Bullying is not leadership, Mr. Bolton
In a recent interview with FOX News, UN Ambassador Bolton gave a grim analysis of the state of affairs with Iran. He said the following as an answer to Neil Cavuto's question if the U.S. would act alone in a military campaign against Iran:
Thats why he says no option is taken off the table. But its also why he has, the President, has reached out President Putin and other leaders in the past couple of days to say, Were making a significant step here, that will be criticized by many of the presidents staunchest supporters here at home. But hes taking this step to show strength and American leadership and to say hes willing to do something that may be unpopular even with some of his supporters, to remove all excuses from Iran and its supporters to say, We went the extra mile. We gave Iran really, this last chance to show that they are serious when they say they dont want nuclear weapons. This is put or shut up time for Iran. (emphasis mine)
There are two things that disturb me with this quote:
First, the CIA has reported that Iran is about 10 years away from developing a nuclear weapon. While a nuclear Iran would be completely unacceptable, 10 years is an awfully long time to negotiate. Why are we even discussing a military option now? Why talk like it's the eleventh hour when it's not?
Second, the administration has tried to paint the concept of leadership as having a big, bullying mouth. Statements like "wanted dead or alive," "bring 'em on," and now "put up or shut up" are far from constructive in the diplomatic discourse. Blind aggression is not leadership, it is a sign of fear. Bullies fight because they fear looking weak. The Bush administration is showing bully leadership, not because they are strong, but because they fear being seen as weak. Contrast this with Reagan's toughness or Truman's toughness, and you will see an entirely different strategy. A true leader never takes the military option off the table, but he also doesn't neglect diplomacy by shooting his mouth off in false bravado either.
Cheers,
Jeff
1 Comments:
1. 10 years away? Well, the NIE has never been wrong, eh? In 1993, the CIA said that Iran was 8-10 years away from getting nukes - so let's just say that their track record (on this and so many other things) has not exactly been stellar.
The U.S. built nuclear weapons - something that had never been done before in human history - in only three years, using 1940s technology. Iran has been working on its nuclear program for over 20 years, using modern technology purchased with billions of dollars of oil revenue. And we're supposed to believe that they're still another 10 years away?
2. Just what is wrong with "put up or shut up"? Should he have instead said, "The UN has dithered away the last 20 years, so no problem if it dithers away the next few years - by which time, of course, it will be too late".
Iran's government is counting on just such fecklessness, which is why the EU-Russia tripartite negotiations went nowhere. Their plan is to talk, talk, talk, taking one tiny step backward for every ten steps forward, thus placating the international appeasement lobby.
To hell with that - the time to say "put up or shut up" is not premature, it is long past due.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home