Amazing naiveté
Bookworm on May 17 2008 at 6:14 pm | Filed under: Barack Obama
I can’t keep up with every perverse utterance that Obama emits so, while I got the gist of his “I’ll talk to any terrorist” statement during a debate last year, I missed the finer points of that speech. However, listening to Hugh Hewitt the other day, as Hewitt decried Obama’s incredibly egomania in thinking that Bush’s fairly masterful Knesset speech was all about “me, me, me,” I finally heard all the myriad details in the Big O’s talking plan. These details showed that he’s either incredibly naive or, as I’m beginning to suspect, that – while he’s clearly academically quite bright — he is, in practical terms, an idiot. (And don’t tell me that you didn’t go to school with some bright kid who aced the tests, but couldn’t figure out the finer points of tying his shoe laces.)
Here’s what Obama said:
Did you catch the central point?
The notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them, which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration, is ridiculous. Now, Ronald Reagan and Democratic Presidents like JFK constantly spoke to the Soviet Union at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an evil empire. And the reason is because they understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward.
What Obama doesn’t seem to understand is that we are, in fact, talking to all those miserable little countries — behind the scenes, at the lower flunky level — and have been doing so for some time. At this, without involving the prestige of government leaders, men and women in gray suits with bulky notebooks have polite little skirmishes about “areas where we can potentially move forward,” assuming some such exist.
These behind-the-scenes diplomats can also test the waters on the big issues: Should Iran blow up Israel or not blow up Israel? Should Iran try to take over the Arab world or not take over the Arab world? Is it okay for Sudan to commit genocide as to all their Christians and black Muslims or should it stop before all of them are dead?
The one thing that no sane government would ever do, in front of the whole world, is put the prestige of the President on the line regarding matters that aren’t yet really hammered out. Otherwise, the government places in the hands of some tin-pot tyrant the beautiful, and propagandistic, opportunity to snub the leader of the most powerful nation in the world.
In case Obama hasn’t figured it out, Clinton has never recovered from the snub Arafat dealt him when Clinton put the weight of his leadership into the negotiating room before having it pre-established that Arafat would bend. Likewise, Carter has been getting a free ride (not to mention a Nobel Peace prize) for putting his imprimatur on what was already a fait accompli worked out, first behind the scenes, and then in public, by Begin and Sadat.
Only someone either naive or stupid would have the President walk into a room with someone whose demands exceed any bounds of an ordinary civilized nation, and give that someone the absolute freedom to place his thumb to his nose, waggle his fingers, and say Nyah, nyah, nyah-nyah, nyah before the cameras. Obama’s willingness to do this, and his belief that absolutely no talking has been going on if he hasn’t personally seen it on TV, shows a remarkable inability to understand the nature of power, the nature of prestige, and the nature of government negotiations since the beginning of recorded time (and, I’m sure, before then too).
Email This Post To A Friend
45 Responses to “Amazing naiveté”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
BW: Der Spiegel (int. ed.) has an article by Matthias Kuentzel you may want to read. He discusses the role of Hamas and Hezbollah TV in radicalizing young Muslims in Germany. I seriously doubt that our foreign policy genius even begins to appreciate the reach of Iran’s puppets in spreading terrorism. He can’t appreciate how far Iranian propaganda will travel and how our enemis know how to target audiences. He said he learned the difference between Sunni and Shia as a kid in Indonesia. Do you think he knows that the cannon fodder recruited by al-Manar et al. aren’t interested in theological purity? The man is a disaster.
Bookworm, you’re going to have to explain to me what these lower level negotiations amongst “flunkies” are, because the very best investigative journalist in the business, especially on the Middle East, Sy Hersch, has repeatedly pointed out how the US is not talking to these “miserable little countries,” as you call them. Where is your proof that real channels exist and are being used?
Also, please explain why you are criticizing Obama for suggesting that we talk to our enemies–any and every terrorist, as you put it–but you are not criticizing Bush for finally talking to North Korea and accepting the very same agreement that they repudiated the Clinton administration for achieving 8 years ago? If you are going to criticize Obama, wouldn’t the fair and balanced view be to call Bush out for ignoring Iran and Syria, stressing this fact in his speech in Israel, but they talking to the North Koreans? I find this a little hypocritical on Bush’s part…and yours.
More generally, I am troubled by the false dichotomies behind this whole debate. You really must explain how talking to enemies equates with appeasing them. This has been the trouble with Bush’s foreign policy since day one (e.g., you are either with us or against us). By the definition that Bush set out in that speech, then Reagan appeased the Soviets and Nixon appeased the Maoists. And last time I checked those policies were effective: Nixon opened the door for Deng Xiao Peng, the most important leader of the 20th century, while Reagan did the same for Gorbachev. Please differentiate these cases for me–and it can’t rest on the mere fact that you are a GOP supporter and thus root for them, regardless of the call, like a sports fan. We need more objectivity, as well as nuance, in policy.
The current policy is based on moral absolutes, which do not exist. You say it is stupid for a President to allow a country to exceed the bounds of a civilized country and then thumb their noses at us. Yet the Iranians actually helped us strike Al Qaeda forces after 9/11, to which we responded by calling them the axis of evil. How is that helpful to US interests? Meanwhile, Israel promoted Kurdish separatism in northern Iraq even after the US, who donates more to that country than any other in the world, asked them not to. (Sy Hersch documented this story and quoted a senior State Dept official as saying, “nobody can tell the Israelis what to do.”) Our foreign policy under Reagan and Nixon, like under Truman and JFK, was about Real Politik and that’s how it must be. To the extent that support for Israel on a given action is not in our interest, then the Iraelis had better back down or lose support. And if we need to use the Iranians or Pakistanis or Syrians to accomplish a goal, then we’d better be in a position to do so. And this only occurs when there is a very senior channel that is open and functioning.
Your foreign policy “analysis”, by the way, more than borders on the sophomoric. “Nyah, nyah, nyah-nyah, nyah…” I mean, let’s get serious here…
Expat, the question to ask is why Muslims are radicalizing in Germany (and also the UK and France) but not in the US. Might it be because the US is an immigrant country that allows them to accomplish anything, including be sworn into the US Congress with a Quran? I lived in Germany for two years and know that German-born Turks are denied citizenship. I have seen racism against Muslims in France. I have seen the inability of Arabs to be assimilated in the UK. I don’t know the answer to this, but if you have a good one, then please share. Otherwise, it would seem to me that we’d better be talking to more Muslims to understand the behavior before diagnosing a cure to a disease that we do not fully understand. Fear and ignorance have never solved anything. They are the real disaster.
Echeccone: If you read my words carefully, you will see that I used the words “the role of Hamas and Hezbollah TV.” I am the last to suggest that German attitudes are not involved in radicalization. In fact, I told my husband at least 15 years ago that the Germans would one day have a problem with the Turkish population because I detected the condescension toward Turks even among Germans who thought they were being open and broad minded; it reminded me of the some-of-my-best-friends-are-black language I remember from the 60s and seventies.
