KD, are Syria and Iran "enemies"?

It seems wrong to label countries like Syria and Iran as "enemies".

Are we at war with Syria or Iran?
Are we engaged in a proxy war with Syria or Iran?

If not, by what definition are Syria and Iran enemies?

In fairness, I think she's asking, why negotiate with people who will want concessions you can't give, especially if they may do what you want anyway out of self interest?

It's not an argument against all negotiation. Most negotiation occurs with people who don't share your goals - but I think it's reasonable to assume that Iran and Syria don't want chaos in Iraq, or rather, they don't want chaos in Iraq if U.S. troops are no longer there.

Which is an argument for why Bush should announce that the U.S. won't build permanent bases in Iraq and will leave the country over the next year. That might be the only concession needed.

I imagine it's mostly caused by a fear that they might actually succeed.

I would add to that:

-- Negotiation, to succeed, almost inevitably requires actual compromise, which is anathema to the black-and-white worldview of hard-core Bush supporters (and quite possibly to Bush himself)

-- Negotiation implies you're not winning flat-out, and ditto above comment re the Base

-- Negotiation requires intelligence and patience, both of which have famously been lacking in the Bush administration's behavior

-- Negotiation would weaken the Republicans' political position, by opening them to future charges of "losing Iraq" (forgetting, for the moment, that they already have), while not negotiating and simply running out the clock insulates them somewhat

Take a look at Iraq: in the end, it acquiesced to every American demand in 2002 and 2003, and that just made it harder to gain support for the invasion we wanted.

Who's this "we" you refer to?

But you're right -- the fact that Iraq acceded to the UN's demand, but the Bush administration proceeded as if they weren't, made it perfectly obvious that these scum were hellbent on going to war regardless.

But what Rice's position -- the "compensation" required by any deal might be too high -- unintentionally reveals is the weakness of American's bargaining position, thanks to the failure of the Administration she serves.

As I've said before, it's sadly comforting that Bush and his merry band of criminals have ruined not only the Bush family name but the GOP's decades-long branding effort as "strong on defense."

"If they have an interest in a stable Iraq, they will do it anyway," Rice said in a wide-ranging interview with Washington Post reporters and editors.

This is, basically, an argument for never negotiating with anyone. After all, why bother if states will simply do what they want to do regardless?

You're missing the point. If Syria is a good country, it would do the right thing irregardless of what we Americans are willing to give in exchange. For example, suppose somebody was only willing to not a commit a murder if he was paid lots of money. Would you consider him be a good person? Of course not. That's because good people don't murder and they don't need to be paid to not murder.

For the same reason, since having a stable Iraq is the good thing to do, if Syria was a good country, they would help create a stable Iraq and wouldn't need to be compensated by American taxpayers to do that. That they aren't willing to help create a stable Iraq without being compensated shows Syria is a bad country and therefore we should not be giving in to their blackmail by talking to them.

Remember that the primary goal of Republicans is politics, not policy. Additionally, they think (and it's often true) that war is more popular than peace.

All the other crap follows.

Negotiations are bad not because they accomplish bad outcomes. Negotiations are bad because pounding your chest is more popular.

Haven't you figured it out, George Bush is the decider. Deciders don't talk to people they just issue edicts announcing their decisions.

Amerian foreign policy is built around Bush's unchecked belief in his own power.

What surprises me is that Condi, having spent some time now at the State Department, is still just as divorced from reality as her beloved.

By the way, we talked to the old Soviet Union all throughout the cold war. We negoitated with Hitler prior to WWII and were talking to the Japanese as late as December 6, 1941. I recall reading long ago that we had back channel communication with the Nazis all throughout WWII via our respective diplomats in Switzerland.

This crap about not talking to your adversaries (they are not enemies by any definition of the word)has no real precident in the history of American diplomacy. It is simply a reflection of childish thinking by the President. It opens us up to a real disaster.

"If they have an interest in a stable Iraq, they will do it anyway," Rice said in a wide-ranging interview with Washington Post reporters and editors.

Similarly, if the Soviet Union had had an interest in nuclear arms control they would have reduced their nuclear stockpiles anyway, which is why Ronald Reagan never negotiated with them....oh, wait. Never mind.

Bush's basic argument is that we won't negotiate unless the other party agrees in advance to what we want the result of the negotiation to be. E.g., we won't negotiate with Iran about their nuclear program until they stop their nuclear program.

Rice is saying we won't negotiate because we are afraid the result might not be what we want; i.e, they might out-negotiate us.

As to whether Syria will help Iraq because of their interest in its stability, countries have multiple interests. Syria no doubt has an interest in a stable Iraq, but it might feel it has a greater interest in a US whose military is sapped by the Iraq war until we are too weak to invade Syria.

Can we begin negotiations to have Bush and Cheney step down? I consider them the enemy.

By the way, Kevin's post title refers to Churchill's famous quote that "jaw, jaw is better than war, war."

Except to the neocons and their chickenhawk cheerleaders, it isn't. They want war. And why not? From their perspective the risk/benefit equation is all roses. Hell, Bush still insists on paying for his pet war with a tax cut.

Eh, negotiation, as an ongoing process for accommodating a variety of interests, really is an end. Like democracy.

Funny that Ron Byers mentioned our negotiating with Japan on the brink of war.

I was thinking of the opposite version of that - I believe that Shrub would like to conduct negotiations with Syria and Iran the way Japan "negotiated with us" - I wonder which emissaires of ours will be entering the halls of government in Damascus and Tehran to deliver our demands as the cruise missiles land.

Oh well, they will be simply expendable for "The Cause".

in the end, it acquiesced to every American demand

Well, except for, you know, complying with the terms of the Gulf War cease-fire, which required Iraq to document the destruction and termination of its WMD programs. The criterion was not "our inspectors can't find anything", it was positive proof to be produced by Iraq, much like South Africa's proof of termination of its nuclear-weapons program.

This is what you get when you appoint as Secretary of State someone who has no experience in, prediliction for, or ablility to conduct diplomacy. Nor does she seem to even know what the word "diplomacy" means.

Of course she's perfectly in sync with the Little Idiot, who decides based, apparently, on nothing but prayer and the received Word of Gawd, and who therefore does not need to talk with anyone except those who agree with him.

"Negotiation" is a dirty word to them. You can make plans with your friends (or should I say "friend" as in Tony Blair), but to talk with your enemies is weakness personified. And for the Little Idiot the appearance of strength is obviously more important than actual strength.

