The 2008 Democratic Presidential ticket, burnished with a former U.S. Naval Admiral -- Admiral Fallon is more conciliating than I would like him to be, but...
William J. Fallon, retired admiral and a fellow at the M.I.T. Center for International Studies, as well as commander of the United States Central Command from 2007 to 2008, has written a two-page editorial in today's New York Times about the present situation in Iraq:
http://www.nytimes.com/...
He seems to argue for a continuing American presence in Iraq, although he condenses the content of the security accord rather nicely:
The top objective of both countries is security and stability in the region. Letting Iraq’s security forces assume responsibility for their country is another mutual goal. Withdrawing the vast majority of American and coalition troops from Iraq as soon as possible is a clear priority.... Another major challenge is the continuing tendency to view anything to do with Iraq in the polarizing terms of yes or no, in or out. The prudent and rational approach is more nuanced, and more likely to achieve both countries’ mutual goals.
There are two key aspects of the bilateral security accord that has been proposed. The first is a status of forces agreement, which is a detailed compilation of the procedures and legal protections that govern the presence of foreign troops in another country. The second element is a higher-level strategic framework agreement, in which the two parties agree on the principles that will guide their mutual actions to create long-term security in Iraq. This more important part of the accord focuses on major policy issues like the roles and missions for each country’s military, the control of forces in various security situations, procedures for detainees, and the transition of responsibility.
Fallon presents both Iraqi and American counter-arguments against a continuing American presence in Iraq:
Objections and objectors to the agreement are numerous. From the American side, we hear that it would tie us to an open-ended commitment to defend Iraq from external threats; that it would continue to drain resources from a faltering domestic economy; and that it violates Congressional prerogatives enshrined in the Constitution.
Some Iraqis, meanwhile, complain that any continued American presence in their country perpetuates what they see as an occupation and an infringement of their national sovereignty. They and other skeptics in the region object to the potential for long-term military bases, and they denounce America’s alleged hegemonic intentions.
And Iran objects to every aspect of continued American-Iraqi cooperation while promoting instability and supporting attacks on coalition forces in Iraq by providing arms and training to Shiite extremists and criminals.
I am uncomfortable with his injecting the issue of Iran into the discussion but, obviously, Iran has interests to look after, and those interests do not always intermesh with American interests.
Fallon deserves kudos for his emphasis on negotiators, but again, his conciliating stance in regard to private contractors...:
Negotiators can sort through the issues. Given their recent history in Iraq, contractors and their rights and protections are a controversial topic. But civilian contractors perform a wide range of essential tasks, and the terms of their future service needs to be included in the agreement. Control of Iraqi airspace is another important component that will require clearheaded negotiations to preserve our military’s ability to ensure the safety of the many airplanes flying over Iraq and the timeliness of combat air support for troops on the ground.
Private contractors in Iraq can go to the devil!
And Karl Rove and Dick Cheney with them!
More importantly, Fallon cuts through to the crux of the matter:
But the political posturing in pursuit of short-term gains must cease. All interested parties should cooperate for the general good.
The "general good"? My God! What a radical idea!
Rather than the short-term profit motives of the few? Heresy!
And, doesn't this read a bit like:
Hey! Obama! Look at me! Look at me!
After reading his "nuanced," not to say, "finely drawn" commentary, I'm not in love with the guy. Anymore.
But, I'm not in love with Obama either, my third choice afer Kucinich and Edwards.
I'd go for an Obama/Fallon ticket.
But, I'd keep the door to the dungeon open, racks constantly maintained, fires burning -- in case some feet had to be held to the fire.