Conservative> Debra Saunders> Tanks Vs Talks

	16 Feb 2012 President Obama Punts on US Deficit In February 2009 — having signed into law his $787 billion stimulus package — President Barack … Read More.
	14 Feb 2012 Obama Imposes Will in Contraception Compromise From San Francisco, where I live, the controversy over the White House decision to require church-affiliated … Read More.
	12 Feb 2012 To Make Women Safe, We Treat Them Like Children The domestic-violence case against San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi did not start with a call from wife … Read More.

Tanks Vs. Talks

Because of President Bush, the world hates America. If voters elect a Democrat, the 2008 hopefuls argue, Washington will engage in more diplomacy and the world will love us.

They glom onto every news story to bolster that argument — including the new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that refuted a 2005 NIE that reported "high confidence" that Iran was working on nukes, by assessing with "high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program."

For years, Democrats have complained that Bush should have been more skeptical of intelligence that supported his ideology. Now they're doing the same thing, as they embrace the new NIE report as gospel.

In an interview at Stanford Law School Friday, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Zalmay Khalilzad was less accepting of the new NIE. As a diplomat, Khalilzad did not engage in partisan attacks. But he did comment on the NIE's history of underestimating — Iraqi efforts before the first Gulf War — and overestimating — Iraq's WMD before this war.

Khalilzad added, "This estimate is about a part of the nuclear problem of Iran. The biggest part of the nuclear problem is having the fissile material to make the bomb." No one should relax when oil-rich Iran continues uranium enrichment.

At a National Public Radio debate last week, Democratic candidates argued that Iran's actions highlight the need for more diplomacy. Diplomacy boosters cite the NIE statement that the Iran nuclear program "was halted primarily in response to international pressure."

Hmmm. Which would present greater "international pressure" — a war in Iraq or a U.N. resolution? According to the Washington Post, "senior intelligence officials said it is possible that Libya's decision to halt its nuclear program and the war in Iraq were also factors, but said there was no direct evidence of either." Right.

There's no direct evidence, other than the fact that Libya also happened to do the same thing right after the start of the war. No wonder conservatives are suspicious.

An Afghan who first came here as a high-school exchange student near Modesto, Calif., Khalilzad is living proof that many in the world love America. He "fell in love" with Americans, how "welcoming" they are and the way they interact with others. He can't imagine another large country that would have granted him such opportunity.

Rather than hate us, Khalilzad, also former ambassador to Afghanistan, noted that the Afghans "couldn't have enough of us. The only fear that they have is that we will abandon them."

As former ambassador to Iraq, Khalilzad saw Shiites and Kurds thankful for U.S. troops in Iraq, while recent efforts to reach out to Sunnis have improved how all Iraqis look at U.S. troops.

What would happen to America's image abroad if U.S. troops withdrew from Iraq? Khalilzad answered: "That would be a disaster in my mind." And: "Weakness is very provocative."

Many fear violence between Sunni and Shiites, Turks and Kurds, and extremist Iraqis and moderate Iraqis who cooperated with U.S. troops.

Sen. Chris Dodd was in San Francisco Sunday. When I asked him what would happen to America's image abroad if we withdrew from Iraq in, say, 18 months, Dodd observed that nothing is certain, but: "I think we enhance the image."

The troops surge has not brought about political reconciliation. The world, Dodd surmised, would respect a nation that recognizes it is "traveling down the wrong road."

That is the fundamental difference between the pro-war and anti-war camps on Iran and Iraq. One side argues that Americans must show themselves big enough to admit a mistake. The other side believes that losing doesn't win many friends or mollify many enemies.

E-mail Debra J. Saunders at dsaunders@sfchronicle.com. To find out more about Debra J. Saunders, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

Comments

1 Comments | Post Comment

Sorry, but your victimhood narrative doesn't fly.

First while the intelligence on Iraq wasn't as good as it could have been, the CIA analysts from the beginning were cautioning the administration that Saddam's weapons programs were not in the kind of shape the neo-cons were painting them. The administration decided to manufacture evidence, use outside sources, and then when they were caught -- first try to discredit the messengers (Remember Plame/Wilson?) and then when that didn't work pin the blame on the professionals over at CIA.

Secondly there was near unanimity among people in the country over the invasion of Afghanistan. Going after Al Qaeda in their nest seemed just logical. It was low hanging fruit, and had our country been serious about it we could have made a positive difference by doing so. The issue most of us liberals and progressives had was that the administration took the admitted causus bellus of Afghanistan and used it to manufacture one in Iraq. Most of us were also furious that resources needed to actually flush out Bin Laden or help establish democracy in Afghanistan were diverted to the Iraq effort before almost it had even begun.

Finally the administrations unwillingness to commit sufficient, strategic, and planned resources to the Iraq and Afghan effort have virtually guaranteed SNAFU. If the "surge" is working, that is only proof that adequate resources could have accomplished some results much sooner had they been dedicated to the effort. As McCain said before he got coopted what was needed were sufficient "boots on the ground" to get "the job done." But without strategy, negotiation, and diplomacy, no number of "boots" are ever going to get the "job done" because the job that needs to be done is to re-establish dignified civilian rule -- and that is a political/diplomatic task. Add to that the lawlessness, looting and poor tactics of our leadership in both countries, torture and unlawful killing of civilians, and for every Khalilizad talking about how people in those two countries love us, we have 10 people shooting at us or volunteering to act as suicide bombers. Good job "brownie."

In short it is not "dems" and "liberals" who are being unrealistic but you and your Bush cheerleader squad. Yes, when (not if) we withdraw our occupying forces we may leave behind a bloodbath -- but that is why the calls to negotiation, diplomacy, strategy,... in the first place. We've been floundering around in this abstract terror "war" for seven years now without really doing anything but terrorizing people. If current strategies continue we will have wasted thousands of lives and still only caused a bloodbath and elected Al Qaeda into a real political force in the Sunni mideast.

Chris

Comment: #1
Posted by: Christopher H. Holte
Tue Dec 11, 2007 8:54 PM