a major money earner(like it is for Thailand) for the nation, and lead to a massive health care crisis because of AIDS infections.

So this isn't so easily reducible down to 'what's good for the US' or 'isn't no war batter than war'. What was good for the people of Vietnam was to not let some backwards ass ideology over run the country that lead to hundreds(if not millions) of murdered, massive numbers of political prisoners, an economy that sucked so much ass that prostitution was the only way out of poverty for so many.
being aware ain't enough in my opinion. It's too fucking easy for some of you to say you're aware of what your support of abandoning Vietnam caused. It hasn't touched you and you don't know. You can look at pictures and say how sad. Then go to starbucks for some coffee and laugh with friends. You don't have to deal with the reality of it. You can hide from it. I never have since I lived next door to it for 20 years.
This is what you will be bequeathing the Iraqis if you talk about simply leaving because 'they don't want us there' or 'we shouldn't be involved in 1000 year old fights.'
I am my brothers keeper. That's something many of you claim with social justice ruling your thinking on political matters. Guess what. This is the cost of being your brothers keeper. Embrace it.
(no I'm not mad at you gr. You're a pretty genuine man. It's the plattitude, the bumper sticker logic, that I'm mad at. If you could've changed it you would've.)

"Yes, those countries were attacked, but in reaction to their support of or involvement in the war in Iraq as well both SPain and Indonesia already have a few nasty ideological conflicts happening that made it easy to fuel the fire of those looking for a reason to place a bomb."

Bollucks. Pure Bollucks.

Islamic terrorism has been perpetrated in these and against countries going back to the 1960s. Utterly irrelevant to IRaq though, based on that. Indonesia has had Islamic problems, as well as the Phillipines, dating back to the turn of the 20th century. Spain has had Basque trouble since the 1960s. Both have joined into the global network of shared funding and training(IRA were trained in Libya during the 1980s you know) that's been around for a while. (too many books to cite and still be quick and be coherent Al. Sorry.)

Why are they mad and attacking? There isn't enough room to do it here. Al would kill me for trying. But it isn't just 'hating freedom' or simply 'foreign policy'. It's both, to put it simply. Does satellite TV that broadcasts the Playboy channel have something to do with it? You bet. Our media pumping our ideas into their countries? yup. Groups like the PeaceCorps going in and teaching women that they shouldn't accept being worth half a man? Bingo. (remember, I've left as a given that policy decisions also play a role. An equally major role.)
So simply walling the west off isn't viable. They'll come anyways. Jesus. The Japanese Red ARmy Faction once pulled off an airline hijacking in solidarity with the PFLP back in the 1970s. Do you really think a firewall strategy is going to work? Really?

This is something that's been going on for several decades. It's just the calculus changed recently. Someone got tired of giving 9 men and 9 women to the Minotaur every 7 years and in doing so has disrupted the, comfortable for some, equilibrium.
From 1960-80 more Americans died from terrorist activities than all the rest of you(CIA report on terrorist activities. It's on the web.) Think about it. This is an evil that's been around for 50 years. We looked the other way because there was something else around. Now we're going after it.
Me? I'm with Barnett. Do an integral on this. Over a 50 year span are we going to lose more lives leaving it as it is or by doing something? It speaks for itself.

Ahhh. Too much.
Simply put. The way forward is to push all three axis. The economic. The political. The military(aka security). Any plan that says only one is the key is a plan made by an ideologue or a fool, maybe both.

YOu crush those whose paths are too divergent(intentionally ambiguous because there's no set deviance. It's situational) from your own. You do the economic and political with those who belligerently oppose your path. In Iraq that means some of the Sunni militia will survive. Others will be killed. Same for the Shia militias. Those that survive will accept some deal that'll have people over here complaining about 'not invading a country so they can...', and it won't just be Ann Coulter saying it from the look of the land here at GX40 either. Back to pumping gas.

Bush has made at least a start by admitting there have not been enough troops on the ground and that they had been fighting with far too much cultural sensitivity. he has also, belatedly, embraced the oil trust idea which would give each individual Iraqi a share in the nation's oil wealth.

