An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
My President Makes Me Want To Do Drugs
The day after the day after a terrifyingly myopic speech in which George Bush announced an escalation of the Iraq war in the face of calls from the best and brightest to do just the opposite, I feel despair.
I also feel certain that things are going to get worse — possibly much worse — before they get better.
How the hell are things going to get better with a delusional president who still has a looong way to go before he punches out and heads back to the ranch?
Would getting better be to continue to do the opposite of what generals, policy wonks, Middle East experts, task force members and the sharper knives in the punditocratic kitchen recommend?
Please click here to read more.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
31 Responses to “My President Makes Me Want To Do Drugs”
Don’t despair, some things are getting better, at least for some millions of americans, even though the press is slow at reporting it (still occupied with Condi’s TV favorites, I guess):
“On Wednesday, the House voted to increase the federal minimum wage to $7.25 per hour. The measure brings the lowest paid workers in the U.S. a step closer to a raise after ten years.”
What might really get worse are US relations with Iran. Use of weapons is just around the corner. Some guys here are already speculating about a naval blockade. Well, I hope they admit that this is not the right way to do it:
“The Japanese Transport Minister is demanding more information after a US nuclear-powered submarine collided with a Japanese oil tanker near the busy shipping lanes of the Straits of Hormuz on Monday night.”
Shaun,
What about asking yourself this question:
What exactly are those folks recommending, if not this plan? The ISG recommended 16,000 additional troops and Bush is sending 21,500. Is that ignoring the wonks?
Yes, he is ignoring their (IMO idiotic and immoral) suggestion to ‘engage’ Iran and Syria. I saw nothing in their proposal to indicate that there was any way to do that without compromising our interests in the region, turning our back on the Sunni Iraqis, and leaving Iran in a position to destabilize the ME.
I assume you probably disagree with me on that point, but can you elaborate on what policy suggestions you believe Bush should have followed?
“Yes, he is ignoring their (IMO idiotic and immoral) suggestion to ‘engage’ Iran and Syria.”
The raid on the Iranian embassy in Kurdistan doesn’t look like he ignored their recommendations, but that he misunderstood them…
I seem to remember they were suggesting a diplomatic offensive. But I guess they didn’t want to suggest hijacking Iranian diplomats…
CStanley:
While I don’t have the ISG report in front of me, I recall that the group recommended that the uptick in boots be civil affairs officers, not troops to face off with insurgents and others in Baghdad and Anbar.
You’re on your own on questioning the “morality” of engaging two key players in the region.
Maybe you’re still sore over the U.S. Embassy hostage siege. I am too, but that was then and now is now, and I respectfully suggest that you get over this incident, which was the unfortunate result of several presidential administrations coddling the Shah and their utter deafness to the sea changes in that country. (Did you know that there were exactly one and a half CIA officers in country that spoke Farsi and had any contacts with the local population when the embassy fell?)
It’s real simple to me and morality has nothing to do with it:
Our unwillingness to try to understand the Persian mindset is appalling. Refusing to even try to open a dialog and at the same time making bellicose noises, as well as raiding an Iranian consulate in Kurdistan, is appalling, a recipe for a regional conflict and further evidence that the entire Bush administration foreign policy apparatus is unhinged.
OK, Shaun, but can you give me an example of how such engagement would play out? What kind of diplomatic overture do you think should be made, and with what results?
CS -I think diplomacy is every nation’s tool to use to its advantage, not a gift that we bestow on others for moral or immoral behavior. If we were to take that stand would we be participating in 6-party talks with North Korea? At least your argument should be for a consistent foreign policy. Would we have gone to Yalta with Churchill and Stalin, if we disapproved of Stalin’s tactics??
We have been at a disadvantage for 6 years because of this administration’s refusal on moral grounds to use all the tools in the toolbox. What good has it done to suspend our role in peace talks between Israel and Palestine? Imo, it has led us ever closer to regional war, which we have been helpless to prevent, and indeed, appear to be actively courting.
Kim,
But you haven’t answered the question I posed to Shaun: how could diplomacy be used in this case?
Let me be more clear. Yes, we went to Yalta with Churchill and Stalin because we believed (correctly) that were common interests that could be exploited (as a Pole, I can’t say I’m thrilled that the land of my ancestors was sacrificed, but I understand it because there was probably no better alternative that would create stability at that time.)
