The new National Security Strategy...
Friday, March 17, 2006 at 8:47AM ...has my friend Michael Lotus worried. He sees too much eagerness on Iran. I see an unthinking replay of the whole WMD dynamic, with Kim Jong Il relegated to second-tier status, which I find both puzzling and dangerous.
First, we can't do the Iran scenario--for years. Unless we pin-prick them conventionally or go nuclear. So Iran's basically got us by the MAD already.
Second, doing Iran does nothing to progress the most important relationships we're working right now: China and then India. Instead, it pushes them in the wrong direction by forcing choices that do not make sense.
Third, Kim beats the mullahs or Ahmadinejad on all scores: bad actor at home, bad actor abroad, potential to derail globalization (Kim's got nothing to lose, but Iran would lose everything). Plus Kim's got the nukes and the missiles already, while Iran's got some missiles from Kim but no nukes.
How's that for prioritization and strategic thinking?
To me, this NSS is just further evidence that the Bush post-presidency began with Katrina. This is more aspirational than operational. It's auto-pilot. Bush has run out his string early because he's run out his troops. I look at the NSS and I see only the opening of the debate for 2008.
If I'm Hagel or McCain or Kerry or Clinton, I pretty much ignore this and start proposing my own.
Still, Michael's fears concern me some. He sends me this article from Newsday.
Me, I'm more intrigued by the WSJ story from Jay Solomon, Carla Anne Robbins and Philip Shishkin ("Iran Offers to Open Dialogue With U.S. on Iraq: White House Says Focus Of Talks Would Be Limited To Baghdad's Transition," 17 March 2006, p. A3).
You have to love the White House position on this: "We'll only talk about Baghdad, not nukes! We're not interested in any quid pro quos. No sir! Separate lanes! Separate lanes!"
If Condi Rice was anywhere near the hype surrounding her, we'd see some Kissingerian swapping going on here. That man knew how to deal from a weak hand. Rice is either out of her depth or powerless on Iran, just like Powell was on Iraq.
Even better, read this:
The White House official said, however, that the U.S. wouldn't use the talks to try and get Tehran to affect the actions of various Shiite politicians or militias, like the Mahdi Army or Badr Brigades. "We'd simply say stop interfering in the internal affairs of Iraq." said the official. "We'd say you too can play a constructive role in building a democratic Iraq."
As Dr. Evil would say, "Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight!"
What is it about this crowd that they never see the larger connectivity?
Reader Comments (3)
Negotiation and connectivity not possible with top-down management, when the top is the current president. Colin Powell had to get out. Condi is smart enough, but does whatever Bush wants. Bush is not smart enough. So the blind leads those who can see.
I'm reminded of this famous bit of dialogue from Apocalypse Now:
Willard: They told me that you had gone totally insane, and that your methods were unsound.
Kurtz: Are my methods unsound?
Willard: I don't see any method at all, sir.
Condi is smart enough, but does whatever Bush wants. Bush is not smart enough.
Which pretty much negates the "Condi is smart enough" assertion. She may be the most over-rated figure in public life today.