There seems to be general agreement - among the right and the center-left - that we cannot allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. Iran is too dangerous and has said things that might imply that they would attack Israel. Therefore, if Iran gets too close to having a weapon, we'll have to attack. This all suggests that the general policy is that anyone that threatens a neighbor cannot have nuclear weapons.
The problem is that this isn't our policy across the board. In fact, in North Korea, we have let that country have a nuclear weapon. That isn't to say we haven't tried to prevent it. But we haven't made a blanket statement that we will attack if they get too close to having a weapon. That isn't our policy because it is clear if we attacked North Korea, they would attack South Korea.
In other words, there is a country that has made statements that are far more clear about a desire to attack their neighbor and yet has acquired a nuclear weapon. We have chosen containment in that example because attacking is too risky.
I wish the debate over Iran was more honest about what our general policy is. We have chosen containment in another situation and we could do the same with Iran. Especially since Iran's threats are much fewer and more opaque.
That doesn't mean we should choose containment in all examples. Just that the debate should be clear that we can and we have when the situation warranted it. We might decide that the risk of attacking Iran isn't that great - threats to block the Straight of Hormuz are weak, threats to destabilize Iraq are weak, that their military is weak. But it should be a clear decision based on risks of each choice, instead of starting from a place where containment is unthinkable.
This also makes me think about the choice to invade Iraq. I was talking with a conservative years after the invasion - after it had gone bad - and asked if they still supported it. I also made the point that Saddam Hussein wasn't the biggest supporter of terrorism (if he was a supporter at all, which I think he was not) nor was he the worst dictator in how he treated his own people. If you were looking to attack a sponsor of terrorism, you might have looked to Iran, Syria, or better yet Saudi Arabia. If you were looking to topple a terrible dictator, you might have looked in the Sudan, Egypt, or better yet Saudi Arabia.
My conservative friend's response was that Iraq was low hanging fruit. That Saddam was a bad dictator and was somewhat dangerous but was easy to topple. He might not have been the worst, but he might have been the easiest. I think it is clear now that the fruit was harder to reach than originally thought. But worse, that wasn't what the Bush administration said. They said Saddam was dangerous - the most dangerous person. He wasn't. If it was low handing fruit, they should have made that argument - and seen whether the American people would support a major invasion to take out someone that isn't as dangerous as some other leaders.
My point with this whole diversion is that too often the arguments made are not objectively true. And that is clear by looking at other examples. But they make these arguments because if they leave room for an alternative, they might find they aren't allowed to take the course they want.
Showing posts with label Iran. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iran. Show all posts
Sunday, May 12, 2013
Saturday, March 03, 2012
Is Iran 2012 the New Iraq 2003?
There is a lot of talk about Iran, its nuclear program, and whether Iran and / or the US will attack. I agree with Glenn Greenwald that the talk is one-sided and reminiscent of the lead-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. And that is a shame. I do think the costs of such an attack are getting some good attention though. That isn't the same as airing whether Iran really is getting a weapon or why they might want one.
Before I go into my views, I will say the President's interview with Jeffrey Goldberg at the Atlantic was helpful in understanding his position better, though I don't necessarily agree with all of it. One of the takeaways that I hadn't been thinking about enough was the danger of an arms race in the Middle East if Iran gets a weapon.
Before reading the article, I had been comparing Iran to North Korea. Since we are using sanctions, but otherwise using containment with North Korea, my position has been we can also use sanctions and containment for Iran. In comparing Iran and North Korea, North Korea seems like the more dangerous country to have a nuclear weapon. North Korea is still at war with South Korea, with only a cease-fire armistice having stopped hostilities. Iran is supporting groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. However, I think the hostilities are an order less than is the case with North and South Korea.
The question is whether there is a regional difference with North Korea and Iran. There isn't an arms race in Asia over North Korea it seems, with South Korea and Japan content with our protection. However, we need to ask whether we could convince the other countries in the region not to seek nuclear weapons even if Iran has one, like we must have done with South Korea and Japan.
The main antagonist with Iran is Israel. However, I think it is assumed that Israel already has a nuclear weapon. So who else are we talking about, since President Obama doesn't mention any names? Probably Saudi Arabia for one. Though I am convinced that we could prevent them from going nuclear since our protection is well-assured.
Who else? I haven't seen a list so I can only guess. Maybe Egypt who might now be harder to manage. Iraq has a close relationship now with Iran, so I don't think they would be scared into getting a weapon. Maybe Lebanon, though I don't know how much they fear Iran. Of course in some of these scenarios, there is more chance of terrorists or other rogue groups getting a weapon.
I guess where I am coming down, while I lack more complete information, is that I am still unconvinced that containment won't work, though I am a little less sure. I do understand the president's long fight against proliferation and I see how this fits into that, especially around rogue groups in the Middle East.
There is also the very important question of whether military strikes would have the desired effect. I think it would cause the regime to be even more determined to get weapons (more than they currently are where attacks are only a threat) and would set them back at most a few years. In addition, it could have big economic effects, not least being much higher gas prices and a stalled economy. It seems Obama gets all of this.
Having said all that, the question of whether Iran is actually seeking a weapon is still open. They are seeking nuclear capabilities, but not yet weapons, which I think gets lost. And that distinction is critical.
I also wonder if talks of attacks encourage or discourage their developing weapon capability. It seems to me that the threat of an attack, the talk of regime change, and the possibility of a full war, would encourage weapon development. Unfortunately, we don't have the liberal president we thought we were getting - or at least wish we had. He refuses to turn down the temperature.
One last point: it really feels like Israel is driving the process instead of us. I find it completely strange that people (McCain, Romney, et al) are saying there should be no daylight between us and Israel. To me, that sounds like our position is that we do whatever Israel wants us to do.
I have never thought that American policy was to be dictated by a foreign government. I assumed that we would do what is in our interest or what we thought was right, and in the end we didn't care so much if close allies disagreed. Saying there can be no daylight means whatever Israel says, we cannot disagree with (otherwise there will be daylight). You can say that it means we need to agree, but it leaves no room for what happens if we can't agree except to say that we will need to defer to Israel.
Whatever we decide, it has to be done based on what is good for us and what we think is right. President Obama seems to get this. The GOP definitely does not.
Before I go into my views, I will say the President's interview with Jeffrey Goldberg at the Atlantic was helpful in understanding his position better, though I don't necessarily agree with all of it. One of the takeaways that I hadn't been thinking about enough was the danger of an arms race in the Middle East if Iran gets a weapon.