However, since 9/11, people here are slowly becoming aware of the situation, and they have being trying to address it with varying degrees of success. The point of Kuentzel’s article is the part radical TV stations are playing in radicalizing the young and promoting anti-semitism. A daily diet of al Manar and al-Aksa TV infects children with hatred, making them unreachable to the best efforts to integrate. These stations come from Hamas and Hezbollah, which are supported by Iran. The point of my comment was that anyone who negotiates with Iran needs a broad knowlege of its role in promoting terrorism worldwide. The negotiator cannot be naive or uninformed. He also needs to know that the world does not revolve around him and may not be influenced by his eloquent entreaties. He needs to be aware of the pressures on allies and of the designs and weaknesses of adversaries. As a senator, Obama certainly had an opportunity to expand his knowlege of world affairs; however, as he said, he didn’t have time because he was campaigning for president.
I would also like to reply to two points you made in your comment to Bookworm: First , Bush set a different path in negotiations with NK with the six-party talks. Getting China involved was very important. Second, Bush supported, perhaps sceptically, the German/French/British negotiations with Iran. Had these countries gotten even a thread that could move negotiations forward, it would have been trumpeted to the world as a European success. I haven’t heard a toot.
Finally, Obama at one point tossed out the statement that he would get more NATO supports in Afghanistan. I have seen and read of NATO leaders from Europe making the case for greater involvement of their own countries. It hasn’t helped. What is Obamas’s plan?
Expat, the question to ask is why Muslims are radicalizing in Germany (and also the UK and France) but not in the US.
They’re doing that in prisons in the US as well, but the presence of armed security makes it hard to openly radicalize in mosques. The intimidation factor is not yet to the point that local muslims won’t try to do something about these mosques. The pace of recruitment thus is then slowed.
because the very best investigative journalist in the business, especially on the Middle East, Sy Hersch
Seymour Hersh is almost on Soros’ level as being an enemy of humanity or at least helper of such.
Might it be because the US is an immigrant country that allows them to accomplish anything, including be sworn into the US Congress with a Quran?
That’s due to Democrat politics, not because of any immigrants.
Otherwise, it would seem to me that we’d better be talking to more Muslims to understand the behavior
Germany bans foreigners from becoming citizens not because Germans don’t talk to more Muslims but because Germans don’t consider you German unless your family was German.
The United States had no intention of breaking Europe’s love affair with the aristocracy given that America was too busy fighting a Cold War and reinforcing the defenses against Soviet tanks and missiles in Western Europe.
Fear and ignorance have never solved anything.
Those two seemed to solve a great many things for Hersh.
If you are going to criticize Obama, wouldn’t the fair and balanced view be to call Bush out for ignoring Iran and Syria
The Democrats are out to lunch on Korea. If they now think it is an important issue because they can use it to “get Bush”, why do we exactly need to help the Democrats out so they can take another lunch break on Korea?
When Bush is trying to eliminate Syria and Iran’s warfare on Iraqi women and children, while the Democrats are more interested in waging war against Bush’s efforts to create liberty and security on Earth, why exactly do we need to criticize Bush for “ignoring Iran and Syria”?
You really must explain how talking to enemies equates with appeasing them.
We really must explain how Democrat appeasers are talking about appeasing people when they talk about talking with our enemies and their semi allies? I don’t think so. There is such a thing as behavioral tendencies and they don’t have much to do with what people “claim” they will or will not do.
We need more objectivity, as well as nuance, in policy.
That’s like saying you need more team work so you’re going to motivate the members of the team to cultivate ulterior motives, hidden from the rest.
Our foreign policy under Reagan and Nixon, like under Truman and JFK, was about Real Politik and that’s how it must be.
You have no idea what Real Politic is since there’s a fair degree of fake and fantastic politics involved with your views on history, Iraq, and the US.
Your foreign policy “analysis”, by the way, more than borders on the sophomoric. “Nyah, nyah, nyah-nyah, nyah…” I mean, let’s get serious here…
As usual, you first must own up to your own often stated standards.
And if we need to use the Iranians or Pakistanis or Syrians to accomplish a goal, then we’d better be in a position to do so.
You remind me of those tin plate gods, the Kennedies and Company, that assassinated Diem, the leader of South Vietnam, because those worthies sitting in Washington thought they could use people to accomplish a goal and also thought they were in a position to do so.
If we ever need to manipulate our enemies or allies to do something, trust me, we’re not going to call on and trust appeasers and naive fools to do the job.
http://shrinkwrapped.blogs.com/blog/2008/05/sometimes-a-thi.html
Shrink has up a nice purview of things.
If making deals with enemies of humanity is all right with you, then diplomacy and appeasement might be the proper courses to take. If you’re engaged in an existential war with such leaders and enemies, then diplomacy has already failed and is pretty much a waste of time. What diplomatic terms are you going to decide with Syria and Iran? Their conditions for your surrender of Iraq, which you don’t care for in the first place? Perhaps. Then again conservatives and pro-Iraqi people will not give up Iraq and the lives of their allies to enemies of humanity just like that, so there is nothing to negotiate about since Syria and Iran will always demand the lives of our friends in exchange for providing us temporary peace at the expense of essential liberties.
Good post. The more I listen to Obama, the more I think his paradigm of the world is colored by a marxian view of conflict and solutions. Because that paradigm itself is only, at best, partially true, therein lies the rub.
Echocone – Your points are superficial. Talks are not a panacea. There are countries with whom it is beneficial to conduct talks in certain situations, and others with whom doing so has no upside. Japan used diplomatic relations in WWII to buy time for the Pearl Harbor attack. Had Britain and France taken a much stronger line against Germany in 1938 instead of holding talks, even irrespective of trying to find a middle ground with Hitler, then WWII may have been averted. No need to believe me – you can look at the writings of Germany’s General Alfred Jodl. The trick is knowing when talks will be counterproductive and only buy time an intransigent enemy needs to gain strength and positioning. The failure to recognize that time in 1938 as regards Germany cost the lives of near 60 million people.
One, the history and current trajectory of Iran is that it is expansionist and refuses to forego its goals. Indeed, I see little to distinguish it from Germany in 1938, either in tone or in existentail threat. I have itemized a list of Iran’s ongoing acts of war against the U.S. and its neighbors as part of the post:
http://wolfhowling.blogspot.com/2008/04/next-moves-in-bloody-chess-match-with.html
Two, America has long supported talks by the EU3 with Iran that have gotten absolutely nowhere. There is nothing Obama has stated that would distinguish his position or what he would offer Iran beyond what the EU3 has already done with the full blessing of Bush. Other than substituting himself for the EU3, Obama’s proposed course of action is, on its face, indistinguishable from the past three years of Bush’s policies. Indeed, looked at in this light, Obama promises nothing more than a continuation of the failed Bush policies.
