I think, Europe should come up with a strategy for the region and propose it to the next US president. We should be proactive rather than reactive.
Also: see this comment by Nanne and the others on A fistful of euros in Feb 2007.
We should be ready to help them rebuild their country as soon as the US gets out of Iraq.
Really, I have to wonder how you can possibly believe that getting proactive with the Americans on Iraq is in our interests? In the American's interests, certainly. In ours? Whatever for?
Really, what is the upside? And what is the downside if we let the Americans come to the logical conclusion they eventually will come to and get the hell out? Seriously, what are the credible threats, risks and other assessments? "C'est un scandale !"
Five Easy Questions | afoe | A Fistful of Euros | European Opinion
Should Europe as a whole have a common policy for dealing with Iraq? If so, what should it be? Who will implement it? Who will pay for it? What needs to be done now to get a policy in place by the time the US Army starts winding things down?
Yes Containment Everyone Everyone Closer ties need to be forged with regional powers (Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey). The first step should be an ambitious but carefully phased in programme to support particularly Jordan and Syria with the massive amount of refugees from Iraq they have to harbour. We first need go get more diplomatic credit in the region. Working to stall any potential plans the US may have to launch an attack on Iran should also further that aim (and prevent the situation from becoming completely hopeless).
We shouldn't prop up a failing US policy. But we would do better to have a policy.
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. "C'est un scandale !"
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.
If Europe gets involved, shouldn't they first of all work with the Iraqi people, to help rebuild their country.
The Iraqi people but which one? Which faction? Secular INL-style or Sunni islamists or tribal leaders, the Kurds, the Sadrist Shia nationalists or Iran-aligned SCIRI, the ones inside, the refugees?
"All of them" is alas not an answer. Before Iraq stabilizes if it ever does, it's going to require a few winners and an awful lot of losers. Facts, selfish little bastards. They don't even care about your feelings.
