OK, you're in charge of rebuilding Iraq's government

[themuzicman]

How do you do it?

Personally, I divide the country along major sectarian lines, and let each "province" determine it's own form of government and how it wishes to rule itself.

However, for the national government, each "province" will choose three people from the other religious sects to comprise a national ruling council. These representatives serve a four year term, at which point the province that chose them may choose another. These terms are staggered, with one each year, three out of four years.

This council, in turn, will select the Prime Minister to be the executive leader.

This council will establish a national court system to resolve inter-provincial issues. The Prime Minister will select judges to fill these slots but each must be approved by more than 2/3s of the council to serve.

The national government will exist to facilitate foreign trade and foreign relations, build and sustain an army, resolve inter-provincial issues both legislatively and legally, and raise taxes on the provinces to support the national government's efforts.

The purpose of this design is to give each province the incentive to find those from other sects who are not hostile towards their own, and also give them incentive to interact favorably with the other provinces, so that their selections will be amicable towards them as well.

The selection of judges is designed to find people that are palatable to most of the representatives, and thus to the provinces that they come from.

Thus, the national government is removed by two steps from the daily life of the provinces, and the provinces rule themselves as they see fit while retaining a national unity for international and defense purposes.

Michael

[Jimmy Higgins]

Where's the solution about dealing with the violence in Iraq?

And if you divide along sectarian lines, do you divide Baghdad like Berlin was divided or keep it a single city under on places control?

[themuzicman]

I would make Baghdad like Washington DC, under control of the national council, and not part of any province.

I do think that sectarian violence would be quelled fairly quickly by the provincial governments, both by having a provincial government that represents the majority of that sect, and through the security methods that government employs.

Michael

[Pitchforkpat]

How do you do it?

Personally, I divide the country along major sectarian lines, and let each "province" determine it's own form of government and how it wishes to rule itself.

However, for the national government, each "province" will choose three people from the other religious sects to comprise a national ruling council. These representatives serve a four year term, at which point the province that chose them may choose another. These terms are staggered, with one each year, three out of four years.

This council, in turn, will select the Prime Minister to be the executive leader.

This council will establish a national court system to resolve inter-provincial issues. The Prime Minister will select judges to fill these slots but each must be approved by more than 2/3s of the council to serve.

The national government will exist to facilitate foreign trade and foreign relations, build and sustain an army, resolve inter-provincial issues both legislatively and legally, and raise taxes on the provinces to support the national government's efforts.

The purpose of this design is to give each province the incentive to find those from other sects who are not hostile towards their own, and also give them incentive to interact favorably with the other provinces, so that their selections will be amicable towards them as well.

The selection of judges is designed to find people that are palatable to most of the representatives, and thus to the provinces that they come from.

Thus, the national government is removed by two steps from the daily life of the provinces, and the provinces rule themselves as they see fit while retaining a national unity for international and defense purposes.

Michael

Decoski tried this a while ago. It's a little better but it still reminds me of the Monty Python parody of afternoon kid’s shows where they do things like teach you how to play the flute, “You blow in this end and move your fingers up and down the outside.” “Well that’s all for this week kids. Next week we’ll be showing you how to construct box girder bridges and Jackie will be over in Moscow showing you how to reconcile the Russians and the Chinese.”

[themuzicman]

In other words, no liberal actually has a solution to the situation in Iraq. You just want to criticize at length.

Just like a Eunich. He can look all he wants, but can never actually bring himself to give it a try.

Michael

[Jimmy Higgins]

I would make Baghdad like Washington DC, under control of the national council, and not part of any province.

I do think that sectarian violence would be quelled fairly quickly by the provincial governments, both by having a provincial government that represents the majority of that sect, and through the security methods that government employs.

MichaelWell golly gee... if it's that simple, head over to Iraq and lobby for it. :smile:

[Jimmy Higgins]

In other words, no liberal actually has a solution to the situation in Iraq. You just want to criticize at length.

Just like a Eunich. He can look all he wants, but can never actually bring himself to give it a try.

MichaelThat is just a huge lump load of funny. :lol:

[Pitchforkpat]

In other words, no liberal actually has a solution to the situation in Iraq. You just want to criticize at length.

Just like a Eunich. He can look all he wants, but can never actually bring himself to give it a try.

Michael
NO! And neither to conservatives. Guess why (‘cause apparently you haven’t figured it out)? There IS NO solution. You can pretend you’ve got one all you want but the truth is you haven’t. Sorry for pointing out the truth to you.

