For many decades the United States has sought macro wins on foreign policy -- big-ticket successes like invading Iraq, solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, bringing down Libyan dictator Mohammar Qaddafi, stopping the spread of nuclear weapons, and other notable goals only to see gains reversed and goal posts moved. So maybe it is time to scope ambitions and seek smaller prizes.
Like many of you, I've been glued to the news from Iraq. As I read headlines of unspeakable crimes and sectarian violence, I notice there's something missing: the voices of Iraqi women. As with most conflicts, rape is used as a weapon of war. Iraq is no exception.
We had no business going to Iraq in the first place anyway, but we did and broke it. Therefore, we have a responsibility to make the best of the worst situation which is to get all of its neighbors and Iraqi factions under the U.N. umbrella together to divide the country in a peaceful manner.
In a rare occasion, the United States and the Islamic Republic have become two odd bedfellows. The reason is that both Tehran and Washington share one common goal to serve their own national interests: a stable Iraq and keeping the oil to flow.
In 2005, while Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz and Bill Kristol were sitting at desks in Washington, my unit was fighting their war in Iraq. They were playing armchair general. We were kicking in doors, getting shot at and driving on IED-planted roads in unarmored vehicles designed for amphibious assaults.
Even if the advisers do not accompany Iraqi forces into the field, their mere presence in Iraq in U.S. uniforms under the present situation makes them targets for attack. Why else are they arriving armed and ready to defend themselves?
Since the question as to what military action -- if any -- the United States will take in Iraq is on everyone's mind, the following are answers Kerry gave to questions directly or indirectly referring to that issue.
I doubt there are many levelheaded individuals who would take seriously anything Cheney offers about Iraq, given his dubious contribution to what can only be considered as an unmitigated disaster.
Many American Iraq war veterans must be disappointed; after all, they didn't risk their lives for all those years so that the country they believed they were helping liberate can fall into the hands of extremists.
We are clearly in the early stages of the intervention sweepstakes. The initial moves may even be greeted as auspicious, but watch out for the long-run destabilizing effects in an already chaotic region. Washington only imagines it can control such combustible situations.
The insurgents are not only in a struggle against what they see as oppression by a largely Shiite government in Baghdad and its security forces, but also over who will control and benefit from what Maliki -- speaking for most of his constituents -- told the Wall Street Journal is Iraq's "national patrimony."
We ignored our moral imperative to intervene in Syria before it was too late. We cannot abandon Iraq, too.
From Egypt, it was off to Baghdad for John Kerry to see whether Iraq's bold effort in democratic nation building could be resuscitated in the face of imminent collapse. The problem there is that Kerry will have trouble locating a military strongman to back.
The head-scratching question continues to be, why? Why are the discredited "experts" who botched Iraq last time now being a given a platform to comment on the military crisis they helped create?
June 20th is declared World Refugee Day. In this year, this day is being marked by another increase of 9 million refugees.
In 2003 Saddam Hussein ruled Iraq. He was a bad guy. A bunch of good guys named Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Feith decided to invade Iraq and get rid of this bad guy.