McNamara hits at ‘very dangerous’ US policy on Iran and N Korea (Financial Times)
For Mr McNamara the bottom line is simple: lacking viable military options, the only weapon the US has to engage North Korea and Iran is diplomacy.
“[President George W.] Bush says no option is off the table, but in my mind the military option is off the table,” he says.
An attack on North Korea, he believes, would result in a devastating retaliatory attack on South Korea. He says invading Iran is inconceivable for different reasons.
“We don’t even have enough soldiers in Iraq,” he says. “Where would we get troops for Iran?”
He says the US should provide Kim Jong-il, North Korean leader, with more than just a guarantee of non-aggression by declaring it is not pursuing regime change.
“I don’t see any reason that the US shouldn’t make clear that regime change [in North Korea] is not our objective,” says Mr McNamara. “That’s the way we settled the Cuban missile crisis,” he adds, referring to the US guarantee that it would not attack Cuba. Mr McNamara says that while Pyongyang is very difficult to negotiate with, the US has to “understand what motivates them”. “We have to address their fundamental concerns, which are associated with regime change.”
Of course, as Rove has said that trying to understand the enemies of the USA is akin to being a traitor, this is not a viable option for Bush’s White House, is it?
Diplomats are “liberals”. You must not show weakness or understanding. Don’t you understnad this, Bob?
According to Mr McNamara, Iran poses a more complicated problem. Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, it is entitled to enrich uranium to levels required for power generation. But many countries, including the US, are concerned that if Iran can complete the fuel cycle for nuclear energy, the country – which last week elected as its president Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad, regarded by Washington as a hardline conservative – would be only a step away from the ability to develop a nuclear weapon.
Britain, France and Germany have been negotiating with Iran since last year on eliminating its nuclear programme. While the US has come around to supporting the Europeans’ efforts, it has refused to engage in direct talks with Iran. Mr McNamara argues that this has to change.
The former defence secretary sees two solutions: either the US guarantees Iran a supply of nuclear fuel, or it permits Iran to develop fuel by allowing it to enrich uranium to the level required for power generation. He says International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors should be enlisted to make sure it does not enrich uranium to levels necessary to build a nuclear bomb.
Again, diplomacy, compromise, giving something to the enemy. Bob is a traitor. And he is supporting the eurowimps? Shame on him.
Mr McNamara says the US needs to change tack with its diplomacy. In his 1995 autobiography In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam, he wrote that US generals opposed pauses in bombing North Vietnam – which some officials believed would provide an opportunity to open negotiations with the regime – because it would be interpreted as a sign of weakness. Today, he says the administration has the same problem: it is “scared” to negotiate with countries such as North Korea and Iran for fear of being seen as weak.
That’s the thing with being tough that he does not understand. No need for diplomacy, no need for compromise. No need for results. Being tough is an end in itself.
Why does McNamara hate America?
Sorry if I am not around so much – busy keeping the European Tribune full of fresh content…
This diary is crossposted over at dKos for your recommendations. There is no bad publicity, only publicity!
Thanks for getting this out to us. Looks to me like no option is ON the table . . . except for continued stupidity and incompetence.
What nuclear diplomacy? This administration’s lack of interest in nuclear diplomacy is suspicious. Why are they going to produce more plutonium? Why are they working on bunker buster nukes? So they can finish an enemy off quickly and not have to deal with “insurgents” in future wars? Negotiate with Korea? With Iran?… this administration can’t even negotioate with Democrats and calls us traitors. The quicker we take out the political garbage (Republicans in the White House) the brighter the future of the whole world will be.
dubya, George W., was “warned” in early 2001 by daddy dear (George H. W. Bush) about the need to sit down and negotiate with North Korea. Since then dubya has refused to negotiate publicly with the N. Koreans. Since daddy told him he needs to do it, he’s not going to do it.
This is a key thing to keep in mind when appraising dubya’s skills. He’s pig-headed. Not right, not wrong, but obstinate. Pig-headed thick, and he ain’t gonna do what daddy tells him to do…
He’s a ten-year-old drunk.
As for Iran, I wonder if the game plan has always been to goad the Iranians into some action and then respond with a nuke attack on all the Iranian facilities (a la the Israeli attack on Baghdad) and probably supporting military facilities. A rough translation: No need for ground troops.
They (the entire administration and present Republican party) are wet-brained stupid enough to think they could get away with it.
Ten-year-olds. Drunks. It doesn’t have to make sense.
with your doomsday scenario. If they nuke Iranian facilities, they contaminate Iranian oil. The whole point of their empire-fantasies is controling all the world’s oil resources, not destroying them.
to protect the Iraqi oil infrastructure?
These clowns were expecting to have Rose Pedals at their feet in Baghdad…
One problem when looking at their actions is equating impulse with ideology. All we’re really seeing is wing nut nutation.
At any rate, how does bombing nuclear and military facilities and contaminate Iranian oil?
And, would the oil companies really care if the oil was radioactive? Or that oil field workers would have to work in contaminated fields?
eh?
Oil is underground. They don’t even need to get near the fields and refineries. Those can be taken by commando raids. They don’t even need to nuke the cities.
Back in the fifties and sixties we nuclearized our entire war-fighting arsenal. We had nuclear anti-aircraft missiles (for homeland defense). We had battlefield nuclear weapons that were field-tested in the presence of troops. Later we developed the neutron bomb. This is almost a stealth nuke. With one tenth the blast of Hiroshima it has nearly the same kill radius. If it is an air-burst, there might NOT be visible surface damage beyond the fact that everyone is dead and dying,
The US has tested and presumably still has monster 50 gt bombs and tiny little nukes in the .5 kt range. There are plans, old plans to be sure, that can come into play when the gloves are off: all nuclear, all the time.
Please note that this is how NATO planned to fight a Soviet invasion: “We fight like hell for three days and then blow up the world.” He meant that then the order would be given to release tactical nuclear weapons and nobody expected that the escalation would not lead to a full strategic exchange. However, if there is to be no strategic exchange, then the ‘barriers to entry’ fall quite a bit, no?
had started using his f’n brain forty years ago.