As a lifelong democrat, I never thought I would say this, but oh how I long for the days of Ronald Reagan. Say what you will about him, but he and those around him clearly had a far more mature view of statesmanship than the current administration does. And Reagan's administration show that you could have the cock-swinging swagger that the Bushies are so fond of AND negotiate with our enemies.

I just look forward to the day the adults are in charge again.

I should add to my 1:21 comment that while that legitimated the Iraq war, it didn't make it a good idea.

is condi dave littlefield in drag?

In fairness, I think she's asking, why negotiate with people who will want concessions you can't give, especially if they may do what you want anyway out of self interest?

Stupid question. If they aren't doing it already, they clearly don't think it is in their own self-interest. One purpose of discussions would be to convince them that it is in their self-interest, whether or not you offer concessions. Of course, you don't offer concessions you aren't willing to give, so the fact that they might ask for concessions you aren't willing to give is irrelevant.

Not only do they want war, they want, and have positioned so it is the only option to fulfill their desire, one-side nuclear war.

These people will go down, but they will take the rest of us with us.

If George H.W. Bush and John McCain want to leave a good legacy, now is the time to publicly intervene.

AI - there is no such word as irregardless. It's either regardless or irrespective.

Al,

Your reasoning is flawed on so many levels, its hard to know where to begin. First of all, we aren't asking Syria to not commit murder. We are asking them to involve themselves in the affairs of a sovereign nation. Big difference. Most reasonable nations, the United States is an exception, rightfully DON'T meddle in the internal affairs of other countries. That we would incentivize Syria, or Nauru for that matter, to assist us in Iraq makes perfect sense.
Further, what divine insight enables you to discern which countries are "good" vs. "bad"? Are we "good" when we invade Iraq? Was the Soviet Union "bad" when they invaded Afghanistan? Why is there a difference? Don't say intent, since the reasons Bush gave in the first place have been shown to be lies. Is Uzbekistan "good"? And is Cuba "bad"?? Why?? Uzbekistan's leader has killed more people than Castro, but Bush plays pattycake with him.

Bush, Rice and Cheney are all criminally insane. Why in God's name did Nancy Pelosi rule out impeachment? That is the only hope of getting rid of these vermin before they lead us into Armageddon.

Isn't one of the great benefits of being the World's Only Super Power that you can often get your way through negotiation alone?

Shelby: We want to war over ...paperwork?

Take a look at Iraq: in the end, it acquiesced to every American demand in 2002 and 2003, and that just made it harder to gain support for the invasion we wanted.

That's a peculiar thing to say. Even Hans Blix, who opposed the invasion, acknowledged in his report that the Iraqis were defying the U.N. Security Council resolution. I believe he used the word "regretably" or some such.

We are battling to reduce the power of terrorist states in the middle east. That's the underpinning of why the war in Ifraq is so important. Syria and Iran are two terrorist states trying to increase their power. Yet, some here say we need to talk to them. Talk to them about what?

Should we agree to let them destroy Israel, in hope that they will then stop supporting the enemies of democracy in Iraq and Lebanon? If that's your point, please say so straight out.

Should we offer money to Iran if they will stop supporting terrorism? But, Iran has plenty of money. I don't think that will work with them. Also, a practice of paying protection money to potential enemies will encourage other countries to support terrorism with the intent of being bought off.

I think we should support our allies and oppose our enemies. Centuries of experience in foreign affairs have shown that approach to be more fruitful than the reverse.

The Bush administration has turned failure into an art form.

They'd rather fail in Iraq militarily than look weak politically (yet alone admit they were wrong).

The only way you can still be a Bush supporter is if you're completely ignorant of what's happening, profiting from them, have a thug mentality, or are cheering on the Rapture. Sickeningly those constituents collectively add up to about 30% of the population.

A bit off-thread, but I've been wondering for some time now the origin of the "never negotiate," empire-loving, "bipartisanship is the equivalent of date rape" psychology of the current crop of Republicans.

Bush and his crew have taken divisiveness to a new extreme. Not only are we at war in Iraq, we're at war here at home. Didn't Bush say recently that he was surprised that Dems and Repubs could work together to produce a report like the ISG? Really? Why should he be so surprised about that?

It's because he looks at everyone who's not on his team as an adversary. The Gingrichian practice of not inluding anyone from the other side in one's considerations.

Where did this come from? Guess I'll ask my girlfriend the psychoanalyst.

The Conservative Deflator: "Why in God's name did Nancy Pelosi rule out impeachment?"

Because, like most of the Democratic leadership, she is an unprincipled, craven bootlicker of corporate power and she takes her orders from the fatcats who control the flow of big bucks to the Democratic Party.

nobody: As a lifelong democrat, I never thought I would say this, but oh how I long for the days of Ronald Reagan.

I too am starting to miss Ronnie Raygun. And Pat Buchanan is starting to make sense. Eh, I think that says something about the current crew.

Matt D. In fairness, I think she's asking, why negotiate with people who will want concessions you can't give, especially if they may do what you want anyway out of self interest?

I think she is also asking why negotiate with other parties when you are convinced that they will not live up to their side of the bargain. No matter what Syria and Iran agree to do, once American forces leave Iraq Syria and Iran will ignore any agreements that they have signed. Don't forget, the Koran advises MUslims to sign agreements with Infidels with the intention of breaking them as soon as possible. Hitler and Ho acted that way without the Koranic injuunction, of course, so dishonesty in diplomatic negotiation is not a uniquely Muslim trait. The United States did the same with Indian tribes, but latterly the U.S. had been forced to adhere to more of the treaty agreements than formerly.

Still, why negotiate when you have a conviction in advance that the agreement will be violated? U.S. withdrawal will have to be conditional on Syria and Iran first halting support for the factions inside Iraq, and that requires no negotiations even to begin.

There are already U.N.S.C. resolutions requiring Syria to stay out of Lebanon, and Syria is in vilation of those. Syria is already under embargo, and that is not effecting any good outcome. Syria still is in violation of UN resolution 242 requiring it to negotiate with Israel over the terms of Israeli withdrawal from occupied Syrian territories: Syria wants the concession first.

We are battling to reduce the power of terrorist states in the middle east. That's the underpinning of why the war in Ifraq is so important. Syria and Iran are two terrorist states trying to increase their power. Yet, some here say we need to talk to them. Talk to them about what?