All of this may be moot, however. I strongly suspect that Bush will authorize a limited attack on Iran by July over their proxy attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq. At that point, the dynamic will change utterly.
“…but you are not criticizing Bush for finally talking to North Korea and accepting the very same agreement that they repudiated the Clinton administration for achieving 8 years ago?”
The issue here is whether you offer to enter into talks without preconditions. I don’t know where you live, Echeccone (S. Calif?), but most of the real world out there, especially the Middle East, interprets that as weakness.
Bush insisted that talks with North Korea be regional 6-party talks. North Korea considers itself at war with the United States. The agreements gained thus far have NOT been the same as during the Clinton Administration, which offered $1.0 billion in aid for essentially nothing in return. North Korean disclosure of their nuclear program might be slow, but it is happening and now it is the NoKos that are complaining that the Bush administration isn’t reciprocating quickly enough. That’s a changed dynamic, isn’t it?
As far a China and Russia are concerned, it was China that had been trying to get the U.S. to recognize it for years, not the other way around. Nixon got quite a bit in return when he did recognize China, the major benefit being China’s counterweight to the Soviet Union. China, incidentally, had not been launching terrorist attacks against U.S. interests at the time, unlike Syria and Iran (whose invasion of the U.S. embassy was an act of war). With regard to Russia…it was Gorbachev that opened the door to Reagan AFTER Reagan upped the ante against the Soviet Union. The main point, here, is that negotiation was entered to from a position of strength, a concept I am not quite sure that Obama understands.
The U.S. has ongoing discussions with Syria (where we have an embassy) and Iran (where the Swiss look out after our interests), so what’s the problem?
Unfortunately, as Book points out, the incredibly naive Obama seems to perceive the problems of the world abroad as such that can easily be resolved as through community mediation groups on Chicago’s South Side. If only he had able to show us how well his ideas work by mediating a solution to the vicious and deadly gang violence that currently plagues his current constituents, I would be more ready to give his ideas a go.
Unfortunately, other than cheap talk, Obama has been pretty much AWOL on the issue of Chicago gang violence. Better he first find a way to resolve the violence on Chicago’s South Side before applying his untested ideas to a much bigger world that he barely understands, dontchathink?
And finally, with regard to your last response to YM….do you seriously think that we/the U.S./the Bush Administration isn’t talking to Muslims? I am very familiar with the issue of muslim assimilation in Europe – you are right about racism being a problem in Germany and France, but that is only part of the problem. There is assimilation, but not enough. A bigger part of the problem, however, is the expressed desire of a very significant number of Muslims in ALL European countries not only NOT to assimilate but to conquer Europe for Islam and enforce Sharia on society. This is true for all European countries, including the U.K. which has bent backward to accept Muslims in its society.
The failure to recognize that time in 1938 as regards Germany cost the lives of near 60 million people.
No skin off EC’s back. He’s not going to be the one making the calls, even if he is the one making the arguments for the call.
All of this may be moot, however. I strongly suspect that Bush will authorize a limited attack on Iran by July over their proxy attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq. At that point, the dynamic will change utterly.
And as usual, Bush is giving people plenty of time to get inside America’s OODA loop so that when something happens, Iran has had plenty of time to create contingencies.
Wolf,
EC, in case you didn’t know about this before, sees himself as intellectually honest in that he will take positions from various factions and use them to ascertain truth and conclusions.
He gets high marks in politeness and etiquette, but as I told him before, none of his attempts at refining his positions will ever overcome the fatal flaws of EC”s fundamental prejudices, axioms, assumptions, and beliefs about American and Iraqi history.
Just as a warning to you that he doesn’t see history the same as you do.
expat, very interesting points. Thanks for the insights. I left Germany long before 9/11 and am happy to hear that Germans are becoming sensitized to the need to offer opportunity, lest they help feed radicalization of Muslim youths.
I am a little confused with the logic of the successive posts (including Bookworm’s original post). I thought the original contention is that Obama is naiive because he thinks that a President’s talking to “miserable little countries” (i.e., our enemies) is a good idea. Your argument now is that a President can talk to enemies, but not Obama, because he is naiive per se (i.e., not knowledgable on foreign policy). At least, that is my interpretation of the following part of your post:
“The point of my comment was that anyone who negotiates with Iran needs a broad knowlege of its role in promoting terrorism worldwide. The negotiator cannot be naive or uninformed. He also needs to know that the world does not revolve around him and may not be influenced by his eloquent entreaties. He needs to be aware of the pressures on allies and of the designs and weaknesses of adversaries.”
This is a totally different argument, and one which concedes my point that we should be talking to all world leaders to the extent that it serves our interests. It seems clear to me at least that the lack of a channel to Iran and other countries offers us less insight into their behavior and less opportunity to influence them. I don’t see anything in your post to suggest otherwise. In fact, your point about N. Korean negotiations would highlight agreement, but, again proves my point: not that Bush’s negotiation response was identical to Clinton’s but that he reversed the earlier policy of we don’t talk to the axis of evil, which is the real naivete.
I agree that the EU3 has not been effective, but to compare the stature of the UK, Germany and France to the US is misguided. China had real clout with N. Korea because it supplies food and natural gas upon which N. Korea depends havily. The Europeans have no such leverage over Iran. The US, on the other hand, is the world’s only hyperpower and can bring far more pressure and incentives to bear. In short, the EU3 is not necessarily a litmus test, in my view.
Finally, I believe Obama’s call for greater military support from NATO in Afghanistan is a prudent one, but the willingness of those other member countries to join will only be revealed if and when he is President. There is a long-standing practice amongst those allies of not commenting on hypothetical outcomes in US Presidential elections, lest they be faced with the embarrassing outcome of seeing the other candidate win.
I love it when people say “America had better start talking to the Muslims or . . . .”. They appear to believe that if the President or one of his senior advisors does not publicly engage in negotiations with Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, etc., then we are left with NO IDEA what the Muslims want.
Yes – there is the issue that these people must actually believe that if the President or others high up in the administration are not talking to the various Muslim leaders, then no one must be doing so. But what troubles me more is that these people are apparently more than willing to completely disregard the speeches by Ahmadinejad, other Muslim leaders, the imams in the mosques, the commentators on Middle Eastern TV, and so on, in which they state over and over again what they believe, their desires, goals, and plans.
Even more remarkable is their willingness to look at the actions of Muslims across the decades and still maintain that we can’t possibly know what Muslims want because the President refuses to talk to them.
