I've always liked former Ambassador John Bolton. He seems to base his approach to foreign policy on hard reality, rather than on naive presumptions regarding the supposed good will of dangerous regimes. Here's a short article from the Jerusalem Post: very interesting.
______________________
Sanctions and diplomacy have failed and it may be too late for internal opposition to oust the Islamist regime, leaving only military intervention to stop Iran's drive to nuclear weapons, the US's former ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, told The Jerusalem Post on Tuesday.
Worse still, according to Ambassador Bolton, the Bush administration does not recognize the urgency of the hour and that the options are now limited to only the possibility of regime change from within or a last-resort military intervention, and it is still clinging to the dangerous and misguided belief that sanctions can be effective.
As a consequence, Bolton said he was "very worried" about the well-being of Israel. If he were in Israel's predicament, he said, "I'd be pushing the US very hard. I am pushing the US [administration] very hard, from the outside, in Washington."
Bolton, interviewed by telephone from Washington, was speaking a day after the International Atomic Energy Agency announced it would send a team to Teheran, at Iran's request, to work jointly on a plan ostensibly meant to clear up suspicions about the nuclear program. Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani had met on Sunday with IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei, and a day earlier with top EU foreign policy envoy Javier Solana.
Bolton, however, was witheringly critical of the ongoing diplomatic contacts with Teheran, which he said were merely playing into the hands of the regime.
"The current approach of the Europeans and the Americans is not just doomed to failure, but dangerous," he said. "Dealing with [the Iranians] just gives them what they want, which is more time...
"We have fiddled away four years, in which Europe tried to persuade Iran to give up voluntarily," he complained. "Iran in those four years mastered uranium conversion from solid to gas and now enrichment to weapons grade... We lost four years to feckless European diplomacy and our options are very limited."
Bolton said flatly that "diplomacy and sanctions have failed... [So] we have to look at: 1, overthrowing the regime and getting in a new one that won't pursue nuclear weapons; 2, a last-resort use of force."
However, he added a caution as to the viability of the first of those remaining options: While "the regime is more susceptible to overthrow from within than people think," he said, such a process "may take more time than we have."
Overall, said Bolton, it was clear that Iran had surmounted "all the technical problems of uranium enrichment," and it "may well be that we have passed the point of Iran mastering the nuclear fuel cycle." If so, it was now merely a matter of time before Iran reached a bomb-making capability - "a matter of resources and available equipment," he said - and it was solely up to Iran to set the pace.
To his dismay, however, the Bush administration was still clinging to the empty notion that the sanctions route could work, "even though [the UN's sanction] Resolutions 1737 and 1747 were full of loopholes. The US is still seeking another sanctions resolution and Solana is still pursuing diplomacy," he said bitterly.
Bolton lamented that the Bush administration today was "not the same" as a presumably more robust incarnation three years ago, because of what he said was now the State Department's overwhelming dominance of foreign policy. "The State Department has adopted the European view [on how to deal with Iran] and other voices have been sidelined," he said. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice "is overwhelmingly predominant on foreign policy."
Asked where this left Israel, Bolton said simply: "Israel's options are as limited as those of the US, except that you are in more danger in that you are closer. I hate to say that."
Bolton, who served as undersecretary of state for arms control and international security from 2001 to 2005, before taking the ambassadorial posting to the UN from August 2005 to December 2006, said the failed handling of the Iran nuclear crisis was one of the reasons he had left the Bush administration. "I felt we were watching Europe fiddling while Rome burned," he said. "It's still fiddling."
(The full interview will appear in Friday's Post.)
Umm... more of the war-mongering that got the current administration in trouble.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteP.B.:
ReplyDeleteThe solution may not require a military response, but Bolton's points need to be taken seriously. The question must be answered: What kind of alternative approach will work with a regime like Iran? The Gordian Knot is that nations like Iran seem to fuel their audacity on the perceived weakness/fecklessness of the West. Are we being played by Iran? It looks like that is the case. The present strategy, call it the Rice approach if you will, is clearly not working with respect to that nation. Then what should the next step be? Day by day, it seems, we learn of more Iranian meddling in Iraq, etc. This is a serious problem. I credit Bolton for his willingness to think outside the box of Euro-UN diplo-speak.
Unfortunately he's not willing or able to think outside the neoconservative box.
ReplyDeleteAre you just being provocative? It's easy nowadays to criticize Bolton's (or Bush's) ideas and policies, but it's quite another to propose original ideas or a plan that will adequately address these difficult questions.
ReplyDeleteBolton highlights a very immediate concern. He, and Sen. Joe Lieberman have been speaking out more forefully as of late regarding the Iran situation. Is diplomacy and rational discourse possible with terrorist regimes, particularly those driven by a violent, Islamist and eschatological vision of their place in world history? There seem to be some that genuinely see this as a possiblity. I simply don't.
