[Cyclefrance]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Invoking the standard rule here, now that you have told us the policy is bad, and needs to be replaced, you absolutely must tell us your proposed policy.

Fair warning, we intend to tear it to shreds.

Tell us, how DO you get rid of a hornet's nest without getting stung?

That’s fair enough Mr Undertoad. I don't/won’t pretend to have all the answers, though (if I have any at all it will be a miracle!) - in fact at this stage the idea of presenting a ready-to-go solution is simply not realistic. There is a process of analysis to undertake and, right now, this can only be taken so far. The situation currently is so sensitive and complex that any and every step needs to be taken carefully – even the best and most appropriate plan will likely be misconstrued and distrusted.

Given the opportunity to turn the clock back, Iraq should never have been invaded. Oh, that such a thing were possible. Why our PM supported the action only he knows, and is a subject that warrants separate discussion.

Alas there is no opportunity to change past events, so the question is what should we do now that we are in Iraq with all the problems that this has created and continues to create? Well, there's a saying that if you find yourself in a hole the first thing you should do is stop digging, and this is what we should be doing with regards to Iraq. No withdrawal, for reasons already stated in this thread, but no escalation of current planning and policy. We need to take on board that what is happening in Iraq now is a symptom of another, more demanding problem - the root problem that won't go away based on anything currently being proposed for Iraq. The best and least damaging course to take here, at the moment, will be to contain the current situation. That may not be very palatable, but the real energy and effort just has to be transferred to dealing with the root problem.

And the root problem is...?

Well everything points to the Israel/Palestine issue, and pivotal to that the perceived US approach to it. Policy therefore has to be to address this, as it looks pretty clear to me that the Middle East’s upwardly spiraling crisis is not going to reverse unless and until it is addressed. A military solution isn’t going to work, only a diplomatic one, irrespective of failures in the past. And time is relatively short. I think reports suggest that Iran will have a nuclear capability within ten years. The issue needs to be well on its way to being settled before that time arrives.

How to go about it? Ceasefire, negotiation, investment, independence. That on its own would sound a bit like a cop-out short answer in light of the request you made, so here are my expanded reasons.

There are five basic steps to follow to arrive at a solution to a crisis – these are essentially the same sequential steps that are used in any problem-solving situation:

1. Identify the root cause – which means looking beyond the symptoms to find out what is really driving the crisis. In this case taking on board that the Israel/Palestine issue is at the core and driving everything else. The current issues in Iraq are not there as a result of Saddam’s legacy, but because of the vacuum that his removal created. That vacuum has been filled by regimes driven by frustration and anger at the absence of a solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict and the stance the US has taken towards it. The US presence in Iraq for them represents a store (further biased interference) on which they can draw as they sell their doctrine to dissatisfied segments of the population.
2. Subordinate all other crises – which means putting the real effort and energy into dealing with the root problem and certainly not devoting more to the symptomatic crises than to the root cause – extensive energy and effort spent other than on the root problem will effectively be ill-spent as these sub-crises can only be solved as and when the root cause is dealt with
3. Exploit the current situation – in other words, make the best out of the current Israel/Palestine situation. Most certainly the first action would need to be a ceasefire coupled with international effort to sustain that status and to bring the factions to the table. The process moves to understanding what needs to be changed to improve matters and getting all the parties concerned to acknowledge and accept that this change is necessary. This will be a lengthy process (but not as long as step 4) and at its heart must be the protection of the ceasefire. Any proposed step should only proceed provided that the ceasefire is upheld (and I accept it will be no easy matter achieving this first step). This becomes the anchor and ensures that all parties move forward at the speed that is appropriate to ensure and protect ongoing success. It also places responsibility on the relevant parties to act in the event of any violation of the ceasefire (bound to happen).
4. Elevate the crisis – taking the situation to a higher level. Real negotiation, formulation and execution of a long-term durable solution – a comprehensive plan and desired timescale that will undoubtedly include stages involving investment and ultimately independence from international involvement. There must be commitment to proceed, to review, and to revise to improve where and when necessary. The ceasefire continues to play its role. Movement on to a next step only proceeds when the preceding step is accepted by the parties to the plan as being satisfactorily completed or sufficiently advanced to warrant moving on sooner. This keeps everyone on board, and the longer they stay on board the stronger the relationship becomes allowing both sides to learn how much better it is to fight the problem rather than fight each other.
5. Revisit and be prepared to revise - if during the process of dealing with the root cause it transpires that the balance shifts such that something that was a subordinate crisis now predominates (because of progress with the original root crisis), or even a new crisis develops and this now becomes the superior problem, then the process starts again with what becomes (now) the new root cause.

In my view the policy now HAS to be to attend to the Israel/Palestine conflict. Proof that this is happening and progressing will be the cornerstone to reducing the influence of the regimes that use the current state of this conflict as their pitch to oppose and fight the West. The countries where they have infiltrated will need to be encouraged with investment and independence of government, and this needs to be made available at a time when its value and benefit has a real chance to be appreciated and to succeed.

As for not getting stung, at this stage of the proceedings that is impossible to achieve. Rather the course has to be first to take appropriate action to control and limit the amount of stinging, then, provided that unnecessary and unwarranted provocation doesn't follow, the incidents of stinging will reduce and, eventually, if this approach is maintained, the nest will present no real threat of danger. Alternatively this advice could be ignored, at worst resulting in the nest falling and breaking, and the occupants then becoming uncontrollable and unpredicatable.

I think I will leave it there for now. I hope I have gone some way to addressing your request – hopefully far enough to justify the onslaught of constructive criticism you promise....at least I trust that is what you had in mind when you mentioned tearing to shreds!