Posted on 11/27/2006 8:38:34 AM PST by Tolik
Why all the hurry in talking to Syria or Iran or any other terrorist-sponsoring regime that might offer (they really won't) concessions in one theater for an American pass on their roguery in another? These regimes may talk, but only when it is in their interest (i.e., they are desperate) to do so. IF the UN ever found the Assad government responsible for the serial murdering in Lebanon or the Iranians guilty of lying about nuclear proliferation, and IF in response the Security Council ordered economic sanctions or a boycott/embargo, then either country might be willing to discuss its role in destabilizing Iraq. Or IF Iraq and Lebanon were stabilizing and became prosperous, then Damascus and Teheran might seek to stave off a regional wave of reform through "dialogue. " The same is true if either thought their terrorism had earned them the possibility of a retaliatory air strike.
But they won't now when they think we need them more than they do us. The only reason Hamas-supposedly the most radical of all the Palestinian terrorists-is talking to Israel over Gaza, is the IDF's improved defence and offense, that have stymied suicide bombing's effectiveness, and put into jeopardy almost all of the so-call wannabe martyrs of Hamas. The same was true of 1972. What thawed the Paris Peace Talks was Nixon's supposed "Christmas" bombing, and what doomed the accords were the later cut-offs of American support. The communists were willing to talk in 1973 but not in 1975 because of differing perceptions of American power.
The latest crop of realists should review allied efforts circa 1939 to talk to Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, or Turkey about their respective roles in aiding the Third Reich. They got nowhere.
(And of course, later British feelers in 1940 to the Soviet Union in hopes they would stop supplying Hitler ores and oil while the Luftwaffe was hammering London were futile.)
Fast forward to spring 1945, suddenly all these neutrals had systematically cut ties with Nazi Germany, and were scrambling to find ways, informally or officially, to tie themselves with the Allies. Only the perception of the course of the war had changed and the leverage that comes with winning. In contrast, each time a peace feeler is extended to either Syria or Iran, expect more murders in Lebanon and full-speed ahead on nuclear acquisition in Iran.
In general, we should neither seek to negotiate nor threaten either regime, but instead very quietly press ahead with winning in Iraq, and galvanizing allies to prepare sanctions against both—while preparing for the worst.
Let me know if you want in or out.
Links: FR Index of his articles: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=victordavishanson
His website: http://victorhanson.com/
NRO archive: http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson-archive.asp
New Link! http://victordavishanson.pajamasmedia.com/
A good article went unnoticed on Friday: Before - and After - Iraq. Read it here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1743556/posts
Bump
This is the kind of escape hatch the Dem'crats have been looking for.
In ordinary circumastnces, the offer would never have come from Syria and Iran. Apparently, the gist of the Baker report encourages this very action. They knew that Bush would never have gone for it, when he has some degree of support from the Congress.
But now, Congress has changed hands, and the leaders of Syria and Iran think they have an ally here in the US, in their personal vendetta against George W. Bush. They mistakenly think that Bush could be somehow maneuvered into accepting a "way out" of Iraq, by turning over the fate of that country to the instigators of most of the internal strife there today.
The Dem'crats will claim this is their opening for an exit from Iraq, and since Bush won't act upon it, then obviously, Bush should be impeached.
Folks, this is a synchronized effort. And it is nothing less than treason against all that America has ever stood for. The fact that a very serious potential warmonger was deposed from office in Iraq means nothing to the opposition here and abroad.
And nobody seems to care that these consequences are exactly those that spell the end to whatever it was that the founding fathers of America were striving to create.
All attributed to "anonymous sorces".
We are positively nuts if we try to enlist the help of Syria or Iran in the Iraq War.
Why would we feel compelled to lead from weakness instead of strength?
One of the very few times I disagree with VDH ... we should be offering Syria and Iran an ULTIMATUM -- quit supporting the terrorists in Iraq and attempting to build nukes, or be bombed back to the Stone Age.
Alas, the current crop of appeasers and defeatists in Washington (GWB included, unfortunately) will never go that route. However, it is the only way the Middle East in general and Iraq in particular will ever get sorted out to our (and ultimately the world's) advantage.
Negotiate out of strength not weakness. It's sad that one election in the US has such a dramatic effect around the world. What happened to American will power or G W Bush's will in staying the coarse? MSM media presents the worst case situation in Iraq and the troops on the ground and their general says the opposite -- who are we to believe? What about the WOT or the Americans who have given their lives for this war... does the US abandon everything and retreat? I can only hope that Bush has something up his sleeve and that he acts out of strength and resolve. This is not the time for half measures with terrorist states. Get the job done.
Thank you for posting the first bit of good sense I have seen with regards to "negotiations" with Iran and Syria. It is pointless to negotiate from weakness. It is in Iran's interest to meddle in Iraq, so they will continue to do so. Liberals who demand negotiations for the sake of negotiations (as I believe Kissinger put it in describing the Cold War) will get nothing but frustration in return.
American's obviously did not apprieate his strength and resolve, and voted for a Congress to surrender Iraq.
It is over, the President knows he can do nother without American's to support him.
The only thing we can do now is keep track of this history, write it, and publish in the underground.
Which we are at the moment, an underground movement not wanting to surrender.
My approach to this would be simple - glad to listen, boys, what have you got to offer and what do you want for it? And what happens when you don't deliver? It shortens the process somewhat and leaves an awful lot of diplomats out of a job, but there's always the army for those who can't find better work. < /Kerry >
But Jim Baker is a smart lawyer and diplomat and he knows to get something in negotiations you have to give something. And Syria and Iran have always been ruthless practitioners of realpolitik. He must know that we've already lost our biggest chip, regime change, since the elections repudiated the Bush doctrine. So, now we're down to the next level of chips. Syria's list: restored hegemony in Lebanon or the Golan Heights or both. Iran's list: nuclear weapons or hegemony in Iraq or Hezbollah hegemony in Lebanon or all the above.
So, my question for Jimbo and the rest of the Iraq Study Group is, which of those chips do you think the U.S. should play to persuade Syria and Iraq to allow us a quick escape from Iraq???
If we are perceived as the "weak horse" in Iraq, whatever support we have there will evaporate like dew in the desert and all sides will turn on us. We need to get our act together quickly there or we are cooked. We need stong measures now, not "stateman-like" ones which appear to be coming out of this worthless latest Iraq Commission.
Our blood is seen in the water because of our feckless dithering everywhere and our latest Election. We seem to pulling our punches everywhere. No wonder we get no respect. A perceived coward never does.
I'm beginning to wonder if we have the stomach to win this long war against the Islamic Caliphate. We seem to hold most of the cards except "desire". And we certainly don't have "unity".
We should not threaten Iran and Syria but rather we should beat the sh*t out them. Enough is enough. A two weeks intensive Air Campaign against Iran to destroy their nuclear facilities and military infrastructure will teach the terrorists SOB in Tehran that they are not going to control the Middle East, once Iran is beaten, broken, and humiliated, the Syrian terrorist regime will stop messing around.
I don't think we are an underground, the election was close and there is hopefully some conservative, practical minded Democrats out there (at least some ran that way). The President is still in control and I hope he sticks to his word.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.