| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Maddie Halfbright: Good versus evil isn't a strategy |
| 2006-03-24 |
| It is sometimes convenient, for purposes of rhetorical effect, for national leaders to talk of a globe neatly divided into good and bad. It is quite another, however, to base the policies of the world's most powerful nation upon that fiction. The administration's penchant for painting its perceived adversaries with the same sweeping brush has led to a series of unintended consequences. For years, the president has acted as if Al Qaeda, Saddam Hussein's followers and Iran's mullahs were parts of the same problem. Yet, in the 1980s, Hussein's Iraq and Iran fought a brutal war. In the 1990s, Al Qaeda's allies murdered a group of Iranian diplomats. For years, Osama bin Laden ridiculed Hussein, who persecuted Sunni and Shiite religious leaders alike. When Al Qaeda struck the U.S. on 9/11, Iran condemned the attacks and later participated constructively in talks on Afghanistan. The top leaders in the new Iraq — chosen in elections that George W. Bush called "a magic moment in the history of liberty" — are friends of Iran. When the U.S. invaded Iraq, Bush may have thought he was striking a blow for good over evil, but the forces unleashed were considerably more complex. And the Third Reich was never united, the SA vs the SS. The SS vs. the Wehrmacht, the Gestapo vs SD. Never a threat, never evil. And Gehlen never helped us. The administration is now divided between those who understand this complexity and those who do not. On one side, there are ideologues, such as the vice president, who apparently see Iraq as a useful precedent for Iran. I doubt he wants to invade Meanwhile, officials on the front lines in Iraq know they cannot succeed in assembling a workable government in that country without the tacit blessing of Iran; They do? ... hence, last week's long-overdue announcement of plans for a U.S.-Iranian dialogue on Iraq — a dialogue that if properly executed might also lead to progress on other issues. And a chance for Although this is not an administration known for taking advice fade in Kumbaya The U.S. is no longer able to control events in Iraq, but it can be useful as a referee. Second, the Bush administration should disavow any plan for regime change in Iran — not because the regime should not be changed but because U.S. endorsement of that goal only makes it less likely. In today's warped political environment, nothing strengthens a radical government more than Washington's overt antagonism. It also is common sense to presume that Iran will be less willing to cooperate in Iraq and to compromise on nuclear issues if it is being threatened with destruction. At least that's what passed for common sense when I was in charge of State. As for Iran's choleric and anti-Semitic new president, he will be swallowed up by internal rivals if he is not unwittingly propped up by external foes. That's what always happens to choleric anti-Semites. Look at Paleostine. Third, the administration must stop playing solitaire while Middle East and Persian Gulf leaders play poker. Bush's "march of freedom" is not the big story in the Muslim world, where Shiite Muslims suddenly have more power than they have had in 1,000 years; it is not the big story in Lebanon, where Iran is filling the vacuum left by Syria; it is not the story among Palestinians, who voted — in Western eyes — freely, and wrongly; it is not even the big story in Iraq, where the top three factions in the recent elections were all supported by decidedly undemocratic militias. In the long term, the future of the Middle East may well be determined by those in the region dedicated to the hard work of building democracy. I certainly hope so. But hope is not a policy. In the short term, we must recognize that the region will be shaped primarily by fairly ruthless power politics in which the clash between good and evil will be swamped by differences between Sunni and Shiite, Arab and Persian, Arab and Kurd, Kurd and Turk, Hashemite and Saudi, secular and religious and, of course, Arab and Jew. This is the world, the president pledges in his National Security Strategy, that "America must continue to lead." Actually, it is the world he must begin to address — before it is too late. Did she work in the Carter administration also? |
| Posted by:Nimble Spemble |
| #13 It also is common sense to presume that Iran will be less willing to cooperate in Iraq and to compromise on nuclear issues if it is being threatened with destruction. Ummmm, who's offering to compromise? Thanks, John Bolton PS. I didn't offer to compromise, did you? Thanks, Condi |
| Posted by: FOTSGreg 2006-03-24 21:23 |
| #12 When a Brooch is a Roach Maddie = fat cockroache |
| Posted by: RD 2006-03-24 20:15 |
| #11 the hanging Brooche diplo LOL! Frank! |
| Posted by: RD 2006-03-24 20:11 |
| #10 Burgess Meredith in drag: "I indicate our diplomacy by the brooch I choose to wear that day" |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-03-24 18:47 |
| #9 NS - Thanks for not splashing halfbright's pic. Don't wanna get nightmares. Reno, halfbright, etc. boy Billary sure could pick em. |
| Posted by: Captain America 2006-03-24 18:33 |
| #8 "Good versus evil isn't a strategy" Especially when you don't believe in evil (except for your political opponents). Good ol' Maddie "never-met-a-dictator-she-didn't-suck-up-to" Halfbright. In a way, it's comforting to know some things never change. Sorta like a permanent rash. |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2006-03-24 17:41 |
| #7 ...we must recognize that the region will be shaped primarily by fairly ruthless power politics... What a beacon of hope she is to women in the Muslim world! "You got gang-raped and now Daddy's going to shoot you for dishonoring the family? Tough shitski, hon. Guy threw acid on your face? That's the way power politics works, doll." We may not always be able to stop it but God help us if we "recognize" it. |
| Posted by: Matt 2006-03-24 14:44 |
| #6 Seeing who she worked for, I can see her having issues with the "good versus evil" concept... |
| Posted by: tu3031 2006-03-24 13:33 |
| #5 You are so right, Dave D. "...the Bush administration should disavow any plan for regime change in Iran — not because the regime should not be changed but..." This is the kind of Clintonesque word play that got us a nuclear-armed North Korea. She honestly believes that she can say one thing, mean quite another, and somehow triumph with a wink and a nod. Clinton "did not sex with that woman" and Bush "should not call for regime change with that Iran". Nonetheless, the blue dress is stained and the Iranian leadership is rightfully doomed. Yes, indeed, God have mercy on us if we ever let these fucking idiots back in power. |
| Posted by: Darrell 2006-03-24 12:39 |
| #4 No real solutions, as usual. “...the future of the Middle East may well be determined by those in the region dedicated to the hard work of building democracy.“ Queueing up for an “all hail” job. "It is sometimes convenient, for purposes of rhetorical effect, for national leaders to talk of a globe neatly divided into good and bad. " It is sometimes necessary, for purposes of proving they have measurable brain activity, for national leaders to acknowledge evil on the globe where it exists. |
| Posted by: Jules 2006-03-24 12:37 |
| #3 And the Third Reich was never united, the SA vs the SS. The SS vs. the Wehrmacht, the Gestapo vs SD. Never a threat, never evil. And Gehlen never helped us. A better counter to her argument: the Nazis and the Soviet Union fought each other tooth-and-nail, yet both were inarguably evil, and both had, up until Hitler decided to turn east, cooperated to the point they were each other's greatest trading partners. I have to agree with Dave -- God help us if these morons are ever given power again. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2006-03-24 12:26 |
| #2 God have mercy on us if we ever let these fucking idiots back in power. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2006-03-24 12:19 |
| #1 She played the Scarecrow in Wizard of Oz, right? |
| Posted by: Perfessor 2006-03-24 12:13 |