The LA Times carried the story of the 21 former generals and other diplomats who sent the open letter to the President on Iran “not being a crisis.”  General Robert Gard was on the talking heads circuit trying to talk to anyone who would listen to him on the dangerous Bush policies in the Middle East.

From OneWorld US:

“We call on the administration to engage immediately in direct talks with the government of Iran without preconditions to help resolve the current crisis in the Middle East and to settle differences over an Iranian nuclear program,” their letter read.

“An attack on Iran would have disastrous consequences for security in the region and U.S. forces in Iraq,” they argued. “It would inflame hatred and violence in the Middle East and among Muslims everywhere.”

In a telephone news conference Thursday morning, the former security officials took particular aim at the Bush Administration’s policy of refusing to negotiate with terrorists or with states that support them.

“That seems strange since Ronald Reagan was willing to negotiate with the Soviets even though they were the ‘Evil Empire,” said retired Lt. General Robert Guard (sic), who served as special assistant to Defense Secretary Robert McNamara during the Vietnam War and now works at the non-profit Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. “One wonders why George Bush can’t negotiate with the Axis of Evil.”

The generals further argued that the Bush Administration’s invasion of Iraq is at least partially responsible for Iran’s drive to develop a nuclear program.

“When you announce an axis of evil of three countries and invade one and then say that Iran should take that as a lesson, it does seem that it may give them an incentive to do precisely what they don’t want them to do,” Guard (sic) said, “develop a nuclear weapon.”

The pathetic OneWorld US can’t even get General Gard’s name spelled correctly (I had to use OneWorld because not many news outlets covered this story).  More pathetic is that the poor General can’t get his facts straight.

Ronald Reagan talked to Mikhail Gorbachev at a time when Perestroika was being pursued.  Reagan did not talk to Nikita Krushchev when he was shouting “We will bury you!” and banging his shoe on the table.  The times — if the General would simply recall — were the so-called “cold war.”  The USSR was once a powerful and recalcitrant Nation, but the arms race had bankrupted them and with the advent of the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), Gorbachev, the kind of reformer who wanted to compromise anyway, was ready to come to the table without preconditions.

Its a strange idea, this notion of talking with these Hitleresque terrorists in Iran.  What, pray tell, would be the purpose?  To what end would we engage in talks?  What do you aim for when talking with a man that has sworn genocide and takeover of Israel and absolute destruction of the U.S.?  Do we aim for an agreement for partial rather than absolute destruction?  Who would we sacrifice in this partial destruction of our country?  Who gets swept up in this death march?

On the other hand, perhaps General Gard believes that if we just talk persuasively enough, we can persuade him not to wish and work for our destruction.  Is this it?  Do we propose to send our State Department representatives over to Iran to tutor him in the correct understanding of the Qur’an?

What specifically does General Gard propose?  Do we compromise by allowing him to enrich Uranium, thinking that the IAEA will actually be allowed to inspect his secret facilities to ensure that they stop at reactor-grade and do not proceed to weapons grade?

To say that threats against Iran if they continue to enrich Uranium will cause them to enrich Uranium rather than stopping it is analogous to saying that a threat to spank a child for bad behavior will only cause him behave more badly, so we shouldn’t spank him.  No one in the U.S. has, to the best of my knowledge, ever spoken of an attack on Iran in the case that it gives up its weapons program and support for world-wide terror.  It would make no sense, as Iran would hold no strategic value if they weren’t a sponsor of terror.

Finally, the General says that the Iranian nuclear situation is “not a crisis.”  Unless the General has specific knowledge of all of Iran’s centrifuges and how efficiently they were operating, and had performed SWU (Separative Work Unit) calculations to assess how far along Iran was with their enrichment program, how would he know?  Answer: He wouldn’t.

How sad.  General Gard, I feel sure, once had a stellar career.  The capstone of his career will now be rembered as this silly statement and his emotional antics on Television a few nights ago.