Wesley Clark is on TV demanding that the Bush Administration open discussions with the Iranians. Clark seems to think that he could persuade the Iranians to stop their nuclear weapon development program and their support of both Sunni and Shia insurgents in Iraq. Apparently Clark thinks that he could persuade the Iranians. He appears to have great faith in his negotiating skills. I would like to know how he would proceed to convince a religious fanatic to give up his faith. The President of Iran has frequently stated that he is intent on preparing the world for the return of the "hidden Imam," preparations that involve the destruction of the West even if Iran is also destroyed in the process. I'm reminded of the Hezbollah leader who was quoted as saying "We want nothing from you, we just want to kill you." I wonder how much good a discussion with a guy who is willing to commit suicide to kill you will do. We are in a "kill or be killed" situation, and so it appears to me that talking is a waste of time that is to advantage of the guy who wants to kill us.
posted by James Williams | 7:08 AM
2 Comments:
First off, Clark has never advocated direct talks with al Qaeda, Hezbollah or Hamas. So that little strawman really doesn't apply.
As for talking to Iran, if you think Ahmadinejad is more interested in religion than he is the power and priviledge he derives from staying in office, you're more naive than you would accuse Clark of being.
Just like here in the US, the religion talk is good for keeping the people riled up, and the imams (think Falwell, Dobson and Robertson) happy. But Iran has practical interests, as do all nations, which are subject to negotiation. Clark has "been there, done that" with as murderous a tyrant as any in the Middle East; he understands how to use carrots and sticks to bring one around.
Furthermore, the harsher we treat Ahmadinejad, the more popular he becomes with his people. If we really want the already substantial pro-American forces within Iran to gain strength and power, we need to tone down the rhetoric and make the people feel less threatened, not more.
And finally, talk is never useless. Winston Churchill himself said, "Jaw-jaw is better than war-war." War should be a LAST resort only. Stuff happens in war--stuff you can't control. That's one reason the Iraq "cake-walk" has turned so sour, and why attacking was a strategic blunder in the absense of an imminent threat.
Besides, talk gives you legitimacy in the international community if/when it becomes necessary to go to war. That's why the UN never condemned us for Kosovo, even tho we bypassed the Security Council. They knew we had tried everything reasonable first, and abuse of the Kosovars was on-going, with the threat of worse treatment imminent.
We talked to the Soviet Union for years, even as our nukes were pointed at each other. It took almost 50 years to win the Cold War, but wasn't it a lot better than even a few minutes of war that would have been nuclear-hot?
Reply to Ret LTC:
I think Hezbollah is an arm of the Iranian government. Iran provides funding, arms, and troops to Hezbollah, and Hezbollah appears to march to Iran's tune. The Muslims have no regard for national boundaries (with some justification since the arbitrary boundaries were drawn by westerners after WWI).
General Clark engaged in talks with Milosevic before the Kosovo War, but did not have any success in the negotiation. My recollection is that Clark threatened a massive bombing campaign, but Milosevic ignored him. Eventually Clark did the bombing. I suppose Clark could threaten Ahmadinejad and point out that he had carried out his threats before. The Europeans have been negotiating with the Iranians for some time regarding the Iranian nuclear program, offering sticks and carrots, but with no success.
I don't think there is any valid comparison between the Imam's in Iraq and TV preachers in the US. The Imam's basically rule Iran while the TV preacher's have no role whatsoever in US policy making.
Post a Comment
<< Home