|
It depends on what defusing the Iraqi situation means. So far the U.S. administration has resorted to more violence to achieve some sort of military victory. Without a vision for a future Iraq and clearly defined objective of ending the occupation, the unproductive debate between simply managing the crisis and withdrawing troops will never achieve a better Iraq.
This is not really an offbeat question for someone who lives in a monarchy. I am a Jordanian citizen, and challenging monarchy is paramount to inciting against the King and the state if not full-blown treason.
Leaders of Israel, responsible for the occupation of lands, destruction of people's lives and violations of the Geneva Conventions, are welcomed and even celebrated as international dignitaries. Neither Israeli-perpetrated violence nor its dispossession of indigenous people from their own land is cause for questioning Israel’s leadership. But for South Africa to receive a leading member of Hamas, a violent resistance movement, is a cause for shock if not condemnation.
At a dinner hosted by a prestigious center affiliated with a British university, concluding a one-day conference on the Arab World, a former U.S. official complained about how Washington has failed to get its message of good will to the Arab people. He seemed to be trying to reach out to the representatives of the Arab media taking part on the conference, seeking either advice or empathy for his administration's quest that has been met, in his view, "with misunderstanding."
While it is good that the U.S. is opting -- for the time being at least -- for talks rather than war with Iran, it is unlikely that a democratic and independent future for Iraq will be on the agenda.
Comments (28)