Thompson's "Fireside Chats" Leadership

Pundits, radio hosts, and bloggers are working feverishly to identify every conceivable comparison between undeclared (but clearly fundraising and campaigning) presidential candidate Fred Thompson and the most revered conservative in modern memory, Ronald Reagan. They point out several traits Thompson appears to share with Reagan: a successful acting career; a commanding personal presence; possession of plain, articulate speaking skills; and a deftness with handling the media. While it may be unfair to compare any candidate to the larger-than-life legacy of Reagan, many conservatives go to great lengths to insist that Thompson, perhaps more so than any other candidate (except perhaps the likewise undeclared Newt Gingrich), could carry the Reagan mantle to victory in 2008. Yet perhaps Thompson supporters are missing another important comparison they could and should be making: Thompson bears similarities to Reagan and to Franklin D. Roosevelt. Whomever conservatives choose to nominate in 2008 must concern himself with carrying the dual mantles of Reagan and FDR.

Why is the mantle of FDR important for a conservative candidate in 2008? Stated simply, FDR led America through the Great Depression and World War II by talking directly to the people and explaining the challenges facing the nation and what Americans could do to overcome them in terms they could understand. He did not do this by depending on newspaper reporters to be objective and inform the people of his policies and decisions on his behalf. He did not rely on the entrenched media figures of his era to make his case for him or put media spin on current events. FDR instinctively understood that a president leads best by making direct appeals to his countrymen or if not appeals, at least informing them of current events from his perspective rather than passing through any political correctness filters. FDR’s famous Fireside Chats, thirty direct broadcasts to the nation between 1933 and 1944, were a tremendous use of existing media to unite farmers and laborers enduring the Depression, to describe war in Europe and America’s neutrality, and to explain eventual American entry into the war and provide progress reports designed to promote continued sacrifice and commitment to victory.

As an example of the direct and simple appeal to citizens commonly found in the Fireside Chats, on December 9, 1941, FDR gave the following update on the aftermath of the Pearl Harbor attack (Chat #19):

We are now in this war. We are all in it -- all the way. Every single man, woman and child is a partner in the most tremendous undertaking of our American history. We must share together the bad news and the good news, the defeats and the victories -- the changing fortunes of war.

So far, the news has been all bad. We have suffered a serious setback in Hawaii. Our forces in the Philippines, which include the brave people of that Commonwealth, are taking punishment, but are defending themselves vigorously. The reports from Guam and Wake and Midway Islands are still confused, but we must be prepared for the announcement that all these three outposts have been seized.

A politician could not speak more plainly than FDR did on that occasion. Undoubtedly the honesty and simplicity of the message created trust and loyalty among his listeners, who in short order served under his leadership as Commander in Chief. Direct communication resulted in direct and vigorous involvement in the war effort. He minced no words. Things appeared bleak, and that bleakness would only be reversed by all out war and total victory.

Fred Thompson, more than any other conservative candidate to date (except perhaps Newt Gingrich), is utilizing today’s available media to communicate his ideas directly to Americans. People are not gathered together as families around the radio to hear these modern versions of the Fireside Chat, but they can subscribe to Thompson’s “chats”, which come in form of columns or news commentary, via email or read them through links on nearly every Internet news site. He covers a wide variety of topics, ranging from confronting Iran, to Israel’s remarkable patience under fire from Palestinians, to calling for the U.S. to renew the practice of broadcasting pro-democracy programming via radio and Internet directly into nations oppressed by totalitarian governments. FDR chatted with the American people in his broadcasts, and Thompson’s guest columns on National Review Online, Townhall.com, or the Wall Street Journal’s online OpinionJournal give readers the sense that he is speaking informally and directly to them. Like FDR and Reagan, Thompson has a knack for communicating in an endearing and sincere manner that is best experienced without media filters or punditry. Americans joke, only slightly facetiously, that current presidential addresses take 45 minutes but the pundits interpret or translate what the president meant to say for days afterward. Great communicators need no pundit interpreters.

