The charges of selling-out already arise with Baker on Iraq
OP-ED: “Will Bush Lose Lebanon, Too?” by Bret Stephens, Wall Street Journal, 7 November 2006, p. A13.Stephens can be pretty good, but he gets all fire-breathing at the drop of a hat--a sort of Chicken Little mixed up with Right Wind stab-in-the-backism.
That sort of paranoia, when applied to Iraq and adjacent issues fits the usual charges against Baker--that he’s a brutal realist.
But to me, Baker’s the ultimate smooth operator who’s good to bring in when you’re trying to salvage things, as we are now in the Middle East.
The Bush Neocons led by Cheney have nobody to blame but themselves for this moment, primarily because they’re so G.D. stubborn and lacking in strategic imagination (“Quick, let’s rerun the whole WMD drill with Iran! It sold so well with Iraq!”).
So yeah, we’re going to have to give it up to both Syria and Iran in the short-term, because we were so stupid as to telegraph our punches right off the bat with that whole Axis of Evil stuff (I surf Monday night and see that Kos guy paired with Frum [Mr. Axis-originator] on Larry King and I could stand them collectively for only about 30 seconds, they’re such a pair of cartoons--all sputtering with their extremist rage and so collectively useless in actually transmitting anything approaching a strategic thought to the viewers). Somehow Bush & Co. were smart enough to get us a whole lotta love from both Pakistan and India and just enough from Russia and surrounding Central Asia republics so as to keep our effort in Afghanistan realistic (i.e., not persecuted from all sides), but somehow, with Iraq, we just assumed we could take on the entire region on all once, instead of locking in gains as we went along (and cutting some deals and holding our noses and getting some necessary allies), playing the board with some fluidity instead of this same lock-step approach again and again (Rice’s amazingly ineffective talking-point diplomacy coupled with Cheney’s scary bluster from on-high, amplified now and then by Rumsfeld, who, despite his great skill in running the Pentagon, doesn’t have a clue on foreign relations).
Looking back on it, Afghanistan was bad for us, because it came off as seemingly so easy. It led us to believe that the war-seguing-into-peace would be equally smooth in Iraq, when, in the end, it turned out that the war was--yet again--just the prelude to the battle for the peace (seen last in Lebanon), with Iraq now descending into chaos and the Taliban once again resurgent in Afghanistan. We just let our inner Leviathan, which knows it can win wars all by itself, set up our under-funded, under-trained, under-equipped SysAdmin for tough jobs any reasonable strategist could see we could not possibly win without a lot of outside help.
So now we need the clean-up artists like Baker to salvage what we can for the short term.
As I’ve written many times: all of the long-term trends favor us WRT globalization’s inevitable penetration and “perversion” of the Middle East. Done right, Iraq could have served as a huge accelerant, triggering a 1989-like collapse of several nasty regimes in the region. But our incompetence there on the postwar comes back to haunt us, delaying the inevitable for far longer than it should, given our sacrifices and the boldness of the Saddam takedown.
Bush started this Long War, but he and his only seem to understand it in its temporal length, instead of its strategic breadth. That’s why we’re in the fix we’re in right now in Iraq.
And that’s why we need the Baker touch, as unpleasant as it make seem to some on the Right. We won’t get what we want right now in Beirut, Damascus and Tehran and Tel Aviv. But maybe--just maybe--we’ll get what we need.
Frankly, given that we face two more long years with the same basic hands on the ship of state, this is the best we can hope for right now.
Comments
As DeAngelis just pointed out, the people spoke and moved the country back to the center. This fact gives President Bush an opening. His immediate move is simple direct action, which will be good for his party, good for the country, and good for the world. He needs to replace Secretary Rice with Jim Baker.
The call to remove Secretary Rumsfeld is misguided. The man is a tough able administrator. He is several cuts above people who hold their jobs because of loyalty to the president, rather than organizational skills. This group includes, Rice, Chertoff, Negroponte, and Armitage. The solid players are Rumsfeld and Paulsen. Bush needs all the competent help he can get.
The State Department has been Bush’s weak spot. A quick look at international support behind Gulf War I and Gulf War II makes this conclusion inescapable. Powell was ineffective. Rice went from Stanford Provost to National Security Advisor. If there was any one individual within the US Government who should resigned after 911 it was Rice Instead she got promoted! This promotion was a disaster.
We need to talk and negotiate now and Baker despite his advanced age has the necessary skills. To assist him he might reach out for some people who see the Big Picture, starting perhaps with a desk in State for Thomas P.M. Barnett.
Posted by: J Canepa | November 8, 2006 9:46 AM
I don't look for much from Baker.
The fastest way to what we want in Iraq is to arm the Sunnis to the teeth so they can defeat the Shia soundly. That would be a victory and at least potentially result in a secular outcome.
The Shia will never allow a secular outcome.
The Shia are the wrong horse and they are running their own race. We are not a part of their plans.
Posted by: sonofsamphm1c | November 8, 2006 11:24 AM
In 2000, who had Lebanon? It certainly wasn't us. It was the Syrians and their sometimes ally Iran via Hezbollah. With Syrian troops gone and international forces somewhat less pathetic than 2000, I don't see Lebanon being a minus. Syrian troops are not likely to replace the current coalition. We are possibly going to see some backsliding but Lebanon in 2009 is very likely to be in a better position than it was in 2001 when Bush arrived IMO. It is likely to have a better trained army able to patrol the length and breadth of the country and all that is needed at that point is a people willing to elect a government with the will to use them. Siniora's current hand is incredibly weak but time, I think, is on the March 14th coalition's side.
Posted by: TM Lutas | November 8, 2006 11:34 AM
"Looking back on it, Afghanistan was bad for us, because it came off as seemingly so easy. It led us to believe that the war-seguing-into-peace would be equally smooth in Iraq, when, in the end, it turned out that the war was--yet again--just the prelude to the battle for the peace."
Oh, its worse than that. Flushed with victory in Afganistan, we slammed Putin with tearing up the ABM Treaty. Vlad had gone out on a limb to support us post 9-11, against Siloviki advice. They said "You'll get nothing for it, you'll just get used like Gorby and Yeltsin were." And George proved 'em right.
Its amazing how much less cooperative Vlad has been since then. But then, George has a gift for making us enemies and losing us influence.
Posted by: RKKA | November 8, 2006 1:20 PM
"Bush started this Long War"
Is that right?
You, yourself said on 9-10-2006 it started 5 years ago.
Bush gets blamed for many things, but THIS?, and from you, of all people!
Posted by: William Anthony | November 8, 2006 7:17 PM
There are times we all need a "cleaner". James Baker's skill sets will be helpfull. Could have called a "Colonel Kurtz", really put us in the ........
Posted by: GLASR | November 9, 2006 12:57 AM