Posted by: ex-liberal on December 15, 2006 at 1:45 PM

We all would expect that kind of thinking from a rabid fan of the President, so you are excused for being naive in the extreme, but we wouldn't expect that kind of thinking from the President. His job is far too complex to be reduced to a bumper sticker. There is no excuse for his insistence that his job is no more complicated than a bumper sticker. That is why I find the one page briefing memos to be one of the most obnoxious aspects of his presidency. Instead of indulging him some grown up should have told him the Presidency is Yale. There are no cliff notes for the presidency.

In answer to your question, the reason to negotiate is to avoid unnecessary human casualties and loss of national treasure.

The world is a dangerous place. Every country has many adversaries. There are lots of ways to engage with those adversaries. War is just one of them. A smart ruler wants to engage with his adversaries in the order, in the way and at the time of his choosing. Negotiate gives you an opportunity to engage your adversaries in the order, in the way and at the time of your choosing.

You might want to read "The Art of War" by Sun Tzu. You might learn something.

If this stuff were coming from the provost at some West Coast educational institution, it might be tolerable, though it would still be ignorant. Coming from the U.S. Secretary of State, it just proves that even after six years of bullheaded idiocy, this administration can still astonish.

The question is obvious: Madame Secretary, if you don't do diplomacy, just what is it you're doing at the State Department?

Negotiation *may be* an end in itself. Vis a vis North Korea, for example---suppose we can spend 20 years dragging them through an endless series of talks; giving the appearance of always being on the verge of a breakthrough; occassionally allowing them a victory (even one embarrassing to us) to keep them coming back to the table. If the alternative is "drop bombs, clean up all consequences, risk regional war"---well, frankly, 20 years of bleak, fruitless negotiations sounds like a darn good alternative.

the origin of the "never negotiate,"

Simple. When your orders come from the One True God, why negotiate with anyone? Especially anyone whose One True God is different from yours and thus must be Satan?

It would be grossly oversimplifying to say that monotheism is the root of violence, but it has undeniably been used to justify a lot of it over the last few millenia.

"jaw, jaw is better than war, war."

Churchill also refused to negotiate with Germans who opposed Hitler. He said "Let dog eat dog."

Stefan above rightly refers to the fact that the U.S. and U.S.S.R. signed treaties to reduce nuclear weapons totals, treaties that had verification procedures and benchmarks written into them.

Chamberlain (1938) and Nixon-Kissinger (1974) accepted treaties that led to conquest of third parties who expected better protection against the conquests.

Syria and Iran want the U.S. to leave so that their interests can prevail in the subsequent wars. The U.S. wants the elected government to prevail in the current civil war, and to have regularly scheduled, competitive fair elections repeatedly in the future. There isn't a common interest.

This lack of a common interest is why negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians never have lasting success.

Shelby:

That certainly wasn't the conclusion of either Hans Blix's or Mohammed ElBaradei's final reports regarding the status of Saddam's alleged WMD programs.

I'm not going to repeat the catchphrase "you can't prove a negative" and have cmidicely smack that around for imprecision -- but I will say this:

When you're up for a murder charge, the ball isn't in your court to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you couldn't possibly have murdered the person (a negative). The burden of proof is on the state, to make the case that you did (a positive).

Documents, schmockuments. Iraq could've *made up* documents. The evidence that Blix and ElBaradei were looking for clearly wasn't there -- and furthermore, inspecting their infrastructure demonstrated to both of them that both the post-Gulf war brain drain of top-notch scientists and the decrepit physical infrastructure made it exceedingly unlikely that Saddam had anything up his sleeve.

And this was confirmed in spades after the invasion. Fancy that.

The WMD "case" most assuredly did *not* justify the invasion.

Bob

Kevin this is a silly argument.

Iran and Syria have no interest whatsoever in a 'stable' Iraq, as we (you OR I) might define it. Both countries are in fact fomenting trouble in Iraq.

Why? Because it suits their purposes.

Now perhaps, as Ron Byers writes, one might find a way to engage either or both countries to peel them away from whatever policies that causes them to see trouble in Iraq as useful. To be able to do so at a lower cost to us than the other alternatives would be, in fact, the very reason to try negotiation.

Except that it won't work. It won't work because both countries have made very clear what they want in return, and President Bush has made clear he won't give them what they want.

What do they want: Syria wants the Golan returned to them. This is the Golan they lost when they attacked Israel. It's not ours to return it, and we have no business strong-arming the Israelis to return in the absence of some substantial concession from the Syrians to Israel (which the Syrians haven't been willing to do, e.g., a signed peace treaty).

Syria also wants a free hand in Lebanon, since they see Lebanon as their rightful colony. And they want the Palestinian issue settled, even while they continue to aid and sponsor Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist groups.

They might as well ask for a pony.

Iran wants us out of the Middle East altogether so that they can pursue their goal of radical Shi'a hegemony over the region. That's their price for their 'help' in Iraq. That means of course that they would end up dictating the terms in Iraq since we'd be gone.

That's the price. You'd pay it. I wouldn't.

Ben M. If the alternative [to endless talking] is "drop bombs, clean up all consequences, risk regional war"---well, frankly, 20 years of bleak, fruitless negotiations sounds like a darn good alternative.

Ben, the trouble is that "drop bombs" is more like the consequence of endless talking than the alternative to it. Why? Because Iran and NK won't stop their developmenet of nuclear weapons and missiles while we're talking.

Once these countries have nuclear arsenals and the means to deliver them, Heaven only knows what they will do. Whatever it is, years of fruitless talking won't prevent them from doing it.

I think the reason we're backing away from talking to Syria and Iran is that we have already approached them through back channels, indirectly through the media, and (tentatively) officially.

Their response was, "bite me, America". Can anyone blame them? How would the US respond to a country that had been verbally threatening it for a few years, then asked it to come pull it's bacon from the fire?.

Strange to see the sabre-rattling conservatives, who after claiming to want regime change in Syria and Iran, go begging to these governments for help. Syria and Iran are more than glad to see the US get stuck with the tar baby in Iraq.

They don't see too much risk from a civil war in a neighboring country, and I think that's a realistic assessment. (Nobody in the real world buys this "breeding ground for terrorists" schtick except for mainstream media neo-cons and conventional wisdom machines).

