Phew! UPDATE
January 16, 2012, 11:17 am
Posted by Margaret O'Brien Steinfels
Israeli-US war games postponed (or maybe canceled)!
Thank goodness it’s an election year and someone in the Obama campaign spotted the optics of major war games with U.S.-Israeli military participating in large numbers while the saber rattling goes on with Iran, and Syria teeters on the verge of collapse.
Previous post on the subject: War Games. The invaluable Juan Cole on the subject.
Tuesday, 1/17: Israeli FM Lieberman has offered an explanation: avoiding escalation. NYTimes.
Margaret – isn’t the conclusion we’re invited to draw that, if President Obama is re-elected, then post-election, he will be politically unshackled to re-rattle the sabre?
Possibly. But then you assume he is the one rattling the saber (or rattling it the loudest). I doubt that.
So back to you: Romney (or God forbid, Gingrich) gets elected. They won’t even bother to rattle the saber. If we take them at their campaign word, they’d go to war with Iran, to say nothing of making the U.S. military the dog being wagged by the Netanyahu tail….
Let’s get this out of the way first: if Gingrich is elected, or even nominated, I will buy Boudway another drink :-) (And naturally, I will buy you any liquid refreshment you prefer. And if hubby comes along for the ride, I’ll spring for his first, too).
Regarding the saber rattling by Republican candidates: yes, I would expect any of the bunch still running, including presumptive-nominee Romney, to take a harder line than the current administration has. Partly that is because of policy preferences. Partly that is because it will be next January by the time the next four year term commences, and if nothing substantive has changed between now and then regarding Iran’s nuclear aspirations, then the time will have gotten that much shorter, and a president from either party will be that much closer to seriously contemplating military options.
If there are a few dozen more Republican debates on the schedule, perhaps one of the moderators will press Romney on this issue, rather than on whether contraception should be illegal(!) At this point, there is a real possibility (although very far from a sure thing) that he will succeed President Obama after the election. Regardless of our respective political preferences, it would be good for all of us to try to cut through the rhetoric of the primary season and understand what a President Romney would do.
There’s prudence to be learned from military history, independent of the election cycle. Marching the troops up near the border “just for a large peacetime training exercise” is a superb way to launch an attack if the other guy is stupid enough to believe it and remains unready. Aircraft and missiles compress time available and expand the space that is “near the border”. The interpretation and reaction by the opponent is uncontrollable. Given already existing tensions, the originally planned US-Isreali exercise was almost an invitation to an accident. While the show of power and the practice would have been desirable, the potential for unforeseen consequences was high enough to make deferral seem like a wise move at present.
Ms. Steinfels – connected to your earlier post on this topic, Barbara Tuchman’s “The Guns of August” clearly analyzed how the early 20th century treaties promising reprisals and support if an ally is invaded created a mass of entanglements in Europe. These treaties created military steps such as calling for mobilizations. Unfortunately, mobilizations in 1914 were complicated, expensive, and time consuming (communications were not immediate in that age).
So, once an ally was threatened; its supporter would mobilize and (despite events or information possibly changing the landscape), for all intent and purposes, war had started. Which is exactly what happened and thus, an isolated assassination in a backwater country led to inevitable results.
Would just suggest that any reading of Guns of August in light of this “planned” shared military war games would be the 21st century equivalent of early 20th century mobilization – a step that can be twisted and used to justify anything despite facts, events on the ground, nuances, etc. In a very real sense, a game of unintended consequences. Do we need war games to “educate” the Iranian leadership?
Since Iran thinks the U.S. is the devil’s spawn, war games and saber rattling seem redundant. Can we speculate that perhaps the goal of the games was to assure/assuage/placate Netanyahu and Co. On that score:
Theory 1. If we were going to trade operational secrets and weapons wouldn’t that make Israel less fixed on attacking iran and dragging us in after them?
Theory 2. War games might might have quieted congressional war mongers.
But now they’ve been canceled/postponed. Why? Speculation:
Theory 1. The Administration saw the potential danger in setting off a conflict.
Theory 2. The Syrian situation grows worse by the day and the U.S. wants no part of that should our military be in the neighborhood.