Before reading the article, I had been comparing Iran to North Korea. Since we are using sanctions, but otherwise using containment with North Korea, my position has been we can also use sanctions and containment for Iran. In comparing Iran and North Korea, North Korea seems like the more dangerous country to have a nuclear weapon. North Korea is still at war with South Korea, with only a cease-fire armistice having stopped hostilities. Iran is supporting groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. However, I think the hostilities are an order less than is the case with North and South Korea.
The question is whether there is a regional difference with North Korea and Iran. There isn't an arms race in Asia over North Korea it seems, with South Korea and Japan content with our protection. However, we need to ask whether we could convince the other countries in the region not to seek nuclear weapons even if Iran has one, like we must have done with South Korea and Japan.
The main antagonist with Iran is Israel. However, I think it is assumed that Israel already has a nuclear weapon. So who else are we talking about, since President Obama doesn't mention any names? Probably Saudi Arabia for one. Though I am convinced that we could prevent them from going nuclear since our protection is well-assured.
Who else? I haven't seen a list so I can only guess. Maybe Egypt who might now be harder to manage. Iraq has a close relationship now with Iran, so I don't think they would be scared into getting a weapon. Maybe Lebanon, though I don't know how much they fear Iran. Of course in some of these scenarios, there is more chance of terrorists or other rogue groups getting a weapon.
I guess where I am coming down, while I lack more complete information, is that I am still unconvinced that containment won't work, though I am a little less sure. I do understand the president's long fight against proliferation and I see how this fits into that, especially around rogue groups in the Middle East.
There is also the very important question of whether military strikes would have the desired effect. I think it would cause the regime to be even more determined to get weapons (more than they currently are where attacks are only a threat) and would set them back at most a few years. In addition, it could have big economic effects, not least being much higher gas prices and a stalled economy. It seems Obama gets all of this.
Having said all that, the question of whether Iran is actually seeking a weapon is still open. They are seeking nuclear capabilities, but not yet weapons, which I think gets lost. And that distinction is critical.
I also wonder if talks of attacks encourage or discourage their developing weapon capability. It seems to me that the threat of an attack, the talk of regime change, and the possibility of a full war, would encourage weapon development. Unfortunately, we don't have the liberal president we thought we were getting - or at least wish we had. He refuses to turn down the temperature.
One last point: it really feels like Israel is driving the process instead of us. I find it completely strange that people (McCain, Romney, et al) are saying there should be no daylight between us and Israel. To me, that sounds like our position is that we do whatever Israel wants us to do.
I have never thought that American policy was to be dictated by a foreign government. I assumed that we would do what is in our interest or what we thought was right, and in the end we didn't care so much if close allies disagreed. Saying there can be no daylight means whatever Israel says, we cannot disagree with (otherwise there will be daylight). You can say that it means we need to agree, but it leaves no room for what happens if we can't agree except to say that we will need to defer to Israel.
Whatever we decide, it has to be done based on what is good for us and what we think is right. President Obama seems to get this. The GOP definitely does not.
Saturday, August 21, 2010
What to Say and When to Say It
I've noticed in a lot of foreign policy debates, there seems to be a belief, often unspoken, that if the US government supports a certain position, they should necessarily express that position. It is a belief that the world always wants to hear what the US says and that our speaking will always have a positive effect. This is wrong.
The real test should be - once you determine the government's position - whether speaking out will help or hurt the group of people you support. Iran is the perfect example of this. Many seem to suggest that the reason Obama has not been more supportive of the green revolution protesters is that he wants to work with the Iranian government to stop their nuclear program.
Instead, it seems the Obama administration understands that US public pressure can sometimes hurt movements. In Iran for example, the more the US supports the green revolution, the easier it is for Iranian government to paint it as a US funded operation to take down the government. Therefore, US support undermines the protesters.
There are other considerations of course. For example, if there is a protest that is not getting public attention, US support and condemnation of repression, would raise awareness of the issue. The protesters might be painted as pawns of the US but the world would also pay more attention.
There are always many factors to consider. I just wish more of the people commenting on foreign policy understood this.
The real test should be - once you determine the government's position - whether speaking out will help or hurt the group of people you support. Iran is the perfect example of this. Many seem to suggest that the reason Obama has not been more supportive of the green revolution protesters is that he wants to work with the Iranian government to stop their nuclear program.
Instead, it seems the Obama administration understands that US public pressure can sometimes hurt movements. In Iran for example, the more the US supports the green revolution, the easier it is for Iranian government to paint it as a US funded operation to take down the government. Therefore, US support undermines the protesters.
There are other considerations of course. For example, if there is a protest that is not getting public attention, US support and condemnation of repression, would raise awareness of the issue. The protesters might be painted as pawns of the US but the world would also pay more attention.
There are always many factors to consider. I just wish more of the people commenting on foreign policy understood this.
Friday, June 25, 2010
Triangles Everywhere
A while ago I wrote about the triangle between Sunni Arab countries, Shiite countries, and Israel and the potential for two to gang up on the other. Once I looked at that situation as a triangle, I started to see triangles in other places.
In this post, I will talk about a triangle in Iran. The three sides of the triangle are the theocracy, democracy, and the military. Iran tries to mix a theocracy with a democracy and has a military to protect both. As in any triangle, two sides can and do join together to overpower the other.
What has happened in Iran is that the theocracy felt threatened by the democracy and has chosen to join with the military to significantly weaken the democracy. President Ahmadinejad did this by giving important positions to people in the military, creating a government largely run by the military and dependent on Ahmadinejad for their positions.
So what they have created is a theocratic military state (masking as a religious republic). The question then is how long the theocratic military state can last before the democracy (maybe paired with some of the theocracy) rises up and regains power.
The key in any situation like this is the strength of the military. In Turkey, the military considers itself protector of the democracy and regularly steps in to prevent the democracy from having too much religious influence. But one can argue that the military is so strong that it is denying real democracy by denying complete choice.
But wherever you have a strong military, you risk the military becoming the only side - becoming unstoppable. Iran risks this very thing. While the military has always been strong, I think the question among some people right now is whether the stronger of the two partners is the military or the theocracy. Is Ayatollah Khamenei creating a monster he can no longer control?
In this post, I will talk about a triangle in Iran. The three sides of the triangle are the theocracy, democracy, and the military. Iran tries to mix a theocracy with a democracy and has a military to protect both. As in any triangle, two sides can and do join together to overpower the other.
