Negotiating to End the War in Iraq
Robert Fantina
February 20, 2007
In December of 2006, the Iraq Study Panel released its long-awaited report and recommendations for Iraq. The panelists presented a very grim view of the situation there and recommended, among other things, negotiations with Iran and Syria. Shortly after the recommendations were made public, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice commented on this focal point in the report. She said that there would be no negotiations because those countries might make impossible demands on the United States in exchange for their cooperation. Further, she said, stability in Iraq was in the best interests of both countries, so no incentives should be required to induce them to work towards that goal.
This tragic, short-sighted assessment is not a surprise, coming from a member of the administration that labeled Iran one of three nations in the ‘axis of evil.’ It is also an attitude not without disastrous precedent in U.S. history.
In 1845, Mexican President Jose Joaquin de Herrera was striving to avoid war with the United States over the disputed Mexican territory of Texas. Knowing that his country could ill afford a war at that time, he strove for some means to avoid it while still saving face in his own country. However, U.S. President Polk, described as holding ‘the niceties of diplomacy in contempt,’ offered little assistance in avoiding conflict. Herrera was quickly overthrown by General Mariano Parades, who sought nothing less than a military victory over the United States. The opportunity for negotiation was lost and in January of 1846, war was declared. Estimates of military and civilian deaths during this two-year war range from 12,000 to 21,000.
Over one hundred and sixty years later, one can only speculate on what the outcome of that dispute might have been had representatives of the two nations met at a conference table, rather than sending young men to the battlefield. But then, as now, negotiation and diplomacy were not to be; death and carnage on the battlefield were then and apparently are now seen somehow as superior to diplomacy.
The United States is not without success at the bargaining table. On July 1, 1968, following a long period of nuclear build up, representatives of America and the Soviet Union added their signatures to the nuclear nonproliferation treaty they had drafted. The U.S. and Russia agreed on little at that time in history, yet they were able to join together to help resolve a mutual problem.
As the Vietnam War continued to destroy American and Vietnamese lives, both nations finally came to the bargaining table. While the U.S. used the threat of continued force, and the Vietnamese demonstrated their citizens’ tenacity in defending their homeland, a peace accord of sorts was finally signed. While this did not ultimately have the result the U.S. wanted and had spent billions of dollars and tens of thousands of American lives to achieve, it did effectively end U.S. participation in the war. Although devastating problems ensued in Vietnam and the surrounding countries within the next few years, continued American presence would have only delayed, and possibly exacerbated, those situations.
Today, President Bush offers escalation of the war in Iraq: more American lives sacrificed on the altar of his quixotic dream of democracy in Iraq, whether the Iraqis want it or not. Congress offers discussions on a non-binding resolution, which Mr. Bush can treat with the same contempt as he treats all dissent from his policies. Those supporting continuation of the war and Mr. Bush’s ‘augmentation,’ rely on the same tired, old bugaboos of racism and fear that Mr. Bush & Co. used so successfully in bringing the country to war. Talk of Islamic radicals following the departing American troops home resurrects the same rhetoric used by Mr. Bush, Vice President Cheney and then Secretary of State Colin Powell prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Members of Congress who have yet to leap from the tottering bandwagon of war driven by Mr. Bush drag out his tired and worn arguments about supporting the troops. Despite the fact that nearly all those opposing the escalation will not even consider cutting funding for the war at this time, the president’s cheerleaders invoke that possibility during the current debate, as if that is part of the proposed resolution.
Prior to the disastrous invasion of Iraq, U.N. inspectors were visiting all the sites of suspected weapons manufacture or storage. This was not good enough for the self-described ‘war president,’ anxious to flex American military muscle by spilling the blood of American soldiers. Following the fall of Saddam Hussein Mr. Bush infamously declared ‘Mission Accomplished’ as he paraded around in a military jumpsuit he never wore as a young man, when tens of thousands of his peers were bravely dying in the tragic obscenity of the Vietnam War. He cavalierly invited the Iraqi freedom fighters to ‘bring them on,’ which they did and continue to do.
One can only wonder why Mr. Bush is so determined to achieve a bloody military victory over Iraq, when from the start a bloodless diplomatic one appears to have always been within reach. Now, with Iraq lacking any real leadership and in the throes of a deadly civil war, that possibility is far more challenging, and diplomatic steps need to engage that nation’s neighbors. The bi-partisan Iraq Study Group identified this need, but Mr. Bush has rejected it, adhering as usual to his unrealistic view of how things should be.
Ms. Rice is correct in saying that it is in the best interest of Syria and Iran to have a peaceful resolution to the Iraqi civil war now raging. But it is also in the best interest of the United States. Mr. Hussein, by all accounts a murderous dictator, had had excellent relations with past U.S. presidents; if Mr. Bush had genuinely feared that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, the foundation for negotiations had been laid years earlier. Iraq’s willingness to avoid a confrontation with the United States was amply demonstrated by its openness to the U.N. inspectors.
The Congressional non-biding resolution will be nothing more than a minor embarrassment to a lame-duck president with nothing to lose but the further erosion of his reputation and legacy. It has no weight, addresses no problem and accomplishes nothing other than enabling the members of Congress debating it an opportunity to create sound bites to be used in future campaigns. Negotiations with Syria and Iran would not be easy, and would require give and take on both sides, but they still offer the best opportunity for a lasting, if uncomfortable, peace in the Middle East. Unfortunately, the one man who can bring about this resolution to the human tragedy he has spawned refuses to do so. He will continue to govern from the safety of the White House, while he sends countless men and women to their deaths. His legacy, at last, is sure.
