So Iraq needs an occupation that's the opposite of what it's got: legitimate, democratic, effective, and which delivers the goods. And for that to happen, it has to be multilateral on a large scale, which is the only way to increase all those things. And for that to happen, the US has to give up major control.
****************************
This is good. I think I stand corrected and, therefore, relent.
It is foolish to stubbornly cling to a line of argument when effective counters (or enhancements) have been presented.
Michael Pollak's idea - US loss of unilateral management, internationalization, an effective program for creating a functioning state for safety and infrastructure - is subtle and worthy of serious consideration.
It merges the apparently irreconcilable demands of those who want to 'bring them home' with the arguments of folks who insist that the US has a responsibility to rebuild.
The responsibility is preserved, the imperial control is tossed into the trash.
This would help Iraqis who simply want to get on with a normal life, free from the fear of dictators, superpower occupiers or domestic chaos.
I, for one, would enthusiastically participate in a protest or activist campaign that made these ideas, or similar ones, the rallying and talking points.
DRM
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com