Stephen Colbert to Bill O’Reilly on the O’Reilly Factor last night:

You know what I hate about people who criticize you? They criticize what you say but never give you credit for how loud you say it.

USA Today is reporting that the Bush administration rejected an early offer from Iran to help pacify Iraq. Iran offered to help stabilize its neighbor country and to end military support for Hezbollah and Hamas in exchange for the U.S. lifting sanctions on Iran and quashing a militant Iranian opposition group with bases in Iraq.

The U.S. State Department was open to the offer, which came in an unsigned letter sent shortly after the American invasion of Iraq, but Cheney nipped the deal in the bud, Lawrence Wilkerson, former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell’s chief of staff, told BBC’s Newsnight in a program broadcast Wednesday night.

“We thought it was a very propitious moment to [strike the deal],” Wilkerson said, “But as soon as it got to the White House, and as soon as it got to the vice president’s office, the old mantra of ‘We don’t talk to evil’ … reasserted itself.”

As shrewd as Cheney is thought to be, I think this is really a testament to his simple-mindedness. To pursue a strategy of regional diplomacy with Iran, knowing that a stable Iraq was in their best interest as well as ours, would not have fit into the “axis of evil” narrative defined by the administration. Therefore, it could not even be considered.

Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, of Nebraska, made these comments today while questioning Condoleezza Rice during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing. As he is a decorated Vietnam War veteran, it’s unsettling to hear his concerns about the the possibility of our cross-border pursuits of Syrians and Iranians.

I think what the president said last night — and I listened carefully and read through it again this morning — is all about a broadened American involvement — escalation — in Iraq and the Middle East. I do not agree with that escalation.

And I would further note that when you say, as you have here this morning, that we need to address and help the Iraqis and pay attention to the fact that Iraqis are being killed, Madam Secretary, Iraqis are killing Iraqis. We are in a civil war. This is sectarian violence out of control; Iraqi on Iraqi.

Worst, it is inner-sectarian violence; Shia killing Shia.

To ask our young men and women to sacrifice their lives to be put in the middle of a civil war is wrong.

It’s, first of all, in my opinion, morally wrong. It’s tactically, strategically, militarily wrong.

[…]

When you were engaging Chairman Biden on this issue on the specific question of, Will our troops go into Iran or Syria in pursuit, based on what the president said last night?, you cannot sit here today — not because you’re dishonest or you don’t understand — but no one in our government can sit here today and tell Americans that we won’t engage the Iranians and the Syrians cross-border.

Some of us remember 1970, Madam Secretary. And that was Cambodia. And when our government lied to the American people and said, We didn’t cross the border going into Cambodia, in fact we did. I happen to know something about that, as do some on this committee.

So, Madam Secretary, when you set in motion the kind of policy that the president is talking about here, it’s very, very dangerous. As a matter of fact, I have to say, Madam Secretary, that I think this speech given last night by this president represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam — if it’s carried out.

I will resist it.

[Applause in Senate Chamber]

John Derbyshire, posting at The Corner, makes a few good points about the President’s speech last night:

The central and most glaring contradiction is the implied threat to walk away… Yoked to the ringing declaration that, of course, we can’t walk away. We seem to be saying to the Maliki govt.: “Hey, you guys better step up to your responsibilites, or else we’re outa here.” This, a few sentences after saying that we can’t leave the place without a victory. So-o-o-o:

—-We can’t leave Iraq without a victory.

—-Unless Maliki & Co. get their act together, we can’t achieve victory.

—-If Maliki & Co. don’t get their act together, we’ll leave.

It’s been a while since I studied classical logic, but it seems to me that this syllogism leaks like a sieve.

Glaring through the president’s speech is the awful fact that we are short on sticks. We’re short on carrots, too; but this is the Middle East, and it’s sticks that count.

Other points:

The president: “America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced.” Or else… what? (Same as previous point, I guess. But what’s the answer?)

The President: “And there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have.” May we know which restrictions, precisely, our commanders (including the Commander-in-Chief) will now lift?

The President: “Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria.” We haven’t been doing this? We haven’t been doing this? How many of the the 21,500 troops of the “surge” will be assigned to these operations? Leaving how many for Baghdad and Anbar? Shall we have a “hot pursuit” policy?

I waited all winter for this?

