They also suggested asking our two worst enemies - Iran and Syria - for help. I didn't think to suggest this because I didn't want to appear naive or insane.
That's not naive or insane; that's diplomacy. No, they're not going to help us out of the goodness of their hearts, but if we can produce an option wherein they believe it's in their best interests to help us, they will. Enemies cooperate on all kinds of things all the time.
Not an either-or situation. It's naive *and* it's diplomacy.
We can ask, and I suppose there's no harm in asking, but I have absolutely no idea what we could offer them, I have no idea what kind of assurances they could offer us, and I have no idea what sort of punitive actions we could take if things didn't work out.
I guess if they said "we're going to mitigate the humanitarian crisis by turning over the Iraqi government and population to Iranians who are better able to deal with this disaster than we are" I suppose that's a realistic way to address certain aspects of the problem, but there are some very significant down-sides to that solution and I don't think it's acceptable from our end.
Basically in the venn diagram of "what's acceptable to us" and "what's acceptable to Iran" I don't see a lot of overlap.
No, it's really not. On the contrary, it's naive to think we can improve the situation there without engaging all of the significant regional players. Iran has a lot more political influence in Iraq than we do, and if we continue to try to ignore them, we're going to continue to get our asses kicked, politically speaking.
It's not a matter of buying them off, or trying to lock them into a course of action backed by some threat of punitive response, though that might be a part of it. It's about figuring out where our interests converge--or where we can make them converge--and taking advantage of that. Iran, for example, has even less interest in Iraq collapsing into a failed state than we do. The US and Iran have very different ideas about what Iraq should be, but theres a lot of room for cooperating on keeping Iraq from becoming something both think it shouldn't be
( ... )
On the contrary, it's naive to think we can improve the situation there without engaging all of the significant regional players.
To be clear: I don't think we can improve the situation PERIOD. Engaging the regional players or otherwise.
Also to be clear: I'm not saying that we shouldn't engage them, I'm just dubious that this will be end up actually being productive in practical terms.
I don't think we can improve the situation PERIOD. Engaging the regional players or otherwise.
Well, that's certainly a valid point. I don't actually think we can make the situation better as such, but I think there may be options for slowing Iraq's descent and possibly minimizing the damage.
I'm just dubious that this will be end up actually being productive in practical terms.
In practical terms, I'm beyond dubious, but that's because the Bush administration has never shown any capacity for complex or sophisticated diplomacy. I do believe it's naive and possibly insane to think that Bush is competent enough to make something that difficult work.
That's not naive or insane; that's diplomacy. No, they're not going to help us out of the goodness of their hearts, but if we can produce an option wherein they believe it's in their best interests to help us, they will. Enemies cooperate on all kinds of things all the time.
Reply
Not an either-or situation. It's naive *and* it's diplomacy.
We can ask, and I suppose there's no harm in asking, but I have absolutely no idea what we could offer them, I have no idea what kind of assurances they could offer us, and I have no idea what sort of punitive actions we could take if things didn't work out.
I guess if they said "we're going to mitigate the humanitarian crisis by turning over the Iraqi government and population to Iranians who are better able to deal with this disaster than we are" I suppose that's a realistic way to address certain aspects of the problem, but there are some very significant down-sides to that solution and I don't think it's acceptable from our end.
Basically in the venn diagram of "what's acceptable to us" and "what's acceptable to Iran" I don't see a lot of overlap.
Reply
No, it's really not. On the contrary, it's naive to think we can improve the situation there without engaging all of the significant regional players. Iran has a lot more political influence in Iraq than we do, and if we continue to try to ignore them, we're going to continue to get our asses kicked, politically speaking.
It's not a matter of buying them off, or trying to lock them into a course of action backed by some threat of punitive response, though that might be a part of it. It's about figuring out where our interests converge--or where we can make them converge--and taking advantage of that. Iran, for example, has even less interest in Iraq collapsing into a failed state than we do. The US and Iran have very different ideas about what Iraq should be, but theres a lot of room for cooperating on keeping Iraq from becoming something both think it shouldn't be ( ... )
Reply
To be clear: I don't think we can improve the situation PERIOD. Engaging the regional players or otherwise.
Also to be clear: I'm not saying that we shouldn't engage them, I'm just dubious that this will be end up actually being productive in practical terms.
Reply
Well, that's certainly a valid point. I don't actually think we can make the situation better as such, but I think there may be options for slowing Iraq's descent and possibly minimizing the damage.
I'm just dubious that this will be end up actually being productive in practical terms.
In practical terms, I'm beyond dubious, but that's because the Bush administration has never shown any capacity for complex or sophisticated diplomacy. I do believe it's naive and possibly insane to think that Bush is competent enough to make something that difficult work.
Reply
Leave a comment