The Dumb Idea Hall of Fame
There's much more where this came from, but here are five terrible ideas to
get us started.
BY AARON DAVID MILLER Foreign Policy MAY 2, 2012
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/05/02/the_dumb_idea_hall_of_fame?page=full
In my 25 years of government service, I came up with more than my fair share
of bad or just plain dumb ideas (see Arafat, Yasir, invitation to the
Holocaust museum). In fact, I consider myself something of an expert on the
subject.
But life's about learning, right? And like Justice Potter Stewart's famous
1964 opinion on pornography, these days I've come to know a bad idea when I
see one.
The Middle East provides a particularly fertile ground for both the birth
and demise of dumb ideas. And they come in varying shapes and sizes. Here
are five candidates for some of the most inconsequential, ill-advised, or
potentially dangerous dumb ideas proposed during the past year or so.
I'm grandfathering them in as potential nominees for the Dumb Idea Hall of
Fame, a new feature to which I intend to devote at least one column a month.
Dumb Idea No. 1: Palestinian statehood at the U.N. The most woolly-headed
and inconsequential idea goes to the Palestinians for pretending (they
actually may not really believe it themselves) that action at the United
Nations might help their cause for statehood. Having tried this idea once
last September with predictable results -- a big, fat nothingburger -- the
PLO may be gearing up again for another run.
One can only wonder why. The Palestinians are desperate, to be sure, and the
U.N. statehood gambit (like faux unity talks with Hamas) plays well on the
street. But their lack of strategy and penchant for bad timing are
breathtaking. So far, the U.N. initiative has produced implacable American
opposition, U.S. congressional constraints on funding for the Palestinians,
and America's withdrawal from UNESCO.
The last thing a U.S. president is going to do in an election year is
support such an initiative. And it gives the Israeli government, already
uninterested in real negotiations, just another reason to blame the impasse
on the Palestinians. But hey, the Palestinians are going to do what they're
going to do whether it makes sense or not. The best thing that can be said
about the U.N. gambit is that it really doesn't matter.
Dumb Idea No. 2: Safe zones in Syria
Dumb ideas are one thing; potentially dangerous ideas are quite another. And
that distinction goes to the idea of creating safe zones in Syria in an
effort to pressure, if not topple, the regime of Bashar al-Assad. The
proponents of this idea are either interminably obtuse or quite calculating
and see the creation of such zones as a way to sucker the United States or
other external powers into military action against the Assads. Either way,
this approach has every sign of being half-baked, ill-advised, and
open-ended. Indeed, it's driven by the most dangerous idea of all: that
America needs to act and do something, regardless of the consequences.
Safe zones or humanitarian corridors have at least three purposes. The most
obvious is to offer sanctuary to Syrians fleeing the fighting and the
regime. The Turks would have the most incentive here, if cross-border
refugee flows get out of control.
The other objectives -- providing a safe haven to train and organize rebels
who oppose the regime, and hoping to further cause splits in the regime by
occupying Syrian territory -- are far more dubious. These areas would have
to be defended, which would mean more boots on the ground over time
(remember: it took eight months to bring down Muammar al-Qaddafi's
rinky-dink army). Syrian air defenses would need to be suppressed to avoid
regime attacks. And poof -- before you know it, we have an open-ended
escalation. This kind of piecemeal intervention is the worst outcome of
all -- getting involved militarily without getting results. Andrew Exum of
the Center for a New American Security has it right on this one: When it
comes to military options, either the United States intervenes decisively --
as a matter of vital national interest -- or it stays out. Half-measures and
incremental efforts to increase the pressure will likely result in
additional costs without real results.
Dumb Idea No. 3: Bombing Iran Now
Nobody can or should blame a tiny country living on the knife's edge with a
dark past -- even one with an estimated 200-plus nuclear weapons -- for
worrying deeply about a mullah-controlled Iran with the bomb.
What Israel does about the prospects of a nuclear Iran and when is a more
complex matter. Striking Iran anytime soon -- even if the nuclear talks
don't produce a deal quickly -- would be dumb. It's a different thing to
assume grave risks if success is likely and you have broad support even if
you fail.
An attack now will not prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear capacity. It
would be tantamount to mowing the grass; Iran would accelerate its nuclear
program, most likely with greater international support. The world would be
furious with the Israelis (see: higher oil prices, financial markets
tanking, regional tensions), and nobody -- not even the United States --
would really understand why Israel struck when Iran didn't have enough
fissile material to make a bomb and hadn't mastered the assembly of
components, let alone tested a nuclear weapon. The Israelis' claim that they
needed to strike because Iran's nuclear sites were now immune from attack
would not be judged compelling by anyone.
It's much smarter -- though hardly easy -- for the Israelis to allow more
time for sanctions to take their toll, see whether some deal on enrichment
is possible, and if not, press the Americans to do what the president in
March publicly articulated he would: not just contain Iran but prevent it
from acquiring a weapon.
Knowing the Israelis, they've likely built extra time into their assessment
regarding when and how Iran's nuclear sites will be immune from attack. If
sanctions and diplomacy can't stop Iran from acquiring a weapon, a military
option can't and shouldn't be ruled out. The dumb idea is exercising it now.
Dumb Idea No. 4: Obama's push for a settlement freeze
Rarely has any U.S. president committed more of a stumble during his first
year than when Barack Obama decided to make Israeli settlements the focus of
his approach to Arab-Israeli peacemaking.
In one fell swoop, the president set himself up for failure, turned his
relationship with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu into a macho contest of
who had bigger cojones (Obama lost), and alienated the Palestinians and the
Arabs because he backed down. And for all this, the United States succeeded
in getting no real freeze, no deal, and no negotiations. The president's
tough rhetoric on settlements only made the problem worse as the gap between
words and deeds swallowed his credibility whole.
Fighting with the Israelis is an occupational reality for any president or
secretary of state who wants to do serious peacemaking. The fight, however,
needs to be at the right time and on the right issue. If done correctly
(i.e., with a strategy), it can actually be productive and benefit not only
the United States, but the Israelis and Palestinians too.
The fight worth having, with both sides, is over the actual substance of an
agreement. But given the gaps that separate the two sides and Obama's own
indecision about what he wants, that fight isn't worth having. Yet.
Dumb Idea No. 5: A bad idea is better than no idea
Dumb ideas come along for many reasons. Sometimes they result from bad
analysis, imperfect policy options, or desperation. They can also arise from
wishful thinking or from an obsession with fixing things.
It's a variation of that last notion that represents the dumbest idea of
all: that action -- any action, no matter how harebrained and ill-advised --
is better than no action. This idea is quintessentially American and results
from the unique blend of idealism and pragmatism that cuts to the core of
who Americans are as a people and how they see the world.
The fact is, Americans can't help themselves. America isn't a potted plant.
Americans believe they can always make a bad situation better. This fix-it
mentality is in our DNA. If it's harnessed and rigorously controlled, the
United States can actually accomplish some things, particularly if it
actually thinks through a strategy. But if not, it leads to what my friend
Gamal Helal, an Arabic-language interpreter and confidant of presidents and
secretaries of state, calls the United States' rush toward disaster. America
is headed that way on Syria, I'm afraid.
My fondest hope would be to avoid dumb ideas altogether. This may not be
possible. The need to act is just too strong. Perhaps we can at least limit
the damage. But based on a couple of decades or so of government experience,
I'm not holding my breath.
========
Aaron David Miller is a distinguished scholar at the Woodrow Wilson
International Center for Scholars. His new book, Can America Have Another
Great President?, will be published this year. "Reality Check," his column
for Foreign Policy.com, runs weekly.
| 
