We will help them by at the filling at the gas station and leaving them alone.
If Europeans satisfactorily align with US policies in the region and if the US makes the most of this opportunity, this could significantly revitalize transatlantic relations.
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?
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.
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.
A secret deal being negotiated in Baghdad would perpetuate the American military occupation of Iraq indefinitely, regardless of the outcome of the US presidential election in November. The terms of the impending deal, details of which have been leaked to The Independent, are likely to have an explosive political effect in Iraq. Iraqi officials fear that the accord, under which US troops would occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, will destabilise Iraq's position in the Middle East and lay the basis for unending conflict in their country.
A secret deal being negotiated in Baghdad would perpetuate the American military occupation of Iraq indefinitely, regardless of the outcome of the US presidential election in November.
The terms of the impending deal, details of which have been leaked to The Independent, are likely to have an explosive political effect in Iraq. Iraqi officials fear that the accord, under which US troops would occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, will destabilise Iraq's position in the Middle East and lay the basis for unending conflict in their country.
Eh...
Sarko can go to Iraq if he wants. Berlusconi, too. *Traitor*, n. A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
Wonder how someone in the US State Department gets hired as a "fellow" in an outfit calling itself the "European Council on Foreign Relations"? Suspect that all it takes is to follow the money, as is usually the case in such things.
Given the ridiculous notion that the EU has a proper role to play in Iraq (other than staying out combined with aid to help Iraqis rebuild after having their country destroyed by the Americans and the English, and a few overzealous euro-neo-liberals who mostly have figured out the errors of their ways by now), this diary really strikes quite a discordant note relative to, well, reality. Unless of course that reality is the one heavily imagined and dreamt in Washington DC.
One really has to wonder if there is more than simple policy "discussion" going on in diaries such as these.
On Iraq, it's time to pull out.
- Jake Ceterum censeo Chicago esse delendam
2 - Any intervention of other countries should happen under the authority of the United Nations. No other organisation has the legitimacy to intervene. "Ne te courbe que pour aimer..." René Char
What can be expected of Europe in Iraq? Not very Much!
1. The EU has very little leverage of any sort on the US, Israel or the Middle east
2. Hence an EU concern for human rights there is largely moot
3. It is in Israel's interest to keep Iraq weak, divided, and if necessary, at war with itself
4. Iran becoming more powerful is a bad thing in itself, as far as Israel/US is concerned. The nuclear issue is the pretext - even civilian use of nuclear power increases Iran's prestige in the region - and so must be stopped.
5. Israel largely runs US foreign policy in the region - to a degree which is truly remarkable and which highlights the flaws in the US political system - as often this is to the detriment of US interests in themselves.
6. Nobody cares about the Kurds - except the Kurds themselves - and they don't matter - therefore nobody cares
7. ibid - the Palestinians - who are a non people as far as Zionists are concerned
8. It's about Oil and power stupid. The Saudis have it - so they can be as repressive as they like.
9. McCain is not going to win in November if the USA is not at war at that time. Therefore the US will be at war with Iran in November - if only to make Obama look like a naive appeaser without military experience or proper patriotic credentials. The fact that thousands will die to make this happen doesn't even qualify as collateral damage any more - as the damage is to the enemy, the Democrats, and the US underclass who actually end up having to do the fighting..
10. The EU will not do anything effective when this happens - so everyone will ignore it - except perhaps to plant a few terrorist bombs to get it on side...
11. I am not a cynic. "It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
Nah. No more than the Cuba lobby runs Latin American policy. Influence, sure, but that goes both ways - witness the attempts by Cheney et. al. to discourage Israel from ending its little Lebanon adventure a while back, or more recently trying to force them to stop talking peace with Syria. The hawks in both countries are a mutually reinforcing lobby which operates to the detriment of both countries (though of course the hawks think otherwise).
As far as the electoral effect of writing off the Cuba lobby vs. the AIPAC folks, it's a bit more complicated than that. Yes, the former only affects Florida, while the latter has a wider disadvantage, but that's because of the large scale support of white Christians for hardline ME policies, rather than Jewish voters' foreign policy views which tend to run to the left of the average American. Though it is true that a moderate stance on the ME would lose Jewish votes for a Dem largely because of the intensity factor and the fact that they have the option of voting a different candidate (hawkish Jews care more about the issue than dovish ones, and in any case the doves aren't about to vote Republican in protest at hawkish foreign policy views).
1 vote - 7 %