What has happened in Iran is that the theocracy felt threatened by the democracy and has chosen to join with the military to significantly weaken the democracy. President Ahmadinejad did this by giving important positions to people in the military, creating a government largely run by the military and dependent on Ahmadinejad for their positions.
So what they have created is a theocratic military state (masking as a religious republic). The question then is how long the theocratic military state can last before the democracy (maybe paired with some of the theocracy) rises up and regains power.
The key in any situation like this is the strength of the military. In Turkey, the military considers itself protector of the democracy and regularly steps in to prevent the democracy from having too much religious influence. But one can argue that the military is so strong that it is denying real democracy by denying complete choice.
But wherever you have a strong military, you risk the military becoming the only side - becoming unstoppable. Iran risks this very thing. While the military has always been strong, I think the question among some people right now is whether the stronger of the two partners is the military or the theocracy. Is Ayatollah Khamenei creating a monster he can no longer control?
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Policy Towards Iran
As the election situation in Iran continues, it is important I think to take a step back and think about how Iran fits into the Middle East. There was an interesting, although overly simplistic, article in the Atlantic this month about the interplay between Iran, Sunni Arab nations, Shiite nations, Palestine and Israel. The author of the article suggests that we can use the threat of a nuclear Iran to unite Arabs and Israelis and achieve peace between Israel and Palestine.
The author correctly describes the triangle in the Middle East between Sunnis, Shiites, and Israel. Each group hates the others, but depending on power dynamics may be willing to work with one to team up against the other. Right now, Sunni Arab nations are concerned about the growing influence of Shiite Iran and now a Shiite-lead Iraq. And they are especially concerned about a nuclear Iran.
Now, while I agree that this situation exists and can be exploited, I doubt that it is as likely a possibility as the author thinks it is. I think Israel is entrenched in their position as are the Palestinians.
But more importantly, I think it is dangerous to operate this way. By supporting and uniting Sunni Arab states and Israel against Shiites, we would be taking a side in a centuries-long struggle between Shiites and Sunnis against the Shiites. During this struggle, Shiites have long been oppressed, and remain so in majority Sunni countries (although some are finding their voice in some degree in Afghanistan).
The beginning of Vali Nasr's book The Shia Revival shows us how in the past we were united against Shiites (supporting Iraq's Sunni dictator against Iran in a brutal decade long war), and how we ultimately regretted that after 9/11. So while I agree that Iran has long been belligerent towards the US, which is partly but definitely not entirely our fault, we should not push us into once again aligning with Sunni autocratic states. It is short term pseudo-solutions like this that prevent long term lasting solutions.
The author correctly describes the triangle in the Middle East between Sunnis, Shiites, and Israel. Each group hates the others, but depending on power dynamics may be willing to work with one to team up against the other. Right now, Sunni Arab nations are concerned about the growing influence of Shiite Iran and now a Shiite-lead Iraq. And they are especially concerned about a nuclear Iran.
Now, while I agree that this situation exists and can be exploited, I doubt that it is as likely a possibility as the author thinks it is. I think Israel is entrenched in their position as are the Palestinians.
But more importantly, I think it is dangerous to operate this way. By supporting and uniting Sunni Arab states and Israel against Shiites, we would be taking a side in a centuries-long struggle between Shiites and Sunnis against the Shiites. During this struggle, Shiites have long been oppressed, and remain so in majority Sunni countries (although some are finding their voice in some degree in Afghanistan).
The beginning of Vali Nasr's book The Shia Revival shows us how in the past we were united against Shiites (supporting Iraq's Sunni dictator against Iran in a brutal decade long war), and how we ultimately regretted that after 9/11. So while I agree that Iran has long been belligerent towards the US, which is partly but definitely not entirely our fault, we should not push us into once again aligning with Sunni autocratic states. It is short term pseudo-solutions like this that prevent long term lasting solutions.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Iran Elections
I am sure everyone is aware of the situation in Iran - the country has seen protests, and then violence against the protesters, following unbelievable presidential election results. There is a lot of reason for suspecting fraud, including the really short time it took the government to announce the results, the huge margin of victory for Ahmadinejad despite polling data (and previous election results) that would predict a closer election, and the fact that some districts had more votes than registered voters (not unexplainable, but definitely suspicious).
There are lots of smart analyses out there, including an article that looks at random number generation as compared to human's ability to generate random numbers. Much of the mainstream media is covering it, and the blog Informed Comment has had some really great coverage (written by the author of the new book Engaging the Muslim World).
What is interesting is seeing the way Obama has tried a new approach in responding. Unlike much of the people talking (including McCain), Obama realizes that too much (or any) US rhetoric can brand the protesters as stooges of the US. So he tried to stay out of it, although eventually caved in to pressure and commented. (There is probably no winning - you do not want to let the Iranian government - or the people themselves - think no one is watching, but you do not want protesters to look like Western agents.)
While I think most people lay their hopes on the ability of the protests to result in change, there is one other interesting possibility, mentioned on the the Times Lead blog:
Finally, I do want to comment on Iran in general. Before the election, I had mixed feelings about the country's form of government. While I certainly opposed the oppression that it often exerts, I was having trouble finding the same level of animosity for the government as others do (especially conservatives). First, I found it mostly hypocritical, since Iran has a more democratic system than countries like Saudi Arabia, which we rarely denounce.
But more so, I was having moments of relativism. Although western democracy calls for separation of church and state (which is sometimes even debated in the US), I wondered if there was room to tolerate a government that does ban some candidates, and ultimate control and decisions rest with unelected theocrats, but does allow for some meaningful participation.
The main question even then was how meaningful the participation was. It was unclear how much leeway the elected president had, although the previous reformer president managed to do very little. And in looking at a case of obvious voter fraud, it seems even more clear that Iranians have little power to choose their government.
But that question is still out there. The US government sets bounds for what changes will be accepted (via a constitution). An Islamic Republic in theory could do the same thing, if the bounds for change are left open so that voters can have an impact on how their government is involved in their lives. This clearly was not the case in Iran. The question is will it ever be - or are the only two options oppressive theocracy or western democracy.
There are lots of smart analyses out there, including an article that looks at random number generation as compared to human's ability to generate random numbers. Much of the mainstream media is covering it, and the blog Informed Comment has had some really great coverage (written by the author of the new book Engaging the Muslim World).
What is interesting is seeing the way Obama has tried a new approach in responding. Unlike much of the people talking (including McCain), Obama realizes that too much (or any) US rhetoric can brand the protesters as stooges of the US. So he tried to stay out of it, although eventually caved in to pressure and commented. (There is probably no winning - you do not want to let the Iranian government - or the people themselves - think no one is watching, but you do not want protesters to look like Western agents.)
