"America's Concentration on Iraq Has Led to Failure in Relations with Russia"
// A Democratic Party Veteran Gives an Interview to Kommersant
The US Democratic Party is demanding that the Republican administration immediately begin to withdraw American troops from Iraq. Meanwhile, it is understood that a withdrawal could lead to chaos becoming entrenched in the country and could turn Iraq into a breeding ground for terrorist threats to the entire world. Kommersant correspondent Dmitry Sidorov talks with Rand Beers, one of the Democratic Party's leading foreign policy strategists, about what the Democrats will do to solve the Iraq problem if their candidate wins the presidential elections in 2008.
Rand Beers has served as a counterterrorism advisor to four US presidents and was a member of the US National Security Council. He did not support President Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq in 2003, and he left the White House in protest five days before the war began. In 2004, Mr. Beers joined Democratic Senator John Kerry's presidential campaign as a national security consultant. If Mr. Kerry and his running mate, John Edwards, had won the election, Mr. Beers had been promised the post of presidential advisor on matters of national security. Under President Bush, the position is held by Steven Hadley.
One of your most important former clients, John Edwards, has decided to run for president in 2008. Last week he said that "the US should immediately withdraw 40,000-50,000 soldiers from Iraq, and the remainder should leave within a year." Do you agree with him?
At the current moment I do not support any of the candidates from the Democratic Party. The National Security Network, which I established, will not take sides until the Democrats have nominated a single candidate to run for president. With regard to Mr. Edwards' plan, I do not agree with the necessity of immediately withdrawing a 50,000-strong contingent from Iraq. We can talk about beginning to withdraw some of the troops from Iraq over the next three months. For the next year after that, we will need to decrease the number of combat troops and the operations that they are involved in. That way, by March 2008 the US presence in Iraq can be stripped down to supporting and training local troops and participating in counterterrorism maneuvers on a limited scale. I believe that for the next six to twelve months a continued US presence in Iraq will be necessary to ensure that the withdrawal of troops does not lead to chaos in the country.
And how should the vacuum that will remain after the withdrawal be filled?
It is essential to lay the diplomatic groundwork for a US departure from the current situation. I'm talking about conditions that should be stipulated during negotiations with Iraq's important neighbors and with key international players. That will be necessary in order to forestall the possibility of further exports of instability from within the country. I am certain that only this evolution of events, not an American presence, can lead to a political solution in Iraq.
About a month ago, another candidate from the Democratic Party, Joseph Biden, predicted that "the war will drag on longer than the current administration's remaining term in office." Do you agree with that statement?
Biden is probably correct. I do not think that Bush will agree to a significant decrease [in the number of troops in Iraq]. Consequently, he will hand over the resolution of the problem to the next occupant of the White House.
Let's say that George Bush does not begin to withdraw the troops and that the Democrats win the presidential election. What plan would you suggest for the new administration in the White House?
It is very difficult to predict the course of events in Iraq. Taking the current state of affairs as a point of reference, you have to understand what to do in order to lay greater responsibility for the economy and security on the legitimate Iraqi government. On the one hand, I hope that we will not encounter this problem [after the presidential elections]. On the other hand, I fear that things will take a significant turn for the worse. Look at how many years it took to resolve the situation in Lebanon: decades.
You have already spoken about the necessity of holding negotiations with Iraq's neighbors, including Iran. Will the current administration ever have a direct dialog with Tehran?
I have no problem with negotiating with opponents, because that is the path to resolving conflicts peacefully instead of with violence. Really, with the exception of the Second World War, it is very rare that military action brings total victory. Will [the White House] do that? Probably not.
The Republicans consider the topic of national security their personal territory. In 2004, John Kerry lost the presidential election to George Bush partly as a result of this issue. In 2008, the Democratic challenger will face a difference opponent, but that does not mean that the importance of the issue of professionalism in the sphere of security will disappear. How will the Democrats gain the upper hand in that area?
Despite his combat experience in Vietnam, Kerry could not convince the American people that he is a strong leader when it comes to national security. He could not bring out the kind of arguments that are necessary for a change of priorities, even though the Bush administration could not boast of much success in Iraq at that time. However, it is generally considered to be extremely difficult to unseat a president in wartime.
My last question is about Russia. In your view, what should Washington's policy in relation to Moscow be after Vladimir Putin's Munich speech?
Putin's speech in Munich presented his view of Russian-American relations and US cooperation with the rest of the world. Except for the public and direct nature of what was said, I was not surprised by what I heard. Putin's speech was not a revelation for me, especially considering how he must feel in Moscow looking at the events going on in the world. That does not mean that I agree with him. Nevertheless, I think that America's concentration on events in Iraq has led to failure in relations with Russia. There is none of the direct dialog that existed between us after the events of September 11, 2001.
What should the US do about that?
We should focus our efforts on reviving dialog with Russia and on better understanding Putin's position. That does not mean that we will have warm and friendly relations, but they should not be so confrontational.
Dmitry Sidorov (Washington)
All the Article in Russian as of Feb. 22, 2007
|
