Tapsearch Com EditorIraq Study Group suggests working with Iran, Syria
December 7th 2006 21:11
A lot has already been said about the Iraq Study Group's recommendation to work with Iran and Syria. I'm not quite decided, but I wanted to take a quick step back from the debate.
The question is often posed as, do we talk to people we don't like? People argue that, even though they're horrible, we can come to agreements with dictators.
I think this assumption is a poor one. (A) Seeking their help and offering concessions gives up the option of criticizing their behavior and (B) by and large, coming to agreements with people you can't trust isn't smart.
(A) is acceptable in terms of domestic policy if you're willing to make concessions to a bad state -- their internal problems are theirs to handle, whether or not our aid (and decision to look the other way) emboldens them. But it does become a problem when internal problems become external ones, say, a nuclear Iran we had help us in Iraq. You can't demand they disarm and ask them for help; it has to be one or the other.
(B) is the more troubling. Heck, Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. How could we value its leader's words? We'd give aid and weaken our bargaining position, and they might not even follow through on helping Iraq.
What the study group depends on is the notion that no country thinks a divided Iraq is good. They list the surrounding countries and say why. The logic is sound -- if an agreement is always in your best interest, you'll stick to it out of selfishness if not honor.
Yet by the panel's own admission:
"Iraq's neighbors are doing little to help it, and some are undercutting its stability."
I ask: If it's in everyone's best interest to have stability in Iraq, why does the U.S. have to actively organize even the slightest effort in that direction (and in some cases, away from the opposite one)? Does the panel think the countries are acting in self-destructive ways, but they'll change if the U.S. "works" with them? Seems a little unlikely.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://www.therationale.com and http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
The question is often posed as, do we talk to people we don't like? People argue that, even though they're horrible, we can come to agreements with dictators.
I think this assumption is a poor one. (A) Seeking their help and offering concessions gives up the option of criticizing their behavior and (B) by and large, coming to agreements with people you can't trust isn't smart.
(A) is acceptable in terms of domestic policy if you're willing to make concessions to a bad state -- their internal problems are theirs to handle, whether or not our aid (and decision to look the other way) emboldens them. But it does become a problem when internal problems become external ones, say, a nuclear Iran we had help us in Iraq. You can't demand they disarm and ask them for help; it has to be one or the other.
(B) is the more troubling. Heck, Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. How could we value its leader's words? We'd give aid and weaken our bargaining position, and they might not even follow through on helping Iraq.
What the study group depends on is the notion that no country thinks a divided Iraq is good. They list the surrounding countries and say why. The logic is sound -- if an agreement is always in your best interest, you'll stick to it out of selfishness if not honor.
Yet by the panel's own admission:
"Iraq's neighbors are doing little to help it, and some are undercutting its stability."
I ask: If it's in everyone's best interest to have stability in Iraq, why does the U.S. have to actively organize even the slightest effort in that direction (and in some cases, away from the opposite one)? Does the panel think the countries are acting in self-destructive ways, but they'll change if the U.S. "works" with them? Seems a little unlikely.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://www.therationale.com and http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
| 60 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