While I think most people lay their hopes on the ability of the protests to result in change, there is one other interesting possibility, mentioned on the the Times Lead blog:
A source familiar with the thinking of decision-makers in state agencies that have strong ties to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said there is a sense among hardliners that a shoe is about to drop. Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani — Iran’s savviest political operator and an arch-enemy of Ayatollah Khamenei’s — has kept out of the public spotlight since the rigged June 12 presidential election triggered the political crisis. The widespread belief is that Rafsanjani has been in the holy city of Qom, working to assemble a religious and political coalition to topple the supreme leader and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.Before we get carried away - either by the prospects of a new election won by Mousavi or Rafsanjani as Supreme Leader (the prospects of a complete change away from the religious democracy / theocracy are absurdly slim) - let's realize that either will still leave challenges for foreign policy. A new leader in either place will not necessarily move Iran away from seeking nuclear weapons or animosity towards Israel (in other words, we need to learn more about these two before rooting too hard for them or expecting too much).
Finally, I do want to comment on Iran in general. Before the election, I had mixed feelings about the country's form of government. While I certainly opposed the oppression that it often exerts, I was having trouble finding the same level of animosity for the government as others do (especially conservatives). First, I found it mostly hypocritical, since Iran has a more democratic system than countries like Saudi Arabia, which we rarely denounce.
But more so, I was having moments of relativism. Although western democracy calls for separation of church and state (which is sometimes even debated in the US), I wondered if there was room to tolerate a government that does ban some candidates, and ultimate control and decisions rest with unelected theocrats, but does allow for some meaningful participation.
The main question even then was how meaningful the participation was. It was unclear how much leeway the elected president had, although the previous reformer president managed to do very little. And in looking at a case of obvious voter fraud, it seems even more clear that Iranians have little power to choose their government.
But that question is still out there. The US government sets bounds for what changes will be accepted (via a constitution). An Islamic Republic in theory could do the same thing, if the bounds for change are left open so that voters can have an impact on how their government is involved in their lives. This clearly was not the case in Iran. The question is will it ever be - or are the only two options oppressive theocracy or western democracy.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Just Say We're Sorry
The leadership in Iran has, among other things, requested that the US apologize for its past crimes in Iran. While I do not think we should ever apologize because of pressure / force, I do think we should apologize when history shows that our behavior was deplorable.
Our decision to overthrow a democratic (possibly socialist but unlikely to be communist) government lead by Mohammed Mossadegh and install the Shah in 1953 is one of a series of similar and disgusting acts we committed during the Cold War. In too many cases, we chose to support undemocratic, repressive governments instead of allowing democratic socialist or communist governments. I have been meaning to write about this for a while, but cannot quite get my ideas structured right. Basically though, we had a policy that supported economic liberty (at least in the form of unrestrained capitalism) over political liberty. In fact, in some cases, Iran being one of them, we supported repressive capitalist governments over potentially free socialist governments.
So how could Obama apologize without empowering Iran too much? One way would be to apologize for all examples where we did this at once - Iran, Cuba, Chile, Congo, etc. Obama could also ask that the Iranian government issue an apology for taking over the US embassy and holding hostages.
The bottom line is that our foreign policy was bankrupt, and an apology would signal that we are ready to move away from that hypocritical policy and actually promote our ideals of political and economic liberty.
Our decision to overthrow a democratic (possibly socialist but unlikely to be communist) government lead by Mohammed Mossadegh and install the Shah in 1953 is one of a series of similar and disgusting acts we committed during the Cold War. In too many cases, we chose to support undemocratic, repressive governments instead of allowing democratic socialist or communist governments. I have been meaning to write about this for a while, but cannot quite get my ideas structured right. Basically though, we had a policy that supported economic liberty (at least in the form of unrestrained capitalism) over political liberty. In fact, in some cases, Iran being one of them, we supported repressive capitalist governments over potentially free socialist governments.
So how could Obama apologize without empowering Iran too much? One way would be to apologize for all examples where we did this at once - Iran, Cuba, Chile, Congo, etc. Obama could also ask that the Iranian government issue an apology for taking over the US embassy and holding hostages.
The bottom line is that our foreign policy was bankrupt, and an apology would signal that we are ready to move away from that hypocritical policy and actually promote our ideals of political and economic liberty.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Iran and Venezuela
Maybe it is early still, but I really think two things are going to change Iran's power in negotiations with us. First, Ahmadinejad will no longer have President Bush to take attention away from Iran's failed economy and as the reason he needs to pursue nuclear technology. Secondly, as gas prices decline, so will their revenue. This will of course make their economic situation worse as well as exacerbating the impact of the sanctions. I think we can look for a President Obama to have a much stronger position if / when he negotiates with Iran.
These same reasons might weaken Chavez in Venezuela.
These same reasons might weaken Chavez in Venezuela.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Elect Rudy, Get 4 More Years of Bush
I actually think my headline is a bit of an understatement. Recent quotes from Rudy suggest that many of his foreign policy positions are more hard-lined, and therefore at this point worse for our country, than President Bush's policies. First, Guliani thinks water boarding might not be torture depending on how it is carried out (apparently he doesn't realize that it is a specific procedure carried out in a specific way). Thankfully, McCain responded and set him straight. Also, Rudy has made it clear that he supports Israel completely and considers Palestine to be nothing but terrorists. And he says that history will judge the Iraq War as the right decision. Finally, his rhetoric on Iran has been more belligerent than Bush, if you can believe that.
All of this is terrible policy. Aggressive interrogation practices don't necessarily yield better information and on top of that, it further hurts our image abroad. A hard-lined support for Israel does the same thing. In fact, if one wanted to increase anti-Americanism and increase the number of people willing to do us harm, they would be hard-pressed to think of two better ways of doing it. Bush, thanks to Secretary Rice, has finally realized that our total support for Israel is one of the main rallying points of anti-Americanism in the Middle East.
Rudy believing that invading Iraq was the right decision means he would likely make a similar decision if he is president. Which brings us to Iran, where the harsh rhetoric only strengthens their president by allowing him to talk about America instead of Iran's rapidly declining economy at least, and at most could lead us to a war with them (a war that would cost us).
My guess is that since Rudy knows he won't win the primary by talking about his views on gun control, gay rights, or abortion, he figures the best thing he can do is reinforce his credentials as the President of 9/11 - namely showing how tough he is. It depresses me how much I see this happening during the primaries. The problem is that I think he probably believes what he is saying. And the last thing we need is four years of foreign policy that is more aggressive than Bush's - especially when he doesn't seem to have learned any lessons from Bush.
