Photo of the Day

Take a gander at Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki shaking hands with Iranian President Mamoun Ahmadenijad (call it a fair use of ISNA's photo). Going to Teheran for the meeting is a sensible thing to do. After all, Iran's right next door so they have plenty to talk about. But how can it possibly be that it's both absolutely vital for the United States to make a massive, open-ended military commitment to one of these governments and also absolutely vital for the United States to refuse to sit down and attempt good-faith negotiations with the other? Is Maliki now part of the unappeasable Islamofascist menace? How does this fit in with the 1939 narrative?

We turn to the Corner to see what the conservative movement's best minds have to say about these developments and find a multi-part series of posts where Rich Lowry and Kate O'Beirne just quote from a chat the White House seems to have organized between Bush and some friendly journalists about which our conservative analysts have no actual analysis to offer. We learn that, according to Bush, "The ideological struggle is being manifested as radicals attacking young democracies . . . the extremists and radicals are flocking to Iraq to stop the flourishing of democracy.”

Comments

But how can it possibly be that it's both absolutely vital for the United States to make a massive, open-ended military commitment to one of these governments and also absolutely vital for the United States to refuse to sit down and attempt good-faith negotiations with the other?

Why do you think these two things are incompatible?

Posted by Al | September 12, 2006 3:51 PM

Why do you think these two things are incompatible?

Practical reasons: living, making sense of the world, trying not to go insane. Stuff like that.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | September 12, 2006 3:54 PM

Scratch that as a first question. My real first question is, what makes you think that we aren't negotiating with Iran already? After all, we, along with several other countries, offer Iran a package of goodies a few months back. It was rejected. Or do you mean direct, unilateral talks, rather than the current multilateral talks that have been ongoing for a while? If so, why?

Posted by Al | September 12, 2006 4:01 PM

Why do you think these two things are incompatible?

Why did you answer his question with a question? If you think they're compatible, explain why. Clearly, Matthew does not think they are by his mere posing of the question, and if you actually have something to add to the answering of this question, I'm sure many of us would like to hear it.

Posted by NonyNony | September 12, 2006 4:02 PM

Here's a real answer. If we don't fix things in Iraq - and that's not to say that we can - the bad guys will.

Look at Afghanistan. We made a mess, we left the poppy farmers with no way to make a living, the Taliban came in and helped the impoverished farmers out and now they are enjoying a resurgence.

Look at Lebanon. Hezbollah was unpopular before the war with Israel, they instigated the conflict, but when the war was over they were the main entity that showed up with reconstruction funds and help for the affected regions, and now their popularity is up again.

If you believe that Iran gaining more influence in the region is a bad thing for us, then it is in our best interests to be the ones who make things right in Iraq, because if we just pack up and leave then Iran will be more than happy to spend money on helping their neighbor rebuild just for the goodwill it will generate.

Again, I'm not trying to make the case that we can improve things by staying in Iraq, but if you believe that we can, there's good reason to do so rather than let Iran take all the credit for righting the ship.

Posted by Steve | September 12, 2006 4:16 PM

Why aren't the Dems making the point that Bush's Iraq adventure has immeasurably strengthened Iran's hand?

Posted by Dave | September 12, 2006 4:49 PM

Ahmadenijad is really short. teehee!

Posted by right | September 12, 2006 4:54 PM

OK, NonyNony.

The fact that Maliki wants to meet with Ahmadenijad in no way undermines our interest in having a secure, democratic Iraq. And the fact that Ahmadenijad meets Maliki in no way undermines our interest in making sure that Iran does not go nuclear. Accordingly, the meeting between Maliki and Ahmadenijad would not make inconsistent our "massive, open-ended military commitment" to Iraq and "our refusal to sit down and attempt good-faith negotiations" in a unilateral manner with Iran. So my question: why does Matthew think it does?

Posted by Al | September 12, 2006 4:59 PM

The fact that Maliki wants to meet with Ahmadenijad in no way undermines our interest in having a secure, democratic Iraq. And the fact that Ahmadenijad meets Maliki in no way undermines our interest in making sure that Iran does not go nuclear.

