Home > Politics, News & Issues > International Politics > War & Peace
Created on: March 11, 2008
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
Below are the top articles rated and ranked by Helium members on:
The "answer" for Iraq
by Eamonn
The very idea that we (Americans) are debating the "answer" for Iraq is both preposterous and at the root of the disastrous
The "answer" for Iraq is simple, complex, and not an answer at all. For the occupying allied forces, the simple thing to
by Joe Dimeck
Prior to 2007, August in Ramadi, Iraq was just another month of Al Qaeda bullying, gunfights, and all the things one would
Vote Iraq Plan B
Regardless of which report you subscribe to, which candidate you fund or which political party you stand
A Plan for Iraq
There may be no sure fire answer to the conflict that is raging in Iraq. The safest bet for the United States
View All Articles on: The "answer" for Iraq
Helium Debate
Cast your vote!
Has European Union (EU) been good or bad for Europe?
Click for your side.
Featured Partner
Pacific Research Institute (PRI)
The mission of the Pacific Research Institute (PRI) is to champion freedom, opportunity and personal responsibility for all individuals by advancing free-market policy solutions. It is vital that policy responses are guided by the princ...more