Letters to the Editor
-
Carrot and Stick Diplomacy
I may be old fashioned, but I believe the seizing of members of your armed forces is an act of war, and necessarily an international crisis.
These kinds of international crises MUST do something. They must either escalate into something that resembles warfare like armed conflict, or they must deescalate into a diplomatic resolution. There is no stable middle ground action (I feel like Robert McNamara talking about game theory), but it's true; it has to either resolve diplomatically, or escalate into something horrible. It is literally impossible for it to stay unresolved. Something has to happen, either war (or very near it), or a diplomatic solution.
The goal of every sane rational person involved ought to be cause a de-escalation, and have all parties reach a mutually satisfactory diplomatic solution. That has to be the goal of all, or least all sane grown-ups. It's surely the goal of men like Blair.
However, incomplete information can be a DANGEROUSLY destabilizing influence in these games. If either side is unclear about the ramifications of the escalation option, if either side thinks escalation might not be all that bad, they might CHOOSE it. That's the problem with my government (US). It seems to think escalation is a good thing, and we do it all the time. That's why we aren't sane adults. We are idiotic children. Thankfully Blair isn't... and neither is Ahmadinejad for that matter.
Therefore, the first goal of the discussion has to be set the parameters for just HOW BAD escalation could be. This isn't threatening and not carrying out. This isn't schoolyard nonsense. This is making sure all sides have complete information so that they can make a rational decision.
The Iranians aren't children. They are incredibly bright, rational individuals. We don't happen to agree with them often, but they are smart enough to act in their own best interests, when the options are clear. When the options are murky, they might err, and do something against their own interests. Therefore, they need to be given complete information to make rational choices.
Newt was right. This should be SAID to the Iranians. Blockade and destruction of their refining capability is probably the most natural consequence of escalation. Such actions are really, really bad. Every one ought to understand that. Blair does. The Iranians must as well.
Once that's understood, the conversation needs to focus on what the OTHER options are. How can this conflict be resolved in a manner that is mutually satisfactory?
I'm I the only one who remembers Robert McNamara and the Cuban missile crisis? Stable strategy is to make it utterly clear that war is a possibility, without actually triggering that war, and then immediately finding the proper diplomatic agreement that will be satisfactory to both sides (we remove our missiles from Turkey; you remove yours from Cuba).
And as for the question "Would Blair lie about what happened afterwards?"
The only possible answer is:
OF COURSE HE WOULD, particularly if doing so were part of the agreed upon diplomatic solution.
These are incredibly dangerous situations, and the most dangerous thing possible is for either side to think escalation is a viable option. Once everyone agrees that escalation is too horrible to allow, then the diplomatic solution becomes inevitable, and it remains only to find the correct compromise.
This is elementary.
Newt's a jerk and a cowboy and he didn't fully elaborate, but he was also correct in part. The first step is saying to the Iranians approximately what he suggested. Once that’s established, the next step, the meaningful one is figuring out what the proper compromise is.
Surely something very close to this happened.
-
Republihystericans
Measuring every incident by the way the Cuban missile crisis was handled would go far in ensuring mutual destruction at some point.
The Iranians have a solid defense system in place. An army of 345,000, Air Force of 30,000, Navy 18,000, Revolutionary guards 120,000, gendarmerie 45,000, Basij civilian force 1,000,000, all within a few hundred miles of our 150,000 or so American forces. A single attack would draw a huge retaliation that would concentrate the 4 or 5,000 missiles in their inventory to fall on Americans in Iraq, not to mention the attacks on our Naval forces in the region.
You want victory, but what’s the price for admission? I'm not willing to play with other peoples lives for a wasted no issue victory. Funny how neocons can expend energy to destroying X, Nuking Y, or killing Z, without regard to dialogue or consideration of other peoples opinion. This world is complicated enough without living every day like it’s the last.
-
American people know they're crazy
A new poll from Public Agenda and Foreign Affairs magazine says only 8% want to take military action against Iran, and only 5% want to threaten military action. The vast majority support diplomacy or sanctions. And large majorities say the criticism that the U.S. is too quick to resort to war is at least "partly justified". Even Republicans prefer non-military options (68 percent of Republicans, compared to 78 percent of Democrats).
http://www.publicagenda.org/foreignpolicy/foreignpolicy_diplomacy.htm
-
At least the NRO is writing about it
Listening to talk radio today, they couldn't bring themselves to address this topic -- from the smattering of it that I heard.
Someone had taken the screen name Michelle be fore I got to it, so I went back to my Lativian name. Paul (x2), bullsmith, Robert, William, brotherbruz, Arne, Mona, Jim M., dr, and what was that boy's name?, I'm here.
-
@ Robert
When all the neocons have is a hammer
every problem looks like a nail.
There might be some wags that would suggest that these people don't have a hammer ... and this accounts better for ther actions.
Cheers,
-
Another reason the Brits might be hesitant about force... 25th anniversary.
25 years ago this week Britain and Argentina went t owar over hte Falkland (or Malvinas) Islands.
What was supposed to be a cakewalk (first world vs third world) ended up costing the UK the HMS Sheffield. They still won, of course, but it was the tea party in the park that some had been promising.
Iran would be a far more capable foe than Argentina was, and I bet the butcher bill would be higher. Anti ship technology has only improved in the past 25 years, and ship defense has not kept pace.