All of this is terrible policy. Aggressive interrogation practices don't necessarily yield better information and on top of that, it further hurts our image abroad. A hard-lined support for Israel does the same thing. In fact, if one wanted to increase anti-Americanism and increase the number of people willing to do us harm, they would be hard-pressed to think of two better ways of doing it. Bush, thanks to Secretary Rice, has finally realized that our total support for Israel is one of the main rallying points of anti-Americanism in the Middle East.
Rudy believing that invading Iraq was the right decision means he would likely make a similar decision if he is president. Which brings us to Iran, where the harsh rhetoric only strengthens their president by allowing him to talk about America instead of Iran's rapidly declining economy at least, and at most could lead us to a war with them (a war that would cost us).
My guess is that since Rudy knows he won't win the primary by talking about his views on gun control, gay rights, or abortion, he figures the best thing he can do is reinforce his credentials as the President of 9/11 - namely showing how tough he is. It depresses me how much I see this happening during the primaries. The problem is that I think he probably believes what he is saying. And the last thing we need is four years of foreign policy that is more aggressive than Bush's - especially when he doesn't seem to have learned any lessons from Bush.
Monday, September 24, 2007
Not Interested
I've got to say, I don't really understand all the attention we give to President Ahmadinejad of Iran. He is far weaker in his own government than we make him out to be. So why do we pay so much attention to him, when all it does is make him more popular and make him look strong? It isn't smart strategy. If I were the Bush administration, I would make sure to say things like, "We are disappointed that the President of Iran is saying this, but in the end, we listen to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei for information about the policy direction of Iran." It also makes us look dumb to care so much about what he says because it makes us look like we don't know that he is mostly powerless.
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Olive Branch From Iran?
Summary:
There is evidence that Iran wanted normal relations with the US in 2003. How did we go so wrong? Would Iran have lived up to its promises?
So Nicholas Kristof wrote a column about an attempt by Iran in May 2003 to establish more normal relations with the US. Before I launch into a rant about how poorly the Bush administration's policy with Iran has been, we should recognize that Iran probably wouldn't have lived up to all of their promises. At the same time though, our isolation of them has made the hard liners in their country stronger, which makes the government more willing to stand against us publicly.
One of the worst things we did was create this "Axis of Evil" label. Instead of making the countries try harder to be good, it has made them want to behave worse. Bush doesn't realize this because he wants to see the world in a good versus evil dichotomy, and to do this he needed to create enemies - ones that would be on par with the former Soviet Union. This isn't to say that Iran was benevolent, but they were mostly harmless instead of a grand power we needed to rally against.
I want to stress again that when dealing with rogue states and potentially threatening governments, there are smart ways of dealing with them that makes them weaker instead of stronger. We need a leader that understands this.
There is evidence that Iran wanted normal relations with the US in 2003. How did we go so wrong? Would Iran have lived up to its promises?
So Nicholas Kristof wrote a column about an attempt by Iran in May 2003 to establish more normal relations with the US. Before I launch into a rant about how poorly the Bush administration's policy with Iran has been, we should recognize that Iran probably wouldn't have lived up to all of their promises. At the same time though, our isolation of them has made the hard liners in their country stronger, which makes the government more willing to stand against us publicly.
One of the worst things we did was create this "Axis of Evil" label. Instead of making the countries try harder to be good, it has made them want to behave worse. Bush doesn't realize this because he wants to see the world in a good versus evil dichotomy, and to do this he needed to create enemies - ones that would be on par with the former Soviet Union. This isn't to say that Iran was benevolent, but they were mostly harmless instead of a grand power we needed to rally against.
I want to stress again that when dealing with rogue states and potentially threatening governments, there are smart ways of dealing with them that makes them weaker instead of stronger. We need a leader that understands this.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Stupid Presidents
Let's talk about Iran. I get angry every time I hear more news about the Administration's position. To me, the policy should be easy. The goal is to weaken their radical president. The best way to do that is to give no public indication that they are a strong nation while making every attempt to point out the country's weak economy. Our President though does the opposite, he talks about how much of a threat Iran is, and rarely mentions Ahmadinijad's poor leadership.
If I can say one thing about our President, it is that he is good at creating / inventing an enemy. He just made a statement that Iran is supplying arms to Iraq. Granted, this isn't something I contest. But his goal is to give the impression that if we fail in Iraq, it is because of Iran, not a poorly managed war. In the meantime, his actions are making Iran stronger, and giving them more influence in the region. Also, all this tough talk makes me worried that me might lead us into another war or even skirmish with Iran. And I am obviously not the only one since it seems like everyday the secretary of defense has to repeat that we are not going to attack Iran.
If I can say one thing about our President, it is that he is good at creating / inventing an enemy. He just made a statement that Iran is supplying arms to Iraq. Granted, this isn't something I contest. But his goal is to give the impression that if we fail in Iraq, it is because of Iran, not a poorly managed war. In the meantime, his actions are making Iran stronger, and giving them more influence in the region. Also, all this tough talk makes me worried that me might lead us into another war or even skirmish with Iran. And I am obviously not the only one since it seems like everyday the secretary of defense has to repeat that we are not going to attack Iran.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Trouble with Iran
The situation with Iran is scaring me. My first thought about Bush's decision to send two (now three) carrier groups to the waters near Iran was that it is a false sign of strength. It was impossible for me to think that we would actually attack Iran, since we can't send in ground troops, and they could respond by invading Iraq. But I am again realizing that Bush is capable of something this stupid. Here is a quote from a Newsweek article:
Some view the spiraling attacks as a strand in a worrisome pattern. At least one former White House official contends that some Bush advisers secretly want an excuse to attack Iran. "They intend to be as provocative as possible and make the Iranians do something [America] would be forced to retaliate for," says Hillary Mann, the administration's former National Security Council director for Iran and Persian Gulf Affairs.Of course, the administration denies this - and hopefully this is untrue. My guess is that the administration is going to try to play up our failure as the result of Sunni insurgents battling Iranian puppets. Although both groups have some responsibility, in the end, the blame still rests on Bush. From the beginning, he tried to do this with too few troops, and only now has realized his blunder. The Sunni insurgency could have died before it go off the ground if we had fought the war right.
