Try Everything -- But Not That!

Leon Wieseltier on Iraq with some emphasis added:

We cannot quit on moral grounds, because we have an obligation to assist the secular democracy-builders in Iraq, the heroes in the wreckage, whose cause is not yet lost, and we have an obligation to protect the Kurds. And we cannot quit on strategic grounds, because of the gains to Iran and to the terrorist international. So what should we do? Briefly, anything and everything. An increase in troop deployments for the mastery of Baghdad, upon which a great deal depends (if order is not established, nothing good will be established); reform of the Iraqi military, or of what passes for the Iraqi military; redeployment to less provocative locations; a federal arrangement of the Iraqi state; an international conference (but about Iraq, not Palestine); an attempt to flip Syria to our side, which is not beyond the diplomatic imagination; anything and everything. If we leave, or if we stay the bleeding course, things will get even worse.

This is all a pony hunt as far as I'm concerned so on some level, whatever. That said, suppose Bush were to go pony hunting at a regional conference wherein Syria agrees to "flip . . . to our side" and various other actors agree to do ponyish things but they say that in order to sell it to their publics and in order to prove American bona fides they need us to, say, get the IDF out of Gaza. That's off the table? Iraq is so important and leaving so bad that we should do anything -- anything -- to salvage some scrap of dignity their, but Israel is totally off the table for discussion in any respect. Total US backing for whatever Israel is just beyond all possible trading off? As I say, hypothetical pony hunt outcomes aren't my top concern, but the general principle here seems obviously pernicious.

Comments

MY - I thought that in a previous post you had rejected the idea of offering Iran inducements to cooperate re. WMDs & Iraq based on inter alia changing US policy towards Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank. This post seems a move towards coming around to openness on that sort of deal, at least in principle.

Posted by otto | November 20, 2006 5:22 PM

You just keep getting ballsier and ballsier, Matt. Where will it end? Soon you'll be suggesting that certain American foreign policy commentators actually value Israeli interests more than U.S. interests. Only an anti-semite could possibly think such an insane thing!

Posted by MQ | November 20, 2006 5:22 PM

Why are you even bothering to comment on this? The general principle of TNR when it comes to Israel is Martin Peretz's nutcase politics = hand of God.

Besides, I don't think the Bush Administration could get the Israelis out of Gaza or take even the slightest action which would be viewed as "anti-Israel." Their support base is so small that they just can't anger their Likudist and more importantly, extremist Christian conservative supporters. Any sort of concession to Iran or Syria on this front (or probably any front for that matter) will both utterly alienate their most powerful core. The incredible embarrassment of fighting a war with the purpose of overthrowing Iran and Syria (the road to Tehran leads through Baghdad) and then being forced to pay them for their assistance to get the hell out of it doesn't strike me as winning kudos from anyone else either. I'm betting these negotiations are just a delaying ploy to dump the tough decisions onto his successor.

Posted by skyler | November 20, 2006 5:29 PM

I took him to mean that the primary focus of the discussion should be Iraq, not the business in Palestine. If Syria is prepared to flatly offer us a deal like that, maybe we should accept it, but what is far more likely is useless table-pounding on all sides. So maybe all Wieseltier is saying is that the such lines of negotiation would probably be unprofitable.

I might forbid discussion of fabulous treasures at my next conference, but if someone shows up offering me a briefcase full of money, I'm not going to turn him down.

Posted by apk01004 | November 20, 2006 5:29 PM

Any & every means, but perhaps W. deems what he takes off the table not to be means, but only ends, part of the definition of success (or not losing).

Posted by KH | November 20, 2006 5:52 PM

You know, as time goes on my reponse to the whole moral equivalence "argument" has gone from a response of "yes, of course you are right, we aren't as bad as them, but it doesn't excuse our bad acts," to "yes, of course you are right, we are worse than them."

The only nut jobs calling for a war of extermination (most regretably, of course) are on "our" side.

The whole "cheering for the enemy" meme was, of course, with regard to Iraq, a canard, but should be attack Iran, I will pray for and cheer every Iranian victory.

Approximately 20% of the american populace, at least, is either certifiably insane or deeply evil. I weep for this country. We are the bad guys.

I hope Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney and Rice burn in hell for all eternity.