Apparently:
- the bombing of the U.S. embassy in Beirut;
- almost daily attacks by Palestinians on Israelis;
- the Cole bombing;
- September 11th;
- daily attacks by Muslims against Americans and Iraqis who support a free Iraq;
- the May 13th attack by Muslims on a Hindu temple in which 63 people were murdered;
- the beheading of young Christian girls in Thailand;
- the murder of numerous Buddhists in Thailand;
- the March 11th (2004) bombing of trains in Madrid;
- the July 7th (2005) bombing of the tube in London; and
- countless other acts that have cost the lives of thousands and thousands around the world over the years are just random acts that mean nothing. These people must believe that we should not take these actions into consideration when we analyze what Muslims are saying all the time.
Instead, we are supposed to believe that Muslims just haven’t been given the common courtesy of being heard. They haven’t been given a fair shake of communicating what is in their heart.
Right.
Deana
echeccone –
The current administration has been calling for greater NATO involvement in Afghanistan for some time and too often, all we hear from NATO members is the sound of silence. So the fact that Obama is doing the same thing that the Bush administration has been doing does not show Obama to have some brilliant, new insight into the problems we have there. It also doesn’t cost Obama anything to say it – if he becomes president and NATO decides not to help, he can simply throw up his hands and say it isn’t his fault.
I am not disagreeing with Obama – I too would love to see others get more involved. But he is smart enough to know that if he becomes President, these countries are not going to suddenly change their mind and start sending significantly more troops and/or support to Afghanistan.
Deana
Wolf, I’m sorry that you found my post superficial, but I can’t help thinking that it was perhaps your reading of it that was cursory. I never said that talking to the enemy is a panacea, but merely that it is a surer source of information and opportunity to influence than not talking. In your examples of Japan and Germany during WWII, you show examples in which talking did not avert conflict. This is uncontestable. However, it does not prove the opposite, that not talking would have averted conflict or saved lives. The delegations in Washington, D.C. did not hamper intelligence efforts on Japan and it is unlikely that the US would have started a war with Japan ahead of Pearl Harbor in any case (i.e., there was not pre-emptive war doctrine then). In Germany, your argument also seems to fail. If Chamberlain hadn’t talked to Hitler, in an effort to appease him, then it seems to me that the war would have started earlier but the casualties would have been the same. Why they would have been avoided by not talking is not at all clear to me, although I don’t know Jodl’s writings. Again, showing that talking lacked efficacy does not show the efficacy of the lack of talking. You seem to know much more about WWII and international conflict than I do, so you’ll have to deepen my knowledge on this so I can understand your point.
Relatedly, I’d like to know why you equate Obama’s suggestion that we open channels with Iran and Syria as equivalent to Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler. As I challenged Bookworm earlier, you must show why talking in Obama’s call for a dialogue is equivalent to handing over one-half of a sovereign nation to an authoritarian dictatorship. It seems far from equivalent to me. Also, I’d like to know why you think Obama’s foreign policy views are Marxian. I thought that the Marxist theory of international conflict was predicated on the belief that international conflict is class conflict. If true, then where is the class-based theory that informs his foreign policy.
Finally, since you seem certain that we already know what we need to know without a dialogue, can you please explain why your views differ from our own Pentagon? No less a figure than Robert Gates has called for that dialogue and acknowledged that the lack of a dialogue has led to missed opportunities (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/05/14/ST2008051404020.html); he has called for a mix of carrots and sticks to deal with this very serious threat. Also, since you seem to be very knowledgeable on Iran, can you please explain why a conservative like Patrick Buchanan (no dove on foreign policy) is concerned about a pre-emptive strike on Iran without Congressional oversight and a rigorous debate? He pointed out in a recent column that Iran has no real motive to upset the current trend, since it is the biggest beneficiary of Bush’s foreign policy (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=61906). Why are these men wrong?
I am glad that you do agree that there are cases in which talking to an enemy can be useful, and I hope you will agree that countries can walk and chew gum at the same time. We talked to teh Soviets while building up military strength, afterall. Obama’s comments on a dialogue say nothing about his willingness to chew the gum while walking…
Deana, I totally agree. And I wish that Obama’s position were more fleshed out than coopting NATO, especially given their historic reluctance to join our conflicts. But I do believe that a dialing down of our involvement in Iraq would create resources for Afghanistan, and Obama’s call for deescalation of the Iraq War distinguishes him greatly from Bush and McCain.
The EU is Iran’s largest trading partner, about 33% of Iran’s imports. If the EU, with such a big stick, can get absolutely nowhere with them then yes I think it’s incredibly naive if Obama thinks he can change the state of play.
We have a myriad of channels with Iran, some direct, some indirect. But, Obama is going to walk onstage, and all by himself change things. Does the irony not strike anyone else that this sounds like cowboy diplomacy?
People have been talking to the Iranians for decades, the Palestinians for longer,and now lo and behold more of the same will fix it all up.
This is really where Obama shows his faulty thinking: diplomacy will always work. He wrongly assumes that diplomacy will succeed, and doesn’t appear to believe it might not. This was the larger point of Bush’s Knesset speech to my mind. To wit: a diplomatic solution may lead to a very bad outcome.
Ymarsakar, you’ll have to forgive me for not responding to your posts, but I don’t know how in many cases. While you raise a good point on Germany’s immigration policy, which does not single out Turks, many of your comments are ad hominem arguments (e.g., Soros and Hersch are enemies of humanity, etc.) or unsubstantiated generalizations (e.g., your calling my views of history fake and fantastic). I prefered to simply remain quiet in the midst of this, but your recent comment was somewhat personal. To suggest that it’s no skin off my back that 30M people died during WWII is insulting considering that I lost close relatives in that war and my own mother and grandparents lost everything because of it. Now, you could not have known this, but it’s still pretty bad to assume that someone you hardly know is happy about mass killing and genocide. To attribute such callousness is a cheap shot that I wouldn’t have dignified with a response had it not touched a nerve.
Allen, what percentage of those imports is oil? I ask because it is harder to embargo oil than other economic goods. It is a fungible commodity, so Europe buys from Kuwait and China then buys from Iran, leading to no net impact on Iran.
If we have myriad channels, then why is Gates saying we lack them? This is a curious factual difference that I wish we could resolve. Also, I do think that the level of discussions does matter. I mean, we had channels with Mao’s China, but it was still significant when Nixon went there.
When has Obama said that diplomacy always works? I hope he hasn’t said it, since it is far too strong a word to ever be uttered, but I haven’t hear him say it. I think he’s been saying that lack of diplomacy has not worked, so let’s try something new.
