What Do We Have for Our Contestants?
Even though it ranks #4 on Amazon's sales list, don't count me among the buyers of the Iraq Study Group Report. Not that I wouldn't like to read it but the reviews have stopped me cold. The report recommendations read like a fairy tale. The ISG Study Group Report states 79 recommendations for changing U.S. position in the Iraq War. A central tenet of the report is the need for a "diplomatic offensive" with Iran and Syria foremost. The correct term is "peace talks." Iran and to a lesser extent Syria are the two winners thus far in the Iraq War. A diplomatic offensive really means getting them to the table and seeking terms for a truce, by which the U.S. can withdraw.
Bush rejected the idea. In one sense, he's right. He cannot win the war by negotiating with Iran. He will come home empty-handed or worse. Iran, willing to meet, would tie the nuclear enrichment program to any negotiation. The result will be capitulation or stalemate in Iraq, and reactors in Teheran. However, there is no alternative to negotiation, especially when other, meaningful issues exist. The US really has no better option in the broader picture than to negotiate until there is agreement or impasse. But that is not about ending the war. That's about realigning the globe, which is what the Report really seems to be saying.
Bush therefore is wrong in rejecting negotiation out of hand. His uncompromising policies
have isolated this country; his view is that any change of position is an admission of defeat or failure, and he doesn't do admissions. The headline coverage out of Egypt is that the report marks the end of Iraq policy and effectively the end of the Bush administration. "The next two years will be a vacuum," the moderate paper states.
Now, that's the kind of negotiation the Iranians would love: keep that border porous for another two years. While the White House vacuums, Iran will annex Shiite Iraq, the Kurds will split off and war with Turkey, and the Sunni minority will either retreat into Jordan and Syria or remain and be slaughtered. As the number of US troop casualties rises, Congress, charged out of its inertia, will cut off funding or otherwise force redeployment. Compared to that scenario, even bad negotiations seem good.
Bush rejected the idea. In one sense, he's right. He cannot win the war by negotiating with Iran. He will come home empty-handed or worse. Iran, willing to meet, would tie the nuclear enrichment program to any negotiation. The result will be capitulation or stalemate in Iraq, and reactors in Teheran. However, there is no alternative to negotiation, especially when other, meaningful issues exist. The US really has no better option in the broader picture than to negotiate until there is agreement or impasse. But that is not about ending the war. That's about realigning the globe, which is what the Report really seems to be saying.
Bush therefore is wrong in rejecting negotiation out of hand. His uncompromising policies
have isolated this country; his view is that any change of position is an admission of defeat or failure, and he doesn't do admissions. The headline coverage out of Egypt is that the report marks the end of Iraq policy and effectively the end of the Bush administration. "The next two years will be a vacuum," the moderate paper states.
Now, that's the kind of negotiation the Iranians would love: keep that border porous for another two years. While the White House vacuums, Iran will annex Shiite Iraq, the Kurds will split off and war with Turkey, and the Sunni minority will either retreat into Jordan and Syria or remain and be slaughtered. As the number of US troop casualties rises, Congress, charged out of its inertia, will cut off funding or otherwise force redeployment. Compared to that scenario, even bad negotiations seem good.
posted by Evan Sarzin at 4:49 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home