This Human Events interview with ex-Amb. John Bolton is interesting and valuable to read if only because his candid statements are about as close as you'll come to exploring the dark and twisted corridors of Dick Cheney's brain. Below I've pasted some excerpts which I find particularly worthy of note.
November 5, 2007 | Human Events
HE: Why aren't we doing more [about Iran meddling in Iraq]? I sat in general Gen. Vines'office in Baghdad two Decembers ago and got an extensive briefing on the EFPs (explosively-formed penetrators) being manufactured in Iran, sent into Iraq to kill American troops. And when I asked some senior Defense Department officials about that I didn't get a straight answer. I came away with the impression that they were under instructions from the president to not do anything about it. What's going on?
JB: Well I think if you look at statements from our commanders in Iraq over the past six months, it is a cry for help against the Iranian role inside Iraq. And I worry that the reason we're not being more aggressive in defending ourselves inside Iraq is that it would disrupt the EU Three negotiations over the Iranian nuclear weapons program. Why has the administration been unwilling to talk about the Israeli raid on September the 6th? Many people believe that it's because if the full truth came out, the Six Party talks would go into the tank. That's not a legitimate reason to keep the Iranian presence in Iraq, or the North Korean presence in Syria from the American people. And I think it's a real risk for Republicans especially, that if there are reasons why this information is being withheld, it will come back to haunt them later.
[In other words, Bush's Iraq policy is hurting his Iran policy. Doggoneit, why can't we have, like, a win-win? Shoot! Heck!
Idiotically, these neocons can't make the logical connection that orderly withdraw from Iraq would strengthen our position vis-a-vis Iran, and perhaps even "gift" Tehran a whole new host of preoccupying problems trying to manage its relationships with its chaotic neighbor. But Iraq is not about geostrategy anymore -- it's about saving Republican face, and saving the blessed option of pre-emptive war for future use by neocon Administrations. - J ]
[...]
JB: Well I would say, and I say this in the book, that there is really only one reform we really need [in the UN] and that is to move from assessed to voluntary contributions. If we could move our money around to wherever we wanted, I tell you reform would go just like that. (Snaps fingers) It would be a wonder to behold.
HE: What's the odds of actually setting up an alternative to the UN?
JB: I think it's very difficult. I know a number of people have proposed it but what you would need, a United Democratic Nations for example, you'd need the Europeans to join.
HE: And they ain't going to give up their playground.
JB: They like the UN the way it is. I think I try and show in the book, what many Americans find counter-intuitive, that a big part of the problem is not the Third World, it's the Europeans, who are cloning in some respect, the European Union in the UN system. Dealing with the Third World countries is easier in some respects, because you can put it right on the table, and sometimes you can make a deal with them.
[I.e. you can usually buy off or intimidate Third World countries, but it's much harder to do that with industrialized European democracies. What Bolton wants is a UN that represents only American interests. Such an "ideal" UN would, however, for obvious reasons, be useful to nobody but America, and would be a perfect farce of an institution. - J ]
[...]
JB: Russia -- I wouldn't give up on Russia. I think they have legitimate security concerns from Islamic fundamentalism, not only on their border but in their country. Putin has gone in the wrong direction, in many respects I think we've lost opportunities with Putin that we had in the early days of the administration that we don't have now.
HE: Can you elaborate a little on that?
JB: Well Putin acquiesced in our getting out of the ABM Treaty, he acquiesced in the Treaty of Moscow, which is the perfect arms control treaty -- it's three pages long, and it lasts for ten years and it's effective for one day. He allowed former Warsaw Pact members to join NATO. Now he criticizes us for all of this for his own domestic political purposes, but in part he can say "I can see the way the world is now and if the US wants this, fine, we'll go along with it."
[ Bolton's hubris is a perfect illustration of what's been wrong with U.S. policy toward Russia since President Clinton. Bolton can't fathom (or else admit) that Russia has real national interests other than combating Islamic terrorism. U.S. policy toward Russia since 1991 has basically been to rely on Russia's seeing "the way the world is now," i.e. seeing that American interests are real and paramount, whereas weakling Russia's interests are secondary and disposable. Oil at $100 a barrel is just one way a newly confident Russia can in fact remind America that Russian interests are not of secondary importance. - J ]
No comments:
Post a Comment