1) It is time to quit the outdated Cuban embargo.
Both your options are strategies for failure that will leave the U.S. geopolitically weaker and more directly threatened.
Let's look at Cuba, Castro firmly in control of his communist regime and Cuba's citizen's trapped in a repressive police state, should we allow U.S. investment to rebuild Cuba's shattered economy (read: military) even as Castro forges alliances around the globe with China, North Korea, Iran and Venezuela?
Cuba is the tip of the spear of the bloc of hostile anti-U.S. nations. While American foreign policy to date has been aimed at blunting the tip of that spear, you would sharpen it? Why not just negotiate a compromise: Chinese nuclear missiles in Cuba and Iranian coastal patrol boats off Miami for ...?
2) It is time to get out of Iraq: our second Vietnam, the Soviet's Afghanistan.
The goal of going into Iraq was to remove Saddam and create a free, stable democracy. To me, this is a noble objective and I hope you would agree. If the U.S. leaves Iraq, the best case scenario is that the fledgling democracy in place survives. I'm not a betting man, but I would bet that democracy in Iraq would not last a week without continued U.S. support. Worst case scenario is a full blown civil war between rival Shiite/Sunni factions leaving tens of thousands dead and, most likely, an Iranian backed puppet state in control.
There are a number of side-benefits to continued U.S. involvement that have nothing to do with Iraq,
per se. The asymmetrical nature of the conflict has drawn insurgent fighters from around the globe to Iraq for a chance to directly engage U.S. forces. While it saddens me that American soldiers needlessly die in Iraq, at least they volunteered and they can fight back, which they do admirably, but also which waitresses in Israeli coffee shops and Balinese nightclubs did not and cannot.
Another side-benefit, in geopolitical terms, is that Iran is essentially surrounded by American military forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, carrier groups off the coast and air bases in Kuwait and Diego Garcia. Ahmadinejad can talk tough, but he has to be very careful how he acts in this situation and he knows it. He is one UN resolution or one overtly hostile act away from Saddam's fate. With Ahmadinejad's inflammatory diplomacy and brinksmanship, it is conceivable that he could precipitate a conflict with the U.S. Should that happen, it is best that it be resolved in Tehran, not Miami.
Further, an American withdrawal will be considered a victory for Islamic fundamentalist insurgents around the globe (I can just hear Al Jazeera), who will be emboldened to attack the U.S. again, this time from a secure national state in Iraq, much like Taliban Afghanistan provided a haven and resources for the attacks on 9/11. If nothing else, the American presence in Iraq denies America's enemies the use of that nation for hostile purposes. It is better that whatever political structure evolves in Iraq should be friendly to the U.S. rather than hostile and that can be best achieved by remaining in place until order, security and rule of law are securely established.
If you are unclear about how your solutions will weaken American foreign policy and geopolitical security, strengthen and embolden her enemies, compromise her resolve to aid free democratic nations and threaten her domestic security, please ask.
