Reply #52: You apply every model in history [View All]

[RafterMan]

except the one you are presented with.

Sistani's umbrella party will likely win the elections, and it's not a US puppet. It's not even an Iranian puppet, though it's closer to them than the US. Somebody has to set up Iraqi forces -- whether it's the US or the Chinese or the Russians is insignificant compared to the intent of the US or the Chinese or the Russians in setting up those forces.

You say, "put in a transnational aparatus" but I have shown this is impossible. There is no neutrality from external forces when it comes to Iraq's oil wealth, and there is no neutrality from internal forces when it comes to occupation.

Consider Afghanistan -- the current government is a compromise between the US, Russia, India, Pakistan, Iran and the Afghanis. Almost no one claims it is real, home-grown product. So would the product of your multinational force be -- the multinational force is not a structural way of preventing this.

To clarify once again, renouncing imperial ambitions and renouncing security obligations are not the same question. If the US is capable of the first in inviting in a multinational force, it is also capable of the first while not inviting in a multinational force (or, more accurately, while acknowleging no multinational force will come). Your plan adds new troubles without solving old ones.