1970’s Redux
Zbegniew Brzezinski’s in the NYTimes today, analyzing the offerings from Bush and Kerry on Iraq and making a lot of sense, a function he served under Jimmy Carter back in the days when the Arab-Israeli conflict started looking like there might be a lasting and hopeful turning point, i.e., previous to the assassination of Sadat. It’s all gotten a lot more complex since then, and while “stay the course” has been dissatisfying coming from George II, the prospect that that’s all that Kerry’s got to offer so far, irrespective of any improvements in America’s relations with its allies, has been similarly dismaying. As much as I believe that keeping Bush in office just so he can get us out of the mess he’s gotten us into is a counterproductive option, I also believe that Kerry’s going to have to come up with something very good indeed to be effective on this situation, and just being “someone else” isn’t enough. Brzezinski’s program - relieving the Palestinian-Israeli tension plus a commitment from Europe on Iraq plus a real effort on getting Iran to negotiate and back off going nuclear – sounds better than anything else I’ve heard so far. Maybe it’s just that it shows a more sweeping vision of engaging in the region than has been on offer previously, but isn’t that the kind of “changed world” problem-solving approach that’s called for these days? It’s fine for Bush to say everything’s different since 9/11, but he’s not doing anything newer than was done when the Ottomans threatened to overrun Europe. Kerry says he wants to be smarter in combating terrorism; here’s his chance.