For all his charisma and organizational skills, it is mind boggling that Mitt Romney, arguably the most articulate of the current GOP candidates, did not adopt Thompson’s media strategy. Thompson’s guest columns are brief, usually approximately one page at most. They appear regularly, and are met with great interest and broad readership on the conservative Internet sites. Romney has frequented radio talk shows and news channel studios, and has aggressively advertised in early primary states via television spots. Thompson has also done all of these except the TV spots. Romney’s official web site, however, only offers readers a skeleton glimpse of his policy positions. Writing guest columns for conservative blogs or Internet sites, as Thompson does, would increase his Internet presence and allow Romney to communicate directly with potential voters rather than relying on news channels to report accurately the substance of his ideas. All news organizations seem to have an agenda, and Romney should join Thompson in chatting directly with the American people on a regular basis through guest columns or posting and podcasting for established blogs.

It should be remembered that Reagan employed his own version of FDR’s Fireside Chats while serving as Governor of California. The popular appeal this type of communication generates with voters should not be underestimated. President Bush, though he has tried through televised speeches, has never resonated with the American people, except in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, when any president could have done so. As a direct result of the President’s lack of direct communication with the American people, he has relied on the MSM to broadcast his remarks, which are then diluted by mostly left leaning pundits or reporters and rendered virtually ineffective. His leadership in wartime has suffered, and the American people still have no idea what sacrifices and costs will be involved in a Global War on Terror except for ambiguous phrases like “it will be a long struggle,” or “we’re fighting them there so we won’t have to fight them here.” The Bush administration seems to have forgotten that Americans live in the golden years of the Information Age, a time when citizens demand detailed information and will get it somewhere else if they are not receiving it from the White House. Unfortunately, most of the sources they turn to are liberal and the truth of an issue becomes the ultimate victim. Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon were wartime presidents with poor communication skills and no practiced history of direct communication with Americans. As a result, neither successfully conducted the Vietnam War or convinced citizens that the war could and should be won. Bush faces the same fate, and future presidents must learn from his experience.

If Fred Thompson successfully runs for the presidency, he will already have an established loyal base of readers and a track record of direct communication with citizens. He would further possess the vehicle for making his case to the people in the event of any crisis, be it war, terrorism, natural or economic disasters, or simply a piece of proposed legislation, like immigration reform. Fred Thompson has, through his columns, laid the groundwork for effective future leadership, and his conversational communication compares favorably with former great communicators who have served as president. In the modern era of the 2008 election, an effective Commander in Chief must also be an accomplished “Communicator in Chief,” utilizing all available media to enlist citizens in just causes and rallying them to victory if conflicts arise. Fireside Chats worked for FDR and Reagan, and their modern equivalents, guest columns or blog posts, may prove decisive for whichever candidates use them most effectively.

Click here to view NRO’s archive of Thompson’s guest columns.

Technorati: Fred Thompson Ronald Reagan Mitt Romney Franklin Roosevelt Presidential Candidates Fireside Chats Campaign Strategy

Hillary Bets On Socialism's Appeal in 2008

Hillary Clinton is often touted as the “most intelligent woman in America.” I have an aunt who is practically salivating (or is that foaming at the mouth?) over the prospect of a Hillary presidency, as Hillary will surely solve all of America’s inequalities with a woman’s touch. Political pundits like Dick Morris insist that the “Clinton Machine” is unstoppable and will make no significant errors while piloting her over any rocky reef en route to the White House in 2008. If one accepts any of these paradigms, Hillary’s speech to the Manchester (NH) School of Technology this week was quite a conundrum; it was either a major and suicidal campaign sinker or it signaled that the Democratic Party believes America is ready to abandon its 231 year experiment with self-determination and capitalism.

Here are a few highlights from the AP/Yahoo story:

Presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton outlined a broad economic vision Tuesday, saying it's time to replace an "on your own" society with one based on shared responsibility and prosperity.

The Democratic senator said what the Bush administration touts as an ownership society really is an "on your own" society that has widened the gap between rich and poor.

"I prefer a 'we're all in it together' society," she said. "I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none."

…"There is no greater force for economic growth than free markets. But markets work best with rules that promote our values, protect our workers and give all people a chance to succeed," she said. "Fairness doesn't just happen. It requires the right government policies."