I love when conservatives do this. It’s like dismantling a car and asking if I know how to put it back together. I say no I’m not a mechanic but it was stupid of you to dismantle it when YOU didn’t know how to put it back together and you blaming me for not having any ideas and just criticizing. Sheesh.

And btw. George W is the eunuch. He seduced her, and got her undressed before he bothered to check and see if he had any testicles.

[themuzicman]

Sounds like a very good reason to keep liberals out of power. They don't have answers, and don't think one can be found.

At least the republicans are making an effort.

Michael

[Jimmy Higgins]

Sounds like a very good reason to keep liberals out of power. They don't have answers, and don't think one can be found.

At least the republicans are making an effort.

MichaelAn effort? You call the idea of a "surge" of 20,000 soldiers an effort?

Iraq may be lost. Problem with your thinking is that you really have no idea what you are talking about and mistake flights of fancy as ideas and effort.

[decoski]

Actually the liberals do have a "solution." It's called cut-and-run and blame the resulting genocide upon Republicans.

[decoski]

In other words, you can't offer a solution.

[Jimmy Higgins]

In other words, you can't offer a solution.It was never my idea to invade Iraq. Why in the world should I be saddled with coming up with a solution to the problems Bush came up with?!

Bush's inability and my inability to develop a plan for Iraq do not stand on equal footing.

[Pitchforkpat]

Sounds like a very good reason to keep liberals out of power. They don't have answers, and don't think one can be found.

At least the republicans are making an effort.

Michael

Conservatives don’t have any solutions either. The only difference is they won’t admit it.
I’d rather have realists in power than the delusional, thank you.

Dick Cheney said they’d be treated as liberators. He said they were in the last throws of the insurgency. He’s delusional. If you’d rather stick your head in the sand along with Cheney, that’s up to you.

[Darth Executor]

Solution to Iraq (and terrorism in general) is to do nothing. Hoepfully Osama can get off a few nukes in every major US city and wipe out most of the liberal population. Problem solved.

[Hail Mary]

Dick Cheney said they’d be treated as liberators. He said they were in the last throws of the insurgency. He’s delusional. If you’d rather stick your head in the sand along with Cheney, that’s up to you.

Everyone seems to forget the Kurds, the Kurds still treat us as liberators.

This is also why you can't divide up the country along sectarian lines. The Kurds would never agree to be lumped off into a Sunni section (even though they are mainly Sunni). And it would be very risky to give them their own section because Turkey, Syria and Iran would strenuously object because the Kurds would want to extend their sovereignty into those countries as well.

[Hail Mary]

It's a little better but it still reminds me of the Monty Python parody of afternoon kid’s shows where they do things like teach you how to play the flute, “You blow in this end and move your fingers up and down the outside.” “Well that’s all for this week kids. Next week we’ll be showing you how to construct box girder bridges and Jackie will be over in Moscow showing you how to reconcile the Russians and the Chinese.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZO-frLIHP4

[themuzicman]

Everyone seems to forget the Kurds, the Kurds still treat us as liberators.

This is also why you can't divide up the country along sectarian lines. The Kurds would never agree to be lumped off into a Sunni section (even though they are mainly Sunni). And it would be very risky to give them their own section because Turkey, Syria and Iran would strenuously object because the Kurds would want to extend their sovereignty into those countries as well.

There's an idea... annex Iraq to Turkey...

Michael

[RaisingPaine]

Actually the liberals do have a "solution." It's called cut-and-run and blame the resulting genocide upon Republicans.

Hi, decoski...


Let's take stock of the situation. We have a largely domestic insurgency, dominated by Iraqi Sunni's with assistance from Syria, Al-Qaeda, and any other pro-Sunni foreign interests. This insurgency has at least two primary objectives, 1) resisting US occupation and influence in the Iraqi government and, 2) functioning as a retaliation agent against Shia militias and what the insurgents see as government-sanctioned attacks against their civilian population.

On the other side, we have the Shia, who dominate the current government and are contributing to the cycle of violence by, 1) openly operating, training, and equipping private militias whose existence undermines legitimate Iraqi security forces and, 2) carry out sectarian violence against civilian Sunnis, often using government uniforms, vehicles, and/or equipment.

Meanwhile the Kurds maintain a largely autonomous region, within which they don't even fly the Iraqi flag.

