BUSH IN IRAN
People find my idea that Bush will show up in Iran and normalize relations a bit "fantastic." But if you told me in 2000 that both the Taliban and Saddam would be removed from power within three years, by US troops, and elections would be held in Afghanistan, that would have seemed like fantasy then.
My own perception is that the Bush administration's foreign-policy intuition has been uncannily brilliant, but the commentators are too muddle-headed and thick-skulled to get it. Take the Duelfer Report. That Saddam didn't have WMDs, but intended to get them as soon as the sanctions were lifted, is often taken as a partial vindication of the Iraq war, but it would have been better if there were WMDs. On the contrary. If Saddam had had WMDs, he would have used them against us in the war, and it would have been very costly. The best time to attack is precisely when he plans to get them but doesn't have them yet.
Or, again, the lack of a plan to win the peace is often taken as evidence of Bush administration failure. But because we lacked a plan, we were able to let Iraqi leaders like Sistani and Allawi emerge.
Contrast Bosnia and Kosovo with Afghanistan and Iraq. The Balkans, going on ten years later, remain protectorates, with foreign troops staying to prevent the outbreak of violence among groups whose hatreds linger-- on Europe's doorstep. But Afghanistan, land of warlords and mujahideen and opium and abysmal literacy rates, is holding elections; and Iraq will be come January, Allawi will see to that!
My rule is: Figure out a smart but bold policy solution; Bush will probably adopt it. It's worked for me so far at least half the time. And I think talks with Iran to end the war with radical Islam (at some well-chosen moment when we're in a position of maximum strength) would be a smart move.
My own perception is that the Bush administration's foreign-policy intuition has been uncannily brilliant, but the commentators are too muddle-headed and thick-skulled to get it. Take the Duelfer Report. That Saddam didn't have WMDs, but intended to get them as soon as the sanctions were lifted, is often taken as a partial vindication of the Iraq war, but it would have been better if there were WMDs. On the contrary. If Saddam had had WMDs, he would have used them against us in the war, and it would have been very costly. The best time to attack is precisely when he plans to get them but doesn't have them yet.
Or, again, the lack of a plan to win the peace is often taken as evidence of Bush administration failure. But because we lacked a plan, we were able to let Iraqi leaders like Sistani and Allawi emerge.
Contrast Bosnia and Kosovo with Afghanistan and Iraq. The Balkans, going on ten years later, remain protectorates, with foreign troops staying to prevent the outbreak of violence among groups whose hatreds linger-- on Europe's doorstep. But Afghanistan, land of warlords and mujahideen and opium and abysmal literacy rates, is holding elections; and Iraq will be come January, Allawi will see to that!
My rule is: Figure out a smart but bold policy solution; Bush will probably adopt it. It's worked for me so far at least half the time. And I think talks with Iran to end the war with radical Islam (at some well-chosen moment when we're in a position of maximum strength) would be a smart move.
posted by Nathanael at
3:14 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home