After the Baker report restarted the "negotiation narrative" the administration is just trying to back away from it without saying, "Syria and Iran told us to fuck ourselves - there's nothing in it for them (helping the US?) and there's no real bad consequences if they don't help.

Saudi Arabia is a different story.

To extend on what Bob writes: It was clearly a binding obligation under the Security Council resolutions imposing a cease-fire on all parties at the end of the 1991 Gulf War for Iraq to account for its WMD programs, not merely to cease them.

It was likewise an obligation under those same resolutions, and the UN Charter, for the US to respect the soveriegnty and territorial integrity of Iraq. Under the UN Charter, the only legal justification for the US resorting to force against Iraq so long as those binding resolutions were in place, without a specific authority from the Security Council lifting the cease-fire, would be an actual attack by Iraq.

The US action was illegal under the very same resolutions it claimed it was enforcing.

Some questions for you Steve White. Are Syria and Iran natural allies? Is a full blown shooting war in Iran's best interests? Why? Isn't Iran predominantly an oil power? Screwing up the shipping lanes would naturally interupt the ability of Iran to sell oil? Wouldn't it. Doesn't Syria want to run an Iraqi oil pipeline through its country? Is a shooting war in Syria's best interests? Why? Who would be the Syrian foe in any such war? Who would Al Qaeda support? Why?

Finally hasn't the Iraq war pretty much convinced you that you can't install democracy at the point of a gun? Isn't it still a good idea for America to promote democracy in the middle east? What tools might we still have available to promote democracy? Do we need a standing army to use those tools?

Explain to me again why the US wouldn't want to spend time talking to both Iran and Syria?

Marler, You are wrong about Blix. Essentially the only problem came down to the fact that Saddam couldn't prove he had destroyed, say, 700 tons of chemical weapons instead of 600.

Secondly, from your vast knowledge of the inner talks of Arabic-speaking countries, you opine:
"Syria and Iran want the U.S. to leave so that their interests can prevail in the subsequent wars."

As someone above pointed out, reality doesn't fit in a one-liner.

KD sez: "In the end, Iraq acquiesced to every American demand in 2002 and 2003."

Frazier sez: Kevin Drum - you are either a liar or a poor historian.

I say - Iraq complied substantitively with most all demands from UNSCOM and the IAEA in the 2002/2003 period. Over 500 inspections, absolutely ZERO hindering of the inspection teams, no restrictions on their movements, and absolutely nothing found in the thousands of chemical analyses performed. Destroying the missiles that were just slightly over the distance restrictions.

They only were having trouble getting the interviews with scientists, and with documenting the destruction of pre-Gulf War I chemical weapons (mostly long-inert mustard gas shells, but also Sarin).

"If they have an interest in a stable Iraq, they will do it anyway"

Well, we should have an interest in a stable Iraq...

Interests are always a matter of calculation and therefore transform according to changing conditions.

The Bush Administration's actions are always aimed at gaining and maintaining the most political power; they never waver from it. It is therefore not in their interest to negotiate with Syria and Iran.

One must not confuse the ends.

In fairness, I think she's asking, why negotiate with people who will want concessions you can't give, especially if they may do what you want anyway out of self interest

Syria and Iran are not giving us what we want in Iraq and are unlikely to do so on their own. The negotiation should be to arrive at a mutually agreeable result.

If you can't figure that out you shouldn't be Secretary of State.

tomeck and Ron Byers -- I see no sensible offer we could make to Syria and Iran in exchange for ending their support for terrorists in Iraq (and Lebanon, while we're at it). What do you think we should offer?

Iraqi refugees flood into Syria:

Since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003 as many as two million civilians searching for sanctuary have fled into neighbouring countries like Syria, Jordan and Iran.

They are ill-equipped to cope. The pressure group Refugees International calls it the fastest growing humanitarian crisis in the world.

Just up the road from the stranded Palestinians, the Syrian border crossing at al-Tanaf feels like a safe haven for Iraqis who make it this far.

Cars and trucks are packed with possessions. But for most people, escaping into exile, the future is uncertain.

"I'll find a place to stay, anywhere I can afford," Mohammed Abu Muhy says. "Everyone is leaving Iraq."

And they bring everything they can carry. Expressionless faces look on as border guards rummage through their worldly goods.

The numbers are staggering - at least three quarters of a million Iraqis have fled to Syria alone. And every month the rate of arrival is higher than it has been before.

/sarcasm

Iraq complied substantitively with most all demands from UNSCOM and the IAEA in the 2002/2003 period. Over 500 inspections, absolutely ZERO hindering of the inspection teams, no restrictions on their movements, and absolutely nothing found in the thousands of chemical analyses performed.

No, that's not true in any sense of the word. The Iraqis restricted access to Saddam Hussein's palaces and used a number of tactics to cheat as much as they could.

Remember, in 1997, they kicked out the inspectors. Why? Why did they kick them out if they had nothing to hide? Well, perhaps because the inspectors were close to proving Iraq either did have WMD or did not have WMD--in either case, the finding would either expose Iraq to further sanction or possible attack from its neighbors.

As to what they did prior to the US invasion--which was, not complying with the inspection process--this is not what an innocent nation would do, you know. It is my firm belief that they did so not because they were hiding something but because they did not want their immediate neighbors (Saudi Arabia and Iran) to know how weak and vulnerable they were.

The thread of WMD was what somewhat stabilized the region and the United States was absolutely correct for invading Iraq to ensure that they did not have these weapons.

Yeah, everyone knows that all countries just lovev a mass of refugees teeming on their borders.

The Iraqi diaspora has displaced, iirc, 1.8 million who have fled the country and an equal number is internally displaced.

The Iraqi diaspora, in 3 1/2 short years, has grow to such size it will soon rival the palestinian diaspora, which includes all refugees and their descendants since 1948.

tomeck and Ron Byers -- I see no sensible offer we could make to Syria and Iran in exchange for ending their support for terrorists in Iraq (and Lebanon, while we're at it). What do you think we should offer?

You're right. Since, according to you, we can't make them any offers, and since, according to reality, we can't force them to stop, then we're just going to have to accept them doing whatever they want and shut up about it. Oh well....

It has more to do with the arrogance of the conservatives and their colonial mindset.

I think they all want to replicate the British Empire so each of them can get a nation for himself to rule the natives as a Viceroy.

