Right now in Iraq, most of the wheeling and dealing with local leaders is done by Army and Marine commanders in whatever they are assigned to. While such negotiations are good, they mainly deal with what they are concerned about. Primarily, the security situation of an area and how to improve it.

But what about the big picture? What about the diplomatic effort to achieve region-wide goals? It seems that our very best and brightest diplomats should be courageously pressing their intended message within the Middle East.

Well, maybe not:
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/iraq/2007/11/03/welcome-drop-in-violence-but-what-will-come-of-it.html

The above article, which has an extremely short mention of the status of our diplomats, is enough to show a gaping hole in our larger political strategy. Jack Croddy of the State Department is basically saying that they should not commit their very best diplomats over there, only the ones that volunteer.

Let me say that there are tens of thousands of soldiers over there right now who would love to be back stateside. But they have a sense of duty to their country which puts the welfare of the many above their own selves, a sense that apparently isn't ubiquitous within other Federal organizations.

The diplomatic process is integral to any major conflict. A unified message presented by outstanding diplomats would allow Middle Eastern communities to understand the goals, purpose, and rationale of the United States within Iraq. Without that message being present, the military present in Iraq won't represent much more than foreigners driving around and shooting whoever shoots at them. With a strong diplomatic message, they may look more like true allies who should be respected and defended.

posted by Brett @ Wednesday, November 07, 2007 0 comments