I do appreciate your viewpoint that diplomacy hasn’t worked with prior administrations and am not polyannaish about its prospects going forward, but I wish we would consider and pursue options somewhere between ignoring Iran and launching a pre-emptive strike on the country. The population is young and disillusioned with its Islamic leaders. The economy is struggling. There are more moderate leaders in their government that can be engaged potentially. And Iran did help us after 9/11 with intelligence on Al-Qaeda. It would seem that there is at least a possibility for progress with the right mix of carrots and sticks. A big sticking point is on nukes, but Americans need to understand that Iranians view them as an essential deterrent to Israel, which contemplated using them in the ’73 Arab-Israeli War. The US needs to address those concerns if it is to talk the country down from their aspirations. An interesting article from the Brookings Institute shows how a mix of carrots and sticks brought Libya to the table even before the pre-emptive invasion of Iraq (http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2004/0123middleeast_leverett.aspx). Perhaps a model on Iran…
Will comment more fully in a later post as must run out in a minute, but as to the assertion about Robert Gates calling for talks with Iran, I was very surprised when I read that in the Washington Post also, given that Gates recently said of Iran:
“Everywhere you turn, it is the policy of Iran to foment instability and chaos, no matter the strategic value or cost in the blood of innocents – Christians, Jews and Muslims alike. . . . There can be little doubt that their destabilizing foreign policies are a threat to the interests of the United States, to the interests of every country in the Middle East, and to the interests of all countries within the range of the ballistic missiles Iran is developing.”
Indeed, the Wapo story that claimed Gates supported Obamaesque talks with Iran was more than a bit disingenuous. I went to the sources they cited and it turns out they were doing a bit of cutting an splicing out of context. I invite you go to my post of several days ago on that topic, http://wolfhowling.blogspot.com/2008/05/does-gates-support-obama-chamberlain.html
and you can find the original sources with links there.
Nothing that Sec. Gates has said is a validation of the Obama policy that Team Obama seems to be claiming. Indeed, Gates indicates that his view of talking to Iran that he put in print in 2004 has altered considerably because of Iran’s current actions – to the point that he believes the best contacts would be through what amounts to increased tourism. As to his statement that we need to find leverage, that is kind of stating the obvious. Bush and the EU have been trying to do that for years.
eccheccone….”If Chamberlain hadn’t talked to Hitler, in an effort to appease him, then it seems to me that the war would have started earlier but the casualties would have been the same”…possibly not. The Munich accords gave Germany at least three major strategic advantages:
1)Control of the rough-terrain (ie, defensible) part of Czechoslovakia, and the powerful fortress line that the Czechs had built upon it.
2)Control of the substantial Czech armament industry, including the Skoda works
3)Neutralization of the fairly powerful Czech Army, which could have added to Allied strength
Actually, the point at which Britain & France should have taken a firm stand against Germany was in 1936, at the time of the Rhineland incursion. There is no serious doubt that determined and unified action by the two countries–and probably even action by France alone–could have destroyed the German forces then in existence.
And, as pointed out earlier, the German generals were very nervous in 1938. They were even more nervous in 1936. Determined action in either case would likely have led to a coup and to the end of Hitler.
To suggest that it’s no skin off my back that 30M people died during WWII is insulting considering that I lost close relatives in that war and my own mother and grandparents lost everything because of it.
I’m talking specifically about holding yourself personally responsible for the decisions made by state actors over foreign policy and diplomatic matters.
When you aren’t the one calling the shots, but arguing for the shots to be called in one way or another, it is definitely no skin off your back which way the call goes. Especially when the consequences primarily happen to a different generation, a past generation with WWII and a future generation with our current crop of choices.
You do not seriously believe Chamberlain or current leaders primarily affected their own generation, including themselves, when they made decisions that changed the world, do you?
All their choices ended up sacrificing the next generation, more or less. Sometimes the disaster is so great, they end up sacrificing the current one as well but that is rare.
Here’s a nice analogy for you to frame things into a neat setting. It was no skin off of Chamberlain’s back that his decisions cost your family and ancestors, just as it will be no skin off your back when you call on leaders to call the shots in your favor, when those decisions ultimately end up sacrificing some other family in Iraq or other parts of the world.
Now, you could not have known this, but it’s still pretty bad to assume that someone you hardly know is happy about mass killing and genocide.
You have no idea what I assume or do not assume. For one thing, you would have to check your own assumptions at the door to figure out the assumptions of another. You can’t do and even if you did once upon a time, you certainly don’t practice it here.
(e.g., Soros and Hersch are enemies of humanity, etc.)
Do you really think that you can talk about Hersh as being a serious investigative reporter simply by saying that calling Hersh what he is is an ad hominem attack? Hersh isn’t wrong or inaccurate because of his allegiances, thus I cannot be making an argument based upon ad hominem. He is just what he is, same as Soros. Look it up in your spare time, since you obviously aren’t interested in the accurate use of logic beforehand.
Your foreign policy “analysis”, by the way, more than borders on the sophomoric. “Nyah, nyah, nyah-nyah, nyah…” I mean, let’s get serious here…-ec
In case your personal flaws are too astringent for you to talk about here, allow me.
1. of or pertaining to a sophomore or sophomores.
2. suggestive of or resembling the traditional sophomore; intellectually pretentious, overconfident, conceited, etc., but immature: sophomoric questions.
In the case of discrediting your opponent, you used a personal attack to belittle their character and used that as a justification for why they aren’t serious and thus why you are superior in rightness or analysis.
If you are worried about ad hominem arguments, EC, then you should stop pretending that it is only a problem people here, except you, have. In fact, you should stop pretending it wasn’t you who failed your own standard of conduct; demanding that others behave according to theirs when you don’t behave according to yours, is called one of many numerous vices.
Instead, we are supposed to believe that Muslims just haven’t been given the common courtesy of being heard. They haven’t been given a fair shake of communicating what is in their heart.
You will also have to make the decision, Deana, of whether you will trust the lives of your children and unborn grandchildren or great grandchildren to the diplomatic skills and nerve of the State Department.
I hope I do not presume too much when I say that I doubt any sane and wise person would invest in such a gamble when the alternative is trusting in American military commanders like Petraeus and the Marine Corps.
Echeccone,
Just a short note, perhaps this could be taken up later. The 33% I mentioned was Iran’s imports from the EU, not EU import from Iran. A few examples of both direct and indirect channels. UN, IAEA, where we have membership, Ambassadors to every nation that talks directly with Iran, so on. Then there is the media, which also, they are perfectly aware of our stances. The idea that there is a vacuum of knowledge is kind of silly in my opinion.
I have no doubt that Iran will be a nuclear power within the first term of the next President. Regardless of why, how, or their intentions it is a fact that must be dealt with.
Regards, must run.
David Foster: After the war, Gen. Alfred Jodl, who had commanded the forces in the Rhineland incursion, indicated that his forces were so weak that France alone could easilly have destroyed them had they chosen to contest the incursion. Gen. Jodl further speculated that such an act would likely have ended Hitler’s hold on power.
Two thoughts.
First, I’m reminded of TR’s old saying, “Speak softly but carry a big stick.” Liberals constantly stress the need for speaking softly while rejecting the use of the big stick. It’s this combinations that concerns conservatives.
