8 of 84

Write now Article Tools

Vote Iraq Plan B

Regardless of which report you subscribe to, which candidate you fund or which political party you stand with, as Americans we can't leave Iraq until the country is secure. In large part we created this mess and we have to fix it or forever be the Super Power that wasn't.

By exploring five assumptions this piece describes a scheme to secure Iraq with Peacekeepers, militarily qualified to free the Coalition Forces from their obligations before the '08 Presidential Election.

First assumption: Iraq isn't a "wrong" as in wrong or right, but a problem that can be mitigated by pitting two problems together. The foundation of Plan B comes from understanding that a "wrong" is different from a "problem," and problems can be combined to form a solution or as my brother says, a work-around. Digressing to make a point; our Mom wasn't one for mincing words; she was direct and to the point. Rarely did she enter into an honest debate preferring instead phrases like: "Two wrongs don't make a right!" Often Mom mislabeled problems as wrongs just because she didn't want to deal with the problem or couldn't deal with it. A wrong is wrong and there are only consequences, planned and unplanned. A problem on the other hand is neither right or wrong, it just needs a solution, something that usually takes resources. And I think we all do this from time to time: the problem at hand is just too big so we mislabel it a "wrong."

We all know that two wrongs don't make a right. However, under this truth is an implication that two problems don't make a solution. Think about it, we tend to develop the understanding of one problem and then set out to solve it with fresh resources. Rarely do we ever define a second or third problem and then mix them to find a solution. The older I get the more I see that two problems can be combined to form a solution, maybe not a perfect one but a situation far better than the two problems alone. Pitting problems against each other solves problems, conserves resources and buys time.

An example might help: Problem #1: we lose tangible and intangible resources each year to forest fires. Problem #2: we spend huge sums of money each year to isolate and treat polluted water. Pitting those two problems against each other makes sense. Polluted water puts out the forest fire and the fire burns off some of the pollutants. Pollution that isn't burned is spread over a very large area where it biodegrades. Not perfect but it works.

In essence, we need "a problematic

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• next page >>

Add your voice

Know something about The "answer" for Iraq?
We want to hear your view. Write now!