General Wes Clark, a highly trained strategist and a potential Democratic presidential candidate for 2008, writes that the current President is fighting a political war on two fronts right here at home; Bush is seeking to get his Iraq surge on, and at the same time "ratcheting up the pressure on Iran".
The General lists the military and public relations build up against Iran and sums up Bush’s steps thus far:
"A second aircraft carrier battle group (with Newsweek reporting a third group likely to follow), Patriot missiles to protect our allies, arresting Iranian personnel in Iraq, releasing additional information about Iranian involvement, appointing a Navy Admiral to command forces in the region...."
Now I don’t know about you, but I’ve seen the footage of the "Iranian" weapons "found" in Iraq at least 10 times starting Sunday. Considering I barely watch television news, this certain footage has been seen by many more than enough times, leaving us to think, ok, we get the picture-- But do we really? I don't know if enough of us realize how reminiscent this is of the prior PR sales job so many bought into just a few short years ago. General Clark and I agree; it is absolutely the last thing we need now.
So why is the temperature being raised all of the sudden? And why does this have the feel of a 2002 deja vu?
Here's one answer as stated by the General, "I believe some in the Administration have seen this confrontation as inevitable - or have sought it - since late 2001. At that time a Pentagon general held up to me a Defense memorandum which he described as a five year road map to the conflict. But surely we have learned by now that, particularly in this region, force and the threats of force should be the last, last, last resort."
And According to Clark, "the President's recent actions give the US little additional leverage to engage and dissuade Iran, and, more than likely, simply accelerate a dangerous slide into war."
Well, I certainly have learned that force and threats will get us nowhere but mired into costly and deadly quicksand, something we are already caught up in. But has the administration learned this? Because to hear them talking, it doesn’t appear so, and this has been all the while General Clark has advocated this direct approach to diplomacy, long before it was ever suggested by a Baker Commission! Coincidently, It wasn't until yesterday that the President's finally made some casual cavalier pronouncements of feigned interest in "diplomacy", because in reality, the administration has consistently turned its nose up at the mere mention of talks, negotiations, discussion, or any other diplomatic suggestions. It is as though they are fearful of legitimizing the accurate notion that talks with Iran are way overdue.
And of that apparent lack of the President’s willingness to "engage"Iran, Clark asks:
But, cannot the world's most powerful nation deign speak to the resentful and scheming regional power that is Iran? Can we not speak of the interests of others, work to establish a sustained dialogue, and seek to benefit the people of Iran and the region? Could not such a dialogue, properly conducted, begin a process that could, over time, help realign hardened attitudes and polarizing views within the region? And isn't it easier to undertake such a dialogue now, before more die, and more martyrs are created to feed extremist passions? And, finally, if every effort should fail, before we take military action, don't we at least want the moral, legal and political "high ground" of knowing we did everything possible to avert it?"
Short answer; Doh.....Ye-ah!
So here’s my shorthanded advise to the Bush Administration:
- First stop the pitiful swaggering cowboy threats
- Then let the big mouths pundits and hardnosed tough guys and gals in congress know that they need to chill for a bit, because this is no game.
- Now, close your eyes, take a deep breath, and move your shoulders up and down slowly.
- Open your mouth and beg Wes Clark to accept the position to head a team of his own choosing to get the hard diplomacy done.
- Once Wes Clark & Co. smooths out the rough edges and gets a productive dialogue going, then let the political vultures swoop in to claim the ultimate credit.
Now that might be the smartest strategic move this President ever makes in his political life. Just don't hold your breath. Bush simply isn't that smart, and hasn't indicated that he is ready to choose peace over confrontation; quiet negotiations over loud bravado.
But very seriously, we really can't afford to wait till election 2008 before getting some kind of dialogue going with Iran. This diplomacy needs to happen now, before there’s some kind of "international" incident. But sadly, the way this Administration is building a case that Iran is the enemy (as though we needed anymore of those) is dangerous, frightening and simply unwise. Because as General Clark puts it, "wouldn't want to be branding people as enemies too soon. That was one of Bush's many mistakes. Iran is a nation we have many disagreements with...and that's why we should be discussing, not sabre rattling."
Because even having to think of waging more wars-- well.....that’s an insanity just too close for comfort.
PS. Want to know and learn more? Read Clark's entire relevant diary; the questions and the answers. Makes one wish Bush could at least figure out how to use the Internet(s)!
Also see:
"The Year of Iran": Can The People Be Fooled Twice?
INFO GALORE! Wes Clark on Iran In Clark's own words
IRAN and U.S. Politics - The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
Maxine WATERS on Hardball- Wes CLARK has been warning Congress on BUSH & IRAN
Clark vs the Neocons on Iran
Our Canary in a Neocon Coal Mine
General Clark blogging on Iran today
