Been reading a variety of reports, opinions, on our necessary stay in Iraq with comparisons to our withdrawal (we got booted out) from Vietnam ... that Iraq is more central to world stability and our national interests than Vietnam - call it oil!
But I wonder ... having greatly destabilized an already destabilized region (read: how the Western nations carved it up after the end of the Ottoman Empire), our withdrawal now from Iraq, precipitous or otherwise, would bring about a bloody re-balancing, no doubt. But a re-balancing none the less, and if Iran turns out to be the kingpin, let’s assume for a moment that diplomacy and Iranian desires for recognition and a place in the sun would create a pathway for peace, in spite of the lingering thorn-in-the-flesh of the Palestinian question.
Worst-case scenarios are the road-kill delight of hawks, neo-cons hoping for world domination, theo-cons hoping to provoke Armageddon, and other such folk who love the smell of napalm in the morning.
But I wonder …
There’s a definition of insanity … keep doing the same old things and expect different results.
With the old Soviet Union, the West won the Cold War by diplomacy, containment and third-world development. Therein are clues to a needed strategy for dealing with the Middle East, Iran, and whatever or whoever comes along.
Peace is best served by distance, letting the nations of the Middle East sort it out, trusting the powers of diplomacy, and being smart enough to contain but not to conquer.