Reply #15: This may sound odd but

[Tom Rinaldo]

Actually I think a lot of our military officers in the field in Iraq DO have credibility at the local level. These men and women are known players to a lot of the local leaders over there.

This will be a strange comparison but somehow I think it is apt. I've studied the history of the American Indian Wars during the 19th century. Often it was the Generals and Lieutenants who had the best lines of communications open with Tribal leaders. There was often even grudging mutual respect. Those people were most motivated to work something out if possible (not counting the ladder climbing over dead Indian's Backs kind) that would avoid the need for continuing bloodshed. Usually it was the civilian leadership coming from Washington that undermined the integrity of positive negotiations that were possible at the field level.

I think Bosnia and Kosovo could be models for U.S. involvement. THe U.S. did and does take a peace keeping leadership role on the ground in many cases, but it was/is under the umbrella of international institutions. I would love it if the United Nations was a stronger body than it is, and I do strongly favor the United States working through the United Nations, but even putting aside for a second all the bluster that comes from Washington regarding the UN and the reaction there to it, the U.S. remains an important part of the United Nations. So I am not really disagreeing, just saying that the U.S. would need to stay in the mix at least for a transition period even with vastly increased U.N. involvement, which I would support if the U.N. was willing to go there.