ELECTORAL TROUBLES, AMERICA'S TROUBLES [Stanley Kurtz]
Rich, you say the Republicans need help. I agree. I think the solution is to move through the national security issue, not away from it. I’m following up here on some points I made a few weeks ago in The Corner.
I’ve believed for some time that both sides in our foreign policy debates are focusing too much on democratization and too much on Iraq. Our first priority is the nuclear threat from Iran and North Korea. Iraq’s real importance was as the most viable way for us to intimidate Iran and North Korea, scare countries like Libya into giving up their nukes, while also taking out Saddam (who could have bought nuclear materials or even finished weapons from North Korea, or others, over time).
It was a mistake to sell Iraq as chiefly about a short-term shift to democracy. Democracy in the Middle East can only be a long-term goal (as I’ve argued since before the war). Even the stuff about chemical and biological weapons was not the main point. What matters is the capacity of a small group of rogue states to manufacture, buy, or trade nuclear weapons technology amongst themselves. During the Cold War, the hawkish part of the country understood that we were engaged in a complicated, long-term, test of strength and resolve with an alliance that could destroy us. That game revolved above all around the possession and deployment of nuclear weapons. We are in a similar sort of game now with Iran, North Korea, and Al-Qaeda. Once you see Iraq as part of that larger game, its internal problems matter vastly less than the message we send to Iran (and others) through our resolve, or lack thereof.
If you said to Americans, “We lost hundreds of thousands of men in World War II. If we can accept the loss of vastly fewer than that in exchange for turning Iraq into a warning sign to Ahmadinejad, the public would be with us. The trouble in Iraq could actually serve as a warning sign to other countries, if only they believe we have the resolve to see it through. Our message to Iraq should be, we’ll help you turn democratic over time. But if you don’t want to play nice, let your chaos stand as a warning to the rest. Instead we’ve created a false standard of success that depends on a degree of cultural change impossible to achieve in a short time frame.
There’s plenty of time between now and the election for a careful focus on the truth about Iran’s nuclear plans. Iran is the greatest danger this country faces. The left will blame our Iraq troubles for emboldening Iran. I blame the left for having weakened the resolve that could turn Iraq’s troubles from an American failure into a powerful warning sign to the bad guys. The public has got to understand that the way the next American election (and the one after that) gets read in Tehran is the key to our security. That is vastly more important even than the emerging evidence about Saddam’s nuclear plans. Americans care more about the future than the past. And confrontation with Iran is the future. The administration has raised too many hopes about quick democracy in Iraq, and it can’t say a lot about Iran’s nukes without destabilizing the delicate situation. But Republicans and conservatives can force a serious national debate over Iran. It’s already happening, with key pieces in The Weekly Standard, The New Republic, and City Journal.
An extended examination of the truth about Iran and its bomb will sober this country up. The stakes and dangers are profound, and put Iraq into its proper focus (as a move in a larger nuclear chess-game). Democratic policy makers and the liberal media are already running from the necessity of keeping the option of force against Iran on the table. The latest piece from Slate is an example. Note that Slate says the Iranians don’t believe America would ever use force. We need to change Iran’s mind about that. (That is actually the best hope of peace.) Iran is depending on the Democrats and planning to wait out Bush. In the wake of a national confrontation with the reality of the danger we now face from Iran, public sentiment will shift back to the Republicans, as well it should. If it doesn’t, the price we pay will be more than electoral.
CRAPPED OUT [Jonah Goldberg]
Stan - All fine points. But one problem with your position is the problem all of us who supported the war need to deal with: part of the Iraq gamble didn't pan out. A major part of the argument for toppling Saddam was that such action would discourage others from following on his path. Making an example of Saddan would send a signal to other rogue states that we weren't kidding around. Everyone always understood that there was a ironic double-edge to this argument. The reason we went after Saddam's Iraq instead of North Korea was that Iraq was an easier target because it didn't -- yet -- have nuclear weapons. The conclusion states like Iran took from the Iraq invasion, as well as the first Gulf War, was that the best protection against regime change was nuclear weapons. Who can say they were wrong? The tragedy of the war is that no matter how successful Iraq becomes down the road, the war has already demonstrated that the political cost for such adventures is prohibitive. There is no appetite for resolve in the corridors of power. Even Tony Blair has preemptively taken strikes against Iran off the table.
I supported the war and I still support our efforts there. But the deterrence dividend was tapped out with Qaddafy and we ain't seeing any more returns for a while. As Rich and others have noted, Iran's effrontery and the crackdowns in Syria are a very good barometer of how Iraq is no longer having a deterrent effect. You can say Bush is focusing too much on Iraq and not enough on the big picture. But until Iraq is perceived as a success not merely here at home, but abroad, the big picture will just get uglier and uglier. corner.nationalreview.com |
