| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Team Bush: Get it together |
| 2006-06-16 |
| Quit creating problems, follow Condi's lead, and focus, focus, focus on Iran At Harvard Business School, young George W. Bush learned "management by objective" – or maybe he didn't. A look at the Bush administration policy toward Iran shows that the president has allowed multiple objectives to get in the way of pursuing a single objective: keeping Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons.If Mr. Bush is going to succeed, he must unite the world against Iran. Confronted by a united world, Iran might yet back down. And if military action proves inevitable, a grand coalition increases the chance of success. To gain perspective on the value of coalitions, we might look at the difference between U.S. military action against Vietnam in the 1960s and against Serbia in the '90s. The Vietnamese had help from Russia and China, and so Hanoi prevailed. By contrast, neither Moscow nor Beijing helped Belgrade, and so the Serbs capitulated. The key potential allies for the United States against Iran are Russia, China, the European Union and the U.N. Security Council. So, if Mr. Bush were managing his policy to focus laserlike on Iran, he presumably would be seeking to minimize friction with these potential partners. Strangely enough, manager Bush has let others in his administration freelance their own friction-creating policies. In each instance, there's a logic to the friction-creating sideshows, but, nonetheless, each bit of freelancing undercuts the prime objective, which is a non-nuclear Iran. Freelancer No. 1 is Vice President Dick Cheney. Last month, Mr. Cheney traveled to the former Soviet republic of Lithuania to denounce Russia for using "tools of intimidation and blackmail" against other countries and against its own people. That's exactly what the Russians are doing, of course, but if we choose this moment to restart the Cold War, will the Russians help us against Iran? Freelancer No. 2 is Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Earlier this month, he was in Singapore, chastising China for spending too much on defense. These comments must have both amused and annoyed China, because Beijing spends perhaps 15 percent as much as Washington on arms. Freelancer No. 3 is our ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, who routinely antagonizes both the EU and the Security Council. Mr. Bolton makes no secret of his disdain for traditional diplomacy and seems to relish telling EU and Security Council types what they can do with their diplomatic niceties and nuances. Mr. Bolton has long opposed any direct contact between the United States and Iran over nuclear concerns or any other matter. He might be correct in his view that the Iranians are so hostile to the United States that fruitful negotiations are impossible. If he's right, that's all the more reason to go through the motions of negotiating, so that Tehran, not Washington, suffers the onus of being perceived as "intransigent." Indeed, thanks to the influence of Mr. Cheney and Mr. Bolton, the United States insisted until recently that it would not talk to Iran about nuclear issues unless Iran scrapped its program first. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice finally changed that shortsighted policy, pleasing the EU and the United Nations – the folks we'd need in an anti-Iran showdown. But Mr. Bolton noisily rejects such politesse; thus the headline in last Saturday's Financial Times: "Bolton rejects 'grand bargain' with Iran." Mr. Bolton is not the final word in U.S. foreign policy, of course, but as long as he is free to speak out, others will wonder whether the United States is really interested in a deal with Iran. And if those other countries and institutions don't think the United States is negotiating in good faith, they are less likely to support us, either in diplomatic action now or in military action down the road. As we learned in Vietnam – and are learning in Iraq – an inadequate coalition to bolster our efforts is a formula for failure. If Mr. Bush wants to succeed in de-nuclearizing Iran, he must focus his entire team on that one objective. But he's not forcing such focusing. And that's bad management. James Pinkerton writes for Newsday |
| Posted by:ryuge |
| #9 running as a Donk to win disqualifies him as a principled conservative. He's had good times, and good points, but so has McCain. His opposition to the Iraq war IMHO is seen through Viet Nam glasses, and he's afraid the Cut and Run's™ will succeed...so why join em, if you have principles. I support Allen for Pres. Will be interesting... |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-06-16 20:17 |
| #8 liberalhawk, thanks for naming the gentleman -- my memory is a bit porous these days. And I know you're a warhawk who happens to be liberal -- you predate me here at Rantburg, and I've stood by you quite a few times when some have had a reflexive reaction to the "liberal" part of your name; I know this war doesn't belong just to the Conservatives or the Republicans. As for the rest, I'm afraid the various splits of both parties are too complicated for me to keep track of -- I haven't your extended political training. ;-) Nor did I call Mr. Pinkerton a damned liberal, as a few others in this thread have mistakenly done. I just think he is dangerously wrong, his article is badly argued, and it's time for him to spend time with his wife and children, rather than trying to influence a world that has changed beyond his understanding. Regardless how many on the left, right or center may agree with him. Friends? |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2006-06-16 17:30 |
| #7 TW, as you may know I dont like Jim Webb, i voted against him. But I havent called him a damned liberal - in fact ive been quite vocal that he ISNT really a liberal, despite Kos' support for him. Look, I call myself a liberalhawk. (Well, im really a New Democrat with Social Democrat leanings, but thats too hard to explain on the net) But im quite willing to say there are liberals I think are jerks. There are moderates I think are jerks. Its possible to say someone is wrong, or stupid, or a jerk, without putting them falsely into the "opposite" camp. Pinkerton may well be wrong (as I beleive Jim Webb is wrong) but hes NOT a liberal. Unles, of course, you think anyone who disagrees with Cheney and Rummy (other than from the far right) is a liberal. Which is just silly. And, btw, I dont think his views are that far out, at least based on whats quoted here. AFAICT this is the thinking of Condi and company. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2006-06-16 17:19 |
