No Sucking Up to Iran and Syria
fruit salad in the making
By streiff Posted in War — Comments (17) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
One of my worst fears has been averted.
I had feared that the Bush Administration would roll over for the fatuous recommendations generated by the Iraq Study Group, like they did for the 9/11 Commission Report, and buy into James Baker’s assertion that the recommendations are not severable.
“I hope we don't treat this like a fruit salad,” said Baker, “and say, 'I like this, but I don't like that,' these are interdependent recommendations we make."
At a minimum the Administration made clear yesterday that the ISG report is indeed fruit salad if not birdcage liner.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice yesterday rejected a bipartisan panel's recommendation that the United States seek the help of Syria and Iran in Iraq, saying the "compensation" required by any deal might be too high. She argued that neither country should need incentives to foster stability in Iraq.
"If they have an interest in a stable Iraq, they will do it anyway," Rice said in a wide-ranging interview with Washington Post reporters and editors. She said she did not want to trade away Lebanese sovereignty to Syria or allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon as a price for peace in Iraq.
Read on.
One of the most indefensible notions proffered by the ISG was the idea that Iran and Syria should be brought into negotiations on reducing instability in Iraq because of some perceived common goal they shared with us in reducing said instability.
The initial inclination one has when reading this is to snicker. On its face the idea of negotiating with the parties directly responsible for keeping the Iraq pot boiling in the hopes they would help us seems silly. It is the advocacy of a Blanche DuBois foreign policy in which we rely upon the kindness of strangers.
But the deep thinkers and practicioners of realpolitik on the left immediately countered with an argument to the effect that maybe Iran and Syria had miscalculated the level of instability they had created, maybe endangered their own regimes in the process, and therefore would, with the proper obeisance on our part, reduce the level of instability back, presumably, to where they were comfortable with it.
This notion is simply Martian Logic tarted up with a bit of game theory.
Secretary Rice has it right. If Iran and Syria have an interest in stability in Iraq they will take unilateral action to reduce that instability in which case there is no need for us to negotiate with them. If they are comfortable with the instability in Iraq they will take no action and negotiating with them will be fruitless.
As a footnote, Secretary Rice reiterated the Administration’s commitment to democratization as a part of its Middle East strategy:
Rice also said there would be no retreat from the administration's push to promote democracy in the Middle East, a goal that was de-emphasized by the Iraq Study Group in its report last week but that Rice insisted was a "matter of strategic interest."
The next step the Administration needs to take in dealing with the ISG report is to repudiate the idea of linkage between the Arab-Israel conflict and the war in Iraq. With those two muddleheaded proposals off the table we can see the ISG recommendations have been reduced from 79 to about zero.
« We need more COIN in the Afghan realm — Comments (0) | Army and Marines Request More Troops — Comments (46) »
No Sucking Up to Iran and Syria 17 Comments (0 topical, 17 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I have had confidence that Bush would not cave on these assinine appeasement suggestions and that he will eventually do what it takes to win in Iraq and remove the Iranian threat. The man that saw the good vs the evil afetr 911 and esp in the Axis of Evil speech is not about to embrace all the gray he loathed in his Dad's administration.
The Spine we can count on foreseen:
3 of my least 4 and 4 of my last 9 blogs here at RS have dealt with unfounded doubts about The Cowboy,
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/gamecock
He deserves to be trusted on the war. The man is Truman circa 2000s.
www.race42008.com
http://theminorityreportblog.blogspot.com/
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson - http://gamecock.townhall.com
is the only thing I have confidence in GWB for. It appears to be unshakeable on this. Thank GOD!
-Miles Christianus
"this great Nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For that reason alone, people of other faiths have been afforded freedom of worship here."–Patrick Henry
Because the war is the only thing that matters. We lose it and all the rest becomes academic.
Unfortunately, the illegal immigration thing is part of the war...
