Bush Sets Preconditions for Iran, Syria;
Senators Critique ISG
At a news conference with Tony Blair, George W. Bush basically blew off the Iraq Study Group's recommendation that he talk to Syria and Iran without preconditions. Excerpts:
' "Having an international group is an interesting idea," Bush said.
"We have made it clear to the Iranians that there is a possible change in U.S. policy, a policy that's been in place for 27 years," said Bush. "And that is that, if they would like to engage the United States, that they've got to verifiably suspend their [nuclear] enrichment program."
The Bush administration suspects Iran of using its nuclear program to develop weapons. Tehran insists its program is for peaceful purposes only.
As for Syria, Bush said Damascus should "stop destabilizing" Lebanon's government. "If they want to sit down at the table with the United States, it's easy," Bush said. "Just make some decisions that'll lead to peace, not to conflict." '
In other words, Bush wants compromise before negotiation, and virtual submission to Washington as a prerequisite even for talks. Same old W.
Bush and Blair seemed to agree with the ISG assertion that it is necessary, in order to get the Middle East to settle down, to get the Israeli-Palestinian peace process started again. The main engine driving hatred of the United States in the Arab and Muslim worlds is Washington's knee-jerk support for Israeli crushing of the Palestinians as a people. Under Israeli hegemony, half of Palestinians are now food-insecure (including children), and unemployment is 40 percent in Gaza (in the West Bank it is only Great Depression territory-- 25 percent). Plantation owners in the 19th century treated their slaves better than the Israelis treat the Palestinians under their control in the Occupied Territories. Unlike American television, Arab television daily shows readers what is happening in Palestine, and the anger spreads.
Thomas Ricks reports that some senators were highly critical of the Iraq Study Group report as they took testimony from co-chairs James A. Baker III and Lee Hamilton.
Hamilton at one point let them have it, asking where the senators have been the last three and a half years. The US constitution gives them advise and consent authority over warmaking, which that august body hasn't bothered to exercise for decades.
Shorter Joe Lieberman: Iran is bad.
Shorter John McCain: Whaddaya mean we don't have more troops to put in there?
Shorter Hillary Rodham Clinton: But how can you make W. do it?
Shorter James Baker: 16 years ago I convinced Syria to invade Iraq on our side, what makes you think I can't do it again?
I saw McCain on television the other day uttering some nonsense about Iran seeking hegemony in the region for the last 1,000 years. There hasn't even consistently been an Iran over that kind of timeline. Nation states like Iran always claim ancient patrimonies, but they are actually mostly modern phenomena. In the 800s, the Abbasid Empire, an Arab dynasty based in Baghdad, ruled what is now Iran. In the 900s and 1000s, the Buyid Empire based in Iran invaded what is now Iraq and ruled both the Mesopotamian valley and the Iranian plateau. Then you have a Turkic Central Asian empire like the Seljuks. And what about the Mongol Empire, which included both Baghdad and the Iranian plateau in the 1200s and 1300s? Making up an eternal Iran that is always an aggressor seeking hegemony is just an exercise in historical whimsy. In fact, even modern Iran has not aggressively invaded another country for two centuries.
Senators should please not misuse history for mere politics.
As for McCain's bizarre idea that an extra division would make any difference in Iraq, or that we have an extra army division to send there for any length of time, that is pure politics. He thinks he will get to be president peddling these fantasies.
As for Iran, here is what foreign minister Manucher Mottaki had to say:
' Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki says his country is "in a position" to help end the cycle of violence which he blames on the US. . . Mottaki says Iran is in a position to "finalize" [i.e. "end"] the crisis in Iraq but says the US will have to ask. And he says his government wants to see action, specifically a change of policy, and not just hear words. . .'
Sounds to me a lot like what W. said about Iran.
As for the real Iraq, Reuters reported several major incidents of violence-- including the blowing up by guerrillas of 5 US GIs near Kirkuk in the north on Wednesday. Altogether the US death toll for Wednesday was 11.
posted by Juan Cole @ 12/08/2006 06:28:00 AM
Click to join Infoco
13 Comments:
"Bush and Blair seemed to agree with the ISG assertion that it is necessary, in order to get the Middle East to settle down, to get the Israeli-Palestinian peace process started again."
I certainly agree w. you that Blair feels urgently about resuming Mideast diplomacy regarding Israel-Palestine. But I didn't at all get the same impression fr. Bush. If you read the transcript you can see the passion in Blair's conversation compared to the woodenness & fumfering in Bush's pledge of a commmitment to puruse peace bet. the 2 peoples.
I would much rather have Blair running our I-P policy than Bush.