| #6 Based on your information, liberalhawk, it sounds like the gentleman in question is another old-style Republican, like Ronald Reagan's Navy Secretary, the one who is running for office on an anti-Iraq War platform. It was several of George H.W.Bush's staffers who wrote op-ed pieces before the invasion of Iraq arguing against such actions, and who've spoken out since against every move in this president's war on terror. Like their boss, they best like to use the tools of diplomacy and spying to maintain the status quo, and cannot grasp that, post-Cold War and post-9/11, the world has changed. Now the key thing we know is that the old status quo is too dangerous to let stand. As for the idea that President Bush should have been focussed solely on Iran's nuclear program, that wasn't even known to be an issue until fairly recently, so it seems a bit unfair to charge that he should have ignored all lesser issues to deal only with that. Not to mention all the strawmen the writer stands up so that he can knock them down: Putin has been working against most of our efforts just to prove that Russia is still a playa, and anyway they aren't going to help us with Iran any more than they did with Iraq. They've too many contracts riding on the other side. It clearly has not occurred to the writer that Secretary Rumsfeld's speech may have been aimed at reassuring China's neighbors that we are aware of China's little games, and have not deserted them. Ambassador Bolton is correct in what he says, and these things have overlong needed saying if reforms are to have any possibility of succeeding (a probability that has moved up to slim from none, by my reckoning). The majority of the UNSC are at best neutral, and at worst enemies, of our efforts, and with the world as it is it's dangerous not to be aware of this fact. As for the EU, pretty words don't seem to make them happy, and ugly words don't really change the fact that too many of their componant countries consider themselves on the other side. And, if we're to succeed with Iraq, a major question in how we will manage the remaining battles in the War on Terror, we cannot let things ride there until Iran has been resolved. We should be grateful to Mr. James Pinkerton's service to our country, and suggest that it is time for him to pass his burdens on to those with stronger backs to bear them upon, while he takes a well-deserved rest. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2006-06-16 17:12 |
| #5 heres his bio "James P. Pinkerton has been a columnist for Newsday since 1993. Prior to that, he worked in the White House under presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, and also in the 1980, 1984, 1988, and 1992 Republican presidential campaigns. Pinkerton is the author of What Comes Next: The End of Big Government--And the New Paradigm Ahead (Hyperion: 1995). He is also a contributor to the Fox News Channel and a Fellow at the New America Foundation in Washington DC. He is a graduate of Stanford University" so James Pinkerton is a damned liberal?? I guess if he criticizes Rummy and Cheney he must be, huh? Id mention that the buzz is that Rice was upset at the very things Pinkerton is talking about, but y'all will deny that. Just like folks here denied for years that there was a split between Powell and Rumsfeld. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2006-06-16 16:31 |
| #4 Good gawd...can we get over Vietnam already? And, just because Russia/China assisted in Vietnam (where we "lost") but didn't in Serbia (where we "won"), that DOES NOT MEAN that Russia/China can beat us. Heck, Micronesia didn't assist Serbia either, but does that mean Micronesia could go toe-to-toe with us? These people always want to find black/white "causes" but use shades of gray to get results. But, as we know, the opposite is true. Bizarro world indeed. |
| Posted by: BA 2006-06-16 10:25 |
| #3 well said. The idea that we need to pretend that the Europeans non-actions are helpful, in order to soothe their egos, is a waste of our precious time. Those with a liberal mindset who fantasize that they can win a war by getting the proper phrasing in a sternly worded letter are like children manning a lemonaid stand to help their parents forestall foreclosure on their parents mortgage. Sure, kids, thanks for the help, but don't expect mommy and daddy to take time off from work to help you make the lemonaid. |
| Posted by: 2b 2006-06-16 09:00 |
| #2 DD, Man do I agree. Just look at this "...allowed multiple objectives to get in the way of pursuing a single objective: keeping Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons.If Mr. Bush is going to succeed, he must unite the world against Iran." How in the name of all that's holy can he not see that EVERYONE ELSE HAS THEIR OWN OBJECTIVES? A large part of the world WANTS Iran to win this struggle. This is typical leftist bigotry that denies that anyone other than Americans can think and act and be responsible on their own. Bleahh |
| Posted by: AlanC 2006-06-16 08:46 |
| #1 "Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice finally changed that shortsighted policy, pleasing the EU and the United Nations – the folks we'd need in an anti-Iran showdown." Every now and then Jim Pinkerton comes out with something that leaves me scratching my head, wondering what the hell he's using for brains. What the hell is wrong with these damn liberals, that they think everything in the whole world is America's responsibility alone, and that no one, anywhere, does anything that isn't somehow "caused" by some American action? If the EU and the UN aren't behind us 100% in the effort to de-fang the Mad Mullahs, it's because of their own stupidity, short-sightedness and venality-- not anything we've done. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2006-06-16 07:10 |