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort... has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill
On Beltway Boys he suggested that Bush appoint Baker and Hamilton as Special Envoys to Iran and Syria. They think those countries will negotiate in good faith, let 'em go negotiate.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
Mbecker- that is about the worst possible foreign policy the United States could possibly engage in. Uh, when all that Iran and Syria DESIRE is to have useless negotiations (allowing domestic support for their regimes to grow, time for the nukes to be built, pressure on Israel)- you WANT to give them useless negotiations?
United States Air Force
http://airforcepundit.blogspot.com
Sorry, I'm undercaffinated.
Send them to Damascus. Bomb Damascus.
And BTW, Mort was making a joke. I'm not.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
"I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast; for I intend to go in harm's way."
John Paul Jones (letter to M. Le Ray de Chaumont,16 Nov.1778)
Give them the negotiations. But give Baker, et al no power to make decisions themselves and then go about our own business using the "talks" as our own cover the way Iran and Sia wt to use them for themselves...
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort... has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill
For Baker and Hamilton to go to those two nefarious bad-faith squat-holes, even to give Arse-ad the time of day would boost his grandiosity already pumped up by the visits of mike-hogging junketeers from Senate-World, as we call it here in Florida vis-a-vis Bill Nelson.
And AHMADODOJIHAD is a fit interlocutor for Jim Baker, who would sell snake oil to a sidewinder.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
Sometimes I think the crafty W played up the ISG in order to lock in the notion that we can't retreat from Iraq, and getting a broad bipartisan coalition to PUBLICLY accept that fact. Then, with that idea accepted, he will go on to try something to win.
Re talking with Iran: a question for the "realists"- if they seize your embassy and never repudiate that action, where do you talk? And why?
“One of my worst fears has been averted.” –streiff
Yet you had your doubts about the President. So did I. “Gamecock” believes he is Truman. “Christian Soldier” believes he’s still our war President.
Yet, I still have my doubts. Perhaps it is because he’s spent his life as a centrist trying to win those in the middle. Or perhaps it’s because he’s not articulate and doesn’t appear to believe what he says. I can’t put my finger on it.
Still, one of the themes of his political life is that people always underestimate him and he surprises them in the end. I certainly hope he surprises us … but those doubts don’t go away.
-Jason Pappas
first two books about Dubya in which BW had great access to the president after 9/11 and in the lead up to the Iraq war, which document his immediate grasp of the good/evil war, plus his public statements and actions since 9/11, his never once wavering on the main issues of war, and his extensive Oval office interview with conservative columnists and talk radio host juust before the 2006 election convince me GWB is HST II.
He truly does not want a legacy that leaves this country vulnerable to a ME controlled by jihadists in 20 years. He made Iran part of the Axis. Articulateness was not HST's strong suit either, and GWB is a total Harvard Bus School CEO type, so I don't think that should give you pause.
But doubts don't harm us so long as they don't translate into public pessimism that saps public support for what we want done.
www.race42008.com
http://theminorityreportblog.blogspot.com/
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson - http://gamecock.townhall.com
I have yet to see him waver on this issue and I believe in my heart he will not however having said that back when I was younger I truly believed a President would not lie to me and Clinton did, I hope I am smarter today, I know I am much more conservative today and I do have to thank Clinton for that. President Bush has never seemed to waver since 9/11/01 and I think it is because he see's so much more than we probably would want to see. Rumsfeld has been pretty open recently on the continued desire for a caliphate and I believe Bush is well aware of the same. I think he is 100% behind the best country in the world I believe he is a true blue patriot. The other crap that goes on well it certainly won't mean much if this WOT is not won will it?
Peace through superior fire power:)
Apparently Bill Nelson (D)-FL Missed the Memo. He sat down with Bashar for the second time.
It looks like Bill's plan is to implement the ISG recommendations on his own.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
me something by not caveing in to the ISG report. I am all for changing the approach (if the powers that be deem it necessary)but not the goal and the ISG does both and wants to do it in a way weakens the U.S. and gives power to our ememies.
"I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast; for I intend to go in harm's way."
John Paul Jones (letter to M. Le Ray de Chaumont,16 Nov.1778)