Karl Marx? Lenin? Stalin? No, these are the views of Hillary Rodham Clinton, socialist extraordinaire. The only chance “workers” have for success is when the government steps in to “help.” It isn’t fair that some get rich while others remain poor. “Fairness doesn’t just happen,” the government must make life fair by punishing achievers for having too much success. These are the tenets of socialism, with “fairness” serving as the emotionally charged catchphrase slogan to disguise the intended vehicle for Hillary’s version of “fairness.” Had this Manchester speech been a slip-up or something taken out of context, it would still stand out as particularly socialist. However, Hillary has gone down this road before. This is what she said in June 2004:

"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

Now that’s an inspiring campaign slogan for a potential American president!

I recently wrote that America’s leaders are becoming more French while France’s leaders are becoming more American. Newly elected French President Nicolas Sarkozy was elected on a platform consisting of the following: Fight the War on Terror as America’s ally; reform France’s immigration system, particularly as it applies to the influx of Muslim immigrants; shrink the government’s role in providing social services (including socialized medicine) to its citizens; eliminate the 35 hour work week and promote more work, greater achievement, and less dependence on government subsidies for the unemployed and business owners.

Contrast that winning French platform with what Hillary is proposing for America in 2008: retreat from Iraq and giving al Qaeda victory in the War on Terror; “reform” America’s immigration policy through amnesty and citizenship for 12-20 million illegal aliens; increase the role of government by providing massive new services such as “universal health care” (socialized medicine) and replacing economic self-determination with “shared prosperity” through government intervention (socialism).

When considered from this perspective, electing Hillary would place America on a sure path to becoming socialist France, while the French electing Sarkozy placed them on a course to emulate capitalist America. Hillary’s GOP opponents should wield these contrasts like a political bludgeon, hitting her hard every time she utters a phrase that espouses socialist tendencies and bluntly referring to her as a socialist. This is why her speech was a conundrum. The “Clinton machine” so ominously reverenced by Dick Morris must surely know that the majority of Americans will reflexively vote against someone who can effectively be branded as a socialist, yet they do nothing to curb her references to “shared prosperity” or government provided fairness. Why is Hillary speaking so openly of her socialist ideas during a primary campaign cycle when it can so easily be used later in the general election cycle by the GOP nominee to paint her (accurately) as a socialist?

Two reasons come to mind. First, Hillary must earn the nomination of her party, which embraces Euro-socialist ideals, and she will not be the nominee without establishing, at least verbally, her socialist credentials. Instead of “street cred”, the DNC demands “Soc cred,” the promise that all people will be given everything they need or want through government services. Second, Hillary’s advisers truly believe America is ripe for a socialist harvest in 2008. Despite record stock market growth and peaks, despite record low unemployment (4%), and despite the highest percentage of Americans owning their own homes in the nation’s history, Hillary’s camp is preaching the gospel of class envy and apparently is betting that they can convince voters by 2008 that the economy is failing, everyone is out of work, no one can afford health insurance, and the rich are grinding the faces of the poor every chance they get.

It is ironic that the same liberals who insist that Darwin was right about evolution and natural selection refuse to accept capitalism as economic Darwinism, with the survival of the fittest as the linchpin of a free market system. Are animals that cannot adapt through evolution allowed to survive out of “fairness?” Should businesses that produce a product no longer wanted in the market be protected from their competitors who are meeting market demands for new and better goods? Should workers who are incompetent or unproductive be protected from termination out of “fairness?” For that matter, what should be done with candidates who lose elections? After all, it isn’t “fair” that one should prosper while another languishes in defeat. Who decides what is “fair,” the government? No thanks.