Second, I’m afraid Bookworm’s point got lost in the comments. Her point is that talks should take place at low levels until agreements are reached. Only then should the President put the prestige of that office behind the agreements. I disagree with the point; I think there are a few historic times when the President must put the prestige of the office on the line by leading (think of Reagan at the Berlin wall as the most public “talks” imaginable), rather than merely rubber stamping the work of underlings. But I would like to hear people’s thoughts on the point. What is the proper role of the President in negotiating with foreign countries?
Y –
No – you are correct. I do not have faith that the State Dept. has the ability to prevent harm to me or the people and things I care about. And the fact that Obama and his supporters believe that talking to Iran and other Islamic actors will lead to this magical peace leaves me feeling despair. It is not as if history isn’t choc-full of the sorry results of nations who believed that talking in the face of utter intransigence was a way to avoid war.
Deana
>>What is the proper role of the President in negotiating with foreign countries?>>
Imo…he should set the policy concerning what he wants to accomplish. He should send appropriate and qualified staff to make whatever contacts are necessary to reach agreement with each foreign country. Part of the qualifications of that staff will be to well and truly attempt to reach the end policies the President has stipulated (which imo, disqualifies most of the State Department for the duration of Bush’s term in office). They should also be qualified to determine when the point at which they have reached the best terms possible(meaning closest to the policy stipulated) in their negotiations. The President then decides whether the “best terms” are acceptable. If they are, then he meets with the President/King whoever and with much ceremony signs the agreement. If they are not, then there should be disengagement until the situation changes and makes a new negotiation possible.
Deana – have you read Timmerman’s “Shadow Warriors”? Good book. Somewhat appalling, but definitely worth the read.
Hi Suek –
No, I haven’t. But after reading the reviews on Amazon, I will – it sounds fascinating! I did read Baer’s “See No Evil” and although I’m not sure I agree with 100% of what Baer had to say, it was a great read and very informative. It sounds as if Timmerman has something important to say.
Deana
So the argument that I’m hearing thus far is: first, history teaches to strike first in order to prevent the next Hitler, second, that Iran is the next Nazi Germany, third, little is to be gained from diplomacy at this point given its failures before the current Bush administration, and fourth, it is totally unacceptable that Iran get nukes. Do I have that right? Taking these as givens, then it would seem that few options beyond military action are satisfactory. Is that correct? If so, when should the US attack and how? To eliminate the nuclear development, the US will need to use nuclear weapons or bunker busters on highly populated areas since the enrichment facilities are buried deep under them. Or we can invade with troops we currently do not have a country that is much larger geographically than Iraq. Is this the course of action preferred or predicted here?
One comment. Conservatives like to attack liberals for being wimps, an easy label to use given the Democratic legacy during and after Vietnam. I personally advocate a Real Politik approach to our foreign policy, so I don’t fall in that category. But I’m also a realist, and like to test policies against results. Iran is a bigger threat now than eight years ago when the policies were different. Someone should explain to me why the status quo (don’t pursue diplomacy with Iran or Syria, try to strike preemptively wherever the threat is grave) is still the preferred path. Like many of you, I’d feel safer with a big stick and a loud voice–it sounds very compelling–but I’m still not sure that this approach is working. Other than blind faith in Bush and GOP, what makes conservatives so sure of themselves when Dems and independents are so down on US foreign policy? Are they just stupid? And what about guys like Brent Scowcroft and James Webb and Chuck Hagel? I certainly don’t think I am stupid, and I know those last three gentlemen certainly aren’t. The Iraq War hasn’t made us safer, because we now know since Saddam lacked the WMDs that were supposedly threatening us, but the current war is seriously taxing our military and distracting us from fighting Al-Qaeda, quelling Afghanistan and who knows what else. The WWII analogies are very interesting and sound compelling, but they are nonetheless hypotheticals. Also, is no one concerned about the other historical lesson about the death of empires and great nations by military overextension? After we bring peace to the Middle East, perhaps the Chinese will thank us for it as they assume the mantle of global superpower… Beyond a preemptive military strike, is there nothing being proposed?
Allen, thanks for the clarification on Iran-EU trade. Also, I agree that there is perhaps no knowledge vacuum as you call it, but I have trouble squaring it with Gates’ comment cited earlier. And you would agree that we had no knowledge vacuum with the Soviets during the Cold War but benefited from direct dialogue, wouldn’t you?
“And what about guys like Brent Scowcroft and James Webb and Chuck Hagel? I certainly don’t think I am stupid, and I know those last three gentlemen certainly aren’t.”
At the time of Neville Chamberlain’s Great Appeasement, he was being hailed as smart, and Chamberlain was on the outs and thought to be “stupid”. No name-dropping, please. It doesn’t impress.
“The Iraq War hasn’t made us safer, because we now know since Saddam lacked the WMDs that were supposedly threatening us, but the current war is seriously taxing our military and distracting us from fighting Al-Qaeda”
Count me one of those who is not convinced that the Iraq War has made us less safe. The entire arc of the conflict has not played out yet. Bracketing Iran on both sides may in the end be seen to be brilliant. For myself, I do not separate Iraq and Afghanistan – they’re part of the same war. The Iraq Theatre was ridiculously screwed up for years, but, well, so was our WWII effort at many points.
“The WWII analogies are very interesting and sound compelling, but they are nonetheless hypotheticals.”
And a statement such as “The Iraq War hasn’t made us safer” is not also such a hypothetical? Who can say with any certainty what the world would look like right now had Saddam continued on his path?
“Also, is no one concerned about the other historical lesson about the death of empires and great nations by military overextension?”
I’m VERY concerned about the potential death of America by financial collapse. At this point in time, military overextension is not high on the list of financial risks. If you really are concerned about that, take a look at projections of health care costs and retirement costs. You’re complaining about a candle when down the hall entire rooms are raging infernos.
And no, keeping up Two Theatres in our One War war is good common sense, not overextension. Heck, actually it is simply Two Fronts, if you view Iran as the primary target. Our military force is actually too small. (Too high a reliance on whiz-bang super-expensive technology that is of limited use in counter-insurgency, counter-terrorism efforts. We’ve funded for the wrong kinds of war.)
No, Echeccone, you don’t have it right, for instance:
“So the argument that I’m hearing thus far is: first, history teaches to strike first in order to prevent the next Hitler…”
Nobody said that! What people here are saying is that each situation is different. In the case of Germany, forceful responses to a) the re-occupation of the Ruhr Valley and/or b) the invasion of Czechoslovakia would likely have resulted in Hitler either being overthrown (in the first case) or being blocked from further expansionist dreams. Instead, the desperate appeasement policies of France, Britain (and Poland) only served to enable Hitler’s path to world war. What would your suggestion have been to the leaders of France and Britain?
“…that Iran is the next Nazi Germany.”
