Though I will never appreciate the way Tom Friedman thinks--first threaten to bomb, then negotiate--much of this mornings NY Times op ed makes sense, especially the conclusion:
"The main reason Mr. Rumsfeld should leave now is because we can't have a credible diplomatic or military option vis-à-vis Iran when so many people feel, as I do, that in a choice between another Rumsfeld-led confrontation and just letting Iran get nukes and living with it, we should opt for the latter."I agree. The obvious question then becomes, "Who in the Bush gang would we trust?" Would we trust some brand spanking new, hand-picked Rummy clone? Hardly.
Rule number one for survival in this administration is, and always has been, loyalty to a recklessly dangerous foreign policy of pre-emptive war and regime change--a long held Cheney-Rummy agenda. If Rummy goes, guess who would be calling the shots? (Hint: His name starts with C and he isn't Rummy's replacement.) Now add "nuclear threat" (ours and Iran's) to the foreign affairs equation, replay past and ongoing failures in Iraq, and any confidence in, or hope for, a new Secretary of Defense evaporates quicker than you can say, "Armageddon."
My conclusion, therefore, is that every day we allow the Bush administration to continue their reign, it is to our own detriment. Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Condi, et. al.--all of them have proved their incompetence and their appalling disrespect for our rule of law, for the international rule of war, and for our long lost allies around the world. Everything these people touch turns to quagmire. They are incompetence personified.
Following Friedman's own logic, the entire Bush Regime is a strategic liability to the United States. They should face nothing less than impeachment proceedings or resign immediately.
Iraq II or a Nuclear Iran?
By Thomas L. Friedman
The New York Times
If these are our only choices, which would you rather have: a nuclear-armed Iran or an attack on Iran's nuclear sites that is carried out and sold to the world by the Bush national security team, with Don Rumsfeld at the Pentagon's helm?
I'd rather live with a nuclear Iran.
While I know the right thing is to keep all our options open, I have zero confidence in this administration's ability to manage a complex military strike against Iran, let alone the military and diplomatic aftershocks.
As someone who believed — and still believes — in the importance of getting Iraq right, the level of incompetence that the Bush team has displayed in Iraq, and its refusal to acknowledge any mistakes or remove those who made them, make it impossible to support this administration in any offensive military action against Iran.
I look at the Bush national security officials much the way I look at drunken drivers. I just want to take away their foreign policy driver's licenses for the next three years. Sorry, boys and girls, you have to stay home now — or take a taxi. Dial 1-800-NATO-CHARGE-A-RIDE. You will not be driving alone. Not with my car.
If ours were a parliamentary democracy, the entire Bush team would be out of office by now, and deservedly so. In Iraq, the president was supposed to lead, manage and hold subordinates accountable, and he did not. Condoleezza Rice was supposed to coordinate, and she did not. Donald Rumsfeld was supposed to listen, and he did not. But ours is not a parliamentary system, and while some may feel as if this administration's over, it isn't. So what to do? We can't just take a foreign policy timeout.
At a minimum, a change must be made at the Pentagon. Mr. Rumsfeld paints himself as a concerned secretary, ready to give our generals in Iraq whatever troops they ask for, but they just haven't asked. This is hogwash, but even if the generals didn't ask, the relevant question, Mr. Rumsfeld, is: What did you ask them?
What did you ask them when you saw the looting, when you saw Saddam's ammo dumps unguarded, when you saw that no one had control of the Iraq-Syria border and when you saw that Iraq was so insecure that militias were sprouting everywhere? What did you ask the generals? You didn't ask and you didn't tell, because you never wanted to send more troops. You actually thought we could just smash Saddam's regime and leave. Insane.
So if our choice is another Rummy-led operation on Iran or Iran's going nuclear and our deterring it through classic means, I prefer deterrence. A short diplomatic note to Iran's mullahs will suffice: "Gentlemen, should you ever use a nuclear device, or dispense one to terrorists, we will destroy every one of your nuclear sites with tactical nuclear weapons. If there is any part of this sentence you don't understand, please contact us. Thank you."
Do I wish there was a third way? Yes. But the only meaningful third way would be to challenge Iran to face-to-face negotiations about all the issues that divide us: Iraq, sanctions, nukes. Such diplomacy, though, would require two things.
First, the Bush team would have to make up its mind on something that has divided it for five years: Does it want a change of regime in Iran or a change of behavior? If it will settle only for regime change, then diplomacy has no chance. The Iranians will never negotiate, and our allies will be wary of working with us.
Second, if the Bush team is ready to live with a change in Iran's behavior, diplomacy has a chance — but only if it has allies and a credible threat of force to make the Iranians negotiate seriously. The only way Iran will strike a grand bargain with the U.S. is if it thinks America has the support at home and abroad for a military option (or really severe sanctions.)
The main reason Mr. Rumsfeld should leave now is because we can't have a credible diplomatic or military option vis-à-vis Iran when so many people feel, as I do, that in a choice between another Rumsfeld-led confrontation and just letting Iran get nukes and living with it, we should opt for the latter.
It may be that learning to live with a nuclear Iran is the wisest thing under any circumstances. But it would be nice to have a choice. It would be nice to have the option of a diplomatic deal to end Iran's nuclear program — but that will come only with a credible threat of force. Yet we will not have the support at home or abroad for that threat as long as Don Rumsfeld leads the Pentagon. No one in their right mind would follow this man into another confrontation — and that is a real strategic liability.
Photo credit: Thomas Friedman. (Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times)
Related Articles:
- Truthdig - Reports - Robert Scheer: Bush's Nutty Nuclear Braggadocio
Truthdig's editor in chief writes that if Bush is to be judged on his ability to keep us safe from rogue nations or terrorists armed with weapons of mass destruction, his 5-year administration has been an abysmal failure.
"A once swaggering president, who so convincingly wielded a bullhorn and modeled a flight suit, now has assumed the pretzel pose of a supplicant attempting to cajole our old enemy in Tehran into dropping its nuclear ambitions while simultaneously initiating talks with Iran aimed at bailing us out in Iraq." - President Bush Now Cought In The Tangled Web He Spun
President George W. Bush's character is diseased. Serial lies spew from his forked tongue as the result of a damaged mind and personality that will not permit him to face the truth. He lies about leaks and leaks about lies.
- Rumsfeld's Fall Drags Hawks in Its Wake
- Countdown Over Iran
It’s both fascinating and dismaying watching the manufactured `crisis’ over Iran reach new intensity each week. Iran poses no real military threat to anyone, but listening to the Bush Administration or the US media one would think that that Tehran was about to unleash a nuclear holocaust on the world.
- ABC News: Israel Warns of New 'Axis of Terror'
Ambassador Dan Gillerman cautioned that a new "axis of terror" Iran, Syria and the Hamas-run Palestinian government was sowing the seeds of the first world war of the 21st century.
- FLASH PRESENTATION - Fallout: the human cost of nuclear catastrophe
- Prominent U.S. Physicists Send Warning Letter to President Bush
Thirteen of the nation’s most prominent physicists have written a letter to President Bush, calling U.S. plans to reportedly use nuclear weapons against Iran “gravely irresponsible” and warning that such action would have “disastrous consequences for the security of the United States and the world.”
- Pentagon declines comment on report of Iran strike plans
The Pentagon declined to comment Monday on a report that US military planning for Iran began in 2002 and has been continually updated since.
- Rumsfeld Shouldn't Be Fired. He Should Be Indicted. | The Progressive
Technorati tags: Thomas Friedman, New York Times, Iraq, Iran, foreign policy, Bush, Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, nuclear war, news, commentary, op ed
No comments:
Post a Comment