The government has never been the solution to poverty, unemployment, racism, or any of the other social ills that can infect society. Poverty has proven much more virulent war opponent than terrorism. FDR could not eliminate it, Johnson waged a “war on poverty” but poverty, like the impervious cockroach, seems to survive all threats to its existence. Could it be that poverty survives because economic “fairness” is a socialist utopian dream that runs counter to nature? There have always been, and will always be rich and poor people in every society, but do the poor need rescuing? It is the arrogance of the wealthy (and most liberal socialists are rich, like Clinton) to assume that success in life must be measured by the accumulation of wealth. There can be dignity in poverty, usually far more dignity and humility than is found among the affluent. If success is measured, as it should be, by living an honorable life, then one does not need income redistribution or “fairness” in economic opportunity to be successful in life.

Socialism has failed in every respect in every society that has ever attempted to live by it, yet the DNC, and Hillary in particular, continue to aggressively foist it upon America as the magic medicinal tonic that will cure all of society’s ills. Rather than taking Hillary’s or Obama’s or any other American liberal’s endorsement of socialism at face value, we should consider some dissenting opinions:

"To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, 'the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it.'" - Thomas Jefferson

“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.” - Winston Churchill

“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” – Winston Churchill

“Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.” – Alexis de Tocqueville

“The assumption that spending more of the taxpayer's money will make things better has survived all kinds of evidence that it has made things worse. The black family- which survived slavery, discrimination, poverty, wars and depressions- began to come apart as the federal government moved in with its well-financed programs to ‘help.’” – Thomas Sowell

“You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man’s age-old dream -- the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order – or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. Regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would sacrifice freedom for security have embarked on this downward path. Plutarch warned, ‘The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits.’” — Ronald Reagan

The “Clinton machine” would have us believe that a vote for Hillary is a vote for “fairness,” but as Reagan stated, there is only an up or down. Voting for Hillary is voting for Marx, rather than Jefferson. The Founding Fathers defined fairness as the opportunity to succeed or fail based on the inherent capacities of the individual (see Jefferson above). Hillary wants to assure that no one can fail, thus clearly she has abandoned the intent and content of our founding documents. Socialism does not just happen. We do not wake up one morning, fire up the Internet and read on Capital Cloak that America became a socialist nation overnight. However, if we continue to embrace government programs as the solution to poverty or social problems, the addiction to socialism will become unbreakable while we were sleeping.

Technorati: Hillary Clinton Socialism Shared Prosperity Presidential Campaign

Should National Security "Bow to Reality?"

The old adage “don’t shoot the messenger” is nowhere more applicable than in the debate over the Bush-Kennedy amnesty for illegal aliens bill currently before Congress. Those who oppose President Bush’s “path to citizenship” (amnesty) for an estimated 12-20 million illegal aliens are branded as racists by Latino groups, as nativists lacking compassion, or as fear mongers by the president himself. Latino groups assume that all opposition to illegal immigration reform is directed solely at Mexicans, but that is ethnic vanity. They would like to believe the issue is all about them, but it not. Illegal immigration is illegal, whether the violator is Mexican, Canadian, German, or Tibetan. Of course, due to geographic proximity, the vast majority of illegal aliens are Mexican, but violators should not be allowed to profit from their illegal action simply because they violate in bulk.

The most effective media messenger thus far in the illegal alien immigration debate has been Ann Coulter. Of course, because Coulter is blunt and opposes the proposed “reform” legislation, she is portrayed by the liberal media as a radical hate monger. It is unfortunate that few seem capable of looking beyond Coulter’s biting sarcasm of past columns to discover the gems of logic in her most recent and quite astute assessment of the Bush-Kennedy bill.

Coulter’s column, “Importing a Slave Class,” unintentionally became a forceful rebuttal to comments made later in the day by Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff. Let’s examine Chertoff’s statements, and then apply Coulter’s arguments to determine who makes a better case.

Chertoff, in an extensive interview with USA Today’s editorial board on May 23, made some comments that were extraordinary coming from the man charged with protecting homeland security. The most telling remark may have been his criticism of Bush-Kennedy bill opponents for demanding deportations that are “not going to happen.” There it was, in black and white print; Homeland Security throwing up its arms in surrender to 12-20 million lawbreakers and admitting they will not be deported, apparently regardless of whether the Bush-Kennedy bill passes. The following excerpt from USA Today’s report provides a sample of Chertoff’s embrace of amnesty:

Chertoff acknowledged that there is "a fundamental unfairness" in a bill allowing illegal immigrants to stay. But trying to force them to leave would be impossible, Chertoff said, "We are bowing to reality."

