The Price Is Wrong
by sarabeth at 6:00 am on January 16th, 2007 in Iraq War, RiceCondi Rice has been hiding her light under a bushel all these years. Apart from all her other vast accomplishments (including but not limited to her enormous expertise in the interpretation of intelligence), she is also an economic thinker to be reckoned with, specifically in the area of pricing. In fact, she may have single-handedly founded a new economic discipline (which, of course, is the kind of thing for which they like to hand out Nobel prizes in Economics), what we might call political price theory.
She informed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Thursday that the US should not talk to Syria and Iran about Iraq under any circumstances, and she invoked political price theory to explain why. Simply put (something Condi is temperamentally incapable of doing), we can’t afford to. The price is too high.
If we try to engage them on Iraq, they will insist on talking about other things too. Iran will bring up our opposition to their nuclear program. Syria will bring up “the loss of (their) position in Lebanon”. Desperate as we are to achieve progress in Iraq, allowing Iran and Syria to bring up these topics is, in the analysis of Dr. Rice, “a price that we cannot pay”.
A lesser mind might be tempted to think that human lives needlessly lost and human beings needlessly maimed should count as a greater price than allowing Iran and Syria to bring up certain topics for discussion. That’s why they’re lesser minds.
Besides, these lesser minds presumably do not already have more than half a million lives on their “conscience”. Once you’re already in the dock for that much, what are another few hundred or few thousand lives? Whereas allowing Iran and Syria to attempt to subject us to “extortion” is another matter entirely. It might actually cause loss of face, depending on how we handled it. And we have precious little face left to lose. So exposing ourselves to the prospect of losing any of it is definitely too high a price to pay. Everyone should be able to see that.
To our eternal shame, none of us saw it before Thursday. But, luckily, we have Dr. Rice to help us along.
(Lesser minds might also conjecture that we may be unwilling to talk to Iran and Syria for other reasons, as well. For example, the fact that they may have absolutely no incentive to listen to us, to do anything other than string us along while they continue to do exactly what they are doing now. Or the fact that asking them for help on Iraq at all will be enormously humiliating, coupled with the certain knowledge that they will squeeze as much depraved enjoyment from our obvious discomfiture as possible.
Or how about the possibility that they might actually come up with the brilliant masterstroke of agreeing to unconditionally help us out in Iraq, thereby making every single assumption this administration has ever made about Iran and Syria, every single aspersion they have ever publicly cast upon them, look totally and incredibly misconceived? How much face Dr. Rice would lose then doesn’t even bear thinking about.
No, we definitely can’t afford to take the risk of asking them for help.)
benjoya wrote:
thanks for this post. it’s horrible that rice thinks “giving them a PR victory” is more valuable than human life. wha a POS
Posted 17 Jan 2007 at 9:04 am ¶
section9 wrote:
Or, setting Occam’s Razor aside for the moment, Dr. Rice might actually have seen intelligence suggesting that Iran’s Quds force is actively involved in killing American soldiers in Iraq and is at war with us. Why should they help us out of Iraq when they perceive that the better option, for them, is to humiliate us?
Sometimes liberals have to be told that nations act in their own self-interest. I shouldn’t actually have to come here and write this, put the post above was so ignorant of the strategic realities facing both Iran and the United States as to be beyond belief. Angry partisanship hides clear thinking.
Iran is like Russia, neither as strong as she appears, nor as weak as she seems. The way may actually be open for a diplomatic solution, but not until Iran realizes that it will not be allowed to create a new Persian Empire on the backs of the Arab League, which is its true ambition.
Meantime, as the second carrier task group pulled into the Indian Ocean area, Iran’s national security advisor, Larijani, sent a note to the Saudis indicating that all of a sudden the Iranians were willing to talk.
Now I wonder how that happened?
Posted 18 Jan 2007 at 7:01 am ¶
matt wrote:
oh the irony. maybe the manly neocon can explain when the US will happen upon one of those “sometimes.”
Posted 18 Jan 2007 at 7:09 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Funny, innit, how Dr. Rice has never put this forward as a reason for not talking to Iran?
There is obviously some deep diplomatic strategy behind her saying we can’t afford to talk to them because they’ll insist on bringing up their nuclear program.
Instead of wasting your time here with us liberal retards, maybe you should just have an enlightened discussion with the good doctor.
Posted 18 Jan 2007 at 10:07 am ¶