Sunday, January 21, 2007
Understanding People
Do we need any more proof that President Bush and his foreign policy team are idiots? They have treated Ahmadinejad's aggression as a serious threat, thereby propelling a weak nation and weak president into the international spotlight. As this article shows, President Ahmadinejad has little power over foreign policy in his country and the people who do are frustrated with his antics. If Bush had any understanding about how to deal with people, he would ignore this lunatics ranting, make him look weak, and deal with the real people of power in that country. There is far more to being president than most candidates realize. Understanding, judging, and affecting the behavior of people is one of them. It has been clear for a long time that this administration in completely inept at this.
Thursday, January 04, 2007
On Iran
I think that one of our biggest problems in the run up to the war in Iraq was that far too few people knew enough about the country to understand the consequences of our actions. I am afraid we will face the same problem as the situation in Iran heats up. There is an article in the NY Times that does a good job of dispelling some of the misunderstandings and talking about steps we should be taking.
First of all, President Ahmadinejad is not the next Hitler. This statement grossly overestimates his power in the country and the power of his country.
It also justifies their militaristic policies. Iran legitimately thinks we might make a military attack against them, and I think Bush wants it that way (his gunboat diplomacy is absurd). As long as Iran, as well as North Korea, can say that we are a threat to invade, their insistence on seeking nuclear weapons is somewhat reasonable both to their citizens and to a lesser extent the international community. I believe they would be more willing to concede on nuclear talks if we could convince them that we will not attack them (this would be much easier if we could convince them that we don't take them seriously). And in case you aren't sure an attack on Iran should be ruled out:
I don't want to give the impression that we should completely ignore Iran and their nuclear ambitions, but we need to show in public that we don't give them a second thought, while telling them in private that we will not be bullied. And then we need to point out the fact that their economy is tanking and they are doing nothing about it.
On negotiating involvement in Iraq, there appears to be some disagreement. Some analysts believe that Iran wants Iraq to succeed as much as we do. Others believe that the country has insulated itself enough and can protect against a surge of refugees and therefore cares little about Iraq imploding. My belief is that they think Shiites will come out on top in a civil war, and therefore don't have a big interest in stability. With this being the case, I don't know how much progress we can make. But what is clear is that we won't know until we talk to them, and we definitely need to do a better job of talking to them in a way that doesn't make them feel stronger.
First of all, President Ahmadinejad is not the next Hitler. This statement grossly overestimates his power in the country and the power of his country.
There has been a strange reversal in American perceptions, Mr. Nasr said. When the somewhat moderate Ayatollah Khatami was president, talking to him was dismissed as wasting time because the supreme leader was the real power. Now that Mr. Ahmadinejad inhabits the same office, with the supreme leader still holding the same key powers, Mr. Ahmadinejad is being portrayed as the crux.Given this knowledge, we need to deal with Iran differently. Our biggest mistake is treating the country like a legitimate security threat and devoting time to making threats against them. This not only makes them feel stronger because we are paying attention to them, but it also gives the impression that they really are (and Hugo Chavez in Venezuela) taking on the United States and the West. This only makes the leaders more popular.
It also justifies their militaristic policies. Iran legitimately thinks we might make a military attack against them, and I think Bush wants it that way (his gunboat diplomacy is absurd). As long as Iran, as well as North Korea, can say that we are a threat to invade, their insistence on seeking nuclear weapons is somewhat reasonable both to their citizens and to a lesser extent the international community. I believe they would be more willing to concede on nuclear talks if we could convince them that we will not attack them (this would be much easier if we could convince them that we don't take them seriously). And in case you aren't sure an attack on Iran should be ruled out:
But Iranian analysts interviewed in America mostly view a military strike as the surest means to cement the regime in power. Some question the wisdom of negotiating now, arguing that the West has so demonized Mr. Ahmadinejad and Iran as threats to peace that the Islamic Republic will believe in its own superpower ratings and not feel pressed to make concessions.But of course Bush is not bright enough to understand how to deal with people. He knows how to talk strong, but not when to talk strong.
I don't want to give the impression that we should completely ignore Iran and their nuclear ambitions, but we need to show in public that we don't give them a second thought, while telling them in private that we will not be bullied. And then we need to point out the fact that their economy is tanking and they are doing nothing about it.
On negotiating involvement in Iraq, there appears to be some disagreement. Some analysts believe that Iran wants Iraq to succeed as much as we do. Others believe that the country has insulated itself enough and can protect against a surge of refugees and therefore cares little about Iraq imploding. My belief is that they think Shiites will come out on top in a civil war, and therefore don't have a big interest in stability. With this being the case, I don't know how much progress we can make. But what is clear is that we won't know until we talk to them, and we definitely need to do a better job of talking to them in a way that doesn't make them feel stronger.
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
My Foreign Policy Plan
To avoid the accusation that I can only criticize the leadership of my party and have no real ideas of my own, I am finally presenting the first of my foreign policy papers. I do not act like these are new or creative. But I do think they match with Democratic principles in most cases, although they might be a little hawkish.
One of my main concerns is how the Muslim world views us. What President Bush correctly realizes is that we have enemies out there whose only goal is our destruction. Many of these enemies do not need an excuse and will attack us no matter what we do. But there are some who turn to terrorism and violence because of a humiliation that our policies cause. Issues in Palestine and Lebanon, which stem from our unwavering support of Israel, are easy enough to change in the future and have major impacts on hatred for the US and the West. There is also the issue in Iraq, where an apparent casual disregard for Iraqi civilians both in military battles with Saddam’s military at first and then insurgents, as well as our inability to prevent the looting, have also harmed our image.
So there are some serious steps we can take in the future. First of all, and I am appalled that Democrats didn’t stand up when it was happening (note, when I say Democrats, I mean the leadership), we need to control Israel. I am not the type that excuses Palestinian violence on Israel. But conversely, that doesn’t mean Israel should be given free reign to “defend itself” either. The war in Lebanon was disgusting and definitely unprovoked (kidnapping an Israeli soldier in that war isn’t as bad as it sounds – it is a common tactic, implicitly tolerated, to get Hezbollah soldiers out of prison through prisoner exchanges). I have never before understood why Muslims would think we value their lives so much less until I watched that war unfold. Countless innocent civilians were killed as we talked about Israel’s precision bombing. I do have to recognize though that we made the same claims in Afghanistan and Iraq, and in one of those situations I still supported our attacks. It is a little hypocritical of me, and I don’t exactly know how to reconcile that, except to say the war in Afghanistan was justified and this was not.
