Reed Hundt on What the Hell Dick Cheney is Up To

Here in South Asia

By Reed Hundt
At a conference on the shores of the Bay of Bengal I happened to have a long talk with a former general who while on active service ran an army engaged in conflict with a major Muslim nation. His comment about the "surge" was this: "You never reinforce a losing situation."

But reinforcing the American military commitment to the Middle East is the maxim of the Administration. It is the Vice President's essential thesis: the American military must be firmly installed in the Middle East until the end of oil, and until anti-American Islamic fervor fades away, no matter how long that may take. He sees American dependence on Middle Eastern oil lasting at least 60 to 80 years, notwithstanding the impact on the environment, not to mention the current account deficit. He sees armed opposition to Islamic fundamentalism as lasting at least as long as the Cold War, and of course he thinks of the conflict as the successor to the Soviet threat against capitalism and democracy. The Vice President has explained all this many times, in various ways, and in his heyday he persuaded virtually all of the mainstream media to agree with him.

Even now the Vice President plays the essential role in running the White House foreign policy strategy and, especially in the wake of Secretary Rumsfeld's departure, military strategy as well. From his perspective, withdrawal of the American military from Iraq or anywhere else in the Middle East is wishful thinking at best, dangerous to America's economic future at worst, and, additionally, catastrophic for Israel. On this last point, Senator Lieberman is in strident agreement.

From the Vice President's point of view, the dire assessment of the security analysts about Iraq only underscores the importance of reinforcing the American commitment. He thinks that tactics may need to be changed, but the prospect of greater violence spreading from Iraq across the region only underscores the importance of the strategic goal: locking in American access to the region's resources and precluding the formation of significant military power under the control of any Islamic theocratic regime.



The Democratic Presidential candidates are not likely to be able to avoid direct debate over the Vice President's thesis for the whole long period until the election. John McCain and Mitt Romney agree with the Vice President and will articulate his views forcefully.

The Administration's actions with respect to Iran are part of this larger narrative. It isn't that the Administration actually wants war with Iran, but on the other hand it does want to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. What Democrat will disagree with that? And if that goal is stipulated, what then will Democrats argue in the general election about policy with respect to Iran? Just saying we should talk to Iran is not likely to suffice.