The following exchange on CBS's Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer nicely illustrates the Democrats' difficulty. They can't talk about Iraq and Iran without sounding like they've been fraternizing with Jefferson Airplane's white rabbit. Here's New Mexico governor and potential Democrat presidential candidate Elliot Richardson traipsing along the edge of incoherence:
SCHIEFFER: Where do you think we are right now [in Iraq]? And, I guess, more importantly, Governor, where do you think we go from here?
Gov. RICHARDSON: Well, where we go from here is, I believe the time has come for a strategy, an announcement on disengagement. I believe that the war is very badly run; our objectives are not being fulfilled. 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. Right now the situation in Iran is potentially another Iraq. I believe what you need now is a very strong effort to get the three leaderships in Iraq, the Shiites, the Sunnis, the Kurds, to form a coalition government, put maximum pressure for them to do that, and then redeploy American forces to where we really have true national security threats. Our problem right now...is our obsession with Iraq has caused us to lack paying attention to real threats to our country like terrorism...
When Richardson is not simply saying that we should do what Bush is already doing his suggestions are either recipes for disaster or they are incomprehensible. What does he mean, for example, when he refers to our increasing lack of influence with al-Qaeda? When have we ever had any influence with al-Qaeda? Even Schieffer isn't sure what the governor is trying to say:
SCHIEFFER: But are you saying that we just need to turn and get out of there? 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; and then secondly, a real reconstruction effort among other Arab countries, wealthy countries, that deal with the reconstruction of Iraq. But our policy is not working, and we have to change course, and this is why Secretary Rumsfeld and the president need to at least admit that what we're doing is not working and have some course corrections. They're unwilling to even do that.
Now there's a brilliant strategy. Place Iraq in the tender care of other Muslim countries. How clever. May we ask, though, which ones? Which of the Muslim countries is best suited to tutor Iraq in its quest to establish democratic institutions and to nurture a decent regard for human rights? Tough question? Well, no matter. Our current policy isn't working. We've been at it now for three whole years and Iraq is still unsettled. We need to do something different. It doesn't matter how idiotic, as long as it's different.
SCHIEFFER: Let's shift to Iran. You just mentioned that there are reports that the Iranians, of course, are enriching uranium, the next step toward building a bomb. What should we do about that?
Gov. RICHARDSON: Well, first, we recognize that we cannot tolerate nuclear weapons in Iran, but, having said that, I would do totally different from what the Bush administration is doing. I would engage the Iranians directly, talk directly to them about nuclear weapons, about Iraq. They have major influence on Iraq.
Of course! Talk to them. Why didn't the Bush administration think of that? How much is CBS paying Mr. Richardson to appear on this show, anyway?
Secondly, 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 them, 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.
No, the fraying of our relations with the Europeans had more to do with the fact that toppling Saddam cost them some lucrative military contracts and deprived them of a handsome income from oil for food kickbacks. Europe is Europe. They're not going to confront Iran over nuclear weapons any more than they were willing to confront Hitler, Stalin, Milosevic, the Hutus, or Saddam. Heck, France won't even reform its own laws to save itself from economic dilapidation if it means having to confront a few thousand malcontent students. It's certainly not going to stand up to a lunatic like Ahamdinejad.
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. The fact that the Pentagon leaked that we would use tactical nuclear weapons is ridiculous.
What on earth is he talking about? Nobody in the administration has said anything about using nukes. Seymour Hersh, a journalist, said that. Of course, that nukes would be an option if matters came to war is not news. It's simply common sense. If you have a weapon then that weapon is an option. That doesn't mean that the weapon will be used. Much less does it mean that the administration is talking publically about using them.
Military options should always be on the table, but you don't bring it out first. You exercise your full diplomatic engagement and tools, and the start of that is talking directly to them about borders.
Thanks Elliot. Great advice. You'd make a fine president of the Kiwanis Club.