The biggest tragedy, and foreign policy mistake, was that Lebanon is one of two legitimate examples of democracy in the Middle East (along with Turkey) that could serve as role models if only we nourished them. What this means is that we need to prevent, at all costs, any thing that would destabilize these countries. To protect Lebanon, we need to tell Israel not to invade and destroy half of Beirut (and we can tell them that, we give them more per capita aid than we do any other country).
While we are at it, we need to get much more invested in the situation in Palestine. President Clinton got involved and made big strides – which were quickly erased as soon as both sides realized they didn’t actually have to stick to their end of the bargain (Israel continued to build settlements and Palestine continued bombings). With the right amount of pressure we might again be able to make progress, while also showing that we care about the plight of the Palestinian people.
To ensure Turkey’s stability, we need to prevent civil war in Iraq because it would turn into a regional war. Turkey has long said that it will prevent its Kurdish population form seceding to join an independent Kurdistan, which is only a likely possibility if Iraq falls apart. While I understand the desire to make plans to leave Iraq, it bothers me that Democrats are in such a hurry to leave. I don’t like Bush’s mantra of staying the course, but I think patience is extremely wise. The violence right now is only a glimpse of what it could be. Shiite militias, those loyal to Iran as well as those loyal to Sadr, have been biding their time waiting for the US to leave. They have very strong military capabilities, and a premature departure could make them more willing to exercise that to gain power or even separation. The best thing we can do now is to continue to make it clear that we will leave soon, while not making a mad dash for the door without care to who runs the house.
Another major issue that is approaching us is Iran’s nuclear ambitions. While they claim they only want the technology, it is pretty clear that is a lie. And while everyone agrees that they shouldn’t be allowed to have nuclear weapons, we need to decide what to do if they don’t listen to us and how soon to do it. There are already plenty of conservatives who want to use missile strikes to take out their processing facilities. This worked on Saddam before the Bush invasion, but Iran can do much more damage to us than he could. While we are still in Iraq, Iran can choose to be more involved and create a much more violent situation there. They have real power over us, and we need to acknowledge that as we decide how to deal with them.
This is the main reason why I am disappointed over the Iraq debate. We need to be prepared to talk about containment or we risk being left out when the administration makes the decision to attack. Containment should be tried with Iran as best as possible. As part of this strategy, we should be willing to talk with them to see if they really want to be a partner with the West, but we should be ready to use sanctions.
Iran’s nuclear ambitions are a very difficult situation, and every time we think about calling a hearing to talk about pre-war intelligence we risk looking back when we need to be looking forward. One of the main obstacles to containment is that sanctions will not be as powerful. Iran is overflowing with oil revenue, which will make them better able to deal with sanctions. In the end, we might need to decide which is worse, a nuclear Iran, or the conflict that could ensue if we do launch an attack on them. After all, North Korea and China are both nuclear, and we didn’t risk attacking them.
After Iraq
While I strongly advocate for patience in Iraq, I realize that there will most likely be significant troop reductions over the next two to three years at the longest. This begs the question about what is to be done with our military in the future. Hopefully we have learned that nation-building (which Governor George W. Bush opposed when he was running for president in 2000) is much more difficult than we thought. But that doesn’t mean we should abandon it altogether. In fact, my main reason for opposing the War in Iraq was that I thought we needed to maintain troop presence in Afghanistan to help guide it to democracy. That may be a lost cause now, but I believe it would have worked had we stayed. After Iraq, maybe we will need to redeploy some troops to Afghanistan to see if we can get more control over the country (a bigger goal than just eliminating Bin Laden).
We also need to be prepared to use our military in other major conflicts around the world, something we are not capable of right now. If we were not tied up in Iraq, we might be able to be providing a much bigger presence in Lebanon, helping them disarm Hezbollah. More importantly, we could be in Darfur. I believe that Bush really does want to do the right think in Darfur. He has done more than Clinton did in Rwanda (which doesn’t say much) by actually talking about it as well as acknowledging that it is a genocide. But while we are in Iraq, we don’t have the troops to send there. Instead we have to rely on the other NATO countries or the UN to get around to sending troops. There is hope that they might go within a month or so, but they are long overdue.
When we have our troops freed up again, we can lead the way into these countries instead of waiting for the UN to move. To find precedent for this we need only look to Bosnia. One thing we need to do though is drop the rhetoric that we need UN support for any move we make. As the conservatives pointed out before Iraq, the UN does not always act in our best interests, or the best interests of people in the middle of a humanitarian crisis. For the right reasons, we should be willing to ignore the UN.
Right now, Sudan is saying they will not admit UN troops to their country. As of right now, the UN is unwilling to violate a nation’s sovereignty to protect people of that country. Kofi Annan might be willing to move in that direction, but we must not even hesitate. Sudan has no right to prevent us from getting involved, and the threat should be that if they try to stop us, we will do more than protect their citizens, but we will attack them and their gun-ships that have supported the janjaweed.
The more I learn about the many crises in the world, the more I think we need to get involved, militarily if necessary. While Donald Rumsfeld thinks our military needs to be smaller and more agile (which was a miserable failure in Iraq), I see the future of military conflict as peacekeeping missions which will require more troops not less. Some conflicts will clearly be in our best interest, as peacekeeping in Lebanon, Somalia, Iraq and even Palestine would be. But others won’t, like Darfur and other African conflicts. I hope that we can advocate for all of these though, because the countries we hope will grow out of their third-world status can only do so if security exists.
I focused this post on military foreign policy only because I think we need to have a strong position on what we want our military to do. In another post I hope to lay out what our aid and economic efforts should do. I hope that just because I am not including them in this post, I don’t give the impression that I think that is less important. In fact, as Truman rightly understood, improved economic status where people can raise a family in comfort will dramatically work to fight the embarrassment and anger that is often so easily turned on the West.
One of my main concerns is how the Muslim world views us. What President Bush correctly realizes is that we have enemies out there whose only goal is our destruction. Many of these enemies do not need an excuse and will attack us no matter what we do. But there are some who turn to terrorism and violence because of a humiliation that our policies cause. Issues in Palestine and Lebanon, which stem from our unwavering support of Israel, are easy enough to change in the future and have major impacts on hatred for the US and the West. There is also the issue in Iraq, where an apparent casual disregard for Iraqi civilians both in military battles with Saddam’s military at first and then insurgents, as well as our inability to prevent the looting, have also harmed our image.