He dismissed the argument of Republican conservatives, such as Rep. Brian Bilbray, R-Calif., who argue that illegal immigrants will leave if strict enforcement of U.S. laws makes it impossible for them to find a job.

"You're not going to replace 12 million people who are doing the work they're currently doing," Chertoff said. "If they don't leave, then you are going to give them silent amnesty. You're either going to let them stay or you're going to be hypocritical."

Bilbray said his idea hasn't worked because "there's been a conscious strategy of not enforcing the law."

Chertoff, whose department has staged a number of recent raids that have resulted in mass roundups of illegal workers and sharp protests from religious groups, warned there will be more if the workers don't get a chance to become legal. "We're going to enforce the law," he said. "People all around the country will be seeing teary-eyed children whose parents are going to be deported."

There is a lot in that excerpt to turn one’s stomach, but I will begin with the white flag attitude that deportation is impossible. No one asked Chertoff to deport all 12-20 million illegal aliens overnight, but his response is very clear; if you can’t deport them all, why try to deport any? Remembering that Coulter wrote her column before Chertoff’s interview, here is Coulter’s rebuttal to the notion that deportation is impossible:

…The jejune fact that we "can't deport them all" is supposed to lead ineluctably to the conclusion that we must grant amnesty to illegal aliens – and fast!

I'm astounded that debate has sunk so low that I need to type the following words, but: No law is ever enforced 100 percent.

We can't catch all rapists, so why not grant amnesty to rapists? Surely no one wants thousands of rapists living in the shadows! How about discrimination laws? Insider trading laws? Do you expect Bush to round up everyone who goes over the speed limit? Of course we can't do that. We can't even catch all murderers. What we need is "comprehensive murder reform." It's not "amnesty" – we'll ask them to pay a small fine.

If it's "impossible" to deport illegal aliens, how did we come to have so much specific information about them? I keep hearing they are Catholic, pro-life, hardworking, just dying to become American citizens and will take jobs other Americans won't. Someone must have talked to them to gather all this information. Let's find that guy – he must know where they are!

…If the 12-million figure is an extrapolation based on the number of illegal immigrants in public schools or emergency rooms and well-manicured lawns in Brentwood, then shouldn't we be looking for them at schools and hospitals and well-manicured lawns in Brentwood?

There are a lot of well-manicured lawns in the Metropolitan Washington DC area too, but I am SURE that has no bearing on the Bush-Kennedy amnesty bill debate.

I keep hearing President Bush and others claim that this is our best chance for reform, or something similar, but Americans should not accept the “either/or” choice placed before them. Coulter’s point is valid; No one is demanding 100% deportation or overnight deportation. For that matter, everyone hopes for but few expect Homeland Security to identify and catch 100% of the terrorists in America. Americans do, however, expect a 100% effort to do so, and should demand the resignation of anyone who considers less than 100% effort to be acceptable. What Americans have wanted all along is an honest, adequately funded, and consistently applied effort to enforce the illegal immigration laws already in place. What Americans did not request was for someone in Washington to unilaterally decide that it was not in America’s best interest to actually enforce immigration laws. That decision is not Chertoff’s to make, nor is it the president’s responsibility to interfere with a law enforcement function. Does America want a Homeland Security Secretary who thinks his tasks are impossible? Should Homeland Security be in the business of “bowing to reality” or creating reality through determined application of the law?

The number has reached 12-20 million precisely because the government has not enforced existing laws. The goal of law enforcement is often as much to produce societal deterrence as it is to punish individual offenders. By granting previous amnesty (1986) and then not enforcing existing laws, no deterrent was ever applied and now officials like Chertoff are unwilling even to try enforcement. Instead of rolling up his shirtsleeves and going to work, Chertoff wants to roll up his shirtsleeves and wash his hands of that 12-20 million figure.

