A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics
|
|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics | |
|
May 28, 2004More on Kerry's Recent ProposalsHere is a real disappointing article from the DLC, supporting the strong arming of Saudi Arabia plan. I expect more than this from the voice of reason within the Democratic Party. The Progressive Centrist position should focus on reducing the demand for oil, not increasing supply by forcing Saudi Arabia to step up production. On the other hand, I love Greg's take on the Kerry speech in Seattle. If Kerry and Bush want a lesson on how to discuss a war plan they should read Wes Clark's article over at TNR. He still annoys me, but the General makes some good points here that I haven't considered before. Instead of just saying we need international support, which is obvious to everyone, he actually proposes ideas on how the United State can "clear the air" by giving other Arabic countries a place at the table. An excerpt (and a really interesting point): "...the United States must correct the "dynamic of conflict" that it has injected into the region. In essence, the Bush administration has scared Iran and Syria into believing that, if the United States is successful in its occupation of Iraq, they will be the next targets. To the Iranians and Syrians, the implication is that their survival depends on dragging the U.S. mission in Iraq into failure. Furthermore, America's perceived pro-Israel bias, and its failure to engage seriously in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, has fed the poisonous atmosphere fueling Arab anger toward the United States and its efforts in Iraq." Posted by Mathew at May 28, 2004 10:12 AMComments
Wes Clark makes some good points, but I think there are some issues of empowering Iraq's neighbors to join the coalition. First, I think in some ways the Bush administration doesn't want to friends with the governments of Iran and Syria, hoping instead that they'll crumble under the weight of their population's discontent. There's a delicate balance between calling a nation a state sponsor of terrorism and a partner, and in any regard, there isn't a lot of trust in those relationships. Second, the US hasn't seen a lot of love with those nations in regards to protecting the borders. I don't follow it too closely, but I believe there are still some major issues with the import of foreign fighters and the export of old Saddam loyalists, and if I remember correctly, there has already been some minor clashes at the border areas. Third, the example of Turkey sending troops didn't seem to work out too well. I don't think that the US would want Iran to send troops into pro-Iranian areas, but on the other hand, I don't think Sunni or Kurdish areas want Shia troops patrolling their areas either. All in all, it looks good on paper, but it's hard to implement. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong in my assertions; I'm certainly no expert in Middle East politics (but it doesn't stop me from pretending). Posted by: Will at May 28, 2004 01:24 PM |
Archives
March 2006
February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003
Recent Entries
Dubai Out
Why So Long Between Democracies? Round One, Centrism Rock Lobster? Blackwell Releases "Worst-Treated" List "IRV" used in Burl., VT for mayor election. Great idea! Random Thread Election 2006: Round One A Proper Multiculturalism Bush proposes line item veto act - what's changed?
|
