McG,
Looking at the state of things in Iraq at the moment, I don't necessarily believe that the central administration is fully aware, or at least not fully in control, of the big picture.
I just saw the Woodward interview on 60 minutes last night and regardless of whether everything that was said was 100% on the money, it is very apparent that there was/is a lack of communication between some of the qualified key players in the administration.
I see the US as having isolated themselves from the rest of the world by the manner in which the war was started. There have been a number of re-positions of the reasons for going to war and a big portion of the world population questions the US's motives for the war. Regardless of whether or not the US went to war for good reasons or bad reasons,
there is no doubt that many people question the reasons.
That being said, I think it is definitely in the US's best interest to make amends with the UN. It will be a tough job to make amends with the UN, as many in the world community will likely not be happy being handed the mess that is Iraq. In giving the problem to the UN and
participating in, rather than dictating the solution, the US will be able to reposition themselves as having "good intentions" (ie. stopping the dying, freedom to iraqis, global harmony).
This would remove any credibility from the following arguments:
-the US invaded Iraq to gain control of the world's oil supply.
-the US wants a big military presence in the heart of the middle east.
-the US wants to convert muslims to christianity.
...there are hundreds of possible "self-interest" motive scenarios...
Quote:I believe that the central administration would end up caving to outside pressures and terrorist demands.
Are you referring to the current US central administration here or a central administration at the UN?
Are you talking about other countries when you say "outside pressures"?
Why do you believe that the UN is more likely to cave to terrorist demands?
Quote:I believe that language barriers between troops and commanders could lead to devastating results as well as procedural changes and routing issues as well as logistaical failures.
There may be some communication problems with a multi-national force, but I'm willing to bet that most of the higher-ups in the military of most countries are conversant in English. So when plans are made in one language, they will then be able to be translated and passed down the chain of command.
Currently there are a number of private security forces fighting in Iraq, do you think that the private security forces and the US are necessarily on the same page? Is it possible that the US could be blamed for private security's brutality?
Isn't the current force in Iraq multi-national? Wouldn't the language issue be the same if it were a UN force or a US led multinational force as is currently the case?
Quote:I believe that the current command structure knows what the big picture is and a hand over of control will essentially be starting back on square one.
Involving a number of perspectives in the "big picture" will likely result in a better understanding of the "big picture" than if the only people analyzing it are from one group.
Companies generally don't thrive if everyone just agrees with everything the leader says, differing points of view generally lead to a better understanding, than one voice's point of view.
If the US goals are currently "good ones" (ie. in the world's best interest) then a handover shouldn't be starting at square one, as the goals would likely be shared by many in the world community. If there is a problem with the current goals, it is in the world's best interest to rethink and define objectives that work best for the world - not only the US.
A few briefings of a multi-national force would like be what is needed to get them up to speed, as I'm sure that most countries leaders and intelligence people are currently following everything fairly closely.
By no means do I consider myself an expert on any of this. Just a young guy who wants peace in the world as opposed to war. I think that the US is a great country that has contributed so much to the world community, it's a pity to risk throwing all that good away by being too proud to work with the world. I welcome all comments about anything here, as I'm just trying to figure it out like the rest of you.
Cheers.