It has been claimed that there is not enough money to hire additional Customs, Border Patrol, or Immigration and Citizenship personnel to handle any large scale deportation effort. Yet Chertoff is convinced that he could secure additional funds and staff to handle performing 12-20 million background checks in a gradual process to legalize (amnesty) the illegals he claims it impossible to deport. Hugh Hewitt recently interviewed Chertoff and the Homeland Security Secretary made it quite clear that while he is willing to gradually legalize illegal aliens, he will not consider gradually deporting those same aliens:

HH: I know it’s a little more prosaic what I’m getting to, Mr. Secretary, which is you’ve got 12 million applications.

MC: Right.

HH: Who’s physically going to pick them up and handle them? Which department’s going to do that?

MC: We’re going to use…DHS will collect the applications, collect the fingerprints. The process of background checking then will occur in cooperation with the FBI and its databases, our databases, and all the databases that are currently kept in the terrorist screening center.

HH: And have you allocated staff time? I mean, an 11 million, if it’s on the low end, 12 million investigations, 12 million interviews, have you got an analysis of where that’s going to funnel to, and who’s actually going to do that work, because from my time in the government as deputy director of OPM running the securities investigation, it takes days to do a decent investigation, and this is all going to hit at once. I don’t know where the people are.

MC: Well, it’s not going to hit at once. It will hit over a period of time, because there will be an enrollment period. And as I know you know, Hugh, obviously, we’re not going to be doing background checks of the kind that you do for a top security clearance. What we’re going to be doing is running fingerprints and names against various databases, which is a process we currently use, for example, in screening people who get visas to come into the country for all kinds of purposes. So we already do millions of these through our existing processes. There’s no question we’re going to need money to increase the staff and the capability for these 12 million. But I want to put it in perspective by saying that we process 80 million air travelers every year coming through our airports, so we already deal with a very large volume of people that we are screening to let them come into the country legally.

It is incredible that the head of Homeland Security would ask for additional funding and staff to help streamline the legalization process but adopts a “bowing to reality” posture when it comes to enforcement of current laws. Chertoff attempted to cast the debate in compassionate terms, citing examples of federal raids that resulted in a press conference, some token arrests, and news coverage of crying children. Americans should reject this clouding of the issue. Raids and deportations are rare, not because of the negative press or crying children, but for reasons Ann Coulter captured most effectively:

The people who make arguments about "jobs Americans won't do" are never in a line of work where unskilled immigrants can compete with them. Liberals love to strike generous, humanitarian poses with other people's lives.

Something tells me the immigration debate would be different if we were importing millions of politicians or Hollywood agents. You lose your job, while I keep my job at the Endeavor agency, my Senate seat, my professorship, my editorial position or my presidency. (And I get a maid!)

The only beneficiaries of these famed hardworking immigrants – unlike you lazy Americans – are the wealthy, who want the cheap labor while making the rest of us chip in for the immigrants' schooling, food and health care.

These great lovers of the downtrodden – the downtrodden trimming their hedges – pretend to believe that their gardeners' children will be graduating from Harvard and curing cancer someday, but 1) they don't believe that; and 2) if it happened, they'd lose their gardeners.

The Bush administration is busy casting verbal stones at those who oppose the current immigration “reform” bill, but there should be no surprise that Americans are angered by the proposed legislation. The federal government has proven unwilling to enforce existing laws for decades, but now a new bill with new laws will magically be enforced and seal up our borders? Rather than granting amnesty, government should work to earn our trust by securing America’s borders, not just the one with Mexico, and then enforcing laws already in place. “Sanctuary cities” became sanctuaries because local law enforcement encountered illegal aliens, reported them to INS-CBP-ICE, and then waited eternally for a response or sign of interest in taking custody of the alien. When those agencies demonstrated no effort to take immigration status seriously, local governments adopted the same stance.

Illegal immigration, like Iraq, is a difficult national security situation. The president refuses to “cut and run” in Iraq, but amnesty would be to illegal immigration what surrender in defeat would be to Iraq. America can afford neither.