The Iraqi government leadership, for its part, have inspired little confidence in its electorate by their inability to secure even Baghdad, let alone the major provinces of Sunni resistance. That leadership is further hampered by their general reputation as a puppet for the United States, with a demonstrated inability to address basic problems affecting the lives of everyday citizens such as fuel supply and the electricity infrastructure. Resentment against the government is further inflamed by the quality of life differences between those living inside and outside the Green Zone.

The Iraqi security services (military and police) have their own problems, ranging from the aforementioned infiltration, battle-readiness, training standards, shortage of qualified officers, even idealogy, where the interests of the nation must be put ahead of sectarian interests. Having to maintain segregated Shia and Sunni units does nothing to further the necessary reprioritizing and, in fact, makes incidents of state-sponsored sectarian violence more, not less, likely. Even the relatively simple (but highly symbolic) act of Saddam Hussein's execution carried sectarian overtones.

Against this backdrop, the logical problem I have with the Republican ("stay the course") position is they constantly harp on how important it is to win in Iraq (whatever that means), but leave the commitment open-ended. If we continued on the current path in Iraq, say, for the next five years, at a sizable cost to the United States in both in dollars and American lives, what would be different than where we are today?

Let's suppose we actually do succeed in securing Baghdad (however that, too, is defined). Such an accomplishment will be largely a projection of US will, not any inherent determination on the part of the Al-Maliki government, which has had more than enough time to demonstrate it. What stops the current chaos from hibernating until the "surge" is recalled, leaving us back where we were -- or worse? For our forces simply to be used in place of Saddam's, attempting to forcibly pacify a population that would otherwise be at war with itselI, diminishes the legitimacy of our presence and the concurrent loss of American life. Iraqis have to first come to the realization they want to live in peace -- and, ironically, be willing to fight for it -- before further American sacrifices make sense. With respect to the global War on Terror, the reconstitution of the Taliban in Afghanistan is certainly more pressing than keeping Iraqis set on exacting revenge on each other from doing so.

Plans like Obama's, which call for reductions over a year based on the Iraqi government's ability to meet milestones, seem fair. No one's cutting and running -- but unless we plan on staying there forever, I don't see any choice but to hold the Iraqis accountable for what happens in Iraq.

Even if we disagree on a timeframe, the staunchest conservatives have to respect there is a some period of time over which the Iraqis should be holding up their end of the bargain. I would ask those conservatives, "what IS that timeframe?" because all I've heard before is "until the job is done". As long as slices of the population associated with the violence increase rather than decrease, the job will not be done until there is either no one left to fight or the Iraqis decide they've had enough. Personally, I vote for encouraging them to reach the latter conclusion sooner rather than later.

[RaisingPaine]

Everyone seems to forget the Kurds, the Kurds still treat us as liberators.

This is also why you can't divide up the country along sectarian lines. The Kurds would never agree to be lumped off into a Sunni section (even though they are mainly Sunni). And it would be very risky to give them their own section because Turkey, Syria and Iran would strenuously object because the Kurds would want to extend their sovereignty into those countries as well.

The Kurds are liberated, in the sense that Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat. They already have their own section and have been operating it autonomously for several years. Each group, the Sunni, Shia, and Kurds would have their own section and such a provision is already provided for within the Iraqi Constitution, with division of responsibilities between the provincial and federal governments spelled out.

[Abhorsen]

Division and/or control of resources is and always will be a (possibly "the") problem in Iraq.

[Duder]

It appears to me that we are down to two choices.

We allow the utter destruction of Iraq, a process that we began with our invasion, to proceed to its conclusion. We can quibble for decades over who is to blame - the Republicans for attacking or the Democrats for cutting and running.

The other alternative is to make Iraq part of America. Am I the only person who thinks this is a viable solution? I understand that we Americans don't want to be imperialists who expand by means of wars of conquest. But we may be in a situation where Imperialism is the only kind and compassionate choice left. We already did the attacking and the conquering, The question now is, what is the best thing for the conquered people?

Think about it: We destroyed Iraq's government. And it was our guess and our hope that the Iraqis would build a new government and survive as a sovereign nation. But, as is obvious today, they don't have the ability to do that. While most Iraqis want peace and national unity, a dedicated and strong minority want civil war instead. And the majority are not strong enough to prevent them.

