Complaining Solves NothingWe know what Petraeus wants to do in Iraq, but what about Iran?
Posted Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2007, at 4:40 PM ETLast Thursday's Republican debate ended with a terrifying scenario presented to the field of candidates. Iran's nuclear program:
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUponhas continued to advance. U.N. weapons inspectors … are now saying that it appears that Iran is on the verge of being able to produce and may even be producing nuclear weapons. Iran has suspended its cooperation with the U.N. nuclear agency and asked the inspectors to leave the country. Cross-border incidents in Iraq involving elements of the Revolutionary Guard … continue to increase and are a continuing problem for U.S. forces there and for the Iraqis as well.
What would you do in this hypothetical situation? Brit Hume asked the debaters. According to Sen. Sam Brownback, "[W]hat you're describing is much of the situation that we're facing today." A moment later, Sen. John McCain agreed: "Your hypothetical is closer to reality than many of us appreciate."
It's safe to assume that Gen. David Petraeus appreciates the realities concerning Iran. "Malign actions by Syria and, especially, by Iran fuel that violence," he stated in his report to the House of Representatives Monday. This should not be treated as news; Petraeus has said similar things in the past, and he is hardly alone in drawing a connection between violence in Iraq and the constant meddling of its neighbors. Just the other day it was reported that the United States will build a small base on the Iranian border in an effort to hinder the smuggling of advanced weapons from Iran into Iraq.
Still, Petraeus, like most of the Republican contenders, was long on describing the problem and short on prescribing a cure. Targeting and capturing Iranian and Hezbollah operatives within Iraq is hardly a solution to the problem. "Advanced explosive devices provided by Iran" helped "elements" who have "assassinated and kidnapped Iraqi governmental leaders [and] killed and wounded our soldiers," he said. But the recommendations Petraeus submitted to Congress dealt only with the messengers, the "Iranian-supported militia extremists."
"Iran plays a harmful role in Iraq," said Ambassador Ryan Crocker, Petraeus' wing man. Crocker is the man who was given the task of wasting his time talking to the Iranians about helping Iraq. "While claiming to support Iraq in its transition, Iran has actively undermined it by providing lethal capabilities to the enemies of the Iraqi state," he testified. In the Q&A session, his military co-presenter made it even clearer to anyone who refused to understand. Since the talks with Iran, the last round of which took place in August, he said, the level of Iranian activity has risen, not diminished.
This was an astounding refutation of one of the false premises on which the Iraq Study Group report was based, namely, that engaging Iran will provide more stability. "Iran's interests would not be served by a failure of U.S. policy in Iraq that led to chaos and the territorial disintegration of the Iraqi state," argued the report. But Crocker and Petraeus all but dismissed this assertion. Crocker declared, "An Iraq that falls into chaos or civil war will mean massive human suffering—well beyond what has already occurred within Iraq's borders. It could well invite the intervention of regional states, all of which see their future connected to Iraq's in some fundamental way. Undoubtedly, Iran would be a winner in this scenario, consolidating its influence over Iraqi resources and possibly territory."
Still, one thing can be said for the Iraq Study Group that is hardly true of the double act playing Congress this week. The ISG at least tried to find a solution for Iranian/Syrian meddling. "Engaging Iran is problematic," it said. "Nevertheless, as one of Iraq's neighbors Iran should be asked to assume its responsibility to participate in the Support Group." Crocker and Petraeus merely complained about these nations' behavior without offering any recipe for improving the situation or solving the problem.
"The Iranian government seems to ignore the risks that an unstable Iraq carries for its own interests," said Crocker, repeating a mistake also present in the ISG report. The Iranian government does not ignore the risks, rather it calculates that the benefits might be greater. Petraeus had made the same point 20 minutes earlier: "A rapid withdrawal would result in the further release of the strong centrifugal forces in Iraq … exacerbation of already challenging regional dynamics, especially with respect to Iran." In practical terms, the only solution offered by Petraeus as far as Iran is concerned was: Don't leave, stay in the region. This leaves the cards in the hands of the ayatollahs. Sticking to one's guns might be an admirable position, but it is hardly a tool with which to roll back the aggressive, expansionist Iranian regime.
Writing about the Iraq Study Group report the day it was published, I complained, "The debate … doesn't address the most probable outcome of the committee's recommendations: The Syrians will not cooperate, the U.N. Security Council will not convince the Iranians to give up on their nuclear program, and the Iraqi military will not be ready to assume power in the country. And then what?"
Listening to Petraeus and Crocker, their answer to that question seems to be: then nothing. It is not just that the commander and the diplomat didn't produce a new solution, they didn't even leave us with the miserable one that Baker and Hamilton were ready to try.
