(HOST) After all the discussions about Iraq this past week, what have we really learned? This morning, commentator Barrie Dunsmore who for more than three decades was a foreign and diplomatic correspondent for ABC News, gives us his assessment.
(DUNSMORE) The top general and the senior diplomat in charge of American interests in Iraq spent two full days being grilled by four Congressional committees that included the three remaining candidates for President. But to the fundamental question – how much longer must America continue to bear this three billion dollar a week burden? – they had no answer.
That’s because neither General David Petraeus nor Ambassador Ryan Crocker can answer it. They don’t make policy; they execute it. And the man whose policies they are executing, President George W. Bush, remains under the illusion that his decision to invade Iraq can still be vindicated with the creation of a peaceful, ethnically diverse democracy.
Actually, we did have two assumptions confirmed this week. After July there will be no further significant American troop withdrawals from Iraq, as long as Bush is in office. And, if Senator John McCain is elected, there won’t likely be any for some time to come after that, either.
After listening to the hearings for many hours, I did come away with one strong feeling: namely, that if there is ever going to be even a "sloppy solution" in Iraq, to use Senator Barack Obama’s term, the United States is going to have to seriously deal with Iran. We heard quite a bit about the malevolent influence of Iran in Iraqi affairs – that it’s training and arming Shiite extremists and militias and is therefore responsible for American and Iraqi deaths. I do not doubt that for a moment.
I am neither naïve, nor soft on the often diabolical theocrats who run Iran. But I do know this. If during the Cold War the Soviets had invaded Canada, the United States would have taken that as a major threat to American national security. In fact, when the Russians put nuclear missiles into neighboring Cuba, it nearly ignited World War III.
So how do you suppose the Iranians feel about presence of tens of thousands of American troops occupying neighboring Iraq for the past five years – especially when the current President of the United States has talked openly of forcing regime change in Tehran. Of course they feel threatened, and of course they are trying to influence events in Iraq to enhance what they see as their interests.
The way to counter that is to engage Iran at the highest levels. That means the United States must abandon its counter-productive stance that links high level negotiations with Iran to a freeze in the Iranian nuclear program. That would not only open the door to ministerial-level discussions on Iraq – it would also put new life into the stalled nuclear discussions between Europe and Iran, which the U.S. could then completely join. Such negotiations could take several years and would probably produce a less than perfect outcome. But it’s both a potential way to end the occupation of Iraq and to prevent the even greater catastrophe of war with Iran.