Hi Wayne,

BTW, I presume you noticed that I modified your position from sustainable security to self-sustainable security. These are two very different policy goals.
I think you have the right of it with "self-sustaining". This gets after the need to go beyond train and equip and assist in the development of the systems which make self sustaining security possible. It requires a holistic look by both the "assister" and the "assistee" Both words may not fully show the relationship though because its context driven. Much as U.S. policy realizes the need for partners and allies in its foreign affairs, so too do other states to varying degrees based on their security concerns and FP goals. The level of cooperation and participation varies over time and circumstance I think.

Which one does America really want for Iraq (or any other nation it helps out with SFA)?
I beleive self sustaining security is the goal. But that goal is relative to Iraq's capability and capacity when measured against its security environment - so we need to manage our expectations with regard to our level of assistance lest we unduly risk other FP interests. Assisting Iraq to get itself to a point where it can self sustain more, frees up more of our own means, and promotes Iraq's own self-image and interests as a sovereign state - which in my opinion also advances some of our interests.

Is there a "one-size-fits-all" answer to this ?
I don't think there is, I'm don't believe there should be. Each situation must be considered of its own merit. I think some of the questions I put into the ODP for SFA piece should be asked up front. The geopolitical environment is dynamic, so a state's interaction with others needs to account for that both in terms of what is important in the now/short term and what better serves its long term interests. This is one of the sources of friction you mentioned in reconciling FP objectives - often the actions we take to address a short term need don't serve us well in the long term, and often those that better suit our long term objectives don't address the pressures or sense of immediacy of the moment.

There are many reasons this is so I think - our form of government, our election cycles, our value of of free press, our strategic culture, etc . - however its not a uniquely American issue - from polis to politic its been a feature. It is something we must recognize though and muddle through as best we can. While a state with sufficient means can legitimately have more room between "either" and "or" to make decisions, the argument will not be based on means alone, but will be influenced by politics which often only appear rational to the person, party or constituents who base their position off of their own goals, vision and perception of what is best for them, their constituents and their view of what the state should be. That changes over time through new events, changes in culture, changes in power (ours and others), etc. so too will some of our policies - not necessarily all at the same time, or in congruence with one another.

Well - need to go - talk to you later, Best, Rob