Nobody said that! Iran is its own special case. However, it has openly stated its intentions to develop nuclear weapons and ballistic missile systems and to use them against Israel and the Christian West, much like Hitler openly and clearly stated his objectives in “Mein Kampf”. Is your implication that we should not take Iran at face value?
“and fourth, it is totally unacceptable that Iran get nukes.” Yep- on this point you are 100% correct. It is one thing for a country (like Israe) to develop nukes for purely defensive purposes. Iran has made it quite clear that its nukes are for offensive purposes against other countries. Is that a problem for you?
“third, little is to be gained from diplomacy at this point given its failures before the current Bush administration”
What failures? In the spirit of the same multilateralism upon which the Democrats have insisted, it was the Europeans that were supposed to take the lead in these negotiations. They failed, utterly, and only served to enable Iran’s nuclear development. The EUros had many tools available to them, including economic pressure – yet they lacked the will to exercise any of them, preferring instead to give the Iranians much for nothing (a poor negotiation tactic, by the way).
There are many things the U.S. could do besides an all-out invasion. Most, however, represent disincentives as the Iranians have made it clear they have very little incentive to change their world view. Do you have in mind any “incentives” that would get the Iranians to change their ways?
I think that it was Ymarsaker that raised the concept of Sun-Tzu’s victory by the “sheathed sword”as the ne plus ultra of strategy. What Sun-Tzu was referring to was strategy that placed such obstacles in the way of each of an opponent’s course of action that the opponent was doomed to fail from the outset, no matter what course of action was taken. The only option, therefore, was surrender.
So, Echeccone, please recommend your own strategy of the “sheathed sword” – suggest for us what obstacles could be put in Iran’s path to conclusively dissuade it from taking offensive course of action against its neighbors and the rest of us infidels.
Let me give you an example – by demonstrating that we can go half-way around the world, invade Iraq and Afghanistan, topple their governments and wreak havoc on Al Qaeda, President Bush has made highly unlikely that any government will risk harboring groups that actively plot against the U.S. for they now know there is no place to hide. The “Sheathed sword” strategy is also at play with North Korea – by involving the Chinese and the Russians, the U.S. is trying to remove all political and economic support for the NoKos and we know they cannot survive without that support. Still, it’s a work in process.
For this reason and this reason only will the “sheathed sword” work for us in the future. Talk, talk, jaw, jaw just doesn’t do it.
If you disagree, then perhaps you can suggest your own historical examples as reference.
In the meantime, the news from Iraq continues to be good…
http://wolfhowling.blogspot.com/2008/05/iraq-news-you-wont-here-from-msm.html
>>Iran is a bigger threat now than eight years ago when the policies were different.>>
Clarify, please. Not on the bigger threat part – on the “policies were different” part.
Also, compare to the policies of ‘79, when this more recent problem can be considered to have started.
One comment. Conservatives like to attack liberals for being wimps, an easy label to use given the Democratic legacy during and after Vietnam.
I thought it took quite a lot of guts to have Asians killed in another country. It also took some will to ensure that American POWs were treated worse because America had totally abandoned their allies in Vietnam which could punish the North for bad treatment, which meant they could anything to Americans and free quite safe from retribution.
“The Iraq War hasn’t made us safer, because we now know since Saddam lacked the WMDs that were supposedly threatening us, but the current war is seriously taxing our military and distracting us from fighting Al-Qaeda”
You may think war is a Starbucks in which you can take your time selecting your specific “flavor”, in which any type of distraction negatively affects your ability to choose, but it really isn’t.
Unlike Starbucks, you don’t get a choice of fighting or not fighting, drinking or not drinking, choosing or not choosing.
All plans fall before the enemy and fighting isn’t about avoiding distractions. Fighting is about dealing with distractions as reality and knowing that distractions are often just enemy action.
The fog of war demands greater attention from you, EC, then your idea that a war will not tax America’s military or distract us.
danny….”by demonstrating that we can go half-way around the world, invade Iraq and Afghanistan, topple their governments and wreak havoc on Al Qaeda, President Bush has made highly unlikely that any government will risk harboring groups that actively plot against the U.S. for they now know there is no place to hide”….the benefits of this demonstration, though, have been partially negated by American “progressives” whose high media profile surely helps the Iranian leadership to believe that American domestic politics will prevent any similar treatment being meted out to them.
David Foster, you are right! It would not be the first time that “progressives” snatch disaster from the jaws of victory. What I cannot figure out is if they do this deliberately or if they just don’t comprehend the damage they do.
As far as Iraq being a so-called distraction from the war on Al Qaeda – it seems that the “flypaper” strategy has working perfectly well as intended: Iraq draws Al Qaeda from all over the world to die in Iraq rather than having us root them out from under every rock in every far-flung corner of the globe, requiring us to invade other countries (Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan) in the process. Do these critics really think through what the alternatives would/should be?
Sure beats Clinton’s strategy of having us take potshots at remote corners of world like Afghanistan and Somalia, only to turn tail and run as soon as they shoot back, I would think.
It is extremely hard to get to terrorists and their networks inside anti-American territories.
You often won’t have the human intelligence necessary to kill the terrorists and you will expend hundreds in casualties with kinetic operations that will run into quagmires left and right because the terrorists know their home country/terrain better than you and they have the support of local human intel and you don’t.
You also often won’t have the support of the foreign government controlling the area and even if you did have the support of the foreign government, as in Pakistan, oftentimes the foreign government lack the tools and military power to do jack even if they wanted to.
Iraq is a distraction alright; it is a distraction for people that want to leave terrorists alone while negotiating with the political leaders that are protecting the terrorists living in their territory.
Without Iraq, the United States government would be petitioning, on hands and knees, the supporters of terrorism while hoping that once negotiations are completed and the requisite human sacrifice have been offered up to the mullahs or Saudi Princes, that they will do something about the terrorists in their territory. Compare this with the “distraction of Iraq”, where we don’t have to negotiate with anybody on whether we need to kill terrorists or not, where we have the support of the local population and thus acquires human intel, where we have the support the local government as well as the federal government, and where we don’t need Musharaff, Amanie’s, or the Saudi Princes’ approval to conduct kinetic killings when we see a target. In addition, American logistics and forces are training and improving the quality of Iraqi guards and army members, thus providing the locals as well as the national government of Iraq the tools to which they can then use to help us, if they wish.
On another note, consider the proposal by people smoking H2O bong water that Saudi Arabia made just as good a target to invade as Iraq.
For the most case, they are kidding and lying in order to make a point. For those that are serious, meaning they really hate the Saudi Princes and the madrassas that have been funded inside the United State or the rest of the world, they must consider various factors in the way of success.
