Negotiations not Always a Silver Bullet

I suspect that many of those who are opposed to the tactical changes in Iraq explained by the president in his speech to the nation on Jan. 10 and reinforced in his State of Union speech this past week do not believe that Iraq is a major front in a wider war.

They don't accept that we are at war with Islamic fascists. When these people use "war" and "terror" in the same sentence, they don't mean military war. They mean rhetorical war as in "war on drugs" or "war on organized crime." Sen. John Kerry stated this position clearly in his campaign for the presidency, "The war on terror is ... occasionally military ... But it's primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation ..." To these people, bringing the troops home from Iraq means that the war is over.

Here is the argument: To view terrorism as war exaggerates its threat. You don't give in to terror, but you do not use the military as the tip of the sword - and certainly no massive pre-emptive military strikes followed by invasion. Acts of terror are crimes. Some are horrific, yes, but still acts committed by criminals, not soldiers of a sovereign state - with whom wars are fought. The American criminal justice system with its individual liberty guarantees is the institution that should be responsible for apprehending and judging any alleged perpetrators.

Viewed through this lens, the detainees at Guantanamo are not "the enemy." Rather, they are "the accused," innocent until proven guilty in an American court of law. Similarly, the NSA counterintelligence program must be "domestic spying" because we are not at war with any foreign nation.

When queried about the aftermath of a troop withdrawal from Iraq before Iraq is capable of handling its own security, those who favor such a move say, "Not our war - not our problem."

President Bush's position is that premature withdrawal from Iraq will result in both a catastrophe for the Iraqi people and a major setback in the war against the Islamists. The president believes that defeat in Iraq will give Islamists a home base like they enjoyed in Afghanistan prior to 9/11 from which they can plan and coordinate attacks against the United States.

The New York Times editorialized on the morning before the president's speech, "Mr. Bush must acknowledge that there is no military solution for Iraq," but just five paragraphs later the Times wrote, "Nor can America simply turn its back on whatever happens to Iraq after it leaves. With or without American troops, a nightmare future for Iraq is a nightmare future for the United States, too, ..."

So, we bring the troops home, but we don't turn our backs. What does that mean? If our leaving results in a regional war or "Iraq's people and its oil fields fall under the tightening grip of a more powerful Iran," which the Times speculates could happen, what do we do? Talk, discuss, engage, negotiate like we should have been doing all along, right?

In my view, those who think that negotiations are silver bullets for every possible situation either haven't had much experience negotiating or are terribly naive. Iran is the perfect case in point.

People engage in negotiations if it is in their self-interest and for no other reason. During the Cold War both the United States and the Soviet Union negotiated with each other because each could be destroyed by the other. Society survival was the self-interest of both parties.

Years of negotiating with European powers to the contrary, the present leadership of Iran has decided that becoming a member of the nuclear bomb making club is in their self-interest. On the other hand, the leadership of the United States has decided that a nuclear-armed Iran is not in our best interests.

Iran is a major player in encouraging unrest in Iraq because it is in its self-interest - civil war is good, anarchy even better. There is only one incentive that would, in the short term, keep Iran's hands off of Iraq. Let them have the bomb.

The president will not allow this.