Getting out of Iraq philosophically

With Congress changing hands, New Jersey Daily Record panel seeks new path: "The mission has changed from taking out the WMDs to warring against terror to introducing democracy to stabilizing," he said. "Recently the president, in the Pentagon, was talking about stability. He said the mission will be accomplished when there is stability.

Jackie Salit and Fred Newman discuss what's developmental in last week's Talk/Talk
Salit: What I’m grappling with here is your saying that the question of what’s developmental, how you create development in the midst of all these different situations, are the practical questions.
Newman: Yes. So, if you take a look at some of the dominant ideas of the Bush Administration about this whole thing, it seems to me, that from a developmental point of view, they are blatantly contradictory. So for example, they appeared to be looking to produce a unity for Iraq. They were trying to put together a parliament, which includes all the different factions.
Salit: Right.
Newman: Well, in whose interest is achieving that unity in Iraq? If the premise is that development equals unity, then you view the whole situation one way. But many of the players and factions in Iraq, not to mention in the region, have other concerns. Unity is not a priority. Indeed, they don’t want unity in Iraq. They never wanted unity in Iraq.
Salit: Right.
Newman: So, Bush bought in on a framework of “everybody really wants a stable democracy.” But it turns out everybody doesn’t....