I'm not suggesting, at least for the moment, that a military strike is the best way to solve the problem. Perhaps encouraging civilian discontent, with the goal of effecting a peaceful revolution, would be a possiblity. One could also consider better ways to isolate Iran internationally, but will that really convince the leadership there to change? But once again, allowing them to bide valuable time via "negotiations" and endless talks will only result in stagnation and play to their advantage.
Actually, the ones who are being provocative are the neocons with their constant sabre-rattling.
ReplyDeleteIsrael can take care of itself. The U.S. should disengage as much as possible, since those who would seek to spread Islam by the sword do not have the power to do so. Civilian disconent will not be encouraged so long as they have a reason to support the government (as when it is being picked on by the U.S.).
I don't believe in protecting lives at the expense of committing an injustice. We need less Jack Bauer and Machiavelli from our so-called Christian leaders, and more Christ.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteOnce again, criticism after criticism with no ideas of your own. This is so characteristic and quite predictable.
ReplyDeleteIsrael is very capable but at the same time depends heavily on American military aide. Your claim that they can defend themselves alone is dubious. Further, the "sabre-rattling" emanating from the neocon boogeymen you love attacking pales in comparison to that of leaders like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad...calling for the destruction of Israel, etc. Why don't you call for these folks to "disengage" as you ask of the US?
-"those who would seek to spread Islam by the sword do not have the power to do so." Do you seriously believe that? Even if this were the case, they are quite capable of spreading a healthy dose of havoc in their attempt to effect "conversion." We have a laundry list of terror attacks going back decades to verify this.
And what injustices are you talking about? And I'm still curious about how you would address the situation. Should the US simply pull out of international scene like we did after Vietnam? That mistake resulted in an entire region falling under Communist oppression, and millions died; I'm thinking of Cambodia, Vietnam, etc.
What need do I need to present ideas of my own if those who are more capable have done so for the past decade and more? Address the criticism and not the originality. Or should we create a new fallacy, "the fallacy of orignality" under which we can put the first two sentences of your reply?
ReplyDeleteDepends heavily on U.S. military aid? Hardly. Israel is a nation with nuclear weapons, a modern air force and a modern army. It can take care of itself against a conventional army. Now, it might be handicapped against a 4GW opponent, but then again, so is the U.S., and any sort of military aid that the U.S. would give against such an enemy would be ineffective, and perhaps even exacerbate the conflict.
As for the non sequitur regarding Iran's leadership--it's quite obvious. I'm not an Iranian citizen, but an American citizen, and it's not my concern what the rhetoric of the Iranian leadership and elites is, but with that of the Americans. If you think that American sabre-rattling makes the situation better instead of worse, that's too bad.
As for forced conversion--there is no way a Muslim country can take over a Western country with its military. That's not going to happen. Look at the state of their militaries, and it should be rather obvious. The kind of fear-mongering regarding "Islamofascism" and the like that Romney, Giuliani, and Santorum have been indulging in only makes them less credible as statesmen, and not more.
As for causing havoc, there is plenty more groups like AQ can do, if they had the resources and the planning to do it. It wouldn't take much to cripple this country, and instead of looking for ways to prevent that from happening through decentralization and a radical change in our energy policies, instead we rely on the good old stand-by -- the application of military might. Too bad that in itself does not guarantee success against a 4GW opponent. The American elites are behind the learning curve, and they need to catch up, instead of acquiescing to the neocons for leadership.
Injustice -- attacking Iraq without credible evidence of an imminent threat would be an example.
Pull out of the international scene? If you mean avoiding unnecessary entanglements and alliances, sure. That's certainly not the same as giving up diplomatic relations. If the U.S. has to maintain relations and justify certain actions against Iran, for example, because of its oil addiction, that's our fault. An modern-day example of Aquinas' "bad dilemma."
PB: Thanks for your ideas, really. I trust that our differences in opinion are not, as Jefferson would say, differences in principle. That said:
ReplyDeleteThe truth is, it's much easier to criticize than to really take the time to fully understand global realities and craft a foreign policy in light of those realities. And who are you referring to when you talk about those "more capable..." who have formulated these better ideas, incurables like Noam Chomsky? Your arguments read as if they were pruned straight from one of his convoluted books. I’d like to hear some specifics.
As for the issue of US support for Israel: If we're going to be at all serious about understanding the full extent of our aid (we've given them over 1.6 trillion dollars since 1973) we should look into the facts. According to David Francis of the Christian Science Monitor,
"Israel is the largest recipient of US foreign aid. It is already due to get $2.04 billion in military assistance and $720 million in economic aid in fiscal 2003. It has been getting $3 billion a year for years." (CSM 2002)
Your comments about Israel couldn't be more inaccurate. In every major conflict/war, the US has poured large amounts of military aid, in both money and equipment, into Israel. Such assistance has been essential to Israel’s defense. And Israel continues to petition us for huge sums of money, specifically for military purposes.