But what is the parallel situation now? Sacrificing the Sunnis? That’s obviously not in their interest, nor ours, nor any of our allies in the region. Can we accept it anyway? Personally, I don’t think so. And if you think that wouldn’t be the result, please try to convince me that I’m wrong. Why would we believe that Iran would accept an Iraq that wasn’t dominated by people like al Sad’r?
Try to engage them in finding a solution for Iraq, and for the region as a whole. We have nothing to gain by continuing to ignore them. The Iranians were helpful when we went after the Taliban, but turned against us when they were featured in the “Axis of Evil” speech. Baker actually got the Syrians on board during the first gulf war, proving his diplomatic mastery.
Even if the Iranians and Syrians turn our diplomatic overtures down, we should make them. It proves to the world that we are a benevolent power not an imperial one, and gives us the moral high ground because it shows our genuine interest in a regional settlement. Appearances count for a lot in foreign affairs, and it does not benefit us at all to label certain powers as evil or good- black and white. Can you point to an example in history, where that has ever worked?
Because they had a common interest in defeating the stronghold of Sunni al Qaeda. Similarly, they didn’t interfere in our initial overthrow of Saddam (and likely were cheering it), but interference began when the pro-Tehran elements of the govt gained control in last year’s elections. I recall seeing statements by Iranian officials in late 2005 that indicated we’d pay the price if their guys (al Sadr’s party) weren’t put in control. The way I see it, that’s exactly what happened.
CS:
Is your big argument here, “Since I cannot see how diplolmacy will work, and since I find it immoral to sit down at a table and negotiate with those I dislike on moral grounds, diplomacy should not be used.”
And you’re looking for someone to reply, “If we have diplomatic relations with Iran, they’ll pull out of Iraq,” which is completely silly.
Are we in such an all or nothing world that small gains aren’t important any more? That small peaces aren’t worth it? That small wars aren’t better than large wars?
Why are you so enamoured with war? Why are you so distrustful of diplomacy (especially when it hasn’t even been attempted)? What is so disgusting about treating people like human beings despite mutual hatred?
CStanley:
Egrubs and Kim have answered much better than I could. I would only add one thing: It will be to Bush’s lasting shame (on top of everything else shameful about his administration) if he didn’t try to engage Teheran and Damascus.
The historians’ judgment of his tenure will be cruel in the extreme as it is.
Exactly, CS. Good diplomacy creates a common goal by concentrating on mutual self-interest.That is why they helped with the Taliban. When they realized they were on the list for regime change, the cooperation stopped. But for a little while, the Iranians acted in their best interest, which coincided with ours. There may not be much common ground between our countries. But, in our own best interest, we should never decide in advance that we have no common ground.
egrubs,
If you could tell me what those small gains might be, then your response might make some sense. “All or nothing” is your phrase, not mine, so please don’t put words in my mouth. I’m asking what could be gained at all?
It’s not deciding in advance, it’s deciding that Iran’s actions have already spoken. If they want to verbally make promises that contradict the evidence of their actions, what would that accomplish?
Was there a point there, egrubs, or did you hit the send button too soon?
It shows that we are making the effort to include them in discussions that concern the outcome of conflicts in the region. It lessens tensions that have gotten backs up (ours and theirs). It shows that we have an interest in a lasting peace for the region. We have little or no control over their actions, but we do have control over our responses. What good does it do to bring us to the brink of a war that we are woefully unprepared for? Remember TR’s “speak softly but carry a big stick”. We are shouting, but have already yielded too much real power to be effective, by keeping our army mired down in Iraq.
OK, Kim, but for all of those symbolic gains, consider that there could be actual negatives that outweigh them. Say for instance we sit down and Iran says that it will give full support to the Maliki government. Say we actually have intelligence to indicate that they are backing a plan to assassinate him (I’m just posing a hypothetical of course…but for the purpose of the thought exercise, assume that this is hard intelligence that there is little reason to doubt, and then that it actually happens.)
Now we’ve allowed Tehran to go on record giving themselves plausible deniability for a terribly destabilizing act. Our symbolic negotiations haven’t really helped the situation then, have they?
And if I build a domino set, I can make things fall exactly the way I want too.
