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.
It would certainly be naive to think we could call a regional conference, get everyone to agree to help us out, and "solve" Iraq in one go. If you don't engage them, though, Iran's in a position to block pretty much anything else the US tries to accomplish there.
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.
This was a pretty common conception of the Cold War, but the US and USSR cooperated on all kinds of things, all the time.
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.
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.
It would certainly be naive to think we could call a regional conference, get everyone to agree to help us out, and "solve" Iraq in one go. If you don't engage them, though, Iran's in a position to block pretty much anything else the US tries to accomplish there.
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.
This was a pretty common conception of the Cold War, but the US and USSR cooperated on all kinds of things, all the time.
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