We’re in this thing, so what the heck do we do now?

I’ll freely admit, I’ve spent entirely too much time hashing over why and how we got into this mess we find ourselves in in Iraq. I’ve laid blame, I’ve pointed fingers, and I’ve gotten personal. And the entire time, with all my ranting and raving, posturing and postulating, I’ve offered no solutions, no ideas on how to get us out of this pickle. And that’s not like me. I’ve spent my professional life coming up with innovative solutions to complex problems, being the “idea guy” when a customer needs a fix for the dilemma he finds himself in. And while peace in the region certainly can’t be equated to increasing production, or reducing costs, I’d like to think I could offer something more meaningful than what I’ve thus far put forward.

The first obvious question: Do we stay, or do we go? And this is certainly a difficult one to answer. On the one hand, you have the concern that a departure of U.S. forces would lead to a collapse of the fragile Iraqi government, MORE sectarian violence, and MORE instability in the region. On the other hand, you have the argument that the U.S. presence, in and of itself, contributes to the escalating violence; that we’ve done all we really can do to set the people of Iraq on their way, and that our personnel have become little more than live target practice for terrorist elements within the country. On this issue, I have to lean towards a withdrawal of U.S. forces from the country. I do believe we’ve done all that we can from a military point of view. Now is the time for helping to build a future for the Iraqi people. Our efforts now should focus on them developing their own security and infrastructure.

The next question: When and how? Well, I don’t believe in a sudden, massive withdrawal of our troops. This process needs to be phased, and it needs to be orderly. As for a timetable… I know many have said that if we give a fixed date, it will just allow the terrorist elements to “wait us out”. Hogwash. Not if we do it right. But for argument’s sake, fine, let’s keep the timetable internal, not for public consumption. Our government will be aware of it, and Iraqi leadership will be aware of it, everyone else can wait and see. But whether or not you publicize it, before you execute a plan, you have to have a plan. My suggestion would be a reduction of 50% of the existing U.S. forces within a year, and the balance gradually over five years. During that period we have to insist on the Iraqis building up their own security forces, cause in five years guys, you’re on your own. Want your country back? Then act like it.

Another important question: How do we end the sectarian violence? Is there a political or diplomatic solution to this, rather than a military one? These people have been fighting amongst themselves for generations. It’s foolish to believe that they will put aside their differences, religious, ethnic, and culturally, overnight. Could a divided Iraq still be a united Iraq? Is it worth considering the option of three separate, but equal Iraqi states? Setting up a two-house legislature within the country similar to the U.S. model. One house has equal representation; the other has representation based upon population. I’m tossing this one out there, as I’m sure others have already done. Could this be a way to keep the peace, and prevent Iraq from tearing itself asunder?

And finally, the overall question of stability within the region: Whatever we do in Iraq, the broader theme of peace within the region remains. Wiser men than I have said, “the road to peace in the Middle East goes through Jerusalem, not Baghdad. Truer words have never been spoken. Until we find a solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict, stability within this part of the world will elude us. Let’s face it, we in the West created this problem in the first place (no, not the overall Jewish-Arab rift, the real estate problem); we ought to help come up with a solution. The Israelis are making some encouraging gestures as we speak, perhaps this will be the start of something concrete and lasting.

Stability in this region is more than just a high ideal or noble cause. It may very well mean our very survival as a species. Everyone is afraid of a nuclear Middle East. News flash folks… We HAVE a nuclear Middle East. Whether declared or not, it seems highly unlikely that both Israel and Saudi Arabia are not part of the nuclear club. And we know that Pakistan and India are members of that club, although perhaps not officially “in” the Middle East, they both play significant roles in the region. Then there’s Russia, China, and the U.S., all with vital (and competing) interests in the region. That’s quite a radioactive cocktail we’ve got there. Straight up, if you please. We can’t afford to have this one shaken or stirred.

A small victory in an undoubtedly ongoing battle.

Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court apparently rediscovered their Constitutional mandate to interpret the Constitution, and participate in the checks and balances upon the other two branches of our government. In a 5-3 decision, with Chief Justice Roberts recusing himself, the court ruled that President Bush had overstepped his authority in applying military tribunals to a so-called “enemy combatant” by the name of Salim Ahmed Hamdan, held in Guantanamo Bay. The court did; however, seem to leave the door open to allow Congress to provide the President with even more wartime powers, which might render this ruling moot.

The spineless administration lapdogs in Congress wasted no time jumping on that opportunity, and made it a point to “spin” the discussion in that direction. Sen. Bill Frist of Tennessee said Thursday that he would sponsor legislation after the Holiday break that would authorize the military tribunals.” To keep America safe in the war on terror, I believe we should try terrorists only before military commissions, not in our civilian courts," said Frist. Sen. Lindsay Graham of South Carolina, has offered to work with the White House on legislation that would allow the administration to try the Guantanamo prisoners before a military tribunal. "The court said that military commissions would be proper if Congress blessed those commissions -- that the president by himself could not do this, that he had to come to Congress and get the Congress to bless the military tribunal. I agree with that. I think it would be better off if the Congress and the White House work together to pass a statute that would allow these terrorists to be tried in a military court."

So, given the direction this seems to be going, the obvious question to the Congress is, are we willing to legislate the violation of the Geneva Conventions and the Uniform Code of Military Justice by our government? Because that was one of the salient points of the Supreme Court ruling - "For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the military commission convened to try Hamdan lacks power to proceed because its structure and procedures violate both the UCMJ and the Geneva Conventions."

In effect, if the Congress passes legislation that gives the President the authority to convene such military tribunals for detainees such as Hamdan, we will be in violation of a treaty that we were a signatory to, as well as the “rules of the road” for military justice that we, ourselves, established. And the next obvious question becomes, what other laws, codes and international treaties are we willing to abandon in the name of national security? And what, may I ask, is the benefit of “national security” if we have now become a nation no longer bound by the rule of law?

I am truly encouraged by yesterday’s ruling by the Supreme Court. But my hope is somewhat tempered by the possibility that the Congress will take action that flies in the face of what the Justices were trying to say. Here’s a hint folks… this isn’t the way our founding fathers envisioned the evolution of our republic. And to continue to abandon the principles which they and the many that have followed them, have fought and in some cases, died to protect, would be a treason to their memory. On the eve of the Fourth of July Holiday, celebrating our great nation’s 230th birthday, that is a truly sad thought.