Bush's refusal to deal brings deaths - fast or slow

TRANSCRIPT: Pentagon's New Map author Thomas P.M. Barnett on the surge strategy in Iraq

POST: Iran In Iraq: Clarity And Confrontation Or Appeasement?

Hugh misrepresents my argument in this sense: I don't say more bloodletting is required for a regional dialogue to begin, but that Bush's refusal to deal with Iran leaves us with that inevitability--either fast or slow.

Thus the "distant quarrel" charge is misapplied.

I think Bush's approach of trying to settle Iraq while simultaneously ramping up for strikes in Iran is strategically stupid and morally bankrupt. There are no "separate lanes" in the PG, any more than there are in our relationship with China.

If Bush would stop taking on all comers all the time, we could have--and could still--prevent unnecessary death in Iraq. But Bush refuses to make the tough decisions, and so history will blame him for this failure--unless this administration somehow wakes up in time.

I am not optimistic. Bush is the ultimate hedgehog who admits no mistakes.

Comments

[William Turpley]

You seem to be promoting a nuclear Iran. That would lead to an unstable nuclear middle east.

[jake]

Doesn't your strategy of jaw-jaw with the Iranians require some significant passage of time between the beginning of talks and their acquisition of nukes? Does anyone have a good idea of when they could start testing? Estimations seem to be all over the map. I'm assuming you think they're not that close.

[J Canepa]

Perhaps the real motivation is profit http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20226447/site/newsweek/page/0

[Bruce Sterling]

With Iran high on triumphalism believing that God and history are infallibily on their side and that victory is within reach you might as well talk to the hills.

[Rick Gibson]

Lets say that President Bush took your advice. Lets say that he asked the Iranians to support peace in Iraq.

What would Teheran ask from us, in return? We know the answer; Iran has not been shy about its desires. First, Iran wants nuclear weapons; it will not cooperate with us, on any other issue, until we stop making a fuss about this. Second, Iran wants great influence in the future of Iraq.

Accepting a nuclear-armed Iran, as the price of peace in Iraq, would be foolish. Granting Iran a permanent role in Iraq, in exchange for peace, also would be foolish.

We need to keep our eye on the big picture. The purpose of this war was to weaken those elements of radical Islam that threaten America. If we followed your advice, this war would have overthrown Husssein only to crown the Iranians masters of the region. In short, what you are advocating is permitting Iran to win the Iraq War.

Iran is our enemy. If we let them win this round, they will be back. The larger war will not be won by buying peace in Iraq by increasing the power of Iran.