curly1:
"Iraq has a soverign government, a transitional constitution that protects women, minorties and embraces the rule of law."
"Sovereign Govt in Iraq?"
"Transitional constitution" Well those 2 don't in reality exist in Iraq, do they? And who is protecting women and minorities in Iraq right now? I'll grant you a transitory constitution that it is in a secret embrace, or maybe a smooch, with
someone's laws, but Iraqis didn't make it, don't own it, don't want it. La', shukran.
For more pollyannics, read how the CPA/IIG tries to
spin their latest poll. Better read it quick, though, because they're way too far out on a credibility limb to hang out their tripe analysis on that website for long.
"(Tell me where [soverign government, a ... constitution that protects women, minorties and embraces the rule of law] exists in the Middle East."
Let's see... How about everywhere
but Iraq and Palestine? Unfortunately, pretty constitutions don't protect rights, and even moderate Arab states have as much reform work cut out for them as did the US did in the 60s. Considering the Patriot Acts, they're noticeably catching up to our shining example.
Oh goody, a Positive Externality:
"Dialogue for reform." From an Islamist perspective, you have a strong case. Of course we could have (instead of invading and setting upan abhorred occupation) sponsered a summit on reform, and layed out economic incentives for reform, acknowledging the fundamental premises of international law, including that
sovereign countries have the sole authority to actually enact reform. That's all crying over spilled blood now. Guns are doing more talking in Iraq now than words, and America took the leadership role in promoting this state of affairs. You can see that in the papers, too.
"I already said... Why is it..." Because the premise of the thread is alternative policy
from here forward. Expounding on the years of painstaking diplomacy that the war obliterated is now fantasy land. We can't just pick up like the invasion and occupation never happened, and that means diplomacy in the accustomed sense has been eviscerated. Viable alternative US foreign policy in the Mideast from here forward is going to have to begin with extreme damage control, before the USA can ever even hope to be a respected arbiter again.
Yes,
curly1 diplomacy is good, but US diplomatic clout is now at a historic low point: Because the US govt and her intentions are now anathema to the Arab public, it isn't politically advantageous, nor healthy, for any progressive Arab leader to cozy up to Uncle Sam. The USA is now back to square 1, earning the trust of Arabs, so that their leaders can overtly partner with us.
Utterly blocking the resusitation of diplomacy are
"Israeli tactics" that have indeed been in use in Iraq by US forces. Fallujah and Abu-Ghraib were two well-noted examples of utter contempt for the rights and dignity of Iraqis, who were sealed off in ghettos, illegally abducted, and even tortured without due process. Your initiative would be helpful if it did not ignore the realities of events as they have already infamously transpired.
Please try again. If you have a way to win hearts and minds through an occupation thinly masked in "sovereignty", I want to hear it. Or if you will at least acknowledge present realities, we could find more common ground.