Where’s Richard Nixon when we need him – or at least want to talk to him?

The 37th president died in 1994, so he’s hard to reach. But Nixon, epitomizing foreign policy realism – even cynicism – among other traits, still lives. His name has been thrown around a lot during the debate over President Bush’s “surge” in Iraq. According to the Associated Press, the reaction to the Bush plan is “reminiscent of the furor unleashed by President Richard Nixon’s 1970 decision to invade Cambodia during the final stage of the Vietnam War.” But what does Nixon himself think of the comparison? I pulled out my Ouija board, and miraculously, just before my deadline, Nixon’s ghost appeared, like a borrower of the night.

I got right down to it: “So,” I queried, “is Bush’s surge in Iraq similar to what you did in Vietnam?” Nixon smiled. Discussions of foreign policy always liven up a realpolitiker, even if he’s not living.

“There’s nothing wrong with being tough,” he began. “When I came into the White House in 1969, I knew we had to get out of there in my first four years to preserve our strength around the world – not to mention my own re-election prospects.” The grave brings forth candor: Would that all our politicians be dead, so as to speak so honestly.

“So what Bush is doing in Iraq,” he continued, “as well as his threats against Iran and Syria, are consistent with the get-tough Nixon playbook. But there is a key difference between then and now. Back then we did much more than just escalate in Vietnam.” Knowing he now had me hanging on his every word, the wily Machiavellian paused.

“What’s this ‘key difference’?” I demanded.

“At the same time that I was escalating in Indochina, I was going over the heads of the North Vietnamese. I traveled to Beijing in February 1972, the first presidential visit ever. And then, in May of that same year, I was the first president to travel to Moscow. I reached an understanding with Mao and Brezhnev that the United States was going to bomb its way out of Vietnam, to ‘peace with honor.’ I had diplomatic cards to play with both, and I played them. And if it hadn’t been for Watergate, my plan would have worked.”

For a moment, the ex-president’s eyes misted over, but then he returned to the subject at hand. “And that’s where the current president has gone wrong: All this ‘moral clarity’ has blinded him to strategic reality. You can’t oppose all evil, everywhere. You have to figure out who your real enemy is, and then isolate him.”

“It’s the Iranians who are the real problem,” I observed.

Nixon smiled as he answered, “Probably so.” He added to himself: “Too bad about the shah.” Then he continued: “The Iranians are to the Iraqi fighters as the North Vietnamese were to the Viet Cong – the implacable big friend just across the border. So if the Iranians are hopeless, Bush has to go over their heads, to their big friends. Once again, it’s back to Moscow and Beijing. They were decisive in ending the Vietnam War and could be decisive in ending the Iraq War, too.”

“Wait just a second,” I interrupted. “Back then, as you explained, you had the Russians and Chinese neutralized. But today it seems that the Russians and Chinese are both siding with Iran – selling them weapons, buying their oil.”

“Exactly. That’s the ‘key difference.’ Bush hasn’t isolated his true enemy, Iran, by dealing effectively with Iran’s big friends, Russia and China. So while Bush is tough enough to ‘surge’ on the Iraqi battlefield, he doesn’t seem to be smart enough to change the geopolitical context in which it’s being fought.” “Tough and smart,” he concluded: “That’s the Nixon Way.” He smiled one last smile: “Admit it. You miss me.”