Over a week has past since the previous post and much has occurred - and not occurred - that makes the "NIM" proposition unrealistic as currently formulated for two obvious reasons:
- The Senate will soon go on its August recess...
- The much anticipated Iraq-related report by General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker will be the first order of business when the Congress reconvenes in September...
In addition, the reports yesterday that the US and UK are formulating a new proposal to the UN for a expanded role for the United Nations in Iraq is disquieting; as laudable and necessary as this might seem, we are concerned that this will simply be a step towards an unexamined renewal of the mandate that retains the United States at the center and as the bulk of the multinational contingent currently trying to reestablish a modicum of security and stability in Iraq.
While thinking about all this, we've taken a step back and embarked upon a careful reading of the "new" Counterinsurgency Field Manual (US Army FM-24) that is so closely tied with General David Petraeus... and we've closely followed the debate that lingers close to the purported application of the principles and methods that he and his colleagues elaborated therein...
... and the different interpretations of the events described alternatively as evidence of success and/or failure in that endeavor belie the central question: where does it lead?
We firmly believe that the current stalemate will endure until the next election and beyond, perhaps becoming a indelible chain around the neck of our foreign policy - and a stain on our history - unless we can intelligently and deliberately return to the principles of multilateralism in the national interest and in support of international institutions that largely guided our relations with the rest of the world since the beginning of the Second World War...
... and this process should begin in earnest now!