It appears that the "surge" is being undermanned and directed at the "insurgency" and the "militias" which are, practically speaking, the same thing. I suspect this is wrong headed.

Were I President I would flood the zone at both the Syrian and the Iranian borders making it very, very clear than money, arms or troops coming from either nation would be stopped and I would not hesitate in lobbing whatever munitions happened to be handy in the general direction of Syrian or Iranian borderside military facilities.

Second, I would get on the phone with the Israelis and indicate that the US airforce would be delighted to provide escorts and logistical support for a prolonged Israeli campaign to eliminate Hezbollah from Lebanon and nuclear technology from Iran either in support of the enforcement of UN resolutions or without the slightest attention to the UN. At the moment the entire Islamic world believes that the US supports Israel - time to prove 'em right.

I would sit Musharraf down and explain that if Pakistan was not able to exercise sovereignty over the "tribal areas" the US and NATO forces would. And then I would send in the Warhogs and clean out the Taliban.

While I would stop short of "going Roman" on the Islamic world, I would make it extremely clear that radical Islam's terrorist activities would not be tolerated - anywhere.

I would also, as the President, close all immigration and refugees from majority Islamic nations or nations in which there was a significant militant Islamist presence (and, yes, that might just include England and France.) I would be perfectly prepared to denounce Islam in general as a religion in need of an Enlightenment and one which is, unfortunately, steeped in a tradition of violence and conquest. A tradition which must change or be destroyed. I would also have a few choice words to say about the position of women under Islam and the disgrace which passes for education in Islamicist states.

I would convene a "last chance" conference for the Palis and the Israelis at which I would explain, in very short sentences to the Palis, that America was prepared to back Israel to the hilt and equally prepared to block all aid to the Palis including cash in suitcases(and I would make it clear to the Saudis that money paid to Hamas would be seen as support for terrorism.) I would tell the Palis that the US was prepared to send troops to defend a new and sovereign Palestinian state from Israeli aggression but that these troops would hunt down and shoot any Palestinian who fired a rocket or attacked Israel. I would tell the Israelis that while they had my full support the sovereign state of Palestine would come into being on September 1, 2007 and that if the Israelis could not come up with a border plan acceptable to the Palis I would solve the problem and move such settlers as were required to implement that plan.

Finally, I would recognize that I was only going to be President for two more years. I would make it very clear that I believed that my legacy needed to be the safety of the United States and, more generally, the West. By which ever means suit the threat. A threat which I would explicitly name as the perversion of unenlightened Islam which has infected so many Muslim nations.

<i>I am my brothers keeper. That's something many of you claim with social justice ruling your thinking on political matters. Guess what. This is the cost of being your brothers keeper. Embrace it.</i><p>Can you keep all you brothers? Central Africa is the site of the worst atrocities of the last few decades...OK, centuries...and the west does nothing. This is one thing that actually assists me to supporting the Afghan mission of the Canadian Forces. It has picked one place and focuses. But if all of Canada can only take on a province of one country who keeps all the other brothers?<p>I think Jay is saying there is too much focus on the street pusher and not enough on the importer. But unfortunately for that argument, the money is no longer available for the "Let's go mental" approach. There has been too much botch to trust that sort of plan now. Doesn't mean it won't be tried, however.

ry, I am not sure you can dismiss people with differing opinons as hanging out with their friends at Starbucks. Not sure how that characterization is either true or helpful. Alan asks the correct question, do we police all atrocities around the world, Africa and elsewhere? I wish we could.

Do not edit this classical solution, Alan, please: perhaps the 'Lysistrata' approach would work in the middle east. No nookie until all the boys set down their weapons and work out a peace.

Alan, I suspect that we have not yet seen how much money there is or can be. Remember, Bush has been bumbling about trying to fight a war while respecting cultural sensitivies and keeping casualties at a minimum. And he has been doing it while lowering taxes.

If an administration was actually serious about going after the "importers" it would slap a surtax on and move forward.

I agree with you vis a vis the West's willingness to allow assorted Africans to slaughter other Africans. You might want to put the question of neo-colonialism up for a group project discussion. Perhaps starting with the need to remove Mugabe before he starves any more of his political opponents <i>en masse</i>.