So there are some serious steps we can take in the future. First of all, and I am appalled that Democrats didn’t stand up when it was happening (note, when I say Democrats, I mean the leadership), we need to control Israel. I am not the type that excuses Palestinian violence on Israel. But conversely, that doesn’t mean Israel should be given free reign to “defend itself” either. The war in Lebanon was disgusting and definitely unprovoked (kidnapping an Israeli soldier in that war isn’t as bad as it sounds – it is a common tactic, implicitly tolerated, to get Hezbollah soldiers out of prison through prisoner exchanges). I have never before understood why Muslims would think we value their lives so much less until I watched that war unfold. Countless innocent civilians were killed as we talked about Israel’s precision bombing. I do have to recognize though that we made the same claims in Afghanistan and Iraq, and in one of those situations I still supported our attacks. It is a little hypocritical of me, and I don’t exactly know how to reconcile that, except to say the war in Afghanistan was justified and this was not.
The biggest tragedy, and foreign policy mistake, was that Lebanon is one of two legitimate examples of democracy in the Middle East (along with Turkey) that could serve as role models if only we nourished them. What this means is that we need to prevent, at all costs, any thing that would destabilize these countries. To protect Lebanon, we need to tell Israel not to invade and destroy half of Beirut (and we can tell them that, we give them more per capita aid than we do any other country).
While we are at it, we need to get much more invested in the situation in Palestine. President Clinton got involved and made big strides – which were quickly erased as soon as both sides realized they didn’t actually have to stick to their end of the bargain (Israel continued to build settlements and Palestine continued bombings). With the right amount of pressure we might again be able to make progress, while also showing that we care about the plight of the Palestinian people.
To ensure Turkey’s stability, we need to prevent civil war in Iraq because it would turn into a regional war. Turkey has long said that it will prevent its Kurdish population form seceding to join an independent Kurdistan, which is only a likely possibility if Iraq falls apart. While I understand the desire to make plans to leave Iraq, it bothers me that Democrats are in such a hurry to leave. I don’t like Bush’s mantra of staying the course, but I think patience is extremely wise. The violence right now is only a glimpse of what it could be. Shiite militias, those loyal to Iran as well as those loyal to Sadr, have been biding their time waiting for the US to leave. They have very strong military capabilities, and a premature departure could make them more willing to exercise that to gain power or even separation. The best thing we can do now is to continue to make it clear that we will leave soon, while not making a mad dash for the door without care to who runs the house.
Another major issue that is approaching us is Iran’s nuclear ambitions. While they claim they only want the technology, it is pretty clear that is a lie. And while everyone agrees that they shouldn’t be allowed to have nuclear weapons, we need to decide what to do if they don’t listen to us and how soon to do it. There are already plenty of conservatives who want to use missile strikes to take out their processing facilities. This worked on Saddam before the Bush invasion, but Iran can do much more damage to us than he could. While we are still in Iraq, Iran can choose to be more involved and create a much more violent situation there. They have real power over us, and we need to acknowledge that as we decide how to deal with them.
This is the main reason why I am disappointed over the Iraq debate. We need to be prepared to talk about containment or we risk being left out when the administration makes the decision to attack. Containment should be tried with Iran as best as possible. As part of this strategy, we should be willing to talk with them to see if they really want to be a partner with the West, but we should be ready to use sanctions.
Iran’s nuclear ambitions are a very difficult situation, and every time we think about calling a hearing to talk about pre-war intelligence we risk looking back when we need to be looking forward. One of the main obstacles to containment is that sanctions will not be as powerful. Iran is overflowing with oil revenue, which will make them better able to deal with sanctions. In the end, we might need to decide which is worse, a nuclear Iran, or the conflict that could ensue if we do launch an attack on them. After all, North Korea and China are both nuclear, and we didn’t risk attacking them.
After Iraq
While I strongly advocate for patience in Iraq, I realize that there will most likely be significant troop reductions over the next two to three years at the longest. This begs the question about what is to be done with our military in the future. Hopefully we have learned that nation-building (which Governor George W. Bush opposed when he was running for president in 2000) is much more difficult than we thought. But that doesn’t mean we should abandon it altogether. In fact, my main reason for opposing the War in Iraq was that I thought we needed to maintain troop presence in Afghanistan to help guide it to democracy. That may be a lost cause now, but I believe it would have worked had we stayed. After Iraq, maybe we will need to redeploy some troops to Afghanistan to see if we can get more control over the country (a bigger goal than just eliminating Bin Laden).
We also need to be prepared to use our military in other major conflicts around the world, something we are not capable of right now. If we were not tied up in Iraq, we might be able to be providing a much bigger presence in Lebanon, helping them disarm Hezbollah. More importantly, we could be in Darfur. I believe that Bush really does want to do the right think in Darfur. He has done more than Clinton did in Rwanda (which doesn’t say much) by actually talking about it as well as acknowledging that it is a genocide. But while we are in Iraq, we don’t have the troops to send there. Instead we have to rely on the other NATO countries or the UN to get around to sending troops. There is hope that they might go within a month or so, but they are long overdue.
When we have our troops freed up again, we can lead the way into these countries instead of waiting for the UN to move. To find precedent for this we need only look to Bosnia. One thing we need to do though is drop the rhetoric that we need UN support for any move we make. As the conservatives pointed out before Iraq, the UN does not always act in our best interests, or the best interests of people in the middle of a humanitarian crisis. For the right reasons, we should be willing to ignore the UN.
Right now, Sudan is saying they will not admit UN troops to their country. As of right now, the UN is unwilling to violate a nation’s sovereignty to protect people of that country. Kofi Annan might be willing to move in that direction, but we must not even hesitate. Sudan has no right to prevent us from getting involved, and the threat should be that if they try to stop us, we will do more than protect their citizens, but we will attack them and their gun-ships that have supported the janjaweed.
The more I learn about the many crises in the world, the more I think we need to get involved, militarily if necessary. While Donald Rumsfeld thinks our military needs to be smaller and more agile (which was a miserable failure in Iraq), I see the future of military conflict as peacekeeping missions which will require more troops not less. Some conflicts will clearly be in our best interest, as peacekeeping in Lebanon, Somalia, Iraq and even Palestine would be. But others won’t, like Darfur and other African conflicts. I hope that we can advocate for all of these though, because the countries we hope will grow out of their third-world status can only do so if security exists.
I focused this post on military foreign policy only because I think we need to have a strong position on what we want our military to do. In another post I hope to lay out what our aid and economic efforts should do. I hope that just because I am not including them in this post, I don’t give the impression that I think that is less important. In fact, as Truman rightly understood, improved economic status where people can raise a family in comfort will dramatically work to fight the embarrassment and anger that is often so easily turned on the West.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)