Reply #28: That's not an excuse for the US to control the process. [View All]

[1932]

Just like the judicial system in the US has to be fair, and must have the appearance of being fair, the future of Iraq depends not only must be deterimined by Iraqis, it must appear to be determined by Iraqis.

There is no way that any process that involves the US remaining in Iraq as the power training the military and protecting the politicians of Iraq will appear to be free from US influence.

That is why the US has to turn that control over to someone other than the US, and not even NATO is an appropriate alternative. Rad Waging Modern War. Clark writes about four hundred pages about how NATO responds to the political dictates mostly of the US, and when those dictates conflict with Europe's, things can get a little bogged down.

The reason the US wants to be there is BECAUSE they want to make sure the nation that results is deeply entwined with the US the way Saudi Arabia is. That's the real reason we invaded that country. So, I don't have much hope for any just way out of this mess, especially if the alternative plan is Clark's, which, to me, is the same end (US control and influence and Iraqi petrodollars flowing to US) but in the guise of NATO/regional cooperation. It has more of an appearance of of fairness than Bush's plan, without be fair in fact to Iraqis.

The UN overseeing a transition to democracy would be fair in fact and would have the appearance of being fair.