<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: What to do? Why leave, of course</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.psaonline.org/2006/12/05/what-to-do-why-leave-of-course/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.psaonline.org/2006/12/05/what-to-do-why-leave-of-course/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Mar 2010 05:33:23 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Brian Vogt</title>
		<link>http://blog.psaonline.org/2006/12/05/what-to-do-why-leave-of-course/comment-page-1/#comment-4214</link>
		<dc:creator>Brian Vogt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Dec 2006 19:35:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.psaonline.org/2006/12/05/what-to-do-why-leave-of-course/#comment-4214</guid>
		<description>Yes, good point about the need to build bridges to those states it most criticizes.  We are certainly in need of a dramatic rethinking of our approach to the Middle East.  In my mind, the root conflict that we must more actively seek to resolve, of course, is the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.  As long as that continues, the Middle East will continue to be a source of instability.  I&#039;m encouraged, though, by the commission&#039;s report which advocates for more direct engagement with Iran and Syria - something that President Bush, so far, has been unwilling to concede.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, good point about the need to build bridges to those states it most criticizes.  We are certainly in need of a dramatic rethinking of our approach to the Middle East.  In my mind, the root conflict that we must more actively seek to resolve, of course, is the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.  As long as that continues, the Middle East will continue to be a source of instability.  I&#8217;m encouraged, though, by the commission&#8217;s report which advocates for more direct engagement with Iran and Syria &#8211; something that President Bush, so far, has been unwilling to concede.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Maziar Kakhi</title>
		<link>http://blog.psaonline.org/2006/12/05/what-to-do-why-leave-of-course/comment-page-1/#comment-4205</link>
		<dc:creator>Maziar Kakhi</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Dec 2006 15:15:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.psaonline.org/2006/12/05/what-to-do-why-leave-of-course/#comment-4205</guid>
		<description>However much a withdrawal makes sense, it is of course complicated by many factors. The following come to mind immediately:

1. The USA invaded Iraq illegaly, has left it in tatters, and then contemplates pulling out. The burden of responsibility is on the US government&#039;s shoulders to keep financing that country. May be they could divert some of the funds keeping the Israeli state afloat?

2. The situation in Iraq is a double-edged sword for the neighbouring countries. On the one hand they are (understandably) vying for influence in their respective strongholds within Iraq (isn&#039;t the US doing the same?). At the same time they don&#039;t want the sectarian strife to spill over.


Pulling out is assuredly a major change of course, which I believe will not be adopted. But it would only be the start of further serious headaches. Where are the troops going to go? Is a stopover in Iran planned for a little regime change, and then catch the next flight home for afternoon tea?

The US needs to send signals that it is re-thinking it&#039;s entire philosophy and approach towards the Middle East. It has to accept that its current posturing has not worked and it must try to build bridges with those states it most criticizes in its rhetorical tirades.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>However much a withdrawal makes sense, it is of course complicated by many factors. The following come to mind immediately:</p>
<p>1. The USA invaded Iraq illegaly, has left it in tatters, and then contemplates pulling out. The burden of responsibility is on the US government&#8217;s shoulders to keep financing that country. May be they could divert some of the funds keeping the Israeli state afloat?</p>
<p>2. The situation in Iraq is a double-edged sword for the neighbouring countries. On the one hand they are (understandably) vying for influence in their respective strongholds within Iraq (isn&#8217;t the US doing the same?). At the same time they don&#8217;t want the sectarian strife to spill over.</p>
<p>Pulling out is assuredly a major change of course, which I believe will not be adopted. But it would only be the start of further serious headaches. Where are the troops going to go? Is a stopover in Iran planned for a little regime change, and then catch the next flight home for afternoon tea?</p>
<p>The US needs to send signals that it is re-thinking it&#8217;s entire philosophy and approach towards the Middle East. It has to accept that its current posturing has not worked and it must try to build bridges with those states it most criticizes in its rhetorical tirades.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brian Vogt</title>
		<link>http://blog.psaonline.org/2006/12/05/what-to-do-why-leave-of-course/comment-page-1/#comment-4142</link>
		<dc:creator>Brian Vogt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Dec 2006 17:10:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.psaonline.org/2006/12/05/what-to-do-why-leave-of-course/#comment-4142</guid>
		<description>My understanding is that one of the main thrusts of the report to be released tomorrow will be exactly what you are advocating for - withdrawal.  Of course, this is not as quick as the withdrawal that many are advocating for - ie John Murtha.  However, I&#039;m open to the possibility that there are probably good ways and bad ways to do a withdrawal.  I&#039;m not necessarily convinced that the slow withdrawal tactic is the best.  Many will argue that there&#039;s no reason to continue sacrificing American lives if our departure is ultimately on the horizon.  However, how we withdraw is quite important.  I&#039;m open to the possibility that doing it too quickly could allow more bloodshed.  

Yes, we have lost this war.  We are left now only with trying to determine which of the options available is the least bad of the bad options.  Perhaps the best option is a more immediate withdrawal.  However, I&#039;m keeping an open mind to the ISG&#039;s arguments for a more gradual one.  Alas, we&#039;ll see what rationale the report gives us tomorrow.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My understanding is that one of the main thrusts of the report to be released tomorrow will be exactly what you are advocating for &#8211; withdrawal.  Of course, this is not as quick as the withdrawal that many are advocating for &#8211; ie John Murtha.  However, I&#8217;m open to the possibility that there are probably good ways and bad ways to do a withdrawal.  I&#8217;m not necessarily convinced that the slow withdrawal tactic is the best.  Many will argue that there&#8217;s no reason to continue sacrificing American lives if our departure is ultimately on the horizon.  However, how we withdraw is quite important.  I&#8217;m open to the possibility that doing it too quickly could allow more bloodshed.  </p>
<p>Yes, we have lost this war.  We are left now only with trying to determine which of the options available is the least bad of the bad options.  Perhaps the best option is a more immediate withdrawal.  However, I&#8217;m keeping an open mind to the ISG&#8217;s arguments for a more gradual one.  Alas, we&#8217;ll see what rationale the report gives us tomorrow.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