This tragic, short-sighted assessment is not a surprise, coming from a member of the administration that labeled Iran one of three nations in the ‘axis of evil.’ It is also an attitude not without disastrous precedent in U.S. history.
In 1845, Mexican President Jose Joaquin de Herrera was striving to avoid war with the United States over the disputed Mexican territory of Texas. Knowing that his country could ill afford a war at that time, he strove for some means to avoid it while still saving face in his own country. However, U.S. President Polk, described as holding ‘the niceties of diplomacy in contempt,’ offered little assistance in avoiding conflict. Herrera was quickly overthrown by General Mariano Parades, who sought nothing less than a military victory over the United States. The opportunity for negotiation was lost and in January of 1846, war was declared. Estimates of military and civilian deaths during this two-year war range from 12,000 to 21,000.
Over one hundred and sixty years later, one can only speculate on what the outcome of that dispute might have been had representatives of the two nations met at a conference table, rather than sending young men to the battlefield. But then, as now, negotiation and diplomacy were not to be; death and carnage on the battlefield were then and apparently are now seen somehow as superior to diplomacy.
The United States is not without success at the bargaining table. On July 1, 1968, following a long period of nuclear build up, representatives of America and the Soviet Union added their signatures to the nuclear nonproliferation treaty they had drafted. The U.S. and Russia agreed on little at that time in history, yet they were able to join together to help resolve a mutual problem.
As the Vietnam War continued to destroy American and Vietnamese lives, both nations finally came to the bargaining table. While the U.S. used the threat of continued force, and the Vietnamese demonstrated their citizens’ tenacity in defending their homeland, a peace accord of sorts was finally signed. While this did not ultimately have the result the U.S. wanted and had spent billions of dollars and tens of thousands of American lives to achieve, it did effectively end U.S. participation in the war. Although devastating problems ensued in Vietnam and the surrounding countries within the next few years, continued American presence would have only delayed, and possibly exacerbated, those situations.
Today, President Bush offers escalation of the war in Iraq: more American lives sacrificed on the altar of his quixotic dream of democracy in Iraq, whether the Iraqis want it or not. Congress offers discussions on a non-binding resolution, which Mr. Bush can treat with the same contempt as he treats all dissent from his policies. Those supporting continuation of the war and Mr. Bush’s ‘augmentation,’ rely on the same tired, old bugaboos of racism and fear that Mr. Bush & Co. used so successfully in bringing the country to war. Talk of Islamic radicals following the departing American troops home resurrects the same rhetoric used by Mr. Bush, Vice President Cheney and then Secretary of State Colin Powell prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Members of Congress who have yet to leap from the tottering bandwagon of war driven by Mr. Bush drag out his tired and worn arguments about supporting the troops. Despite the fact that nearly all those opposing the escalation will not even consider cutting funding for the war at this time, the president’s cheerleaders invoke that possibility during the current debate, as if that is part of the proposed resolution.
Prior to the disastrous invasion of Iraq, U.N. inspectors were visiting all the sites of suspected weapons manufacture or storage. This was not good enough for the self-described ‘war president,’ anxious to flex American military muscle by spilling the blood of American soldiers. Following the fall of Saddam Hussein Mr. Bush infamously declared ‘Mission Accomplished’ as he paraded around in a military jumpsuit he never wore as a young man, when tens of thousands of his peers were bravely dying in the tragic obscenity of the Vietnam War. He cavalierly invited the Iraqi freedom fighters to ‘bring them on,’ which they did and continue to do.
One can only wonder why Mr. Bush is so determined to achieve a bloody military victory over Iraq, when from the start a bloodless diplomatic one appears to have always been within reach. Now, with Iraq lacking any real leadership and in the throes of a deadly civil war, that possibility is far more challenging, and diplomatic steps need to engage that nation’s neighbors. The bi-partisan Iraq Study Group identified this need, but Mr. Bush has rejected it, adhering as usual to his unrealistic view of how things should be.
Ms. Rice is correct in saying that it is in the best interest of Syria and Iran to have a peaceful resolution to the Iraqi civil war now raging. But it is also in the best interest of the United States. Mr. Hussein, by all accounts a murderous dictator, had had excellent relations with past U.S. presidents; if Mr. Bush had genuinely feared that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, the foundation for negotiations had been laid years earlier. Iraq’s willingness to avoid a confrontation with the United States was amply demonstrated by its openness to the U.N. inspectors.
The Congressional non-biding resolution will be nothing more than a minor embarrassment to a lame-duck president with nothing to lose but the further erosion of his reputation and legacy. It has no weight, addresses no problem and accomplishes nothing other than enabling the members of Congress debating it an opportunity to create sound bites to be used in future campaigns. Negotiations with Syria and Iran would not be easy, and would require give and take on both sides, but they still offer the best opportunity for a lasting, if uncomfortable, peace in the Middle East. Unfortunately, the one man who can bring about this resolution to the human tragedy he has spawned refuses to do so. He will continue to govern from the safety of the White House, while he sends countless men and women to their deaths. His legacy, at last, is sure.
Print
Email