"....Shorter James Baker: 16 years ago I convinced Syria to invade Iraq on our side, what makes you think I can't do it again?...."
Have not read a line of it, but that is the problem with the ISG report. It is written by someone that have been living in Fairytopia of the 70's and 80's and there isn't much reality in it that will relates to today’s Geostrategic problems and goals of the various competing players in the region or Iraq.
Doubtful, that either Syria or Iran has any major control over the various militias and armed groups in Iraq, other than expressing their wishes to them. I seriously doubt of either Syria or Iran being able to even curtail support to the various fighting groups, lower level echelon in both countries are there to provide needed support on an ideological, religious, clans or cash & hash basis. The bottom line is that these fighting groups nowadays are all very powerful, highly organized, fully armed, networked and self sufficient to a point that should any of them considers any pressure from Iran and Syria is deferential to their strategy and goal, they will flick'em off and go it alone or network with others.
I Spy, GI Advisor
The International Herald Tribune carries a 24-para article 12/6 on Iraq and growing use of American military advisors with Iraqi units. The US has moved an additional 1,000 untrained advisors in the past three weeks alone from US combat units to Iraqi units, joining 4 to 5 thousand already assigned.
"The goal is to create platoon-size teams of 20 to 30 advisors for each Iraqi battalion.....expanding the teams also could allow trainers to work more intimately with Iraqi soldiers, down to the company level."
The kicker is the final sentence:
"The teams would also be able to watch more closely for sectarian biases and human rights abuses."
Does this mean, "Every GI a spy?" Won't this just guarantee a warm welcome at the platoon level. Sort of like the old Soviet Political Advisor system?
But talk about the improved reporting this would lead to--we'd know which mosque each private attends when home in his village, and if we spoke Arab well enough and kept notes enough, we'd learn which Imams spoke there, and which spiritual leaders each one cited in successive Friday sermons.
Over time, we'd learn which soldiers favored which factions--at least for those who spoke English well enough, and were truthful with their embedded Zampolits.
And if our GIs did spot sectarian bias, could they take immediate action, firing the sectarian-biased on the spot, demoting them or promoting them as appropriate in view of the policy of the week, and terminating with extreme prejudice when bias was severe enough?
Or is this just another meaningless idea being tossed into the hopper in hopes it will strike someone as a good idea?
Professor Cole doesnt the US have leverage with Iran in that the marines in Anbar Province are holding back a Sunni march to Bagdad? I know this is Machiavellian. The Shias it seems to me are in an unnaturally confident, superior postition because the US military is holding back a Sunni march on Bagdad. I was hoping you could comment on what would happen if the US drew down its forces and diminished its presence. Would the Sunnis continue to attack supply lines, US bases or would they focus on their attacks on Shias? Could the US intervene in any meaningful way if the Sunnis and Shias started to openly battle for supremacy in contested areas or for Bagdad itself? Is it probable for the Sunnis to topple the government if we were not there? I ask because I doubt a political solution to Sunni and Shia conflicts can be achieved in Iraq when extremists can literally blow up any diplomacy. A big picture of probable outcomes would be very helpful. Thank you for all the time you put into your blog- from a reader of several years.
In other words, Bush wants...virtual submission to Washington as a prerequisite even for talks. Same old W.
Same old W, right down to his removal from reality. Anyone can see that at this point, we need the help of Iran and Syria far more than they need ours.
"Plantation owners in the 19th century treated their slaves better than the Israelis treat the Palestinians..."
Dear Juan. I have been researching my white Southern ancestors, specifically the plantation-owning ones. A letter from my great-great-great-aunt Mary Ann Moreland to her brother Mirabeau Bonaparte Lamar mentions my great-great-great-grandfather, John Randle. Randle was helping the Lamar brothers-in-law deal with Indians around the southwest Georgia plantation which ended up being sold at my great-great-grandmother's death.
Mrs. Moreland reported they are going to exterminate the Indians. The letter's recipient, who became president of the Republic of Texas, was a gentleman remembered for his great civilization, love of poetry and education, and -- exterminating Indians.
The analogy between plantation owners and Indians is more apt than owners and African slaves. The plantation owners in Georgia and Alabama of the early 19th century settled "virgin" territory and dealt with the native population by pushing them away if possible, and exterminating them if not.
Howard Zinn's depiction of the settler/Indian wars of 17th century Virginia also comes to mind.
The Bush Administration's tendency to reject diplomacy without pre-conditions, which ~ in the minds of those on the other side of the table usually evokes a response such as, "What's the point in engaging in negotiations if we comply a priori with that which we are supposedly negotiating??" ~ has proven to be not only unproductive, but also uncreative, intellectually lazy (and i daresay, criminally negligent).