But I don’t try to argue that way.
egrubs,
Sorry if I’m too dense to get your obtuse comments. I’m guessing you are saying that I’m setting up the argument so that it goes in my favor. Let me try this a different way. You and Kim seem to think that I’m opposed to diplomacy because I think that withholding it is a way to punish those that we distrust. I never said that though. What I’m saying is that diplomacy can only work if we can identify mutual interests between ourselves and the other party. Note that I also didn’t say that the interests all need to coincide, that we have to like or completely trust each other, etc. (so not, “all or nothing”.)
But if you can’t tell me any specific small gains that you think are possible, then it would seem to me that the whole rationale would be symbolism (am I wrong?) And I’m pointing out that the value of that is extremely limited in the current situation (not saying that it’s not important for the US to rebuild its image, but that a token gesture would be seen for what it is anyway.)
And I’m trying to point out the downside to such an initiative could be much worse than the downside of not getting that token of symbolism.
CS-I don’t think you can go into any negotiations thinking like that, because there are always possibilities of a negative outcome. You’d have to ask for concrete signs of their intentions, and not just take their word for it, and also lay out meaningful consequences for them and for the region if they didn’t live up to their pledge. By meaningful- it would have to be some consequence that we could actually cause to happen-not just tough talk. But then you would offer carrots as well- investment in their flagging oil production, for example. Mostly, we would learn more of their intent. By isolating them, we learn nothing. If we ever did have to go to war, we would have the same kind of flawed intel that hurt us with Iraq.
My guess is that if there was an assasination, you’d have to condemn them in public and show their hypocrisy to the world. They would suffer world-wide condemnation, and it might help our position in the UN. We’d have to work with our allies as best as possible to issue sanctions or as we are doing now, use a naval blockade. But isn’t that useless to imagine things that they haven’t done,lol?
What about the possibility that diplomacy could be used -TO- identify mutual interests? What about the possibility that diplomacy could be used -TO- advance our interests against a hostile partywith whom we have no mutual interests at all? What about the possibility that diplomacy could be used -TO- come to some acceptable mutual distrust where we don’t have to kill each other?
Is this petty? Why do I need to point out the grain of sand on the beach, or the drop of water in the ocean? How can it be possible that small gains are -IMPOSSIBLE-? Do you want me to just do an exhaustive, laundry list of tiny, irrelevent things that could come of this so that you may hem and haw and pick and choose which you prefer, when by no means do I have a degree in international relations?
How. Can. You. Possibly. Believe. That. No. Small. Gains. Of. Any. Kind. May. Come. From. Diplomacy?
That belief is so absurd I hardly know from where to begin.
I guess my view of reality differs from yours. If it were our word against Iran’s, the whole world would believe us? You can certainly say that our credibility problem is largely Bush’s fault, but it’s still the reality we have to live with.
Again, which allies would be willing to work with us? And on whether or not it’s useful to speculate, I don’t know. Is it useful that we’re constantly speculating here on what the Bush administration might be covertly doing?
egrubs,
My interpretation of your response is that you have decided to call my position absurd because you can’t defend yours. You state that you can’t list a single small gain that might be possible because you don’t have a degree in international diplomacy; I’m not asking for a complete analysis or dissertation, just a defense of your opinion. Instead of saying that your idea that diplomacy is inherently good regardless of the situation, I’m asking you why? Is it good even in situations where it is doomed to fail? You may disagree with me that the current situation fits that profile, but if your opinion is that there is no situation where it ever makes sense to put conditions on sitting down to negotiate, then “That belief is so absurd I hardly know from where to begin.”
1 less US soldier could die
2 less US soldiers could die
3 less US soldiers could die
4 less US soldiers could die
5 less US soldiers could die
6 less US soldiers could die
7 less US soldiers could die
8 less US soldiers could die
9 less US soldiers could die
10 less US soldiers could die
11 less US soldiers could die
12 less US soldiers could die
13 less US soldiers could die
14 less US soldiers could die
15 less US soldiers could die
16 less US soldiers could die
17 less US soldiers could die
18 less US soldiers could die
19 less US soldiers could die
20 less US soldiers could die
…
1 less Iraqi could die
2 less Iraqi could die
3 less Iraqi could die
4 less Iraqi could die
5 less Iraqi could die
6 less Iraqi could die
7 less Iraqi could die
8 less Iraqi could die
9 less Iraqi could die
10 less Iraqi could die
11 less Iraqi could die
12 less Iraqi could die
13 less Iraqi could die
14 less Iraqi could die
15 less Iraqi could die
16 less Iraqi could die
17 less Iraqi could die
18 less Iraqi could die
19 less Iraqi could die
20 less Iraqi could die
…
Some form of common ground could be found where previously unknown.