Excellent article on the mysteries of the Ambassador's resignation,

Concluding,

While Bandar and Rihab Massoud allegedly have affirmed Cheney's views and are perceived to be Bush administration sycophants, Turki was charting a more realist course for Saudi interests and advising the White House to develop more serious, constructive strategies toward the region that would produce stability and not lead to "a terrorist super-highway stretching from Iran through Iraq and rushing through Syria and Jordan to the edge of Israel."

cmdicely: Under the UN Charter, the only legal justification for the US resorting to force against Iraq so long as those binding resolutions were in place, without a specific authority from the Security Council lifting the cease-fire, would be an actual attack by Iraq.

Is that true? The U.N. and U.S. declared war on Iraq, and the conditions on Iraq permitted the cease-fire. When U.N. resolution 1442 asserted that Iraq was clearly in violation of the cease-fire and that "serious consequences" would ensue if it did not immediately come into full compliance on schedule, and when Hans Blix' report docummented that Iraq was not indeed in full compliance, Why was any other action necessary for U.S. forces to resume the combat (the serious consequences) that had been interrupted? Once the U.N. declared that Iraq was in violation of the terms of the cease-fire, why was another U.N. declaration of war necessary?

If your reasoning has any implications to Iraq, why does it not also require that all foreign troops be withdrawn from the Balkans, where the U.N. never declared war; or indeed Afghanistan where the Taliban are no longer the government and where the government never participated in the 911 attacks?

When NATO fought the war against Yugoslavia, most of the war consisted of a U.S. air war against the civilian infrastructure of Yugoslavia. Nobody seems to have objected that this was a violation of the U.N. charter, certainly not very many Democratic opponents of the Iraq invasion, and certainly not many EU opponents of the Iraq invasion.

If you grant that legal cases are never quite airtight, I think the case can be made that the U.S. invasion of Iraq had more legal justification than some other military actions that have less opposition. For whatever reason (and to whatever legal effect) the U.N. remained neutral to the U.S. invasion of Iraq; the U.S. abandoned its attempt to get a resolution of support, and no one even attempted to get a resolution in opposition. As soon as the Baathist regime was overthrown, the U.N. recognized the new regime, sent aid, and took credit for early progress (when there was early progress.)

Stefan: Since, according to you, we can't make them any offers, and since, according to reality, we can't force them to stop, then we're just going to have to accept them doing whatever they want and shut up about it. Oh well....

Stefan, your (unstated) argument seems to be that force has not succeeded and cannot succeed against Syria and Iran, so we should try negotiations. That argrment has a few flaws:

-- Negotiations would likely make things worse by encouraging terrorist nations.

-- We haven't actually tried force against Syria or Iran. I'm not saying we should do so, but it's not clear that force wouldn't work. In fact, we have to power to demolish those countriess, if we chose to do so.

-- There are many other possible ways to attempt to deal with these two countries.

ex-liberal

I take it you don't negotiate for a living.

Just because you can't think of what the Syrians or Iranians might want doesn't mean they can't. You will never know unless you ask. Just because you ask doesn't mean you give it to them. It just means you ask.

There are literally millions upon millions of American business people who negotiate with others every day. Very few of them are unwilling to talk.

I guess you must have come out of academia. Maybe like young master Bush you were just a trust fund baby. Like 43 you seem to lack the good old Yankee ability to horse trade.

ex-liberal

Why don't you take a little time off and read that book I recommended. Then come back and take up the issue again.

Just because you can't think of what the Syrians or Iranians might want doesn't mean they can't. You will never know unless you ask. Just because you ask doesn't mean you give it to them. It just means you ask. There are literally millions upon millions of American business people who negotiate with others every day. Very few of them are unwilling to talk.

No, no. That's why I don't negotiate with any of the counterparties on my transactions -- it will only embolden them. I just tell them what they should do, and that's that. I figure if they have an interest in my deal, they'll do it anyway. That, or I threaten to use force....

Neo-conservative "ex-liberal" wrote: Should we offer money to Iran if they will stop supporting terrorism? But, Iran has plenty of money. I don't think that will work with them.

We could try sending them arms, like Reagan did.

Marler,
According to your own analysis, the resort to "serious consequences" is not from violations to the cease-fire, it is from failure to observe 1441. The only body that has the authority to decide Iraq was in 1441 violation was the UN. They explicitly did not rule that Iraq violated 1441 -- Bush avoided that ruling because it was obvious that he would lose that vote. So he invaded unilaterally and illegally.

It would also help if you were more careful about quoting Blix. He specifically did not claim compliance or noncompliance with 1441, he stated, correctly, that was a decision that had to be made BY THE UN.

Should we offer money to Iran if they will stop supporting terrorism? But, Iran has plenty of money. I don't think that will work with them.

Because the one thing people with plenty of money don't want is more of it. That's why the rich are immune to all bribes and corruption....

Because the one thing people with plenty of money don't want is more of it. That's why the rich are immune to all bribes and corruption....

Touche', bon homme.

Stefan, does your comment mean that you favor offering money to Iran if they will promise to stop interfering with democracies in the middle east?

Or, wss it just a bit of random snarkiness?

As Jack Abramoff would say: "Right"!

Global Citizen, according to Wikipedia, The person who gets touched calls out "Touché".

Well, we do not really know his last name, but there is a Stephan Facetious _______, Esq. listed in Martindale, Hubble..........Hmmm.

As FAUXLib desparately tries to contact Schaife headquarters asking them for directions in how to ascertain if someone is "making wise" - Tail Start is sooooooooooo behind Head Start.

Ron Byers asks me several questions:

Are Syria and Iran natural allies?

Whether they're 'natural' allies is irrelevant. They are allies now. The Alawite clan that runs Syria presently is in league with Iran because they have mutual goals, the first and most important of which is staying alive and in power. Remember that the Alawites are an offshoot of the Shi'a and represent only 20% of the population: almost all the rest of Syria is Sunni. The Sunnis generally regard the Alawites as heretics and apostates, and that's a real problem if you're a minority Alawite. Assad and his people run a brutal police state to stay in power, and so they can't tolerate any threats to that, be it from us, uppity Lebanese, or a democratic Iraq next door.