The result has been for six years a kind of do nothing : achieve nothing, thus = Foreign Policy.
If history is any guide then quite often in the past when bilateral talks between contentious parties were refused or curtailed in some sort of protest, we would learn later that low-level, un-official or alternate channels continnued to be employed ~ after all, it makes no sense to entirely blind oneself to an opponent's ambition. However, with this Bush Administration, we get the uneasy feeling that no! : because of pride and prejudice we don't have a clue as to what is going on inside of IRAN or North KOREA :-/
The last time the Iranian helped the US (in Afghanistan) the Bush administration turned around and accused Iran of being a member of an Axis of Eeeevvvvuuuuhhhhll....
I think the Iranians are capable of learning that lesson. Why should they pull Bush's fat out of the fire if Bush still insists that nuking Iran is an "option on the table" etc.? That would be plain silly.
Trackback: Bluffing the Mullahs
Excerpt:
And so Bush wants to see results before he’s willing to play nice. The neo-cons put Iran in the shithouse as far as our president is concerned. They’ve already taken the extreme measure of being anti-American and nothing can change that in Bush’s mind, short of the impossible goal of complete capitulation with no chance of backsliding. And for Bush, complete capitulation doesn’t occur until his dad’s buddies have a strong position in Iran’s economy and he’s riding on the Disney Iran trolley on his way to see Mickey. As a compromise, Bush will allow them to dress Minnie in a manteau, scarf, and black leggings, though Donald will remain pantless. That’s our Bush.
In today's WaPo Federal Insider, Wiliam Arkin quotes the decider-in-chief as follows:
<"The only way to secure a lasting peace for our children and grandchildren is to defeat the extremist ideologies," the president said.
Mark his words: the only way.>
Mark Bush'other word; "ideologie(s)"
There is a whole planet full of those, and they are slippery things.
Juan's condensed senatorial wisdom is just as indicative of the likelihood of change. President Hillary - senator, been around, er, in, the White House, hopefully had a copy of the Constitution waved at her in grade school - can't figure out how to make W "do it".
A few suggestions.
Stop paying for anything but tickets home and the generations of reparations America now owes Iraq.
Stop paying and arming Israel.
Impeachment.
Of course, all this would require much campaign finance reform, many more elections and prosecutions, and the disarming, if not destruction of the Lobby, as well as the routing of the Evangelicals.
all as likely as congress taking up its' responsibilities to the people.
I would bet money - the taxpayer's of course - that Israel will be destroyed, and more destructive events - who will be able to tell if they're actually attacks or not - will occur in the Homeland before the debate is over - and then debate will be treason, apostasy, blasphemy, or suicde.
Arkin believes you are one National Emergency event away from the loss of YOUR government and the final imposition of THEIRS. He's not talking about foreign threats.
Extremist ideologies indeed.
Congress should give Bush an ultimatum: change course or face impeachment.
Clarification from Olmert
Israeli-Iranian clash is a critical part of general ME and Iraqi situation. Further, on the Arab and Iranian side, nobody takes distinctions between the US, UK and Israeli positions anyhow seriously. In fact, it is safe to assume that for the Iranians, verbal intricacies in the Western media make no sense whatsoever, so when Ahmadinejad talks to Bush, he actually talks to Blair and Olmert as well, etc.
Now Olmert reiterates the old well known Israeli points about the importance of maximal international pressure on Iran. But for the Iranians, Syrians, Sadrists, Iraqi Sunni radicals, Hizbullah and Hamas, Olmert fully represents the West. So, in practical terms, this statement by Olmert pretty much nullifies all the recent debate on the change of course in the ME and in Iraq.
Now we see that as far as Israelis and Iranians are concerned, nothing changes. This means that for Iraqi, Palestinian and Lebanese radicals there is no meaningful change as well. That is, escalation of the conflict goes on.
YNet. Olmert on Iran: I rule nothing out
I got sidetracked with my ancestor obsession. My point:
The analogy between plantation owners and slaves is false. Israelis treat Palestinians the way Southerners treated Indians. In America, slaves provided economic benefit to owners, who got rich off their free labor. Owners had an economic motivation to feed them and keep them from dying. Hence the "better" treatment.
Just like the plantation owners of south Georgia in the 19th century, the Israelis are fighting the indigenous people for land, and are willing to exterminate them if they don't get what they want. SO of course they don't even treat them as well as plantation owners treated their slaves. No economic incentive for it.
Post a Comment
<< Home