USA before the Sphinx: what to do in Iraq?

Published on Monday, December 11, 2006 by the Boston Globe
Desperate for Answers to All-Important Iraq Riddle
by James Carroll

In mythology, when the ancients were desperate for an answer, they would present themselves to the Sphinx and ask their question. The Sphinx would reply with a riddle. The riddle would reveal the needed wisdom. But to go to the Sphinx was an act of desperation because, if you failed to answer the riddle correctly, the Sphinx would kill you.

Our nation stands before the Sphinx today. That is how desperate we are about Iraq. What is the good way out of a bad war? We hired the Baker commission to speak for us, and it was remarkable for its frank assessment of the Bush administration's failure, labeling the American effort as weak, deteriorating -- "not working." The commission identified the two realms within which the answer to the war can be found. Subsequent discussions have further illuminated the situation. Within Iraq, the three main parties to the conflict must be helped to deal with one another . A road to negotiation among Kurds, Shi'ites and Sunnis must be opened, so that they themselves can begin to resolve the question of their governance, whether through the present unitary constitution or through adjustments that would give each party autonomy.

The Baker commission explained, though, that such local resolution cannot happen without the positive support of the parties in the region -- the second realm. And here the dominant party is Iran, with which the Bush administration refuses to talk. Military force so dominates Bush thinking that no diplomatic initiative seems possible. Democrats are as paralyzed by the military mindset as Republicans. The impasse between Tehran and Washington thus emerges as the main obstacle to larger peace. The Baker commission, and the discourse it sponsored, laid all this out, even as the White House reiterated its refusal to deal with Iran -- displaying thereby its absolute lack of any idea for Iraq except more of the same. Bush will "prevail." Only "victory" will do. Not even Bush seems to know what these words mean. If there is a better idea, no one offers it.

So here we are before the Sphinx, with what seems an unsolvable problem. The war is killing our young. The war is devastating the people of Iraq. The war empowers the nihilistic fringe of Islam, which now threatens to ignite the entire Middle East. Because oil is at issue, the global economy is at risk. If America stays in Iraq, the violence will worsen. If America leaves Iraq, the violence will worsen. What can we do to stop this? Even after the Baker commission, no one knows.

For a long time, the Sphinx just looks at us, the famous stare. Finally, the Sphinx offers up the riddle: "I took you into this war. Adjust your thinking about me, and I can bring you out. If you refuse to change, I will destroy you. What am I?"

Once the question is put, the answer is obvious. Nuclear weapons. The Bomb is the Sphinx in the living room. Whatever first motivated President Bush to invade Iraq, Congress and the nation approved only out of dread that Saddam Hussein was obtaining nuclear weapons. Saddam's nukes turned out to be an illusion, but the fear was real, and led to our mistake. Today's war began with yesterday's nuclear nightmare.

That fear dominates us again, only now in relation to Iran. Washington says it will stop at nothing to prevent Iran's arming itself with nukes -- but in fact nothing in Washington's present strategy can stop Tehran, which is the main revelation of failure in Iraq. Military force is the new impotence, but we will flail away, preferring death to diplomacy. This course keeps us stuck in Iraq, while guaranteeing Iran's going nuclear.

"Adjust your thinking," the riddle says. Since 1945, the United States has refused to submit its nuclear program to authentic international controls, while insisting, since 1968, the year of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, that other nations must submit in just that way. This nuclear double standard is the issue. Iran's nuclear ambition is only to have what America has. Hence the impasse. No riddle here.

Washington must renounce the nuclear double standard, recommitting itself to nuclear abolition. The reason Iran should not have nuclear weapons is that no country should. With that one stroke, the entire dynamic would change. Negotiations with Iran would be purposeful. Iran would have reason to defuse the bomb of Iraq. The Sphinx itself would be disarmed.

Paschal: some realism in this, but also very un-real idealism, e.g. that the U.S. should or would renounce nuclear weapons. Show me the leader who would even suggest this?