« From “White Man’s Burden” to “White Man’s Trash”
Iraq’s internal wars and American troop surge or withdrawal »
I Really Want to …
I really want to see the President’s surge strategy accomplish in Iraq what every other effort has not.
I really want to believe my former-Marine nephew, and his friends who are still in the Armed Services, when they say we need to be there and be there in force.
I really want to.
But it’s difficult to do so when I read AP reports like this one, wherein the President …
(a) demands that his opponents in Congress either support his plan or “put up their own plan as to what would work,” when they seemingly have offered plans, only to be dmissed, as Bush reverts to claiming the mantle of “The Decider” (now, simply, the less poetic “Decision-Maker”)
(b) says he is “confident that the dispute over Iran’s nuclear program (can) be resolved diplomatically,” after he rejected the ISG’s calls for diplomacy with Iran and Syria, and after we learned that his Administration may have missed an opportunity to capitalize on Syria’s prior willingness to talk with Israel.
I voted for him twice. While I haven’t always agreed with him, I’ve supported him nonetheless, and held my tongue. But my patience is wearing thin. And I’m not alone among those who are clinging to fraying hopes he’s right, this time around.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
16 Responses to “I Really Want to …”
On point b, Pete, do you really feel that the Iraqi Sunnis should have been thrown under the bus in order to get Ahmadinejad to agree to stop developing nukes? Or that even if he’d made such an agreement, that it would have been enforceable? Or do you really think that if Bush had taken the ISG advice and held direct negotiations with Iran, that the outcome would have been other than what I’ve described (do you think, in other words, that Iran would have worked to stabilize a secular democracy in Iraq that protected the Sunni minority?)
Re C Stanley:
Who knows what would have happened, but we would have tried! As it is, the US is alone against world opinion, so if the result is bad, we alone will be held responsible. Our isolation is a clear danger in itself.
How are the Sunnis going to be thrown under the bus. IHHO the Sunnis insurgency is being funded by Saudis, Egyptians and other Sunnis in the ME. Will W go after this NETWORK. The Iraqis Sunnis and al-Qeada are Arab Sunnis, the moderate US friendly Arab governments will not allow the bus to run away.
Rudi,
What you described is actually what makes the ‘negotiate with Iran’ idea doomed to failure, IMO. Already part of the problem is that we’ve sided more with the Shi’a in Iraq than the Sunnis. This has produced reaction from other Sunnis in the region as you’ve described (SA funding the Sunni insurgents under the table) and IMO has prevented a regional solution that brings together the key players. In other words, I see our Shi’a bias as one of the failings so far of our policy in Iraq. The ISG solution was to tip completely in that direction, and I just don’t see a good outcome of that.
I’m not sure what SA would do if we were to allow an Iran dominated Iraq to come to pass. Sure, they have reasons to support the Sunni in Iraq, but let’s face it: SA is the France of the Middle East. They don’t exactly have a history recently of fighting their own battles. I’m not sure I believe that they’d put troops in to back the Iraqi Sunnis, and if they did, then there’d be a regional war. So, either the Sunni neighbors wimp out and let the Iraqi Sunnis be slaughtered, or the Sunni neighbors step in (overtly instead of just covertly as is already happening) and the powderkeg ignites.
The U.S. backed off of Iran and let the Europeans and the U.N. negotiate with Iran for several years over the Iranian nuclear program. That came to naught. Why should the U.S. engage in direct talks with Iran? Iran won’t heed the opinion of the rest of the world. They want something that only we can give them, which is to acquiesce in Iran gaining substantial control of Iraq. We have no right to grant them that. The U.S. offered no substantial objections to proposals floated by various other nations for, say, Russia to guarantee to provide Iran with a supply of nuclear fuel, so that Iran would have no need to process uranium, and thus would not develop the capability to produce radioactive material suitable for use in bombs. Iran rejected that idea flat.
It is reckless to enter negotiations without having previously decided what concessions you are willing to make. I can envision almost nothing which we could conceded to Iran which I would not find highly objectionable, and an ill-considered reward for bad behavior.
I wasn’t suggesting that negotiations with Iran would lead to anything. I’m not sure they will. What I was trying to do was draw a contrast between Bush now claiming diplomacy will work with Iran but rejecting as much when it was suggested by the ISG as part of a larger strategy.
I suppose, in the end, my post was nothing more than an attempt to reflect my views and those of others who find themselves in the same boat: We want to support Bush, but his apparent double-speak is making that support difficult.
He says negotiation with Iran is a non-starter, but then says diplomacy with them will make a difference. He says, if you don’t like my plan, offer a different one, then someone does, and he says, no thanks, I’m the decision-maker.
