Monday, April 17, 2006

# Posted 10:39 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

DEMS TO BUSH: MORE UNILATERALISM NOW! The Dems are trying to look tough by telling Bush not to "outsource" our policy on Iran to our NATO allies or the UN. Apparently, this is an official Democratic talking point, since Bill Richardson brought it up on CBS right before Donna Brazile [no transcript] did on ABC.

At first glance, this little ruse seems terribly clever. Attack Bush from the right! But I think it comes off as craven. First of all, it's fairly hypocritical to rail for years against Bush's unilateralism, only to turn around and suddenly condemn his very reasonable multilateralism vis-a-vis Iran (which numerous Democrats support).

But even worse than hypocritical, it's amateurish. Will voters concerned about national security trust a party that throws its most fundamental policy preferences overboard in order to score a few quick debating points? I doubt it.

Anyhow, here's a closer look at what Richardson said:
Gov. RICHARDSON: I would redeploy those forces that we have in Iraq to the surrounding area to deal with real threats to America--the war on terrorism, our increasing lack of influence in Afghanistan with al-Qaeda...
So the situation in Iraq isn't a real threat to America?

SCHIEFFER: ...But are you saying that we just need to turn and get out of [Iraq]? Because won't that be taken as a sign of weakness, won't the terrorists think they have won, and won't that encourage them to strike someplace else?

Gov. RICHARDSON: No, what I would do, Bob, is early next year I believe we fix a date certain for the start of an American withdrawal because right now our policy is just not working. and the civil war is getting worse. What I would do is call a Mideast conference, a summit, of Muslim countries to help with training the Iraqi security forces along with us...
Call a conference! That's always the answer! Bring in all of those wonderful Muslim militaries, with their long record of respect for democracy and human rights, to help train Iraqi forces! Kerry & Richardson in 2008!
Gov. RICHARDSON: ...I would stop outsourcing our foreign policy to the Europeans, to the International Atomic Energy Agency, to the UN Security Council. I believe if we talk directly to [Iran], but build an international consensus, international support--this is why the fraying of our relationship with the Europeans, with the allies, has been so costly is because we can't build a true international coalition that engages the third world also and surrounding countries to get Iran to stop developing nuclear weapons. Now, we have some time. We have five to 10 years before they develop a nuclear weapon. What we need to do, in that process, Bob, is use diplomacy, coercive diplomacy, potentially sanctions, special envoys, instead of talking about
using military options.
It's hard to disagree with a man if you can barely understand what's he's saying. But I will attempt a summary nonetheless: Don't outsource our foreign policy. But build an international consensus. Engage the third word. But consider sanctions.

This is really not the way to persuade anyone that the Democratic party is serious about foreign policy.
(8) opinions -- Add your opinion

And don't forget: threaten force, but don't even discuss military options.
When the talk gets around to military options, everyone should remember the U.S. is the only nation which can or will mount any. The other "Western powers" sometimes give minor military support to the U.S., but essentially they have no military any more. Like Canada, they shrewdly let it wither so the U.S. soldiers and taxpayers would carry all the load. They're confident the liberal media here won't tell their dirty little secret.
First lockbox now outsourcing. Am I the only one tired of hearing this word?

I applaud Gov. Richardson's plan to 'redeploy those forces that we have in Iraq to the surrounding area to deal with real threats to America.' I suggest we begin with the surrounding areas immediately north and east of Iraq.
Dammit John, we have to fight the culture of coruption.
The ability of EU to negotiate on behalf of the US is predicated on its ability to guarantee a non aggression pact. Increased US sabre-rattling deemed "crazy" by the British, among others, further discredits the EU position making bilateral negotiations the only way to ensure one of the primary elements of the Iranian demands - a non-aggression pact. If the US policy is a non-nuclear Iran, then this should be a reasonable way forward. If it is regime change, (a position only the US, and maybe Israel would hold) then no amount of negotiations, multilateral or not, will be relevant. Let's be clear on the end objectives of all this. Only then can we realistically critique the many options for getting there.
In the words of Mugato, have the Democrats started taking crazy pills?

And non-aggression pact? What would that mean, precisely? Please don't specifically use your nukes on us or our allies, but feel free to use your proxy forces to employ them? Are the bombings in Pakistan and Israel a coincidence? I suspect the Iranian puppetmasters have cut loose their "deployed" jihadists to further stretch any hope of a combined, multi-lateral effort.
The Dem's flailings would be funny if the situation wasn't so serious. Please deity do something to get rid of the kook left.
Post a Comment