Just a bit of commentary on Iraq RE: conception or execution

One of my problems with the entire intellectual/political Elite across the spectrum is the inability to clearly state what, exactly, their view of America *is*. This has led to a lack of Foreign Policy for almost 20 years if not longer. This intellectual flaccidity has led to even being able to discriminate between the simple differences between Problem Solving and Troubleshooting on a National scale. Now that al-Maliki has actually started to shift Army Units into Baghdad, possibly from Ramadi depending on how that operation has been going which the MSM refuses to report upon, and is openly opposing *all* militias my concept for Troubleshooting there is no longer operable, but still useful in looking at what needs to be taken into consideration when approaching major trouble spot in a system that is holding up the larger Problem Solving. The American People elect a President at the top of that force structure and ensure that the Office has the broad tools necessary to craft Foreign Policy and ensure that an outlook upon the world from an American viewpoint is given. Without context of what a larger set of Goals for America are, the ability to judge *any* foreign venture by any part of the government or by businesses cannot be put into context. Simple naysaying puts forth no alternative, no other concept and no means or methods to demonstrate what those ideas *are* that are so important to naysay others.

Using casualties is a simplistic emotional ploy without context. Are those deaths in support of Freedom and Liberty for Individuals? Are they deaths in support of dear Friends and Allies who have stood with us? Are they deaths in support of a people who had been under the grasp of tyranny and are now looking for *any help* to stand up now that it is gone? Deaths to support these things and uphold the Nation are meaningful if they have that context. And that last one should be so simple that I do not see how a Free Person anywhere, who enjoy being Free could naysay it.

What we have had is a quest for this strange idea known as stability which no one on that quest dare name as to its function and role and type and how it is made or sustained. You can have relative Peace without stability and stability without relative peace, so juxtaposing those as the same thing is putting forth a strong associational type for a weak one. When Italy was going through a government a year or so was it stable? Politically, no. Was it at Peace? Relatively, save against the mafia. So when the 'Realists' want to look at stability, we must recognize that their previous conception of that did not, in actuality, help things and made the world a worse place for that rigid stability. By not examining the underlying components they could not recognize a system that had outward stability, but that shifted into a metastable state prior to instability.

Those who then decry the immediate post-War part of Iraq and thereafter need to put up history and precedent to demonstrate the lessons learned from other ventures and draw conclusions from those. Looking at that, we see failures of the West in similar situations that pose a much deadlier threat because of a change in geography and natural resources. Add that to those components the 'Realists' didn't bother with and a truly interesting state of affairs is seen which is *not* simple in the crossing but has individual components that are easy to comprehend.

A quick example is what it takes to actually create an Army of modern Western form, which is highly important as the Iraqi Army and Government both see the value of Civilian control for a multi-sectarian set of armed forces that are professional and do not take part in National politics. Not only has this not been attempted in the Middle East, but the entire conception of all current and previous Arab Armies points to an authoritarian system that exploits differences and dehumanizes the soldiers. We, the United States and the MNF Coalition have been asked to help train and build that new ideal for armed forces inside Iraq. Getting an understanding of the worth of each life, ensuring a uniform code of justice, ensuring equal treatment by all under that code and rooting out corruption by applying it is something that no Arab Army has ever done.

Mind you, they have also asked for help in understanding this 'representative democracy' stuff, modern banking, how to run things like power stations and the entire technical infrastructure competently, and, generally, finding out what it means to take care of oneself and one's society. When those seeking such help from the Free People of the United States ask for it, and we have removed the tyrant from having a boot on their face perpetually, we should give that help until they either give up on Liberty or they ask us to leave.

The US stayed in the Philippines for a decade after the war there was won in 1901 so as to clean up the Islamic Moro problems. In Japan, the US stayed for a decade in force to ensure that the Japanese people really got to understand this 'Freedom' concept. Of greater worry was when President Wilson and then others, kept on changing goals and outlooks to the Forces we had in Haiti 1915-34. That was worrying because even though all the technical stuff was done *right* the lack of cohesive outlook and willingness to adjust National outlook to work with local problems and needs led to longer term failure.

With all that said I have yet to hear of a real Foreign Policy, broad based conception of grand strategy, actual and real goals for solving the problem area Iraq is embedded in, namely the Middle East, and no real outlook from the political spectrum on what it means to be an American and commit to having a Nation. If those things cannot be coherently stated and demonstrated on how they can be backed and fulfilled, without filling the air with platitudes and nostrums that have gotten us *into* this problem, then how can you even begin to define what to do against non-State based terrorism?

Otherwise one is just tearing at the basis for civilization without putting anything in its place.

Is it: "Give me liberty or give me death"

or

Is it: "Give me liberty but please don't hurt me, I give up..."

I hear very little of the former and *much* of the latter. If violence is the *last* thing you will do, then slavery, perforce, comes before it and then you will never need to make a decision for yourself.

And that is stable and peaceful, both.