Writing an op-ed in today’s Washington Post, Wesley Clark has offered standard boilerplate advice on solving the ‘Iraq problem’: Negotiate with Iran. Here’s specifically what he said:

Well before the 2003 invasion, the Bush administration was sending signals that its intentions weren’t limited to Iraq; “regime change” in Syria and Iran was often discussed in Washington. Small wonder then that both countries have worked continuously to feed the fighting in Iraq.

The Bush administration didn’t “send signals that its intentions weren’t limited to Iraq.” They said it outrightly that anyone who wasn’t with us was against us. Doesn’t Clark remember that Iraq, Iran and North Korea were part of the President’s “Axis of Evil” State of the Union Message address? People (AKA Democrats) howled that he wasn’t nuanced enough for their likings.

Furthermore, it isn’t realistic to think that Syria and Iran weren’t going to jump into this war. Experts knew that Syria and Iran had far too much to gain from a destabilized, weakened Iraq. The longer Iraq stayed destabilized, the better the situation was for Iran and Syria.
The longer they tied American down in Iraq, the more time Hezbollah had to defeat the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon. The longer they tied American down in Iraq, the more time Hezbollah had to defeat civil uprisings in Iran and Syria before they were swept out of power by the citizenry.

Dealing with meddling neighbors is an essential element of resolving the conflict in Iraq. But this requires more than border posts and threatening statements. The administration needs a new strategy for the region, before Iran gains nuclear capabilities. While the military option must remain on the table, America should take the lead with direct diplomacy to resolve the interrelated problems of Iran’s push for regional hegemony and nuclear power, the struggle for control of Lebanon, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Isolating our adversaries hasn’t worked.

In advocating direct negotiations with Iran and Syria, Clark offers us the same nonsense that every other Democrat offers. They believe in the time-tested technique of the carrot-and-the-stick as long as the stick is a thin willow branch rather than a sturdy oak. Clark obviously doesn’t believe in the Reagan Principle. Here’s the definition of the Reagan Principle:

The Reagan principle teaches that you don’t negotiate until you scare the daylights out of the people you’re negotiating with. It’s only at that time that they’re willing to make significant, long-lasting concessions. Furthermore, the Reagan Principle teaches us that there shouldn’t be a time when the United States can’t get to the position of superiority to negotiate from.

Simply put, we should be working to get into a position of scaring the daylights out of Iran and Syria rather than limping to the negotiating table. Unfortunately, Democrats are whining so much about the war already that they’ve soured America on fighting a real war. It’s almost impossible for President Bush to fight the war properly when one political party is opposed to virtually everything that’s done in war. They’ve decried the amount of casualties since the toppling of Saddam’s statue.

Since voting for the war, most Democrats have apologized for their vote or they’ve railed against the war. The truth is that Democrats voted for the AUMF because it was in their strategic best interests to do so, not because they believed in fighting. The lone exception to that was Joe Lieberman. Look what his steadfastness bought him: a primary defeat at the hands of a wet behind the ears prima donna rich boy. (Fortunately, the Connecticut Democrats who didn’t wear tinfoil hats restored sanity to the process.)

This is what happens when a political party says that they’ll support the troops but not their mission. That’s what happens when Democrats play politics with war rather than standing for something positive. That’s what happens when Democrats make decisions based on focus groups and calculations rather than on what’s best for the longterm health of the country. Let’s ask this a different way.

• Will negotiating with Iran from a position of weakness stabilize Iraq?
• Will negotiating with Iran from a position of weakness make the U.S. safer in the long term?
• Will head-to-head negotiation with Iran stabilize Lebanon?

Honest, thoughtful people couldn’t answer any of those questions affirmatively, much less answer all of them affirmatively. ‘

Until we can answer those questions affirmatively, we should avoid the negotiating table at all costs.

Technorati Tags: Wesley Clark, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Reagan, Cedar Revolution, Hezbollah

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

1. [...] Cross-posted at California Conservative Categories: Military, Iraq, Iran, Terrorism, Foreign Policy, Middle East, Appeasement | [...]

   Pingback by Let Freedom Ring » Blog Archive » Wesley Clark: Negotiate With Iran — January 8, 2007 @ 6:07 am

1. I DON’T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED BUT GENERAL CLARK HAS TURNED INTO AN BLEEDING HEART IDIOT. I GUESS BECAUSE HE DIDN’T BECOME CHIEF OF STAFF OR GENERAL OF THE ARMY HE IS HOLDING A MAJOR GRUDGE AGAINST INTELLIGENT THINKING.

   Comment by RICHARD DAUGHERTY — January 8, 2007 @ 9:14 am

2. and Reagan Principle worked soooo well!
   - heh

   it was interesting to hear Gov Schwarzenegger’s recent speech mimic Sen Obama’s DNC convention speech….

   Comment by johnny — January 8, 2007 @ 4:07 pm