Quote Originally Posted by SteveMetz View Post
It doesn't really come out in this essay, but does in his other writings (and in conversations with him). At the risk of oversimplifying, Ralph basically says write off the wahabi/Arab element of the Islamic world right now, and solidify our ties with the other parts--India, Malaysia, Indonesia, etc. He is a great fan of the Kurds and believes strongly the U.S. should remain their protector.

While I haven't discussed it with him recently, I think he's conflicted on the Iraq conflict writ large.

Otherwise, we should either participate in a multinational trusteeship if the world has the stomach for it; otherwise, simply contain and cauterize insurgencies.
Hello SteveMetz,
Perhaps Mr. Peters just ran out of space. I didn't count the words is his essay, but I'm guessing they give him a word limit. There are only so many wars you can deal with in a short essay! It is not his responsiblity to devise and implement a policy for Iraq, anyway.

But it IS the responsibility of the President, Congress, and the military. Being conflicted on the conflict seems to have resulted in a policy of just fighting to stave off a potential disaster, because we don't know what else to do. If the intensity of the insurgency can be reduced a little, then some sort of political reconciliation in Iraq will just happen. Somehow.

Although completely different in character, this Iraq war feels a little like trench warfare in WWI. Sporadic, inconclusive combat, with no significant territorial gains. Each side in a battle of attrition, just trying to wear down the opposing side. After being declared the victor in WWI, it sure didn't feel like much of a victory to the Allies; certainly the postwar situation didn't seem to be worth the price paid. With all the talk about previous counterinsurgencies, I don't know why WWI seems to creep into my thoughts. Maybe just anxieties that there could be some larger, more deadly conflict bookended behind this war?