et al,
Sometimes, the implementation of US Policy is too militaristic. The constant and continuous use of military intervention is a grave commentary on our diplomatic skills. In the carrot and stick approach, we simply have to use the stick all too often because our carrot sucks
(diplomatically speaking). War is an admission that our diplomatic efforts have failed. And we fail all to often.
And in only many cases, we have often forgot the lessons learned in the past: You can win every battle and still lose miss the military objective.
When the US uses military force to achieve its foreign policy, each action we take has certain consequences.
I think it is coming to a point where we have too many issues to consider when we jump to this stage. There are other options we should consider and other factors that come into play.
- The Middle East and Persian Gulf states need to take a greater role and more responsibility in policing their own neighborhood. If the US is going to act as the World Police, then it needs to make that clear --- not only to the world --- but to the domestic audience. It is a very expensive proposition and one that can be extremely hazardous.
- The US needs to adjust its Non-Proliferation program. Sovereignty actually means something. And the US military enforcement of the Non-Proliferation Agreements is not always the right solution. A sovereign nation like Iran still has the right to control its destiny; no matter how much we disagree or oppose their activity.
There has to be a discussion on the exercise of sovereignty and US Policy of intervention. What consequences is the US prepared to accept if it starts a war with Iran over Sanctions and Non-Proliferation. If the unintended consequences happen to be the destruction of gas and oil infrastructure in the Gulf region, in retaliation for Iran exercising sovereign rights, who is going to pay for that? What responsibility does the US have and how will it impact the world economy.
Let's be realistic. The national security decision making processes that took us to war in Iraq and Afghanistan have not been very predictive of the actual outcomes. Iraq, while not at war, is not the stable country we envisioned a decade ago. And in Iraq, the Prime Minister owes his current position to the Iranians; with al-Maliki now using the US trained military to arrest his opposition. Afghanistan is not much better. The government is in open negotiations with the Taliban. And as far as corruption goes - we've taught both countries how to better promote criminal activity in office. The chief anti-corruption officer in Afghanistan has resigned and the one in Iran is threatening to resign.
No, we cannot trust the leadership and decision making processes of Washington.
Most Respectfully,
R
