But it seems to me that we can't do anything until the Americans are finally gone, which there are no guarantees of. The only planning we should be doing is what to do once the Americans finally leave, in the event they do; thus, contingency planning.
Problem is these position papers use terms like "aligning with US interests". Well, first of all, my instinct is that that's not a good idea. And the main reason is that we are in no way certain the Americans will leave willingly. Hopefully they will but we don't know. In light of that, our diplomatic posture should not be facilitating to them at all, as it is not in our interests to participate in this fiasco, and in fact the moral thing (as well as strategically the best thing for us) is to make sure no pressure is relieved on the US for them to finally leave. I read Kouchner's statements, which are lauded here, and I'm ashamed of my government and it's rank stupidity. I don't think this is the right thing to pursue.
As we see in Afghanistan, Lebanon, Somalia, etcetera, development is not something you can do effectively in wartime.
To avoid confusion, the policy I suggest is not containment of a regime, but of a civil war. Stop it from spreading and foster stability from the outside. This is a policy we should implement right now. The continuing American presence in Iraq is all the more reason.
When Iraq is stable and regains sovereignty over its natural resources, it will be able to finance its own development with mainly technical assistance from the EU.
It's too late to start only after the US leave.