Likewise, the Mad Mullahs™ of Iran have a primary goal of staying in power. Remember, they're radical Shi'a -- in the past, the Shi'a theology supposed some separation of religion and state (unlike the Sunnis for whom no separation exists), and were content to live and let live. Khomeini overturned all that by preaching a radical expanionist Shia-ism that would become the dominant branch of Islam. The current ayatollahs believe in that as well, so not only do they want to stay in power, they want to expand their power. Syria is a useful tool. Grabbing onto the Shi'a part of Iraq is useful. Gobbling up the Shi'a majority Gulf states (e.g., Bahrain, Qatar, UAE) would be useful. Allying the Shi'a in Lebanon (e.g., Hezbollah) is useful. All that is in service to their goals.

So Iran and Syria are allies today, natural or unnatural.

Is a full blown shooting war in Iran's best interests?

I don't think so. Iran would prefer to wear down and badger their opponents into submission, and grab states or parts of states when they're weak and the rest of the world is pre-occupied. I think they understand that in a major military confrontation with us, they could get seriously hurt -- the U.S. might not be able to occupy Iran, but we could potentially remove the Mad Mullahs™ from power. Remember their first goal.

Isn't Iran predominantly an oil power? Screwing up the shipping lanes would naturally interupt the ability of Iran to sell oil?

Sure, though the Mad Mullahs™ may be calculating that they can tolerate a short hit better than we, or the Europeans, or Japanese, or Chinese, can.

Is a shooting war in Syria's best interests?

Depends -- with whom? With us -- no way, Assad and his minions certainly understand what our military can do to a third-rate Arab army, they just saw it next door. And rest assured, the Syrian military is no match for us (or for Israel). A shooting war with Iraq minus the U.S., particularly a Shi'a rump Iraq, or a shooting war with Lebanese opposition militas, well, that's different.

Who would Al Qaeda support?

Why themselves, first and foremost.

Finally hasn't the Iraq war pretty much convinced you that you can't install democracy at the point of a gun?

While one can't 'install' democracy with guns, removing a dictator who has his foot on the neck of his people is possible sometimes only with a gun. It was right and proper to remove Saddam -- no democracy was possible with him around. We've done some good things in Iraq subsequently, and we've made some major (and some stupid) mistakes there. If we get democracy in Iraq, it will be because the people there, given the opportunity, decide they want it as opposed to something else.

Isn't it still a good idea for America to promote democracy in the middle east?

Yes, emphatically. I worry about Americans who don't believe in promoting democracy.

What tools might we still have available to promote democracy? Do we need a standing army to use those tools?

We have all sorts of tools. A standing army is one of them, and it's a very useful tool when used properly.

Explain to me again why the US wouldn't want to spend time talking to both Iran and Syria?

As I indicated earlier, we simply aren't going to give them what they want -- hegemony over Iraq and the Middle East. Talking about that, or how they're going to 'help' us, is silly.

But if I were President (don't worry), I might take an invitation to talk directly with the Syrians and Iranians -- not with their thug leaders, but with the people. I'd do it just the way Ronald Reagan talked with the people of Eastern Europe and Russia. I'd preach democracy, human rights, and liberty, and I'd work behind the scenes using all the various tools available to me to help the people of Syria and Iran liberate themselves from the thugs.

Now if that's the kind of talk you mean, we're in complete agreement.

Global Citizen, according to Wikipedia, The person who gets touched calls out "Touché".

And according to neocon "ex-liberal," the person who gets touched never does.

The U.N. and U.S. declared war on Iraq,

The UN did not "declare war" on Iraq. Whether the US did or not depends on the sense in which "declared war" is used, and isn't really relevant, anyway.

When U.N. resolution 1442 asserted that Iraq was clearly in violation of the cease-fire and that "serious consequences" would ensue if it did not immediately come into full compliance on schedule, and when Hans Blix' report docummented that Iraq was not indeed in full compliance, Why was any other action necessary for U.S. forces to resume the combat (the serious consequences) that had been interrupted?

(Presumably, you mean S/RES/1441 concerning Iraq/Kuwait, not S/RES/1442 concerning Cyprus.)

Because the UN Security Council had already imposed a binding cease-fire on all parties, and only (barring an actual attack) could lift that binding order.

It was the decision of the UN Security Council, under the Charter, not that of the US government, what "serious consequence" would be imposed based on its judgement of the degree and extent of Iraq's failure to comply and its judgment of the threat to international peace and security that represented and its judgement of the best way to respond to that threat.

Once the U.N. declared that Iraq was in violation of the terms of the cease-fire, why was another U.N. declaration of war necessary?

No UN "declaration of war" has ever existed. The UN issued an authorization for member-states to use force to enforce specific resolutions, which terminated with the imposing of a binding cease-fire order. Absent a lifting of that binding cease-fire, which 1441 did not do (which the US had attempted and failed to get the Council to agree to), the use of force remained prohibited by the cease-fire imposed by the Council.

If your reasoning has any implications to Iraq, why does it not also require that all foreign troops be withdrawn from the Balkans, where the U.N. never declared war;

Because (1) my reasoning has nothing to do with the UN having "declared war", (2) nothing I said has anything to do with requring troops being withdrawn from anywhere, and (3) the troops currently serving in international peacekeeping missions in the Balkans do so with the formal assent of the government's in whose territory they are serving.

Further, though I believe none of the current missions in the Balkans are UN missions, several of them are the authorized follow-on missions to which missions authorized by the UN Security Council handed authority.

When NATO fought the war against Yugoslavia, most of the war consisted of a U.S. air war against the civilian infrastructure of Yugoslavia.

That's a somewhat controversial statement, but irrelevant to the point at issue.

Nobody seems to have objected that this was a violation of the U.N. charter, certainly not very many Democratic opponents of the Iraq invasion, and certainly not many EU opponents of the Iraq invasion.

Actually, quite a large number of people, including much of the domestic and international anti-war movement, the Yugoslav government, and domestic opponents of the Yugoslav war that were not anti-war more generally did, in fact, use that among their arguments against the war.

OTOH, NATO did point to both actual crossborder attacks into Albania and imminent threats of continued escalation against Albania as part of the legal justification, though it was not the principal motivation for the war; collective self-defense from actual attack is a right reserved to member-states under the UN Charter.

or indeed Afghanistan where the Taliban are no longer the government and where the government never participated in the 911 attacks?

The Taliban was never the internationally-recognized government of Afghanistan, the campaign against al-Qaeda which continues there is clearly a response to an actual attack on the United States—the Taliban's involvement was a result of their decision to defend al-Qaeda—and the continued international presence is with consent of the new, internationally recognized government. I'm not sure exactly why you think the argument about the illegality of the Iraq was has any relevance to this or to missions continuing in the Balkans.

