ican wrote:TALK IS CHEAP:
By RALPH PETERS
Peters bases his argument for slaughter and destruction on faulty logic, and a disregard for the facts.
He begins with saying that, "it's possible that nothing is going to fix Iraq," and then goes into bringing the Iraqis together, not by his straw man "Why can't we all just get along," but by the massive use of force to bully them into compromising." Well, if it's possible that nothing is going to fix Iraq, then bringing the Iraqis together would be futile to that end, whether it's done by his straw man, or by more slaughter and destruction.
It seems to me that he's merely wanting to indulge his blood lust at the hands of the US and co's. forces.
He then goes on to say that, "the only party interested in a compromise settlement in Iraq happens to be us." Contrary to his assertions, the Iraqi government is attempting a compromise settlement involving oil revenue distribution in a law that has just been drafted. Of course, it remains to be seen whether the parties involved will accept the law. Most likely, it's going to be revised, and personally I don't hold much expectation for a breakthrough through this law, wether it or some alteration of it is passed or not. The mere fact that this bill has been proposed flies in the face of Peters' conviction that "the only party interested in a compromise settlement in Iraq happens to be us."
To further his obtuse point he asks that, "where have negotiations led to lasting peace in the Middle East?" and goes on to state, "even the surly accord between Israel and Egypt only came about because both sides were worn out - and the Sinai still requires armed peacekeepers, more than three decades later." Peace has lasted between Egypt and Israel so far since their 1979 peace treaty. And I am not aware of any " required armed peacekeepers" there since the last of the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF), which was established by the UN in 1956, vacated the Sinai in 1967.
He also failed to point out the 1994 peace treaty between Israel and Jordan that has since then held peace between those two nations. And neither required his supposed "fig leaf to wear domestically ('The Americans made me do it. . .')" But then again, these facts would get in the way of his rant for blood.
So then, he comes to the conclusion that, "otherwise, the fate of negotiations in the Middle East has been consistent failure," and further asks, "can anyone honestly claim that the region's better off today because of our diplomacy?"
In what instances other than the failed negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians has "the fate of negotiations in the Middle East has been consistent failure?"
A better question for him to ask is "can anyone honestly claim that the region's better off today because of our general meddling in the region, and our pro-Zionist favoritism at the expense of the human rights of the Palestinian people?
Peters goes on to offer a false aphorism by saying that, "negotiation only comes into its own when the fighting's essentially over," ignoring the instances of stalemate, which were the situations between Israel and Egypt and Jordan that led them to sign their respective peace treaties. But for Peters what's more important is more blood letting, "and this war's barely begun." He evokes the ghost of Churchill and spins a quote from him, that "to jaw-jaw is better than to war-war," adding his qualifier, "but Winnie was no Neville Chamberlain: He understood that only a position of strength makes jaw-jaw a viable option. And he certainly understood that wars had to be won." Obviously, ol' Winnie didn't live to see the spectacle of VietNam and the war that wasn't won. Had he lived to now, he'd have seen the US and VietNam enter into friendly trade negotiations some forty years subsequent.
A more prudent approach would be to see the impasse between the various factions in Iraq for what it is: a stalemate, and proceed with negotiations from this point, instead of proceeding with more slaughter and destruction, which admittedly, won't satisfy that pang for spilt blood felt by some of our more sanguine compatriots, wich will in any case, as Peters has inadvertently pointed out, lead to negotiations, talks.
What's funny is that he calls his illogical points and outright fallacious historical instances "overwhelming empirical evidence that talks won't solve Iraq's problems," and then goes on to ask his rhetorical straw man, why "do politicians, diplomats, profs and pundits unite to insist that 'negotiations are the only answer'? Politicians, diplomats, profs and pundits united don't insist that negotiations are the only answer necessarily. Some of them have come to realize that slaughter and destruction have run their course in Iraq, and the prudent thing left is negotiation, "jaw-jaw," as he so derisively quotes, in all irony, his hero Winnie.
He then goes on to make the obligatory insinuations, more straw man arguments, more illogical thinking, e.g. "massive egos crowding out common sense," and "none of these various players believe they need guidance from the janitorial staff or the blue-collar workers down on the production line. That means they don't want military advice." "Those pesky generals just complicate things." He ignores, of course, those generals that argue for diplomacy and negotiations over more slaughter and destruction. They'd just get in the way of his rant for more war.
Penultimately he says that, "talks won't fix Iraq - indeed, attempts to placate our enemies will certainly make things worse," failing to realize that the people we are trying to placate are the people of Iraq themselves, many of whom have been driven to violence because of the stinking mess
we have made of the place. Further, he says, 'that doesn't mean that military force will solve Baghdad's problems, either. But unrestricted force has a better chance than a special ambassador's blather," contradicting his assertion at the beginning of his rant that, "it's possible that nothing is going to fix Iraq." Hmm, "unrestricted force has a better chance than a special ambassador's blather" at not fixing Iraq. Ok. At the very least it may have a better chance of satisfying Peters' thirst for carnage and destruction.
Ultimately Peters' states that, "talkers dominate Washington, but the world is changed by doers," ignoring the fact that "talkers"--his contemptuous term for diplomats--are doers also. Diplomacy is an act. Slaughter and destruction aren't the only acts available to the situation in Iraq. He further states, "at present, the doers are on the side of our enemies," ignoring the fact that of our Shia and Kurdish friends that are the powers that be in Iraq are also doers, doers of oppression and disenfranchisement of, as well as violence against the Sunni minority in that country. The only way to bring peace by violence to Iraq and maintain the present status quo is to slaughter the entire Sunni population, because even if the Shia and Kurds were to attempt to sledge the Sunni into submission, they would still put up a fight, as witnessed by the Israelis through their own oppression and subjugation of the Palestinian people. Peters goes on to say, "negotiations have no power to fix Iraq or the greater Middle East," contrary to the historical examples I've summarized above. "The series of debacles ahead, from Beirut to Baghdad and from Tel Aviv to Tehran, is going to prove just that. Again." What the series of debacles from Beirut to Baghdad and from Tel Aviv to Tehran has proven is that military measures will not solve the problem of injustice, oppression and subjugation in any of those places in the Middle East, and that ultimately only negotiated terms of justice, freedom and enfranchisement can reverse those transgressions.
Slaughter and destruction are expensive.
WHAT IS ABOUT COUNTRY Y VS. COUNTRY X?