Posted by patriot | November 20, 2006 5:55 PM

This administration has totally abandoned the peace process in Palestine. They viewed it as "unsolveable," and felt it would harm their prestige to get in the middle of the dispute, since it could only end in failure. That policy has continued to today.
Because of the policy of neglect, and support for the Israeli right batting "the terrah-rists" Bush feels Israel should do whatever it wants.
You can't expect the ledership that supported a continuation of the recent war in Lebanon to actually step up and push for a withdrawl of Gaza. It is the administration of never back down, never redeploy, and never say you are sorry. Any sins of the IDF is awlays wiped away by the use of suicide bombers (even though that front has been pretty quiet as of late). Because Palestinians have used these bombers, they are on the other side of the line in the war on terror, they are not with us, but with the enemy. And as we know, people with the enemy have no fundamnetal human rights, because they are the Bad (and you can't enjoy rights when you are dead/they would behead you so we can torture them and we are still marginally better).
Connecting peace in Palestine with greater middle-east stability makes too much sense, so don't expect this administration to even try it.

Posted by agorabum | November 20, 2006 6:53 PM

You know...Michael O'Hanlon has had the perfectly reasonable suggestion for some months now that Washington consider a policy of voluntary relocation for ethnic and religious minorities to their respective majority zones. If things works out you end up with a loose federation and if things don't work out you end with three separate countries. But all this prattle about increasing troop levels (we don't really have anyhow), international conferences, enhanced counterinsurgency measures (in the middle of a civil war? pfhh) really start to get on the nerves.

Posted by Linus | November 20, 2006 7:07 PM

Why is it up to us, to solve the Israeli-Palestenian conflict anyway?

Posted by DRR | November 20, 2006 8:27 PM

Why is it up to us to take any diplomatic action which advances our interests?

Posted by otto | November 20, 2006 8:39 PM

Not that the subject matter in and of itself isn't important or interesting, but I've read various stuff by this Wieselter guy for years and am still at a loss as to what he supposedly knows about that anyone cares what he thinks about anything. He seems to stumble through this topic as badly as he stumbles through pretty much everything he writes about and doesn't know anything about, which is again, just about everything. Again, is there anything Wieselter actually knows about? Why does anyone publish him at all? He's got to know something.

Posted by j mct | November 20, 2006 8:39 PM

Why is it up to us, to solve the Israeli-Palestenian conflict anyway?

Good f'ing question.

Posted by TW Andrews | November 20, 2006 8:51 PM

We cannot quit killing the people we used to support who used to kill the people we're supporting who support the people who we're gonna kill next.

Do we live in great times or what?

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | November 20, 2006 9:11 PM

"Why is it up to us, to solve the Israeli-Palestenian [sic] conflict anyway?"

Well, right now we're spending billions of dollars supporting Israel, much of which goes to the occupation of Palestine. So long as we continue to fund an occupation that is immoral and a human rights disaster, it does seem like we have some obligation to try and resolve the underlying issues. Or would you instead be prepared to totally end our entanglement in the area risk responsibility for the destruction of the Jewish state?

I appreciate the impulse to whine about how icky it is, and how those people over there should handle their own business, really, but it would be a lot less irresponsible if your tax dollars weren't a hugely important factor in the whole hellish situation.

Posted by Sam L. | November 20, 2006 9:15 PM

but Israel, but Israel, but Israel. Always, but Israel. You want Israel for the longterm, get rid of Zionism. Israel is Palestine. Ignore that at your own risk.

Posted by The Other Alan | November 20, 2006 9:24 PM

Wieseltier writes the most idiotic stuff, and yet a significant portion of the writers he prints in the books section of TNR is really very good. Or it used to be -- I don't read it anymore.

Also, it was Wieseltier who finally forced Andrew Sullivan out, telling Peretz in effect "him or me." Surely he gets some credit for that?

Posted by lemuel pitkin | November 20, 2006 10:08 PM

Why is it up to us, to solve the Israeli-Palestenian conflict anyway?

It's not. Nor is it up to us to maintain Israel economically, militarily and diplomatically. Perhaps we should just disengage ourselves entirely from that tiny corner of the world. Let Israel try vetoing a few UN resolutions on their own for a change.

However, if Israel and its supporters do continue to demand that the US support that state economically, militarily and diplomatically, then it seems to me a reasonable demand on our part, in exchange for our support, that Israel accept a resolution of their conflict with the Palestinians on terms that may fall well short of Israel's own preferences, but which accommodate the interests of the millions of Americans who pay a daily price for being Israel's best global buddy and pal. There is little doubt that the current noxious combination of vigorous and unflagging US support for Israel, combined with intransigent Israeli colonization, occupation and progressive annexation of the West Bank, is harmful to the interests of most Americans.

