As General Petraeus said the other week, there is no military solution, and negotiations must take place between faction leaders.
Even though I think none of these factions has ever been interested in sharing a country with the others, there are only two choices here: let the factions fight it out in the streets, or at least give them an incentive to negotiate at a table.
But there is no incentive if the capitol there is not secure. Until then ordinary Iraqis will hedge their bets and continue to seek protection from militias and wherever else they can find it, and the most brutal faction will always have the most power.
So, much as I think the war was a stupid mistake, should we let our increased forces secure Baghdad so negotiations among factions can happen, in the hope of a political agreement between them (thereby removing the need for factional violence)? Or is the problem that these factions will ALWAYS reject the idea of "Iraq" as a country, choosing death before unity?
2007-03-18
19:39:33
·
14 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Politics