A Response to John Bolton

This is a response to John Bolton's New York Times editorial, "Iraq's Victory, Iran's Lost."

I copied / pasted it from an email.



Bolton's logic is circular.

Basically, he doesn't address any real questions. Just jumps around and ends with some partisan attack (which is unfounded b/c pretty much all democrats have given McCain and republicans credit for the surge).

But here are some of the big problems I have with Bolton:

1. He doesn't address the whole idea behind the "Iraq is now closer to Iran" argument. The whole impetus behind the argument is that now Iraq is under Shi'ite rule. Iran is Shi'ite. The spiritual leader for the majority of Shi'ite Iraqi's is Sistani (who is Iranian but now lives in Iraq) or Khomeni (Iran's leader). Therefore, the religious and cultural ties are now virtually aligned. When you have Iraqi PMs that are actively trying to make pilgrimages between Iraq and Iran more accessible (like opening up access of Najaf to Iranian pilgrims), I'd say this makes the two nations closer. Sure, the idea that Iraq was better under Saddam because it was a counter-force to Iran is ridiculous. Nonetheless, the fact that Iraq and Iran are closer now than ever before is undebatable.

2. The idea that Iran will learn--and be inspired by Iraq--sounds like utter nonsense. What's there to inspire them?? Iran has what Iraq so desperately wants. Iran has both a democratically elected president and an institutionalized clergy that legislates. I think that is what most Iraqis want. Even if Iran's economy is tanking and discontent is growing (against Ahmadinejad), I think most people like the theocratic-democracy government that they have.

3. Does anyone in the media fucking realize that the Da'wa party (Maliki's party) is a religious party?? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills! Just check wikipedia if you want a superficial gloss of it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Dawa_Party). All these news reports about secular parties making gains make no sense because the secular party they're refering to is the Da'wa party! I don't think this is a bad thing (I think learning to blend democracy and religious/moral values is sort of necessary, especially in the Mid East--call me crazy), but it should be recognized by all these self-glorifying douches in DC. Just makes Bolton's comments seem really out-of-touch.

4. Quote: "Despite these successful elections, the sectarian and communal violence will not necessarily end, and we may even see the ultimate fragmentation of Iraq." What kind of caveat is this??? How can you call Iraq a "triumph in democracy" and then say this? It makes me confused.

Conclusion from 1-3:

- Iraq is closer to Iran, and the majority of Iraqis find spiritual, moral, and cultural ties to Iran's religious leaders (which is undeniable)
- Iran has a stake in a stable, Shi'ite-led Iraq.
- The US has a stake in a stable, Shi'ite-led Iraq, and seeks to cement close ties to Iraq.

Therefore;
Shouldn't the US work in conjunction (or at least in dialogue with Iran) to support Iraq? It's not a crazy idea. This scholar, Vali Nasr (a sort of sensationalist guy who conservatives respect for the most part) argues it. The US and Iran have common interests. And Iraq--whether we like it or not--is close to Iran. Rather than awkwardly bumbling around about security threats and balances, we should recognize these realities and engage in smart diplomacy.