For one thing, Saudi Arabia has Mecca and Medina, to which the terrorists, Sunni or Shia, may use to stoke up Islamic rage. That in itself isn’t too much of a problem, but imagine trying to take back Fallujah or Sadr city, only that those two cities are Mecca and Medina? The ROE limitations would have killed hundreds of Marines, hundreds more than would have died. The various ROE limitations on mosques, which the terrorists used as sniper nests and munitions dumps? Oh, those would have been used in Saudi Arabia as well, except the majority population will be Sunni, not Iraqi Shia, and thus will turn on Americans far faster and easier in enmass due to Islamic propaganda about American defilment of Mosques. Far more international support would have been on the side of the Saudis, precisely because Saudi Arabia has money to spare for bribes.
If Saudi Arabia must be taken down because they have lots of oil wealth to fund madrassas in the West, then what makes you think that they haven’t already bought the loyalty of at least half the State Department? Is there a better way to spend that black gold?
So, not only would we have faced the twin obstacles of Medina and Mecca, Islamic rage, international disapproval and sabotage of US policy, we would also have faced internal sabotage on a scale even greater than occurred concerning Weapons of Mass Destruction in the UN.
If people think Americans are getting weak spined on Iraq, they should see what happens if Iraq had been replaced with Saudi Arabia. There were no Kurds in Saudi Arabia, so there weren’t even any local allies that one could depend upon for reinforcement, supply, moral support, or advice. All of America’s ignorance concerning Arabs seen in OIF would have been quadrupled in Saudi Arabia, for, after all, are not the Saudis the best at using the West’s ignorance of Islam against the West?
Mike Devx, very good points. Allow me to respond. First, I didn’t think I was name dropping, something that requires you to know the person to impress; rather, my point was that these men are regarded as experts in international conflict and war–the analogy would be quoting physicists when discussing quantum mechanics or biologists when debating evolution. I trust you did not mean to imply that expert opinions are out of bounds, but that they could be wrong (which I readily concede). Second, the statement about us being less safe now is not a hypothetical, while saying that in 5 or 10 years an invaded Iraq might become a Germany or Japan but a non-invaded Iraq could launch WWIII are indeed hypotheticals. Currently, we are draining military resources against a country that did not pose the WMD threat over the next 5-10 years that the faulty intelligence implied it did. To argue what Saddam might have done had he restarted a WMD program that he did not have would be like arguing for the invasion of Italy on the speculation that fascists retake Italy, start building nukes and bomb France in 5 years. I know you do not believe this, but I have trouble distinguishing the logic of this ridiculous hypothetical from your argument that currently the US is less safe than before it put troops in harm’s way in a country that posed no WMD threat. Finally, I agree that medicare and SS spending are bigger than the War in Iraq–to put real numbers on it, Iraq could cost upwards of $1T when all is said and done, but $100T might be too small an estimate for the other two spending sources–but I think the risks to extended military involvement manifest in more than dollars and cents. Clauswitz and Sun Tzu have warned of the corrosive impact on democracy and social order from extended conflicts. Perhaps we are far from this risk yet, but expanding the conflict to a much tougher target could change the calculus on this point. Thoughts?
Danny, thanks for the clarifications. I’m still not sure what forceful responses short of military strikes would have certainly or most likely prompted Hitler’s overthrow. His political control even in ‘36 appeared as strong as the entrenched dictators we face today, and the Germans, humiliated at the end of WWI, may have rallied behind a dictator exploiting hostile foreign powers, much like current dictators and authoritarian (and democratic) governments frequently do. That said, I’ll accept the point that pre-emptive strikes are not viewed as the only option left by at least one other participant on this blog.
Also, I don’t mean to generalize comments on this blog and attribute one poster’s comments to another; however, Wolf did write the following comment: “…the history and current trajectory of Iran is that it is expansionist and refuses to forego its goals. Indeed, I see little to distinguish it from Germany in 1938, either in tone or in existentail threat.” Hence, I drew the conclusion that Iran today is viewed as Germany in ‘38.
Finally, the Iraq War is not a sheathed sword strategy, since it involves real loss of American lives, real taxation of our military and Treasury coffers. It may serve as a deterrent in other arenas and thus avoid a hot war there, but this is a debatable point and not the kind of strategy that Sun Tzu meant by sheathed swords. Sun Tzu was highly concerned about the negative impact of war on the unity of society and the health of the state–more so than more contemporary military writers, which is a major reason he is viewed as a genious universally–and so the fact that these political fissures are occuring and the costs are rising reflect the very negatives that he sought to avoid by preventing a hot war in the first place.
I don’t have any great answers to your query for solutions. If I did, I wouldn’t be sharing them on this blog, but would be on a plane to D.C., as would you I suspect. I would agree that economic sanctions are a good idea, and believe that only the U.S. can strong-arm Europe into pursuing this course. It should be supplemented with generous aid to the Red Crescent, so children do not starve due to those sanctions. Also, I agree with Condi Rice’s call for more targeted support to moderate, democratic elements in the country. Finally, I think we should be willing to offer generous carrots to bring the Iranians to the table. They could run out of oil for export within decade or two, according to some research I’ve read, so they might be willing to repond to economic incentives more willingly than many Americans believe. I am now reading a lot about Dubai, which is an economic miracle as impressive as Singapore but occuring in a country with a substantial population of fundamentalist Muslims, and I wonder what lessons might lie there for spreading that brand of home-grown prosperity to Iran, Iraq and Syria, in the way that Singapore’s model has been adopted in China.
Regarding progress in Iraq. Like you, I remain cautiously hopeful that our recent success on the military front is sustainable. But we’ve had many highs and lows, and I’d expect those to continue for some time. You’d have to have a pretty short memory to conclude otherwise. The key will be transforming these gains into political stabilization. It has been a long time since Iraq had a normally functioning civil society and this will not come overnight. The former Soviet republics and satellite countries offer proof of this. Also, I wonder what the reaction will be amongst Iraqis (especially the majority Shia) if the US preemptively attacks Iran…the gains of the surge could be jeopardized.
Finally, the Iraq War is not a sheathed sword strategy, since it involves real loss of American lives
All wars involve real loss of life, even the ones that have bloodless battles.
Currently, we are draining military resources against a country that did not pose the WMD threat over the next 5-10 years that the faulty intelligence implied it did.
This, coming from a guy that can’t even figure out that he is projecting his ad hominem tendencies on his political opponents, is not exactly a thing that inspires trust and confidence when dealing with world affairs.
Also, I wonder what the reaction will be amongst Iraqis (especially the majority Shia) if the US preemptively attacks Iran…the gains of the surge could be jeopardized.
The Al Anbar Awakening would not particularly care about Iran getting attacked by the US or not. The Shia Sons of Iraq will be happy to see Iran too busy with the US to send fighters into Basra and to Sadr city to help Sadr.
Instead of “wondering” about what reactions other people will have by assuming they will react as your neighbors, why don’t you think about what Iran’s pre-emptive attack of Iraqi Shias mean.