A former boss of mine always said that rule number one in good PR practice is to put your friends in a position to be and stay your friends.
I’ve tried to be a “friend” or “friendly” to this President, but every time I turn around, he’s removing yet another brick in the foundation, leaving me a smaller and smaller base on which to stand.
And that’s primarily why, I think, he’s losing the support of a growing number of Republicans; why there’s such harsh reaction to the “pledge” concept offered by Hugh Hewitt.
Are the Republicans and Independents who are questioning the President doing so out of political expediency, self-preservation? Yes, partly. But there’s also a much more fundamental dynamic of basic human relations at work here: The D’s never supported him; the I’s have been running away for some time, and now the R’s and R-leaning I’s (like me) are bailing on him or thinking about it because he’s not only making questionable decisions, he’s talking in circles. Some of you will say he always has and that I’m slow to wake up to reality. So be it; maybe I’m dense. But even dense people eventually get it …
‘negotiate with Iran’ I don’t say capitulate to Iran, don’t negotiate with Iran, just talk to Iran to see if something can be done. If talks offer something to ‘Moderate Iranians’ and isolate Whackjob wouldn’t these talks be fruitfull. sanctions are causing economic damage to Iran. Iranian MP have talked about IMPEACHMENT. Hawkish bluster from W will inflame Iranian NATIONALISM and strengthen Whackjob.
Kissinger talked with NV and warned them of a crazy dangerous Nixon proir to the Paris Peace Accords. The Iranians may just percieve W as weak and crazy. W, Rummy, Cheney and Condo are not Nixon and Kissinger, they’re just idealogues and incompetent.
Pete, I guess I think there’s just not much the President can say about Iran right now. If he says that diplomacy can’t work, then the whole world will start screaming that he’s planning to attack Iran. If he says it can work, then you say what you said. If he says it can’t work, but I’m still not going to attack Iran, he’s given Iran comfort to continue with its operations without less fear of attack.
As for the ISG report, what the President said in public and what he may have been saying behind the scenes in diplomatic channels may have been quite different. His general approach, worked out as far as I can tell in complete cooperation with the Europeans, has been to let the Europeans do the talking, while we remain silent carrying our big stick. It may be that the diplomatic situation at the time the ISG report came out called for a more aggressive posture, while now that the Iranian mullahs seem to be pressuring Ahmadinejad to play nicer, a nice friendly smile in favor of diplomatic resolution on our part is called for, to reassure the mullahs that ditching the nuclear program will pay dividends for them.
I see it much the same way you do, PatMHV. And for those who are just really wary about trusting Bush to agree to negotiation if the situation warrants it (and I agree there’s much reason to feel that way), I’d say that the replacement of Rumsfeld with Gates is a good sign. Gates was on the ISG, and he personally even favored negotiations with Iran. He’s since said though that he understands that we can’t negotiate until we have leverage, which is what I believe all the saber rattling is about. We aren’t currently in a position to negotiate with Iran because everything they want is something that we would not be willing to give. The moderates in Iran, however, would be willing to do things that would be useful. Pressure is being put on Tehran so that Ahmadinejad will either have to blink and the moderates begin calling the shots, or else he may end up being impeached or otherwise deposed by Iranians.
BTW, the last statement in my previous post is exactly what Kissinger describes as the strategy that led up to Nixon’s China trip. It wasn’t until we knew that China had decided to moderate that Nixon opened relations with them.
“And I’m not alone among those who are clinging to fraying hopes he’s right, this time around.”
Sadly, no. Still too many who are clutching at straws. Principle: Hope.
PatHMV and CStanley (among others commenting here),
You are why I am delighted to be a contributor at TMV.
Your reasonable voices and constructive comments help me see different perspectives and look at situations in a different light.
Thank you. I hope others are listening to what you have to say, to what you have to offer in this evolving debate. It is by challenging and encouraging each other that we not only express what makes us uniquely human but achieve what only human beings can: viable solutions and workable middle-ground that help us productively co-exist!
Thanks for the positive feedback, Pete. Likewise, I enjoy the thought provoking posts and comments here as well.
Ditto for me. Thanks, Pete.
If it doesn’t work, who here will trust his next plan? I see the surge as gradual escalation. There’s already a plan to enlarge the military, and Petraeus told the Senate that he will be asking for more troops if he needs them. To succeed, he will need to trust the Iraqi army. When that fails, won’t he ask for more Americans to take up the slack??
[...] Today, President Bush is playing his best David Broder to the Democrats’ Ross Perot, challenging them (as noted last week) to either support his plan for Iraq or “put up their own plan as to what would work.â€? [...]