|
01/25/2007
The Other Side of the Debate
One of my favorite foreign policy strategists is Dimitri Simes,
president of The Nixon Center and publisher of The National
Interest, one of the publications I subscribe to.
In the Jan./Feb. 2007 edition, however, Simes lays into those of
us still supporting the effort in Iraq and since I’ve presented the
position of the proponents for a troop ‘surge’ recently, it’s only
fair I present the other side of the debate as well.
Simes writes:
“Here they go again. After spending more than three years, the
lives of 3,000 American soldiers, and well over $300 billion in
Iraq, the coalition of neoconservatives and liberal interventionists
who brought America into the quagmire now tell us that the
problem was not with having the wrong war at the wrong time
for the wrong reasons, but rather with poor implementation for
which they unsurprisingly deny responsibility.
“And just as the Crusaders a millennium ago blamed their
defeats in the Middle East on a lack of faith, we are told today
that it is the realists – those heretics with an insufficient faith in
the ability of American values and power to rapidly transform
the world – who are poised to sabotage the entire project for
spreading freedom throughout the region; that the realists and
their false gods of stability and national interest will seduce
Americans away from their true calling of spreading liberty
throughout the world, even at the barrel of a gun.”
Harsh, but whereas I’m a self-described neocon, going back to
the days before the Iraq War, I’ve also deviated significantly, as
expressed in my “Week in Review” columns, with the Bush
administration on issues such as the conduct of the war, Israel,
Lebanon and Iran. Simes, for example, urges dialogue with
Tehran and I concur. I also see a significant difference between
Syria and Iran. Syria is a paper tiger Iran is dangerous.
Here, though, is what Simes says about dealing with Damascus
and Tehran.
“Each has its own concerns, starting with non-interference in its
domestic affairs, and neither is likely to offer any favors to
America. It would be an exercise in futility to tell them that they
should stop meddling in Iraq; allow the United States, France and
Israel to play a decisive role in Lebanon; end support for Hamas
and other radical Palestinian factions; and in the case of Iran,
abandon its nuclear enrichment program, without both offering
something important in return and subjecting them to strong
international pressure.
“This brings us to the Palestinian problem. The reason to
address the Palestinian problem is not that it would put an end to
Shi’a and Sunnis killing each other in Iraq, make Bashir al-Assad
an altruist in Lebanon, or persuade the mullahs in Tehran to
abandon their nuclear ambitions. Rather, as every moderate
Arab leader in the region has told the United States, the
perceived American double-standard on the Israeli-Palestinian
dispute makes it much more difficult for them to support U.S.
positions or to do essential heavy lifting on America’s behalf on
other issues. It also makes it harder for Supreme Leader
Khamenei and President Assad to accommodate American
concerns in Iraq and elsewhere without losing face in their own
countries.”
Simes then talks about Russia, its UN veto, and the fact leading
“European and Asian allies have indicated to Washington that
without the cover of legitimacy the UN provides, they would be
very reluctant to join any U.S. effort (against Iran and Syria).”
“Much is said, and sometimes with considerable justification,
about Russia’s departure from democracy at home and its
propensity toward applying heavy-handed pressure to its new
neighbors. But publicizing Russia’s misdeeds, real and imagined
alike, is not a substitute for achieving what is needed. The
United States must either be prepared to bargain with a resurgent
Moscow who cannot be intimidated or bribed as was done with
Yeltsin’s Russia during the 1990s, or be prepared to pay the
much higher costs for taking action without Russian
cooperation .
“After the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was a period when
the United States could act on the world stage without much
opposition from other major states. Today, however, existing
and emerging centers of power seem much less willing to
delegate de facto world government to the United States – no
matter who is in charge, whether Democrats or Republicans.
“Both Russia and China today accept that they need the United
States more than they need each other – and this is especially
true given China’s economic orientation. But if Moscow and
Beijing believe that they are both being quietly encircled by the
United States – either by NATO expansion further east or by
some sort of global ‘democracy alliance’, they may change their
calculations. They already appear to be hedging their bets in the
framework of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. A
Chinese-Russian axis would likely be tactical, taking into
account their divergent interests and mutual distrust. But even
temporary rapprochement could deliver a severe blow to U.S.
global leadership. Throw in disaffected continental European
powers and India, and a considerable dent could be placed in
America’s ability to isolate rogue states, put effective pressure on
nuclear proliferators and deprive non-state terrorist organizations
of their indispensable protectors. Witness Iran’s faith in the
‘powers of the east’ to circumvent any American-initiated
economic sanctions and to provide some counter-balance to the
United States.
“Henry Kissinger has offered the wise observation that ‘so long
as Iran views itself as a crusade rather than a nation, a common
interest will not emerge from negotiations.’ But this observation
is equally applicable to the United States. Many nations can
embrace American world leadership, though obviously with
different degrees of enthusiasm – if such leadership reinforces a
global system based on free trade, secure lines of communication
and a commitment to stability. Others might acquiesce more
reluctantly – so long as they do not feel that America is engaged
in a global crusade directed against them or at the expense of
their vital interests.
“The stakes could not be higher. In his ground-breaking new
book, ‘Annihilation from Within,’ Reagan Administration
defense official and Washington wise-man Fred Ikle warns that
‘the dark side of progress’ – revolutionary new technologies of
human destruction, whether nuclear, biological or even in
artificial intelligence – has exceeded the development of the
international system and the states within it. Ikle is concerned
that ‘Living comfortably on borrowed time, most democratic
societies lack the will and foresight needed to defend against’ the
grave dangers that my come. September 11 may look trivial to
what the United States and others may experience unless we
focus on these apocalyptic threats, even at the occasional
expense of desirable put optional pursuits. Moreover,
notwithstanding ‘the appealing vision of a new ‘flat world’’, he
writes, today’s globe is still dominated by states pursuing their
individual interests. History will not judge kindly those who
neglect a real and present danger to the survival of democracy in
the United States and Europe in the name of promoting
democracy on a global scale. And, Ikle makes a powerful case
that the use of Weapons of Mass Destruction by non-state actors
can create precisely such a disastrous outcome.
“The bottom line is that notwithstanding often disingenuous
references to the ‘international community’, our dangerous world
is still dominated by states and, yes, their governments. Under
these circumstances, America cannot lead if it disregards the
interests and priorities of others. Telling those others what we
think their interests are does not work; sovereign nations like to
make such decisions themselves. And when President George
W. Bush is viewed as a greater threat to world peace than either
Kim Jong-il or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (less a threat than Osama
bin Laden alone), in major international polls, few abroad are
inclined to accept that Washington knows best. It is not cynical
defeatism but patriotic desire to strengthen U.S. global leadership
that should persuade us to end the crusade. Now.”
Hott Spotts returns Feb. 8. Notes on Iran.
Brian Trumbore
|
