Appeasement Never Works

The Tribune editorializes on Baker-Hamilton this morning, calling the report "tough". Here is another view. Robert Tracinski, WSJ:

The whole ISG report is a spectacular punt. It contains a few broad, vague goals for our policy--and a whole range of specific recommendations for actions that are not in the power of the American government to take. It recommends, for example, that the Iraqi government "accelerate assuming responsibility for Iraqi security by increasing the number and quality of Iraqi Army Brigades," that the Iranian government "use its influence over Iraqi Shiite groups to encourage national reconciliation" and that the Syrian government "stem the flow of funding, insurgents, and terrorists in and out of Iraq."

The members of the commission certainly hope that these governments will take those actions. But then again, they very well might not.

What the ISG offers us are mere aspirations, with no serious consideration of the concrete means required to fulfill those aspirations.

We should negotiate with Iran and Syria to convince them to help stabilize Iraq, but then James Baker angrily denies that this would mean caving in and allowing Iran to continue its nuclear weapons program, and he angrily denies that it would mean caving in and allowing Syria to re-conquer Lebanon. In other words, he wants to ask Iran and Syria to help us in Iraq--while ruling out the only concessions that might induce them to do so. At the same time, the ISG also rules out any serious military threat that would force Iran and Syria to abandon their current strategy.

And Ralph Peters, USA Today:

Now the ISG report, which appears to reflect Baker's world view, resurrects our fateful Cold War-era mistakes with proposals that would reward police states that have promoted chaos in Iraq: By turning to them hat in hand, Baker would further inflate the ambitions of Iran's radical regime while rewarding the cynical — and murderous — behavior of Syria's government. A policy of calculated confrontation would offer more hope — appeasement doesn't work anywhere, but it's especially counterproductive in the Middle East.....

Even the report's insistence on the centrality of diplomatic negotiations betrays an obsolete understanding of the world. Diplomacy is uncritically accepted as the answer to all of the Middle East's problems, yet we've been trying it for six decades and the region is arguably worse off today than ever in our lifetimes. You cannot negotiate effectively with interlocutors who either have no interest in talking to you — because they're convinced they're winning — or who view the world as a zero-sum game. Our style of diplomacy presupposes a commonality of interests that simply does not exist in the Middle East.

Meanwhile Syria assassinates Lebanese leaders and Iran holds Holocaust denial conferences while continuing on its nuclear path, and its president continues to make statements threatening the destruction of Israel---its "days are numbered". Meanwhile our military, whom the American public trusts to do the right thing, is presenting another plan today advocating an intensified effort in Iraq.