If you grant that legal cases are never quite airtight, I think the case can be made that the U.S. invasion of Iraq had more legal justification than some other military actions that have less opposition.

Perhaps there were other actions by the US that were equally illegal but less controversial among the US public—though neither of the ones you mention, apparently in the hope of using them as examples, falls into that category, as explained above—but so what? Arguably, the reason is because even among illegal acts of aggression, the campaign against Iraq was particularly ill-conceived.

McDruid writes, The only body that has the authority to decide Iraq was in 1441 violation was the UN.

If the goal is to pick nits and not understand world affairs, that's true enough: you then have to explain why the UN wouldn't find Iraq in violation.

Because, you see, they did. Repeatedly. They have seventeen resolutions, and each of the last sixteen started with the preamble that Iraq was in violation of 1441 and needed to come into compliance.

The issue wasn't whether Iraq was in violation -- it was -- or whether the UN would find it in violation -- it did. The issue was whether the UN would back its word by actually doing something about it other than another sternly-worded resolution.

If one wants to be a nit-picking sea-lawyer one can continue to complain that what the US did under 'international law' was wrong because we didn't ask 'mother may we' from the UN.

They explicitly did not rule that Iraq violated 1441 -- Bush avoided that ruling because it was obvious that he would lose that vote.

And perhaps you know the reason for that: Saddam had succeeded in bribing the French and Russians to the point that they would vote 'no'. The French certainly weren't principled about this (for them it was all about oil), and the Russian had any number of secrets to hide.

So the question for you to answer, in turn, is whether you would allow unprincipled, lying, thieving states to stymie you from doing what you believe must be done.

So he invaded unilaterally and illegally.

Unilaterally with a couple dozen other countries in support. Legally per our Constitution. George Bush didn't allow the lying, thieving French and unprincipled Russians to stop him from doing what he knew had to be done. Bravo.

Likewise, the Mad Mullahs™ of Iran have a primary goal of staying in power.

Acting in one's perceived self-interest doesn't sound very "mad."

Of course, it's commonplace for warfloggers to couch their cheerleading by characterizing the opposition as "insane." Now, of course Steve White wouldn't besmirch his M.D. by making an unqualified diagnosis (besmirch his name by parroting unqualified right-wing talking points, yes, of course...), so I wonder what evidence he has that the leadfership of Iran is "mad"? Or does merely opposing the US qualify?

If one wants to be a nit-picking sea-lawyer one can continue to complain that what the US did under 'international law' was wrong because we didn't ask 'mother may we' from the UN.

If one wanted to be anything other than a dishonest Bush apologist -- but I repeat myself -- once could continue to note that what the US did was wrong under US law because our international obligations are, Constitutionally, binding US law.

"If you grant that legal cases are never quite airtight, I think the case can be made that the U.S. invasion of Iraq had more legal justification than some other military actions that have less opposition."

Well, I'd nominate Granada, but I never have understood why we invaded.

cmdicely does a masterful job of dicing Marler's positions.

Steve there are a lot of things wrong with your analysis, but this statement is perhaps one of the wrongest of them:

As I indicated earlier, we simply aren't going to give them what they want -- hegemony over Iraq and the Middle East. Talking about that, or how they're going to 'help' us, is silly.

Actually, by invading and destabilizing Iraq, the United States has given "them" the best shot at what they otherwise would never have gotten -- hegemony over Iraq and a Shia crescent arcing across the Middle East.

And when our army breaks and we're forced to withdraw our troops, the Bush administration will have all but giftwrapped Iraq for the Iranians and any interested Shia.

Your big talk about "what we're not gonna give 'em" fails to disguise the fact that in essence you've already given it -- and done it over "our" strenuous objections, I might add.

Trex, our army will not break. Morale is high. The discussions about how to use reserves, increase army size, etc will pan out. And I do think we're bringing some troops home in 2007. Our army will not break.

We won't be 'forced' to withdraw our troops unless we abandon our mission. Again, I see some troops coming home in 2007.

We'll have to disagree about whether we've given Iran what they want by invading Iraq -- removing Saddam certainly was a gift to them, but they clearly understand the long-term threat of a democratic Iraq. They clearly understand the appeal of Shi'a living in a democratic state, particularly their own Arab Shi'a minority in the Kuzestan province (that has most of the oil, by the way). That's why their reaction to us is what it is -- they see the threat.

Gregory writes, ... what the US did was wrong under US law because our international obligations are, Constitutionally, binding US law.

Not quite. International obligations that the Congress accepts are indeed US law, but they're binding only to the extent that all laws are binding.

That is, the Congress can modify them whenever they want. That's because the Constitution explicitly gives the Congress the right to write and amend laws; in this case, the right to use force (declaration of war, letters of marque, etc).

The authorization to use force in Iraq modifies our current obligations and allows the Congress to vote -- legally -- for the war. That's just what it did.

Now whether that's a violation of 'international law' depends, I suspect, on one's own political inclinations. If you're a one-worlder progressive you see international law as supreme. I don't. We'll have to disagree.

McDruid writes, Well, I'd nominate Granada, but I never have understood why we invaded.

To stop a communist coup.

Morale is high. The discussions about how to use reserves, increase army size, etc will pan out. And I do think we're bringing some troops home in 2007. Our army will not break.

Huh? I certainly wouldn't say our troops are demoralized, but what's driving our recruitment shortfalls if everything is hunky-dorey as you imply? And why are people like General Zinni and Joe Galloway saying that our Army can't sustain its current operational tempo for much longer? Cause they're closet-liberals?

You need only look at how they treat Democrats to know that they will never negotiate with other countries.

You can join their pack and your loyalty will be rewarded.

Or you can be on the other side and you will be kicked and abused and villified and scorned.

Unless a "higher" --- change that to "stronger" --- authority makes them, like bullies everywhere, they will consider no other option.

Negotiation is repellent to them.

No, it was to cover over our horrible losses incurred because of Cap Weinberger's and Rumsfeld's stupid decision to back the Lebanese Army in a civil war.

And so that we could check out our commo system and award combat jump wings and CIBs.

If the goal is to pick nits and not understand world affairs, that's true enough: you then have to explain why the UN wouldn't find Iraq in violation.

No, you don't, because the UN could have found Iraq in violation and imposed consequences other than the unrestricted use of force aimed at destroying the regime.