Both of these statements seem incorrect to me. They certainly aren't true just because you say they are.

Posted by Steve | September 12, 2006 5:02 PM

Al is right that this meeting does not change American interests in getting out of Iraq with as much dignity as possible and keeping Iran from having nukes. But it does undermine the simple-minded narrative of democracy vs. Islamism. If we could talk about these things as grown ups, that would be great. But we can't, because the Bush administration has dumbed everything down to "Democracy Good! Islamofascists Bad!"

Posted by Pithlord | September 12, 2006 5:53 PM

The photo points out the essential absurdity of the Bushist foreign policy in the Middle East. Here you have, in Bushist terms, the leader of the great Democratic Republic of Iraq openly consorting with the paragon of the Axis of Evil.

The absurdity lies in the complete failure to grasp the underlying realities of the historical, ideological and cultural forces operating in the region to determine national identity and regional alliances.

That failure is represented by two crucial strategic blunders that have now come back to bite the US with a vengeance.

One is the US support for Saddam Hussein and abandonment of the Iraqi Shia during the Iraq-Iran war and after the Iraq-Kuwait war. This experience leaves the current Shiite leadership of Iraq to have no trust or confidence in US strategic aims in Iraq and, instead, to look to Iran (their former supporter during that earlier debacle) for renewed support.

Two is the invasion and occupation of Iraq which has now served to remove the Saddam Hussein government as Iran’s leading contender for regional influence and push the Shiite leadership of Iraq’s new government into the arms of the mullahs in Iran.

It will take a new, smart, and really adroit leadership in Washington, along with a fundamental rethinking of US strategic interests, to rescue us from the mess that the Bushists have created.

Posted by Jim Dandy | September 12, 2006 6:07 PM

this meeting does not change American interests in getting out of Iraq with as much dignity as possible and keeping Iran from having nukes.

no, it doesn't change those interests. but, only a small amount of imagination is needed to see how our ability to do either is hindered by the fact that the country we're trying to police/help/play-big-brother-to is best buddies with the country our loudmouth wackjobs are demanding that we nuke right now.

imagine your wife becoming close friends with the woman next door - the one who owns the dog that barks all night, shits in your lawn and recently killed your cat - the same woman who's been stealing packages off your porch - the one who's been putting up posters in the neighborhood with pictures of you and the words "Great Satan" underneath. but your wife and she get along great ... too bad for you

Posted by cleek | September 12, 2006 6:08 PM

"Why do you think these two things are incompatible?"

Many of us have been trying to explain to Al and his ilk the difference between Shiites and Sunnis, and what that means for Middle East politics, since 2002 or before. Wasted effort.

Posted by rea | September 12, 2006 7:19 PM

I believe that "Al" is a literary device used by liberals to ask absurd rhetorical questions from a "conservative" point of view which actually make liberal points by implication. Sort of like the character of "Stephen Colbert".

That said, an idiot obsessed with the 1938 foolishness would no doubt say that Iraq is Czechoslovakia, and that it's not terribly surprising that its PM feels reluctantly obligated to meet and shake hands with the tiger next door.

Posted by brooksfoe | September 12, 2006 9:01 PM

Mamoun Ahmadenijad

Hey, macaca, his name is Mahmoud. "Mamoun" sounds a lot like the Farsi word for monkey.

Posted by ogged | September 12, 2006 11:02 PM

We have no allies in Iraq. The Baathists are heirs to Saddam. The Shia are friends with Iran.

(Are we going to suddenly turn Iraq into Kurdistan? I don't think so.)

That dynamic was present from the beginning. We have cut off our nose to spite our face in Iraq. (More exactly: we have waged a war to give Bush leverage for his domestic agenda. That's the reason we can't leave. Without the trauma of 9/11, without Iraq, Bush has an ice cold hand and is left looking like a male Queen Elizabeth II for the rest of his term.)

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | September 13, 2006 9:07 AM