Stanford’s James D. Fearon has written a piece in this month’s Foreign Affairs (a periodical published by the Council on Foreign Relations) detailing what he sees as the de facto reality on the ground in Iraq: namely, that it is too late for our presence to stem the tide of violence, and that, sad as it may be, the only way beyond what is surely now a civil war is to let the various players slug it out until a dominant party emerges from the conflict and takes hold of the country. Only then will order return.
Fearon has studied every civil war to take place in the post-WWII era, and feels that the odds are not in our favor with regard to our hope of stabilizing the country through our own political will and military force.
Yes, his depiction of the current scenario over there is dire. And, yes, his advocacy of our pulling back from the central theater of operations to function more in a support/training role is tantamount in some ways to a “cut and run” strategy. But after reading his piece, and hearing him (and others) speak at length on the subject, I believe he may be right. His outlook and recommendations may yet constitute the absolute realpolitik. Could this be the best (i.e. least ugly) way forward?
Read his policy paper here.
Fearon has studied every civil war to take place in the post-WWII era, and feels that the odds are not in our favor with regard to our hope of stabilizing the country through our own political will and military force.
Yes, his depiction of the current scenario over there is dire. And, yes, his advocacy of our pulling back from the central theater of operations to function more in a support/training role is tantamount in some ways to a “cut and run” strategy. But after reading his piece, and hearing him (and others) speak at length on the subject, I believe he may be right. His outlook and recommendations may yet constitute the absolute realpolitik. Could this be the best (i.e. least ugly) way forward?
Read his policy paper here.
No comments:
Post a Comment