Because, you see, they did. Repeatedly. They have seventeen resolutions, and each of the last sixteen started with the preamble that Iraq was in violation of 1441 and needed to come into compliance.

Really?! Please link to or cite the 17 resolutions of the UN SC pointing to IRaqi noncompliance with S/RES/1441 (2002).

Posted by: Steve White on December 15, 2006 at 4:57 PM

You answered all my questions, but if you still can't see within those answers reasons to think the US could advance its interests in the middle east by talking to both the Syrians and the Iranians, like Condi Rice you lack both wisdom and guile.

A for the answers.

F for lack of creativity.

You would go far in the Rice State Department, or maybe the Vice President's office. No place else.

What is it with you guys? Somehow none of you understand that War is the last diplomatic resort and one that is most powerful in the potential rather than the execution. Both sides understood that during the cold war.

Trex, our army will not break. Morale is high. The discussions about how to use reserves, increase army size, etc will pan out. And I do think we're bringing some troops home in 2007. Our army will not break.

High morale is not the determinant of the readiness of our armed forces. Available combat units that are trained, with equipment that works, and in a readiness status are the determinants. The army is currently lacking enough of these, and mobilizing guard units and reserves won't change that fact.

Active and retired officers are warning that the military is at its breaking point. Asserting that it "just won't break" in the face of their evaluations without any evidence is the same kind of thinking that brought us post-invasion chaos in Iraq. Bush, Rummy, Cheney, Perle and all those other idiots used the same sort of dismissive reasoning you're using here whey they said:

"It will just pan out."

Trex, our army will not break. Morale is high.

Bull. Our guys see the reality that everyone else sees, only closer up.

You try getting sent back for your second or third deployment, or find out that instead of going home next week, you've been extended six months, and see if your morale stays high. Frankly, to believe otherwise is fantasy.

"To stop a communist coup."

Is that the justification du jour? And here I thought that Grenada was already a communist party country and had been for several years.

My, my, Steve, you really do live in your own little world, don't you?

"...you could armchair psychoanalyze this belief forever..."

They hate to bargain with their lessers they way management hates to bargain with unions. It's just so... ugh ... demeaning!

Well, we do not really know his last name, but there is a Stephan Facetious _______, Esq. listed in Martindale, Hubble..........Hmmm.

Actually, you may not really know my first name either...

Global Citizen, according to Wikipedia, The person who gets touched calls out "Touché".

Hence the cries of "Touché" ringing out from the young Congressional pages whenever Mark Foley would stroll along the halls....

Cyntax: ... what's driving our recruitment shortfalls if everything is hunky-dorey as you imply?

There is no recruiting shortfall. The Army and Marines have been meeting their goals, and just in the news last week was the item that they once again met their goals. They had a problem last year for a few months but fixed it. And retention has never been higher.

And why are people like General Zinni and Joe Galloway saying that our Army can't sustain its current operational tempo for much longer? Cause they're closet-liberals?

No, and they're correct to note that given the current force-package, we have to either a) lengthen the time commitment of soldiers in Iraq or b) call up more Reserves. Neither of these is attractive long-term. It will be allieviated substantially if (repeat, if) we can get some forces out in 2007. I think we can but of course I can't say for sure.

"Stefan" - I have proven worthy of having your working email, now haven't I?

ex-liberal:

touche'

I had noted that the reason we went into Grenada was to stop a communist coup, to which McDruid replies:

Is that the justification du jour? And here I thought that Grenada was already a communist party country and had been for several years.

The Bishop government, a pro-Marxist regime, was overthrown (i.e., Mr. Bishop was murdered by the coup-plotters) and replaced with a more hard-line Marxist regime. That had Cuban backing, and President Reagan didn't want the Cubans to get hold of another country. Hence the invasion.

You'll of course disagree, but stopping the spread of communism, particularly during the Cold War, was always foreign policy issue #1 for the U.S.

pdq writes: You try getting sent back for your second or third deployment, or find out that instead of going home next week, you've been extended six months, and see if your morale stays high. Frankly, to believe otherwise is fantasy.

I only know what I read from the mil-blogs, including those of active soldiers, and from the various surveys that are being done. According to them, morale is high. I have no reason to question them.

Ron Byers replies to me:

You answered all my questions, but if you still can't see within those answers reasons to think the US could advance its interests in the middle east by talking to both the Syrians and the Iranians, like Condi Rice you lack both wisdom and guile.

Perhaps you're not seeing that some things simply aren't negotiable, and some things shouldn't be discussed, because the simple act of discussion puts into play things that you absolutely don't want put into play.

We could talk to the Soviet Union about the number of nuclear warheads each would possess, but it was pointless to discuss how we were going to surrender to Soviet hegemony, or how we were going to withdraw from western Europe so as to allow communism to win out there, because we'd never allow those things to happen.

We're not going to allow the Mad Mullahs™ of Iran to have primary hegemony in the Middle East. Allowing radical theocratic Shia-ism to hold sway there would be very bad for our interests. There's no point in talking with Iran if the topic is to be our withdrawal from the Middle East for the purpose of Iran becoming primary there. There's no point in talking with Iran if the conversation has the potential to lead to discussion of such issues.

Somehow none of you understand that War is the last diplomatic resort and one that is most powerful in the potential rather than the execution.

War is not the 'last' diplomatic resort. War is diplomacy by other means. There's a difference there; see if you can get it.

I don't advocate war lightly. Never will. But I won't have our country shy away from war if the alternatives are worse.

The Bishop government, a pro-Marxist regime, was overthrown (i.e., Mr. Bishop was murdered by the coup-plotters) and replaced with a more hard-line Marxist regime. That had Cuban backing, and President Reagan didn't want the Cubans to get hold of another country.

Yes, because once the Cubans had Grenada, the dominoes would fall. First St. Vincent, then Barbados, St. Lucia, Martinique, Guadaloupe, St. Kitts-Nevis....all the way until they were storming Puerto Rico....

Grenada was invaded for the same reasons lots of little countries are invaded. Tough talking Presidents need an invasion to prove to the media that they are tough. The junior officers of all the services needed "combat experience" to advance their carriers. A fun time was had by all except the poor troops and civilians who got dead. Fortunately there were very few of them.

Ron: how 'bout Mr. Bishop? Does your sympathy regarding 'poor troops and civilians' extend to him?

He was, afte