"Mr. President" Mar 05 piece holding up nicely
Sunday, October 22, 2006 at 8:48AM DATELINE: United flights from Indy to Beijing, 22 October 2006
I wrote the original piece based on an impromptu response to a question from an Air Force general at Air War College the morning after the 04 election. He basically said, "Well, what would you advise the President on his second term?"
I gave him three points: 1) co-opt Iran to help you fix Iraq and keep the hope of the Big Bang alive and begin the construction of a regional security forum, 2) Get China locked in by toning down the whole Taiwan issue and thus demoting it within DOD planning circles (to aid the Marines and Army in budget battles), and 3) go after Kim instead of Iran, getting yourself an East Asian NATO in the bargain that allows further shifting of resources from Asia to the Mideast and Africa and begins to tap China's serious help in what we now call the Long War.
When I told Mark Warren about the conversation later in Princeton (where I spoke at Woodrow Wilson), he told me I had to write it up for Esquire. I did, it became the "Mr. President" piece, and it was selected for the "Best American Political Writing 2005" volume and the issue was one of three Esquire issues submitted for consideration by the National Magazine awards for 2005. Another was November issue in which my "The Chinese Are Our Friends" pushed the arguments even farther (that one was selected for the 2006 compendium of "Best American Political Writing"). Esquire ended up winning the "general excellence" award for its subscription range of 2-5 million based on those entries.
When the "Mr. President" article came out, many lambasted it as fantasy, with the summary blogosphere judgment being, "logical, but it'll never happen."
Undeterred, I made these arguments the foreign policy centerpieces of "Blueprint for Action," where most critics again blasted them as fantasy.
Well, those arguments are looking better and better by the day.
Iraq continues to be a mess, and Iran continues to be the local player most able to help us on that issue. Back then, I made that argument for such dialogue, now James Baker and his bipartisan commission are making very similar noises.
Back then, everyone said we could never live with a nuclear Iran. Now, even the Israelis openly debate this eventuality, as it's clear that China and Russia and India--not to mention Europe and Japan--have no desire to see this administration re-run the Iraq storyline.
Back then, North Korea was viewed as a backburner issue. Now Kim gets it back out front, and Rice and her diplomats visit Beijing weekly pushing for strategic cooperation on North Korea, while Chinese leaders secretly debate the logic of Kim's inevitable demise. Japan moves to repair relations with China, and Taiwan, much touted in the fall of 2004 as a near-term flashpoint (story in Atlantic, for example, fueled by speculation from Naval War College professors) is more quiet than ever, as the threat of the pro-independence president has largely passed, with no small effort by this administration to quiet all such talk (plus China's many clever diplomatic sleights of hand). Meanwhile, our diplomats visiting Beijing speak openly of the need for an East Asian NATO, always tying those words with a call for China's help on North Korea. Also meanwhile, China's top energy planner calls openly for strategic partnership with the U.S. on exploring, developing and protecting energy sources inside the Gap.
All in all, the "Mr. President" piece is standing up quite well as this second Bush term hits mid-term. Expect the course correction on Iraq to coincide with a reach out to Iran. Also expect Kim to be the main regime-change focus of the last two years of Bush's administration, with our strategic relationship with China developing greatly as a result.
Once NK and Taiwan are off the DOD planning table, look for the Army and Marines to finally start receiving the resources they need for this Long War.
All these changes and moves make the goal of shrinking the Gap far more feasible for succeeding administrations. Bush I jump-started this process, but because of all those mistakes in Iraq and subsequently with Iran, Bush II becomes mostly an effort at strategic triage, and that's what the original article and the subsequent BFA were all about: getting the conditions right for this blueprint to become realizable.
My vision, as I have consistently noted, isn't about "winning" this month, this year, this election, or this administration--any more than containment could be reduced to just one Cold War presidency. Like containment, shrink-the-Gap will be judged by most as failing throughout its implementation, but ultimately it is done and recognized as successful because there is no other, more reasonable and morally defensible pathway worth choosing.
But yeah, it does feel good to have gotten it all down in print.
Reader Comments (3)
Predicting today's world political outcomes back in March 05 is remarkable but perhaps the President has followed that recommendation and it is simply not yet apparent.
Reducing the Gap by incorporating it into the Core is a well spelled out doctrine and makes sense. I would offer that the IRAQ environment and Afghanistan environment are more so on the road to Core than Gap as a direct result of Bush II's efforts (and the billions spent there). When all the media and election noise goes away Iraq will be more a showcase for Core than Gap.
Per prediction, China is now being used to manage NK, however, should China head up an Asian NATO? We are betting that the economy there will drive the politics later down the road and it should work but supporting a structure that is not fully constructed is a gamble on any table.
As for a nuclear Iran, that will simply not happen in this decade, but 2 out of 3 isn't bad one year out.
The trends as you predicted are there and your crystal ball is very clear.
Joseph Nowosalwski says:"As for a nuclear Iran, that will simply not happen in this decade"
Is this an opinion or a guarantee? If the latter, who or what is the guarantor?
What do Syria or Iran have to get out of making nice with us?
From the viewpoint of the people running both of those countries, a peaceful and prosperous democratic Iraq is the last thing that any of them want to see.
If you wanted to volunteer for the job and fly to Teheran with a key shaped cake, no one would be happier than I if you succeeded. However, that didn't seem to turn out all that well the last time it was tried. Better relations with the US seem to be right up there with a successful Iraq on the list of things that the Mullahs do not want and will work hard to avoid.