It seems to me very brittle a philosophy not to want to engage even demagogues.
The problem isn't with "liberal" Columbia, although some would like to make it into that. Strategically, the problem is accommodating Ahmadi-Nejad's request to go to a University, any University.
"The Long War", afterall, is a war of ideas. It's not a field on which you can necessarily win, but it is one on which you can lose.The problem is that we learn too much about ourselves, maybe, the things that make our 'moral huddle' for clarity, under the banner of "Evil Arrives" look decisively self-referential, precisely at a moment when we need to have a greater outreach, what RAND has called, "cognitive COIN", a concept that probably does not include the O'Reilly and Right-tendency to the standard-format name-and-shame routine.
It's so much easier simply to dismiss a person as
The Right want to have a lynching for Bollinger, because they do feel weak and they are. The problem isn't with "liberal" Columbia, although some would like to make it into that. The problem is accommodating Ahmadi-Nejad's request to go to a University, any University. If you understand that the Iranian leadership want to see themselves as philosopher kings, you restrict their appearance to political venues and to military ones, if one had their druthers. You make "exceptions" for those who you really want to reach out to, perhaps Khatami fits in this category.
Even Charlie Rose (CR) was a bit disappointing tonight.
1. "Look at the Zionist entity...."
Why does CR not ask what the national interest of Iran is in Palestine?
Iran's history, it's people are not in Palestine; Iran does not share a border; none of their tribes are your tribes; Iran's government has never been involved in any peace negotiations or settlement talks (that I know, at least).
{Kudos to CR for emphasizing "Israel" at the end of the interview in no uncertain terms. He could have been more coy, earlier on, and said, "What? I don't understand, Mr. President. I know only "Israel" - what is "Zionist entity"}.
2. "We must let the Palestinian people decide, not provide a peace plan"
Well, what if they decide continued "war", something that prolongs their collective despair? Does that mean you support war over peace, plainly put?
Should we forget about the weapons of Karine-A, whose weapons came from Iran? It is against your interests to have a destabilized Palestine, yet the weapons were found. Why should anyone believe you when you say it about Iraq, now, and the weapons are found?
3. "We want peaceful nuclear energy"
a. does that mean that, even if you are attacked, you will never seek to own or use nuclear weapons?
b. if you wanted that above all, why not accept the Russian offer - it would build trust? When you can have all that you say you want, yet you persist in being so aggressive, that is why no one believes you.
c. if you only want peaceful nuclear science / electricity, why do you threaten "full scale enrichment" (what, are you going to blink your lights on and off at us, really fast?) and announce "1,000 centrifuges", etc.
4. "We want good relations with all nations." (The biggest laugh for last.)
Gone are the days of "Death to America!" from Iran's Supreme Leader and all her people?
Rest is the same as reply to last communique from Ahmadinejad ...