21,000 additional troops to help secure Baghdad

A year ago he would have had me at “additional troops.” I would have loved to see a troop increase in Iraq to bring more security, allowing the government to function, allowing people to create jobs and work, and allowing the Iraqi army and police time to mature. I would have gladly supported an increase of 20,000, or many more troops, to fight off the insurgency and Al-Qaeda and quell any sectarian disputes. I think that may have improved the situation tremendously. Instead we were stuck with the Rumsfeld doctrine; just enough troops to lose.

Then, in February, came the bombing of the Samarra mosque, and since then, the dynamic has changed dramatically. The President did not acknowledge it in his speech tonight, but the primary destructive force in Iraq is now sectarian-driven violence. Will an additional 20,000 troops convince the residents of Shiite neighborhood that they don’t want to drive out their Sunni neighbors? Can they stop a militia loyal to one faction of the government from wanting to kidnap and murder members of a different political party? Our troops may be able to stand between them, but I don’t think they can unite them. I don’t think they can resolve hundreds of years of differences. (If only we had 21,000 Dr. Phils.)

Would more than 21,000 troops be the answer? I don’t think it is anymore. Instead of fighting only Sunni insurgents and Al-Qaeda, we now have Shiite militias in the mix. This puts us squarely between two factions bent on killing each other. Since taking sides is not a good option, we would have to take on both sides. I think that would require many more troops. I was still on the fence about this last autumn, but I can no longer support an increase in the number of troops. (I know what you’re thinking. “How will the president handle Chris’ withdrawal of support?” Don’t worry, I’ve sent him a cookie bouquet.)

What’s the solution?

The president asked for advice in his speech, so here is mine.

An escalation of sectarian strife in Iraq seems inevitable. It’s occurring with 135,000 troops. It will occur with 156,000 troops. And it will probably get worse when all American troops are gone. There are no good options left in Iraq. I posted in September that if we continue to stay in Iraq, there should be a difference between the situation now and the situation when we inevitably leave. If things haven’t improved over that time period, then we’ve wasted the lives of our soldiers and the resources of our citizens.

With support for the war waning, I think American forces will be pulled from Iraq within two years at the most. Unfortunately, I also don’t think we can improve the situation in Iraq very much in that timeframe. Therefore, I think the best option we have now is to begin to redeploy our forces out of Iraq.

But our Iraqi adventure does not end there. Indeed, it is only beginning.

The removal of American forces will create a power vacuum in Iraq. Forces within the country will expand to fill it. Forces outside the country will want a piece of the action as well. I’m sure violence in Iraq will increase, with many who were pro-American facing a now unchecked foe. Although, I don’t buy into the conventional wisdom of what will happen in Iraq. I learned my lesson about conventional wisdom in the run up to the Iraq invasion.

A number of troops would return to America. Particularly, those who have served the most tours in Iraq and need to have time off for recovery and training. Others would be redeployed to friendly nations in the area. I’m looking at you, Kuwait. And, if they’ll have us, we could station some troops in Saudi Arabia. Osama bin Ladin won’t like that, but hey, screw that guy.

The task would then become containing the situation in Iraq. We would have to ensure that Al-Qaeda doesn’t make Iraq its new home; that the Kurdish region maintains its autonomy; and that Iran and Syria don’t get involved in order to make things worse. And then we should try something radically different: diplomacy.

The president alluded to regional diplomacy in his speech. He mentioned Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan. What do these countries have in common? The U.S. is on friendly terms with each of them. The Bush administration must learn that diplomacy isn’t just for your pals. It can be most effective when employed against a nation that we have disagreements with. We should appeal to the rational self-interest of Iranians to get them to do what’s best for Iran in Iraq. An unstable Iraq could be as bad for Iran as it is for us.

The Bush administration’s view of Iran has always been monolithic. But Iran is a diverse country. Much of it is modernized and many of its citizens are much more moderate than their current leadership. With more than two-thirds of the population under 30 years-old, it’s a country that is ripe for change. But no country’s citizens like to be threatened. And every time the White House adopts an overly aggressive posture toward Iran, it is a set back for positive changes there. The White House needs to deal with Iran in a more productive manner than it does now.

So there’s my plan. Redeploy our troops. Contain the violence in Iraq, while letting Iraqis make up their mind about what kind of country they want to live in. And begin to deal with unfriendly nations as they are, not as we wish them to be. In twenty years, something good may come of it!