The title suggests a logical impossibility of sorts. We've been grinding along with the former so far, but it's apparent the Baker/Bush-41 rescue plan will focus on the latter. What will Bush 43 do?All the smart people are offering up prognostications on the topic, but does anyone really know what in the world they are talking about? Our leaders remain just as baffled now as the moment they realized that Saddam's insurgency plan was beginning to work.
One of Bush's best qualities so far has been his ability to cut through the BS and act on advice of trusted subordinates based on his perception of the right thing, but sometimes the right thing just can't be done, even if it's right. We're arriving at the precipice of a decision that will no doubt have a long-lasting effect on the world.
But before defining a solution it's helpful to define the problem(s), so bear with me for a sec here. Part of this post represents a cathartic exercise in putting things down on page for my own benefit so I can make sense of it.
Essentially the Sunnis/Saddamists, with offhand help from the Iranians and Syrians, have created a quagmire in Iraq to force exactly what is happening at the moment. Iran was content on letting democracy do their dirty work and had al-Sadr under control, but Saddam screwed things up by having the Golden mosque blown up, drawing the Mahdi boys into a civil war.
The Russians are playing both sides because they don't care for American hegemony in their backyard, while the Saudis, Jordanians and Emirates are protecting their wealth. Lastly, Israel remains firmly ensconced at ground zero yet all they desire is to be left alone. Of course, if push comes to shove, they will shove.
I hope that made sense.
Actually, trying to make sense of our next move is like trying to guess which chess piece Bobby Fischer might choose. Complicating the matter further are the proxy armies of both Sunni and Shia sects, al-Qaeda, Hamas and Hizballah. All are ready to spring when sprung. Everyone assumes they operate autonomously but more than likely they coordinate, since their goals often overlap with various state goals. Right now politics is playing their way, so no need to blow something up over here but at some point an attack might become necessary if Bush remains instransigent towards Democrat demands to fold up the tents.
So we have the two choices--remain for principle or take a realpolitik approach. Either could end up disastrous for the country, the region and for the Republican party. The results of choice one would be much better in the longer term, but the cost in blood and toil much higher and besides, it might not be attainable in our lifetimes. Pulling out would save a lot of short term bloodshed and garner some political capital but it would also lead to continued pressure on our remaining presence in the region along with an impossibility of ever going back to 'finish the job' again. Weak isn't the word.
Something else. If Bush decides to stay the modified course he must consider the Democrats, who might get the impression he's trying to 'four corner' them with a stall plan. The last thing they want is a messy Iraq left for the next president, especially since that person has already begun picking out the drapes. Yes, we can hope nobody really thinks that way but we're talking about politicians and spinmasters here.
Whatever happens I believe Bush had the correct approach at the outset. Swatting flies and whacking moles was never going to solve our long-term problems in a world full of loose WMDs. Only a deep-core philosophical overhaul had any hope of changing the scenario, but as we've seen, such things are hard to force.
Oh, one last thing. Our presence in Iraq and the greater Middle East probably comes with an implied threat, a deterrent if you will. Simply put, if some party decides to set off a nuke in America we might just have 'The Cube' on our target list and would probably have many creative ways of making it look like a Christmas tree. Any future solutions need to include some form of lingering deterrence message, and Baker is just the man to do it. After all, what else are nukes good for? Let's hope to God they choose wisely.
MORE 11/13/06
This would seem to be a required reading--a handicapping of sorts--of the Iraq Study Group prior to their much anticipated recommendations. Of course, all handicappers have their biases and their detractors, and in this case it appears to be the Belgravia Dispatch. I was vaguely aware of the neocon tilt, it showed through, but Mr. Djerejian's retort was nastier than Nolan Ryan chin music and seemed overdone in a nerve-hitting kind of way.
Meanwhile, President Bush met with the ISG today, which appeared mainly theatrical. After saying he's open to new ideas (which the WaPo suggested meant dialogue with enemy regimes) Bush reiterated a quicker way--Iran can verifiably disarm their nukes. Gotta love it.
MORE 11/15/06
Saddam's ability to divide the world remains astonishing. Wonder how many fights he's indirectly started around the world since 2002?
No comments:
Post a Comment