Theory 3. The Pentagon decided that they didn’t want to share any more secrets or resources with Israel, and that’s why General Dempsey was sent to bring the news.
Jim P: Will a President Romney be a GW Bush or a Dwight Eisenhower? He talks a war game now, but if he’s actually president in 2013, European economies are in the tank, the Iranians haven’t produced a bomb, and Israel has a new government (don’t know who), I wonder if he’ll be so eager for war. But, of course, who knows.
A second-term President Obama: I don’t see how or why he would be any more game for war than he is now. Why would he? And frankly, I think the U.S. military is with him on this. They have been battered for a decade (and counting). Iraq is not a success; Afghanistan is still falling apart; a war with Iran doesn’t look like anything the military would want to sign on for.
A nice pinot grigo would be fine if Gingrich wins. I assume we will be meeting for that in Canada!
Would add that I doubt that the IDF or Mossad are in favor of war, either.
The retired heads of Mossad have warned against war. And the current heads seem very cautious. Not so sure about the IDF. What have you read?
SIDEBAR: Complication? Here is a surprising story from LaStampa, purportedly about a member of the Kuwaiti royal family. It says a prince of the royal family of Kuwait has converted to Christianity. The story has been contested. If true, could it complicated an already tense conjunction of events?I
“In his audio file, Abdullah declared: “First of all, I totally agree with the distribution of this audio file and I now declare that if they kill me because of this audio file, then I will go into the presence of Jesus Christ and be with him for all eternity,” demonstrating his awareness of the fate of a martyr of the faith, according to Christian doctrine. The television channel stated that Abdullah is a member of the royal family, and that he recently renounced his faith in Islam and became a Christian, without specifying what particular branch of Christianity. After having stated his full name, the prince declared: “I am satisfied with whatever they do to me, because the truth in the Bible has guided me to the right way.””
http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/world-news/detail/articolo/kuwait-cristianesimo-christianism-cristianos-11709/
Apropos of Bill Haas’s references to Barbara Tuchman and “The Guns of August”: the Forward has an essay on her work, on the republication of “The Guns” in observance of her 100th birthday! and some interesting observations about a less famous book she wrote on the British and the establishment of Israel.
http://forward.com/articles/149440/?p=all
Wow such bellicose comments and willingness to go to war! A war with Iran will be terrible in all respects, but most certainly a huge destruction of civilian life and public places. What will it gain? It will certainly kill Iranians, antagonize the entire middle east further, and win us no new friends. I am far more afraid of nuclear weapons in the hands of North Korea and Pakistan, two of the most unstable countries in the universe. How about some decent intelligence and backdoor diplomacy to defuse this situation. It appears we have many allies for a more peaceful solution. And a modicum of patience might help. Couldn’t we build upon the good relations from the recent rescue of Iranian sailors from Somali pirates?
Ms. Steinfels – sure you have read this but:
TNR, Kenneth Pollack: http://www.tnr.com/article/world/99741/war-iran-america
BdH: Hadn’t seen this. Thanks.
Isn’t this the Kenneth Pollack that was so gung-ho for war with Iraq? Had a change of mind? The article conveys a certain disingenuousness in suggesting that our European allies are pressing us on the sanctions (in fact, they appear to be coming along kicking and screaming; maybe Pollack has secret sources). And that Israel is barely mentioned raises my eyebrows. If it weren’t for Israel and the U.S. Congress would we be out to bring down the Iranian economy (which Pollack deplores)? A curious concoction.
The only fully growing and extremely profitable manufacturing industry in this that connected with the manufacture and sale of military hardware. Without a good stream of wars in the world, from where would the profits come? There are many ancillary industries in the US that rely heavily on contracts with the US military for support services in war locations. Without the need for these services, not profits. Think of the pension funds and 401ks that, if investigated carefully, might be heavily reliant on dividends and interest from exactly those military-dependant industries’ profits.
s/b “— in this country is that connected….”
Jimmy Carter was just interviewed on CNN. When asked what he thought of the Republican candidates, he said, “They all want war”. Scary.