Twitter and Google Couldn't Stop Facebook. Can Anyone?
Nine Theories for Why It's So Hard To Find Chocolate in China
Why Is Buttoning Up Your Shirt All the Way Hollywood's Shorthand for Retarded?
George Clooney Almost Convinced Me To Like Up in the Air. Almost.
Why Is More Than Half of Congress Still Not on Twitter?
The Best Thing About Alice: Kathy Bates as the Queen of Hearts
Remarks from the Fray:
When Israel developed nukes, the US turned a blind eye. When Pakistan developed nukes, the US turned a blind eye. Likewise India. Now Iran is surrounded by 6 nuclear powers on all sides. And you're trying to say they don't have the right to pursue nukes? What kind of hypocrisy is that?
If we don't want Iran to have nukes, then first let's take the nukes away from Israel, Pakistan and India. And sign a non-aggression treaty with Iran to mollify our own threat.
The N Korea example is enlightening- the way to prevent people from developing nukes is to stop threatening them. Yes- you can call it nuclear blackmail. That's the small price we pay for being the head bully and hypocrite in chief of the 'nuclear club'.
--icemilkcoffee
(To reply, click here.)
It should be pointed out that while Iran is indeed "meddling" in Iran, they are nowhere near a full-scale intervention. IED components and some advisers are one thing. Iran, however, has stocks of much more sophisticated/damaging equipment and could probably readily recruit 'volunteers' to use the stuff in Iraq. If you think Iraq is 'bleeding' now, just give the various insurgents supplies of modern anti-weapons and anti-aircraft missiles. IEDs may be a hassle, but portable weapons like Konkurs(Spandrel) can toast an armored vehicle from 4 kilometers. Latest generation SA-7 missiles could wreak havoc on our helicopter forces...and on and on and on. The Iranians may not be nice, but for whatever reasons they are showing some restraint.
"Those meddlesome Iranians!" Sounds like a neo-con channeling the Scooby Doo Show.
--fozzy
(To reply, click here.)
Um, it's not Petraeus' job to have a plan for Iran. His job is to manage the military affairs of the US in Iraq. No matter how badly he might want to put into action an "Iran Plan," his job is to report to his bosses that an Iran Plan might be needed. And then it is up to Mr. Gates, Mr, Cheney and Mr. Bush.
And what is their Iran Plan? Those with a memory recall neocons, in the immediate afterglow of Saddam's military melting into the population, harrumphing that Baghdad was nice, but "real men want to go after Tehran."
It is obvious that Bush genuinely believes that the US would be best served by doing to Iran what we have done in Iraq. He and Cheney would even justify it to themselves with the notion that having learned such expensive lessons in Iraq, it only makes sense to amortize the cost of that education by putting it to immediate use.
Petraeus either knows or suspects this. The groundwork is being laid. After the Revolutionary Guard is declared a terrorist entity, Bush has legal grounds to attack Revolutionary Guard interests -- a de facto declaration of war with no Congressional supervision required. Yes, Congress at that point might convene impeachment hearings, but at that point it would be too late -- the die would be cast. It has never been Bush and Cheney's intentions to win a war in their 8 years. It has been to set America on a course from which it cannot turn back. And at that they have been masterful.
Explaining this doesn't mean I agree with it. But that is where we are heading.
--heel90
(To reply, click here.)
No, nobody has a plan for Iran now. We're flying this by the seat of our pants - and in my view, thats preferable. I'd rather face Iran like the Soviet Union than like Iraq.
I've written this before, so I apologize for repeating myself... But presidents don't make statements that include countries in an "Axis of Evil" (right after invading a neighbording country) unless they are getting ready to duke it out. That was the plan - Afghanistan first, then Iraq and Iran - we remake the middle east as a US occupation zone in response to terrorism and Islamic extremism. This looked great on paper, and I have no doubt that such literal papers did indeed cross Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield and Rice's desks.
Why is anyone surprised that Iran is more radicalized now than in 2002, when they offered to help us counter Iraq? Did the adminstration think that, after invading its neighbors and actively calling for the destruction of their government that Iran wouldn't send weapons to insurgents? That they wouldn't increase their support for Hezbollah? That they wouldn't become more defensive and belligerent?
No, of course not. This was obvious even to Bush. The solution was that by 2007, we would be in Tehran. Right now, the question within the administration is whether this is still a possibility. Petraeus' plan is to hold fast in Iraq, and see if he gets the order to act on the congressional authorization to use military force against Iran that was authorized earlier this year.
--jwschmidt
(To reply, click here.)
(9/13)