Your willingness to cavalierly dismiss Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's bombast and not-so-veiled threats is disturbing but consistent with your overall approach.
"It's not my concern what the rhetoric of the Iranian leadership and elites is."
Should we have tried harder then to ignore Hitler's rhetoric prior to his assuming the role of Führer? I've heard of isolationism before, but this is taking it to a new level. Should we simply ignore what's being said around the world by other world leaders? Then we become what Lenin referred to as “useful idiots.”
You say:
"As for forced conversion--there is no way a Muslim country can take over a Western country with its military. That's not going to happen. Look at the state of their militaries, and it should be rather obvious."
Come on! We are not talking about Muslim armies marching on DC as if we were back in the august Middle Ages. I thought that would be understood and not require an explanation. Times have changed and Muslim terrorists have adapted their strategies accordingly. They know they can't win a war or battle in the traditional sense. That’s why we’ve developed the nomenclature of asymmetrical warfare to describe the “new face” of war. Terror groups operate in cells around the globe, but that they share a common goal should be beyond a doubt. There are other, less orthodox ways of winning a war than by “taking over” a Western nation.
The Iraq caterwauling is getting old. As far as I know, no one in the Administration ever used the adjective "imminent" to describe the threat posed by Iraq. That was a ploy used by Senator Kennedy to attack the Administration’s planning in the run-up to the war. The point was to deal with the issue before it became an imminent threat. We had over 12 years of stalling and bluster from the Hussein regime, not to mention nearly 20 UN Resolutions demanding his compliance. The final resolution, R. 1442, promised "serious consequences" if Hussein continued down the path of obstinacy and obstruction. We further know that he had used chemical and biological weapons on the Kurds and oversaw a reign of terror for decades. If you want to talk about “injustices” on our part, let’s at least be honest and understand the extent of Hussein’s brutality; all of which was premeditated and intentional. For all the mistakes the US has made since the war began, I think it’s plain folly to morally equate the injustice of the US and that of Hussein, or to seemingly give carte blanche to his rule. Wouldn’t it have been an injustice to allow such cruelty to continue indefinitely? And, if we are to believe former CIA director George Tenet (hardly a war hawk), senior Al Qaida officials were in fact meeting in Iraq as late as 2003, with the knowledge of top-level Iraqi government officials.
I have a Polish-Italian friend, Wanda, who is well into her seventies. Wanda is savvy, brilliant, fluent in at least five languages and quite worldly, in the good sense of the term. She’s actually lived history and experienced life under a totalitarian regime. She loves America and wholeheartedly supports President Bush and the war in Iraq, in stark contrast to the spoiled youth of Italy who sanctimoniously prattle on about the evil American empire. Once we were out for lunch in Rome with her niece and she (the niece) politely began criticizing America’s decision to invade Iraq. She recycled all the typical lines: no WMDs, Bush is a Christian zealot, etc. Wanda very calmly eviscerated every point with sound arguments and personal anecdotes. In the process, she lectured her niece on history: “You have no idea what it’s like to live under a regime where your freedom is totally destroyed.” “You better thank America, because if not for America, you would be speaking German right now.” “Did America ‘invade’ Italy when they liberated us from the Germans?” Once again, surrounded by the comfortable amenities of our day-to-day life, it’s easy to forget that not all are as fortunate as we are.
Saber-rattling is a cheap talking-point, but let's deal with it. Clearly, saber-rattling had the desired effect with regard to Libya: Gaddafi got the message and, after the overthrow of Hussein’s regime in 2003, a sobered-up Gaddafi opened up and allowed international inspectors to oversee the dismantling of his weapons of mass destruction. In fact, former Italian PM Berlusconi revealed that, during a phone conversation with Gaddafi, the Libyan leader admitted that his about-face decision to open up to inspectors was a direct result of the decisive military action in Iraq, call it saber-rattling, by the US and the coalition. In the real world, saber-rattling has its uses. An Iraqi friend of mine on one occasion stressed that Muslim aggression against the West and Christians is NOT connected to American policies per se, as is often suggested, but rather, she believes it is an intrinsic element to the religion and ethos of the region. Given her unique perspective and background, her opinion on the subject is more valuable to me than yours or the “more capable” that you refered to earlier. It’s a bit slapdash to blame Islamic terrorism on US policies or to imply that “saber-rattling” incites violence and therefore should be avoided.
There's a stark line that divides those who have accepted the realities of a post 9-11 world and those who have not. We cannot afford, in every case, to wait until the threat is imminent because then it may be too late.