The moral thing for America to do now is to undertake the greatest project in its history. We shake the hand of every Iraqi and say, "Congratulations, you are now an American citizen." We declare Iraq to be a territiry of the United States. We do like we did in WWII and commit all of our American resourses to achieving a great goal. This goal will be more difficult and costly than defeating Hitler, but we have a fair chance of succeeding.

When Iraq is pacified through a massive American military presence , when Iraq is rebuilt by a massive American industrial presence, and when Iraq has a strong territorial government buttressed by the Untied States government, then we offer them the opportunity to apply for statehood.

Population-wise, the state of Iraq would be about as big as California.

[Ryokan]

Hi, decoski...


Let's take stock of the situation. We have a largely domestic insurgency, dominated by Iraqi Sunni's with assistance from Syria, Al-Qaeda, and any other pro-Sunni foreign interests. This insurgency has at least two primary objectives, 1) resisting US occupation and influence in the Iraqi government and, 2) functioning as a retaliation agent against Shia militias and what the insurgents see as government-sanctioned attacks against their civilian population.

On the other side, we have the Shia, who dominate the current government and are contributing to the cycle of violence by, 1) openly operating, training, and equipping private militias whose existence undermines legitimate Iraqi security forces and, 2) carry out sectarian violence against civilian Sunnis, often using government uniforms, vehicles, and/or equipment.

Meanwhile the Kurds maintain a largely autonomous region, within which they don't even fly the Iraqi flag.

The Iraqi government leadership, for its part, have inspired little confidence in its electorate by their inability to secure even Baghdad, let alone the major provinces of Sunni resistance. That leadership is further hampered by their general reputation as a puppet for the United States, with a demonstrated inability to address basic problems affecting the lives of everyday citizens such as fuel supply and the electricity infrastructure. Resentment against the government is further inflamed by the quality of life differences between those living inside and outside the Green Zone.

The Iraqi security services (military and police) have their own problems, ranging from the aforementioned infiltration, battle-readiness, training standards, shortage of qualified officers, even idealogy, where the interests of the nation must be put ahead of sectarian interests. Having to maintain segregated Shia and Sunni units does nothing to further the necessary reprioritizing and, in fact, makes incidents of state-sponsored sectarian violence more, not less, likely. Even the relatively simple (but highly symbolic) act of Saddam Hussein's execution carried sectarian overtones.

Against this backdrop, the logical problem I have with the Republican ("stay the course") position is they constantly harp on how important it is to win in Iraq (whatever that means), but leave the commitment open-ended. If we continued on the current path in Iraq, say, for the next five years, at a sizable cost to the United States in both in dollars and American lives, what would be different than where we are today?

Let's suppose we actually do succeed in securing Baghdad (however that, too, is defined). Such an accomplishment will be largely a projection of US will, not any inherent determination on the part of the Al-Maliki government, which has had more than enough time to demonstrate it. What stops the current chaos from hibernating until the "surge" is recalled, leaving us back where we were -- or worse? For our forces simply to be used in place of Saddam's, attempting to forcibly pacify a population that would otherwise be at war with itselI, diminishes the legitimacy of our presence and the concurrent loss of American life. Iraqis have to first come to the realization they want to live in peace -- and, ironically, be willing to fight for it -- before further American sacrifices make sense. With respect to the global War on Terror, the reconstitution of the Taliban in Afghanistan is certainly more pressing than keeping Iraqis set on exacting revenge on each other from doing so.

Plans like Obama's, which call for reductions over a year based on the Iraqi government's ability to meet milestones, seem fair. No one's cutting and running -- but unless we plan on staying there forever, I don't see any choice but to hold the Iraqis accountable for what happens in Iraq.

Even if we disagree on a timeframe, the staunchest conservatives have to respect there is a some period of time over which the Iraqis should be holding up their end of the bargain. I would ask those conservatives, "what IS that timeframe?" because all I've heard before is "until the job is done". As long as slices of the population associated with the violence increase rather than decrease, the job will not be done until there is either no one left to fight or the Iraqis decide they've had enough. Personally, I vote for encouraging them to reach the latter conclusion sooner rather than later.