Iran's Incongruent Congruence

There must be a medical term for what happens to a person’s ability to speak truthfully when he becomes an ambassador or a government spokesman. A case in point is the new U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker. His is a difficult and largely thankless task, but he did little to help himself with his glass half-full assessment of yesterday’s initial round of diplomatic talks between Iran, Iraq, and the United States. There is nothing wrong with a glass half-full perspective when the facts offer even a ray of hope, but when the glass is completely empty, as was the case in these negotiations over Iraq’s security, it is deceptive and counterproductive to pretend that progress was made when it clearly was not.

The diplomatic talks between the U.S. and Iran, after nearly thirty years of official silence, focused on the security and stability of Iraq’s federal government and Iran’s role as helper or hindrance. Ambassador Crocker reportedly confronted Iran’s Ambassador to Iraq Hassan Kazemi Qomi on Iran’s funding, support, and personnel involvement with terrorists and “militant groups” that continue to attack U.S., British, and Iraqi troops throughout Iraq. Ambassador Crocker also pointed out to his Iranian counterpart that many of the firearms, IED’s and other weapons used to attack allied forces are Iranian and arrived in Iraq directly from Iran.

Had this been a glass half-full diplomatic discussion, Iranian Ambassador Qomi would have stated something to the effect of “We don’t know how our weapons keep popping up mysteriously in Iraq, but we can assure you will do everything to find out who in our country is behind this and cut off their (insert whatever limb would be appropriate for weapons smuggling here) as a show of good faith” or similar. However, this was not a glass half-full discussion. Here is the (UK) Times online summary of the Iranian response:

The Iranians, whose leadership has long attacked the US as the Great Satan, rejected such accusations and raised their own fears, calling the US presence in Iraq an occupation. Tehran also criticized efforts to train the Iraqi Army and police as inadequate.

The Islamic Republic suggested creating a three-way system, comprising Iran, Iraq and the United States, to coordinate security.

Clearly, no headway was made in that exchange, since the U.S. insists that Iran is the cause of stability and terrorism in Iraq, while Iran denies any involvement and blames the U.S. for inviting attack by its mere presence in Iraq. There was no glass half-full common ground to agree on, but don’t tell that to Ambassador Crocker. After the rebuttal of each of his arguments, Crocker’s description of the “progress” made leaves one wondering to what discussions he was referring when he toasted the talks with this half-full glass:

There was pretty good congruence right down the line in support of a secure, stable, democratic, federal Iraq in control of its own security, at peace with its neighbours.

I am sure Ambassador Crocker is a well-educated man, but perhaps his schooling did not include the proper use of the word “congruence.” The term literally means agreeing, or being in harmony. The two sides did not agree on Iran’s role in Iraq, thus there was no congruence down that or any line. The only item on which the Americans and Iranians agree is that it would be beneficial for the region if Iraq were controlled by a stable centralized government. However, the “congruent” line diverges with who would control Iraq’s government. Iran is doing all it can overtly and covertly to undermine the Iraqi parliament that contains a mixture of Shia, Sunni, and Kurdish elements. What Iran wants is a stable non-democratic Shia Iraq that could be a natural ally or potentially an expansionist target. The mullahs fear democracy in general and would be terrified of a democratic Iraq on its border. Already fearing the spread of western influence and ideas of freedom seeping into its radical Islamic culture, the mullahs cannot afford to have a successful, free Iraq residing next door. “Keeping up with the Jones’s” would take on a whole new meaning if Iranians could point to a free neighbor and ask, “why can’t we have what they have?” The U.S. wants precisely that scenario to develop but Iran dreads it and fights it at every turn. The two sides could not be more incongruent.

The only item on which Iran and the U.S. agreed in these historic talks was to disagree. The Iraqis, who set up the talks, soft-pedaled the animosity between Iran and the U.S. Ali al-Dabbagh, the Iraqi government spokesman, offered this remarkable interpretation of the meeting results, “It shows that both countries are looking at getting the problems solved.” That may be true, but both sides are also looking to solve the problems at the disadvantage or destruction of the other. Until Iran ceases its role as trainer, financier, and arms dealer to “militants” and terrorists in Iraq, and abandons its suicidal sprint toward nuclear weapons, America’s glass of optimism for Iran will and must remain decidedly empty.