DILUTION IS W'S SOLUTION
The strategy is pretty obvious and pretty lame. The President is going to a whole bunch of places to "seek consultation" on the "way forward". The whole purpose of this appears to me to be not learning or taking input but to water down the ISG recommendations and turn them into just another resource out there.
I'm not saying I'm buying the entire ISG either but this sure looks like a way to trivialize the ISG, keep doing what the administration is already doing (not defining the benchmarks that equal "victory") and make it look the ISG is just a modest part of that huge buffet out there of responsible advice.
Stubborn is still stubborn, even when it's sold as revised analysis.
Labels: NATIONAL POLITICS
posted by UMRBlog @ 07:50
9 comments
9 Comments:
Based on their recommendations, the ISG should be trivialized. If you have problems with some of their suggestions you can guarantee Bush does.
Which of the 79 do you like?
I like the "without precondition" talks with Iran. That's not that I think it's any kind of magic bullet.
Although Iran now has the seventh largest standing army in the world, they have resource issues and really have a community of interest with us in have a stable country on their border. If we start talking to them, I think we'll find out we have a heckuva a lot more in common than suspicion.
I think I've heard all the "nuclear's different" arguments. But it wasn't different with India and Pakistan or, for that matter, China.
Multilateral talks with Syria and Iran? Let's walk before we can run.
So that's one place I agree. There are more but I'm back to the day job.
The idea that there is a latent consensus for stability in the Middle East that will come to full flower in response to the right "diplomatic offensive" is preposterous. Syria and Iran pine for a stable, democratic Iraq the way farmers pine for drought and investors pine for a stock market crash.
Both countries are actively at war with us. They are killing our soldiers for the purpose of frustrating our Iraqi project. They are supporting terrorist organizations that want to kill Americans and will do so whenever they can manage it. Nations don't go to war when they believe their differences can be adjusted by mutual agreement. Once the fighting starts the parties don't have much to discuss until one side is beaten and sues for peace. No matter how you dress it up, asking Syria and Iran to help us retreat from Iraq would be capitulation.
I said I like "without precondition" talks with Iran. I said Iran has an interest in stability. Didn't say anything about them having an interest in democracy or covering a retreat.
I've got first hand experience with the pukes in Syria. Talking to them is OK but the stakes and opportunities are a lot lower than with Iran.
TYFCB
The only thing that might constrain Syria and Iran is fear of American power. The mullahs in Tehran and the eye doctor in Damascus need to see some tangible evidence that we are willing to crush them if they make themselves too inconvenient. If we reward them for killing our soldiers with a "New Diplomatic Offensive" they will only be inspired to kill more.
The thing about being the World's only Superpower is that they already know we can make them glow in the dark.
I dislike the term "Diplomatic Offensive" because it is too short term. Talking to Iran is not a sign of weakness and we don't know where it leads until we know where it leads. Keep in mind, we've got a helluva lot more in common with Iran than we do with either Iraq or Syria. We didn't exactly have the bugs out of being a secular democracy after we'd been at it only 25 years, either.
Linear thinking got us into this mess. Global, long term thinking might provide a clue or two as to how we get out.
Now, on your major premise that "Diplomacy is not the entire key to the kingdom" I couldn't agree more. As I also noted, somewhere (I lose track) there are gi-normous force protection problems with the ISG paradigm.
I also agree that any plan that has face-saving as a principal goal is not, as a whole, the best approach.
TYFCB
The ISG report says that "the New Diplomatic Offensive" can only succeed if we move to resolve the Arab/Israeli conflict. It suggests we do this by convening yet another conference to negotiate "a final peace settlement . . . which would address borders, settlements, Jerusalem, the right of return, and the end of the conflict."
To translate from the arcane language of diplomacy, this means that we should persuade Israel to commit national suicide by disposing of all it's geographic buffers and opening its borders to a flood of hostile Arab immigrants. The upshot of any comprehensive "peace" deal Arabs would accept is perfectly predictable. Israel would cease to exist and millions of Jews would be murdered.
Talk of convening a peace conference to discuss a "Palestinian" right of return serves only one purpose. It tempts our Arab enemies to help us, at least in the short term, in exchange for the suggestion that we will aid and abet a second Holocaust.
Yeah, that's what I meant about it being stupid to think that old guys don't have personal agendas.
Let me just agree with you at the first level and leave the rest. Linking to Israel talks with Iran or Syria about stuff that might lead to increased stability in Iraq is foolish, grandiose and, if nothing else, too damned slow.
Oh, and Slick Ed Meese still says Ronnie knew nothing about arms for hostages (I just thought I'd throw that in to point out these guys aren't that freaking BLUE RIBBON)
TYFCB
Now that you've come around on that one, which of the others do you like?
Post a Comment
<< Home