The trouble, Paine, is that their is no Iraqi government to hold accountable. There are no Iraqis to hold accountable. And given we are the ones who broke their country, holding Iraq accountable is just going to make us look worse. The putative government is an admin fiction and is just a cobbling together of various armed factions. To threaten to leave won't get the Al Maliki government to get serious, it will just encourage Al Queda, the Sunni tribesmen, and Al Sadr to get ready for the main event. We need the more moderate Shia and the Sunni's to make a peace before we can even talk about timeframes, because all a timeframe would be is a Nixonian "peace with honor". I am sad Obama is drinking that Kool Aid.

[Ryokan]

It appears to me that we are down to two choices. Every time someone says "We have to choice" and then brings up two choice unrelated to any of the other choices anybody else has been talking about, I wanna smack em with a dead fish. You are lucky I have self control.

We allow the utter destruction of Iraq, a process that we began with our invasion, to proceed to its conclusion. We can quibble for decades over who is to blame - the Republicans for attacking or the Democrats for cutting and running. I think there are many degrees of outcome besides this.

The other alternative is to make Iraq part of America. Am I the only person who thinks this is a viable solution? I understand that we Americans don't want to be imperialists who expand by means of wars of conquest. But we may be in a situation where Imperialism is the only kind and compassionate choice left. We already did the attacking and the conquering, The question now is, what is the best thing for the conquered people? Yes. Invading a foriegn country of dramatically different history and culture than opur own under questionable legal authority is goign to be made better by annexing said country without any legal jsutification at all.

Think about it: We destroyed Iraq's government. And it was our guess and our hope that the Iraqis would build a new government and survive as a sovereign nation. But, as is obvious today, they don't have the ability to do that. While most Iraqis want peace and national unity, a dedicated and strong minority want civil war instead. And the majority are not strong enough to prevent them. Okay. This we all have to agree on.

The moral thing for America to do now is to undertake the greatest project in its history. We shake the hand of every Iraqi and say, "Congratulations, you are now an American citizen." We declare Iraq to be a territiry of the United States. We do like we did in WWII and commit all of our American resourses to achieving a great goal. This goal will be more difficult and costly than defeating Hitler, but we have a fair chance of succeeding. No, we don't. Such an act would not only not be accepted by the Iraqi people, who would view it as an act of extreme aggression and totally unacceptable, but the Arab world and the international community in general would view it as such. It is not impossible to imagine a global and even global nuclear military conflict being started by this.

When Iraq is pacified through a massive American military presence , when Iraq is rebuilt by a massive American industrial presence, and when Iraq has a strong territorial government buttressed by the Untied States government, then we offer them the opportunity to apply for statehood. Even ignoring the problems ennumerrated above, their is no way the American people would accept this solution.

[Duder]

Hi, Ryokan -

Of course they won't accept this solution. There is zero probability that my idea will happen, and it was offered tongue-in-cheek.

But can anyone think of something else that stands a chance of making Iraq the relatively stable and prosperous place that it was before American sanction and invasion? I haven't heard it. So barring the massive project to restore Iraq that I suggested, the alternative is to leave, and let Iraq's destruction proceed sooned rather than later. We aren't willing to fix it. So let's not draw out the pain. Let's face it and let it happen.

[Ryokan]

Hi, Ryokan -

Of course they won't accept this solution. There is zero probability that my idea will happen, and it was offered tongue-in-cheek.

But can anyone think of something else that stands a chance of making Iraq the relatively stable and prosperous place that it was before American sanction and invasion? I haven't heard it. So barring the massive project to restore Iraq that I suggested, the alternative is to leave, and let Iraq's destruction proceed sooned rather than later. We aren't willing to fix it. So let's not draw out the pain. Let's face it and let it happen.

I don't thhere are just the two options duder. You completely ignored my pithy little quip at the beginning. At first I thought you were jsut being dumb and idealistic. now I see it was a cynical move to try to make immediate withdrawl the only options. Leaving tommorrow or annexing Iraq are not the only to options, duder. And I think it is crappy and dishonest to suggest it.

[Darth Executor]

It appears to me that we are down to two choices.


There is a third: put me in charge and give me absolute rule over what goes on in Iraq. I'll have it pacified in a couple of months at most.

[RaisingPaine]

Everyone seems to forget the Kurds, the Kurds still treat us as liberators.

This is also why you can't divide up the country along sectarian lines. The Kurds would never agree to be lumped off into a Sunni section (even though they are mainly Sunni). And it would be very risky to give them their own section because Turkey, Syria and Iran would strenuously object because the Kurds would want to extend their sovereignty into those countries as well.