Some form of military advantage could be gained where previously unknown.
Some form of psychoanalytical understanding of the situation could be gained where previously unknown.
Some form or piece of knowledge OF WHICH WE WERE PREVIOUSLY UNAWARE could be made aware.
Our standing in the eyes of our people could increase.
Our standing in the eyes of the world could increase.
A standoff, in which small wars are faught and fewer people die, could be established due to the talks falling out.
A standoff, in which small wars are faught and fewer people die, could be established due to successes in the talks.
Oil prices could remain stable.
Oil prices could go down.
We could, intelligently, realize that we should develop a better national energy policy in which we are less reliant on oil.
Butterflies could flap their wings in Iran and some poor kid in the United States could go to Harvard.
…
You’re right. It’s impossible to find grains of sand on the beach.
This. Is. Absurb.
I think we’re talking about two different things here. You want to keep arguing against me as though I see NO value in diplomacy at all. If any of the things were logical consequences of the US captitulating and sitting down for negotiations with Iran under its terms (that it should have the greenlight for a nuclear program) then your comments would make sense. Instead, you are just making a wish list.
I should also mention, I agree with Kissinger’s assessment of the difference of the current situation and the one with Red China in the 70′s. I note that he is saying that a lot of diplomatic back and forth took place which led to a shift in ideology of the Chinese govt BEFORE Nixon got on the plane. I assume that there is not enough of this type of behind the scenes diplomacy going on right now, and I do think that is a serious mistake. I think the “Axis of Evil” speech was a mistake, and that instead of making it clear that we advocate regime change, we should make it clear that it is a change in attitude, not necessarily leadership, that is required. But that is different from saying, as Webb did yesterday, that Bush should just hop on the jet to Tehran.
CS” I guess my view of reality differs from yours. If it were our word against Iran’s, the whole world would believe us? You can certainly say that our credibility problem is largely Bush’s fault, but it’s still the reality we have to live with.”
Which is exactly why we have to engage with countries that we don’t like. That is what the world expects of us, and it would help restore our credibility. Of course, we also have to work to repair the damage that has already been done with our allies, so that hopefully , they would believe us. I think the bigger problem would come, as it usually does, with countries who are our political allies, but who have economic ties or dependencies —France, USSR- with Iran. Yes, its difficult, but there’s no excuse not to try. Isn’t that what we are saying about the quagmire in Iraq?
“Is it useful that we’re constantly speculating here on what the Bush administration might be covertly doing? ”
Not really, but its interesting and fun!:)
CStanley, we remained engaged with both China and Russia despite much more forthright declarations that they wanted to “bury” us. Our strategic interest in the Middle East is obvious. Military engagement with Iran would be even more stupid than that in Iraq. But I won’t bother to debate this with you, because, as I’ve said before, you can’t see our resourcefulness can be beyond military resources. So caught up in the utterly male worldview of power and combat. I don’t think you have ever seriously considered what I’ve raised repeatedly. We have spent $70,000 per Iraqi family to try to win this militarily. That’s more than a lifetime of income for most Iraqis. I believe the military option was and is the worst possible approach when you have that level of resources. We could have offered the Iraqis so much more than anyone else was offering, and the same is true for Iran. We could actually lead, rather than trying constantly to defeat.
You all may as well stop this conversation. CS Stanley understands “negotiations” to mean what the conservative/neocon practice has been the last 6 years. To negotiate with you means you do it my way or you get pummeled. (You do have a choice, see?). And he accurately sees the Iranian response to such “negotiating” will be to tell us to F-off because they can.
To the rest of us, negotiating means compromising, giving-getting, finding common ground and all the rest of that touchy-feely San Francisco wussy sort of stuff. CS will never understand it so you may as well leave him alone.