After reading an interview with an Iraqi researcher about the situation there, I have some constructive advice. Be warned, it's worth what you pay for it here.
Firstly, some sort of detainee oversight system based on checks and balances will help with building trust, a key requirement for rule of law. Perhaps permitting periodic prison inspections by the UN or some other third-party deemed neutral would be a workable diplomatic solution. It won't fix things, but it would signal a willingness to combat the problem of prisoner abuse, and thus engender Iraqi trust that political systems and institutions can meet their needs.
This conflict has a moral front, an aspect the USA has to deal with more proactively and not shy away from.
If the US is to move out of policing urban areas, either local constabulary and/or troops from other countries (possibly a UN banner) will have to fill the security gap. It's not going to happen overnight.
Nevertheless, time is of the essence. I would recommend that US primary reconstruction contracts be opened to all countries willing to put up significant numbers of peacekeeping forces. Relying on moral suasion alone isn't cutting it. Having a stake would be greater incentive to take the risk of sending troops, as well as being something with a vested interest for them to protect and not pull out and away from.
It goes without saying that care must be taken to ensure the Iraqi security force is viable and trustworthy. However, it's also important that it not be overly dependent upon coalition and/or UN assistance. The goal here is long-term stability and self-sufficiency; liberation, not caretaking.
Sensitivity training is an overused term. However, maintaining an increased geopolitical awareness on the part of US troops is key to adherence with grand strategy. The more they are appraised of the big picture of what US goals are, the better they can align their actions to meet that mission.
No comments:
Post a Comment