Realism
Charles Krauthammer asks a simple question: This is realism? He's writing about the so-called realists, led by James Baker and their distinctly unrealistic set of ideas on what to do about Iraq.
Everyone now says that the key to stopping the fighting in Iraq is political — again, as if this were another great discovery. It's been clear for at least a year that a military solution to the insurgency was out of our reach. The military price would have been prohibitive and the victory ephemeral without a political compromise. And that kind of compromise — vesting the Sunnis with proportionate political and financial (i.e. oil) power — is something the Shiites, at least those now comprising the Maliki government, seem incapable of doing.
The United States should be giving Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki a clear ultimatum: If he does not come up with a political solution in two months or cede power to a new coalition that will, the United States will abandon the Green Zone; retire to its bases; move much of its personnel to Kurdistan, where we are welcome and safe; and let the civil war take its course. Let the current Green Zone-protected Iraqi politicians who take their cue from Moqtada al-Sadr face the insurgency alone. That might concentrate their minds on either making a generous offer to the Sunnis or stepping aside for a coalition that would.
The key to progress is political change within Iraq. The newest fashion, however, is to go "regional," engaging Iran and Syria in order to have them pull our chestnuts out of the fire. This idea rests on the notion that both Iran and Syria have an interest in stability in Iraq.
Very hardheaded realist terms: interest, stability, regional powers. But stringing them together to suggest that Iran and Syria share our interests in stability is the height of fantasy. In fact, Iran and Syria have an overriding interest in chaos in Iraq — which is precisely why they each have been abetting the insurgency and fanning civil war.
Perhaps in some long-term future they will want a stable Iraq as a tame client state of the Syria-Iran axis. For now they want chaos. What in God's name will a negotiation with them yield?
At best they might give us a few months to withdraw. But why do we need their help to do that? We can do our withdrawing very well without them. And in return for non-help in a non-solution that is essentially a surrender, Syria would demand to be given a free hand once again in Lebanon — just as, when the United States needed help in Iraq before the Persian Gulf War, then-Secretary of State James Baker gave Lebanon over to Syria as a quid pro quo.
It's actually worse than Krauthammer paints it, I suspect. If we withdraw under these conditions, how long until the same occurs in Afghanistan? Pakistan is already urging NATO to capitulate to the Taliban. How much more strident will those calls become? The realists, in their unrealistic set of beliefs are leading us into an even worse scenario under the guise of preaching stability. We don't need Iran and Syria "helping" us, they will only provide more of the same type of help they already have. Iran has openly announced that they are ready willing and able to invade - they call it sending troops, but only a "realist" would call it assistance.
Other Links to this Post
-
Wake up America — Friday, 1 December , 2006 @ 10:36 am
By Former Republican, Friday, 1 December , 2006 @ 4:38 pm
Wnat is realism? A realist knows that the future is unpredictable. A realist also knows that a judgment as to another nation’s intentions is highly unreliable. That’s why it makes sense to explore the possibility that some of our interests align with those of Iran and Syria, sufficiently so that a useful agreement may be possible.
Remember how certain Krauthammer was about WMDs in Iraq? Remember how he said if they weren’t found, he would have a “credibility problem”? Well, he’s awfully certain about Iran’s and Syria’s intentions. Does he never learn? I’m not saying he’s wrong. Maybe this time he’s right. The point is, we don’t know and it’s foolish (or worse) to pretend we do.
I’ll give just one example. Think back to the aftermath of the Yom Kippur war. If asked, lots of people would have said it was pointless for Israel to negotiate with Egypt: Egypt had just tried to destroy Israel. Yet Jimmy Carter was able to broker a peace that has lasted 27 years now and counting. You can’t know in advance whether negotiation will be fruitful.