Finis
And who are you referring to when you talk about those "more capable..." who have formulated these better ideas, incurables like Noam Chomsky? Your arguments read as if they were pruned straight from one of his convoluted books. I’d like to hear some specifics.
ReplyDeleteRead the paleos, like Andrew Bacevich, or others like Chalmers Johnson.
Your comments about Israel couldn't be more inaccurate. In every major conflict/war, the US has poured large amounts of military aid, in both money and equipment, into Israel. Such assistance has been essential to Israel’s defense. And Israel continues to petition us for huge sums of money, specifically for military purposes.
I didn't deny Israel received money. I claimed they didn't need it. At this point they have quite enough to meet any opponent in a "conventional," i.e. 2GW war, which is all the other ME states are capable of, as far as I can see. A possible exception might be Iran, but I don't see Iran launching a 3GW war with Israel. Nuclear deterrance is probably enough to prevent any interstate conflict from breaking out.
Your willingness to cavalierly dismiss Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's bombast and not-so-veiled threats is disturbing but consistent with your overall approach.
The President is not the Supreme Leader. He doesn't make the final decision, the Supreme Leader does. So the comparison with Hitler doesn't apply. You want to claim the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Khamenei, is a crazy fool who wants to take on the Israel and/or the U.S. with force, either directly or through a proxy? Where's the intel that indicates this?
Come on! We are not talking about Muslim armies marching on DC as if we were back in the august Middle Ages. I thought that would be understood and not require an explanation. Times have changed and Muslim terrorists have adapted their strategies accordingly. They know they can't win a war or battle in the traditional sense. That’s why we’ve developed the nomenclature of asymmetrical warfare to describe the “new face” of war. Terror groups operate in cells around the globe, but that they share a common goal should be beyond a doubt. There are other, less orthodox ways of winning a war than by “taking over” a Western nation.
My original comment was about forced conversion through military coercion--if that's not what you were addressing, then you set up a strawman argument.
Terror groups operate in cells around the globe, but that they share a common goal should be beyond a doubt.
That's nonsense put out by those who wish to create a new bogeyman for the GWOT. The goals of disparate groups are not necessarily united--some are aiming at political power within a specific country, and have nothing to do with the U.S. There may be temporary alliances, but that is for the sake of achieving their individual goals. For example, the Sunnis and AQ in Iraq.
As for the defense of the Iraq War--see the Holy Father and the paleos for a rebuttal.
Wouldn’t it have been an injustice to allow such cruelty to continue indefinitely?
Actually, no. Prudence overrides whatever you think is a concern of justice or even charity. (And in this case, it isn't.)
And, if we are to believe former CIA director George Tenet (hardly a war hawk), senior Al Qaida officials were in fact meeting in Iraq as late as 2003, with the knowledge of top-level Iraqi government officials.
Debunked by the Pentagon.
Once again, surrounded by the comfortable amenities of our day-to-day life, it’s easy to forget that not all are as fortunate as we are.
And it's misguided to think that regime change can be accomplished with all cultures.
In the real world, saber-rattling has its uses.
In proportion to the consequences. How far was MQ from acquiring a nuclear weapon? Is there anything else he could have done in response? You turn a prudential application into an absolute--if saber-rattling does not achieve the desired affect, and makes the situation worse, one doesn't use it.
An Iraqi friend of mine on one occasion stressed that Muslim aggression against the West and Christians is NOT connected to American policies per se, as is often suggested, but rather, she believes it is an intrinsic element to the religion and ethos of the region.
What of those Christians in the Middle East who would claim the contradictory? Should we simply dismiss them as being pawns of the Muslims? Or might there not be a factual basis for their saying so? I do not claim that Islam does not have problems with authority and that jihad as justifying violence does not have support within the Koran and the tradition. Christians living in the Middle East are obvious and easy targets for oppression by Muslim governments. And historically Muslims have fought the West. That does not mean that every single Muslim terrorist has the same motivation or is trying to achieve the same goal.
You can follow Giuliani's lead, or you can read Chalmers Johnson's Blowback.
There's a stark line that divides those who have accepted the realities of a post 9-11 world and those who have not. We cannot afford, in every case, to wait until the threat is imminent because then it may be too late.
We can "afford," because we will be judged for what we do, and not what we suffer. "It is better to suffer evil than to commit it." You may not think that such a "preventative" use of military force is unjust, but perhaps you should be more considerate of what the Church has to say about the matter. According to the logic of your reasoning, we should kill every single Muslim, so that we could never have a terrorist attack.
Oh, one last point--as for "imminent threat" -- I wasn't saying the current administration was making this case, I was implying quite the opposite actually, and hence my invocation of a specific part of just war theory to judge a certain act to be unjust.
ReplyDeletethank you papa for being able to thoroughly refute every argument put forth. i bolton is a menace to the American way, as are the other neocons.
ReplyDelete