One of the biggest problems that this administration has with regard to their war in Iraq is that they all need a little metanoia or mental shift into reality. Their vision of what they want is vastly different from how it actually is on the ground over there. Most realistic versions of the situation there place Iraq on the brink, if not in the center of, civil war. Yet, Bush and his cronies never seem to grasp that scenario.

I propose a four person, two party approach toward achieving a real and lasting peace for that region. The four very capable persons to lead this venture would be Dr. Henry Kissinger, Former Secretary of the State-Colon Powell, Past President-Jimmy Carter, and Former President-Bill Clinton. All of these persons are well versed in world and Middle-Eastern affairs and are compassionate communicators that could present this solution with the utmost of diplomacy.

Dr. Henry Kissinger during his tenure as Secretary of the State under the Nixon Administration did much to effectuate peace for Vietnam gaining him the coveted Nobel Peace Prize in 1973. General Colin Powell has the military, diplomatic, and government expertise, fortitude, and temperament to help settle this quagmire amicably by all involved parties. Former Presidents, Jimmy Carter (Nobel Laureate, 2002) and Bill Clinton are shrewd negotiators who understand the changes, opportunities, challenges, complexities, and possibilities open to the people of the middle east should peace be within their grasp. Together they represent a consistency of purpose founded on ethics, trust, and confidence that can improve and enhance our relationships with the Middle-East and the world.

First, let us tackle the situation in Iraq . The three interested parties in this country are the Sunnis, Shia, and the Kurds. While these people have not voiced disappointment at a change in who governs them they each need an equal voice in how they should be governed and by whom. I propose asking them if they would be open to divvying up Iraq into three provinces much like was done in Israel and Palestine . If this is how they would like to see things structured then they could move into how they want to govern each territory and by whom. If they want our help with this process then we offer to help any way we can. If not, then we butt out. The one constant is that we offer to help them rebuild or give them the monies to rebuild and allow them to accept bids or whatever other means they deem necessary to secure companies or people to help with this process. We step aside and watch as they evolve into self-governing provinces that divine their own purposes and objectives instead of those we have set forth for them.

Next comes Afghanistan . We have been there since 2001 and things have become steadily worse since we invaded Iraq and lost what little control we initially had there. Maybe a connection between the two? I say absolutely. If we can work things out in Iraq and get them back on track then we should be able to step out of Afghanistan and use a minimal of NATO troops to help their government to keep things secure and peaceful. If the government of Afghanistan feels they need more help or support from us then let them determine how best we fit into their strategies and organize the pace of things to come.

Iran and much of the rest of the world is unhappy with how the United States invaded Iraq . There was no altercation, no provocation, or verification of WMD's. The world knows that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, yet that was Bush's first excuse for invading them. When that excuse could no longer fly, he, Bush, used the excuse of WMD's, but would not let the IAEA complete their inspections and hand down a final report which would have confirmed that they (Iraq) had no WMD's, before mounting his war campaign. After the reports became public knowledge and the IAEA confirmed Iraq was no threat Bush proceeded to tell the world that he had to rid Iraq of an evil dictator. Did Bush or anyone from his administration ever once ask the people of Iraq what they wanted? No. Do they care what the people of Iraq want? They say they do, but they do not listen or they would hear the part about them (the Iraqi's) not wanting the US to occupy their country.

Part of being a good communicator involves the ability to listen to the people you are conversing with. Without listening you get an incomplete picture of the situation and cannot possibly plan and organize a strategy to achieve what is necessary (give the people of Iraq what they want), thus leaving you flat on your feet. Goals cannot be aligned with strategy or mission without good and frequent communication and evaluation.

Leadership takes collaboration, active involvement, and support. Change is the work of leaders and effective leaders should guide us through adversity, uncertainty, and hardship. They (leaders) should help the people of their nations and other nations to transit, transform, and recover from economic and political challenges. Leaders are forward thinkers that focus on the future and show others how they fit into the big picture. For heady times like these we need leadership that is credible, forward thinking, and capable of effectuating change. We need more than what this administration is capable of dishing out. We need the special abilities and talents of Dr. Kissinger, General Powell, Presidents Carter and Clinton to lead us toward peace and prosperity, tolerance and understanding for all.

What do you say? We have nothing to lose and everything to gain. Let us give peace and diplomacy a real chance!

Reference:

www.Nobelprize.org

Jossey-Bass educational reader (2000) San Francisco , CA

	Web useless-knowledge.com