Yes, but now the veil is lifting and I'm starting to the see the genius behind Dubya's folly. If we assume that upon our exit the Shia and Sunni will go at it. The Sunni will no doubt have the financial assistance of Saudi Arabia -- but more importantly manpower and logistics support from Syria and Al-Qaeda (for whom an Iraqi battleground would act as a giant magnet). The Shia, for their part, will enlist the support of Iran while the Kurds will do their best to stay neutral. What could be better for the US than having the terrorist-supporting entities of Iran, Syria, and Al-Qaeda, engaging each other in a battle to the death half-a-world away? I have to tip my hat to the man -- it's the Tri-fecta of anti-terrorism! (Admittedly, if he had come up with a way to embroil North Korea and the Taliban in the conflict, he would have gone down as the shrewdest president in American history.)

Now...if we can just figure out how to get Bush the message that starting responsible troop withdrawals over the next few months should give him a whole year before he's out of office and his vision can be realized. America needs someone at the helm with those kind of smarts -- maybe we can find a way to get him to run for a third term?! :lol:

[Ben Franklin]

How do you do it?Personally, I divide the country along major sectarian lines, and let each "province" determine it's own form of government and how it wishes to rule itself. Michael

I would have stopped there. Giving them the freedom to align along cultural lines is enough. They can figure out how to deal with others on their own, otherwise it's not self-determination.

[electronicmaji]

Personally I would destroy Iraq....er..the name...and all conotations that came with it. I would split the country down the line into three sectarian countries.

Based on this map http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Iraq_demography.jpg a large part of the north would be called "New Kurdistan" and its capital would be Mosul. The area in the middle would stretch around in a crescent from Zubair to Takrit with a small loop intersecting into the area of Baghdad which would be that areas capital; most likely I would name it Sunaqistan. The third area would be most of the shia populated area it would stretch out west to the border of Rutbah and south it would allow for pretty much a equal share amongst the different countries. Capital would be Basra and the country would be named The United Shia States.

[nickcopernicus]

It appears to me that we are down to two choices.

.....
Population-wise, the state of Iraq would be about as big as California.
Nick:
I did not think that anyone would see along the lines of what I was thinking.

It's quite simple, though (well, not really). The Kuwaiti's enjoy a very wealthy lifestyle. Most everyone is taken care of. The Kuwaitis have Oil. The Iraqis have oil as well.

Announce to the Iraqi people that they are complete idiots for fighting each other when they could all be rich!

Who cares who is worshiping Allah in what way?! If you want the Americans out of Iraq, then quit fighting each other :duh:. It's idiotic religious beliefs like this (please note that not all religions or Arabs for that matter are this stupidly dogmatic in their beliefs... Take UAE or Kuwait, for example) that irritate the crap out of atheists!

So, We let the Iraqis know that they can either live in prosperous wealth, and not fight and kill each other......Or loose their oil. and starve to death after people loose interest in a vast otherwise waste land.

"Cannan: the Land of milk and honey?" :lol:......Try boxed milk and packaged honey....

IF that ultimatum did not open the blinders on their eyes, then nothing will.

Cheers,

Nick

[Thirsty]

Sectarian separation would only fuel the Sunni/Shia schism to no avail. What Muslims want is unification under their own version of theocracy while only a minority of secularists are willing for long-term democratic reforms. To me, Michael's (themuzicman) idea is a quasi American egalitarian idea that does not fit into the eastern paradigm. We already tried building concrete walls, only to be laughed at, so what then would borders do? Even if the country were neatly divided into pieces, the Kurds would remain economically cut-off in the north while a flailing council will be just about as useless as the U.N. - all show and no tangible results. We can not introduce democracy, which we attained through the philosophical fires and violence of European revolution, into a social environment that has never yet mused deeply upon the ideas of egalitarian governance. The only plausible thing the U.S. can do, if a quick fix is what we want, is execute a neo-imperialistic government and exercise our might against Iran and Syria (the conduit of the true aggressors). But could that ever fix the violence in the region? It would only stir the already boiling cauldron. The violence is rooted much deeper in the realm of the theology and philosophy of the Islamic world. Though it seems our hands are caught in a vice, it is the Iraqis that are hurting more than we and to leave them alone would be a terrible tragedy. Personally, I believe the U.S. should stay for some time to come and yet I believe that only likely solution to quelling the violence is for a charismatic leader and orator to rise up in the region and skillfully call the region to reason. Where then is such a leader?