Posted by Dan Kervick | November 20, 2006 10:18 PM

I would do anything for Peace, but I won't do That!

Posted by dj moonbat | November 20, 2006 11:10 PM

Why is it up to us, to solve the Israeli-Palestenian conflict anyway?

Because our largest aid recipient is Israel and our second largest aid recipient is Egypt, who gets the money for Israel-related reasons. There's no problem, in principle, with the idea that we should just wash our hands of the whole situation, but to do that viably we would actually have to wash our hands of it. If we did, it not only wouldn't be "up to us" to solve it, but there'd be very little in practice we could do. In the real world, our aid to Israel gives us responsibility (both in terms of abstract morality and practical politics) to be involved in finding a settlement and gives us some means to contribute constructively.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | November 20, 2006 11:24 PM

In other words Mr. Yglesias you stand arm in arm with the nearly 90% of Jews who voted for Jew-hating Democrats in the last election because they hate Israel and Jesus and themselves.

Posted by Linus | November 21, 2006 12:01 AM

Enough of this our-aid-to-Israel-gives-us-responsibility stuff. The US gets involved anywhere in the world it wants to, whether we're giving the states in question aid or not. If that other state's policies are producing externalities for the US, that's warrant alone for our involvement to defend our interests.

Posted by otto | November 21, 2006 12:04 AM

Are we really in a position to contribute constructively? Especially Post-Iraq/Afghanistan?

I'm skeptical of the idea that American aid to the state of Israel somehow makes us responsible for their affairs. But if the outsized aid is something that really bothers people, then they should instead be harping about changing that, or bringing it more into line with other countries. Oppose the close relationship between the two states vociferously, call AIPAC a 5th column & sponsor an alternative Israeli organization. Launch a scorched earth campaign against the "Card carrying members of Likud" and announce their numbers, root out the Zionist Occupied Government, whatever.

But I can't see how we would be better tasked to solve this conflict or better understand the issues involved than the Israelis & Palestenians themselves. The Israelis, no matter how diverse their opinions may be on the matter compared to stateside commentariat,they probably have a much firmer grasp & more nuanced understanding of this situation than those who sit from afar & judge. Let the Israeli left set out the terms. Or at the very least, make it the task of an International Organization.

Posted by DRR | November 21, 2006 12:06 AM

Israel is only going to make the concessions it needs to make when one of two things happen 1) Palestinians outnumber Arabs, forcing Israel to either abandon Zionism or embrace apartheid or 2) the US stops being Israel's buttboy. Palestinian militants could only possible make real, long-term concessions if Israel made concessions first. Israel not only receives more aid from the US than anyone, it receives it on terms we don't even grant countries like Taiwan, which is a democracy under constant threat of being overrun by the world's most powerful dictatorship. It is your tax dollars that is being used in Gaza and the West Bank.

Posted by Reality Man | November 21, 2006 2:48 AM

If you want to support the secular Iraqi democrats, there is a highly effective way of doing so that is available to every US citizen - sponsor their application for a green card. It could save their life.

Bloviating is extremely unlikely to help them in any measurable way.

Posted by Alex | November 21, 2006 5:51 AM

I really think it would be hard to invent such silliness. Do these people think anyone can take them seriously; do they take themselves seriously. Wieseltier is a cartoon of the right-wing Israeli-supporter/neocon for which all issues revolve around Israel and its domination of the Middle East.

Posted by della Rovere | November 21, 2006 9:00 AM

It is also kind of odd that he throws Israel-Palestine in there all of a sudden in an article on Iraq and only to say that we don't need to do anything for the people we've helped Israel to oppress for decades. TNR is now a one-trick pony. It is also kind of funny how TNR - supposedly a center-left magazine - tries to first 1) portray Israel as a nation of right-wing bigoted crazies and 2) act like this would be a good thing. The fact that Israel used to be much farther to the left than us economically and is still probably to our left is rather ignored. They also often ignore so is the leadership vacuum in Israel, the Israeli deep-seated and justifiable hatred of the settlers. They are enablers of the worst Israel has over the best Israel has.

Posted by Reality Man | November 21, 2006 10:22 AM

Why is it up to us, to solve the Israeli-Palestenian conflict anyway?

Um, because the entire world blames us for it?

Posted by Gary Sugar | November 21, 2006 10:48 AM

This is beautiful. Wieseltier really lets the cat out of the fucking bag (as if "the road to Jerusalem runs through Baghdad" weren't enough).

Posted by brendan | November 21, 2006 3:42 PM