Lest we forget–war with Iran Update
David Ignatius, who always sounds well-connected though not necessarily prescienct, writes in today’s WashPost
“Saber rattling from the Bush White House may seem almost routine, but pay attention to the comment last week by Adm. Michael G. Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. ‘Iran is not going away. We need to be strong and really in the deterrent mode, to not be very predictable.’
“The risk of a U.S.-Iranian confrontation is growing in part because Saudi Arabia and other U.S. allies in the Middle East are so eager for it. ‘Behind closed doors, we are praying that the Iranians will make a mistake so that you will have a reason to attack,’ one Saudi told me this week. Another prominent Arab official said he hopes the United States will strike Iranian training camps just over the border from Iraq.”
I wonder if this is the price for bringing down oil prices?
Read the whole column here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/07/AR2008050703189.html
Update: This informative post about part of the origins of the obliterate Iran policy of Hillary Clinton by Gary Sick is worth a read.
Guest Op-Ed: More on Hillary Clinton and Obliterating Iran
Link: http://www.juancole.com/2008/05/sick-guest-op-ed-more-on-hillary.html
You Commonwealers really do leave me amazed at times with your absolute, knee-jerk, everything Bush is Bad liberalism … do you somehow think that if Obama or Hillary becomes president Iran will suddenly stop trying to build nuclear weapons (at best, their weapons program is “on hold” and it only was put on hold when over 100,000 US combat troops arrived nextdoor to Iran in Iraq)? That Iran will stop supporting Iraqi insurgents who are killing US soldiers and preventing that country from finding peace? That Iran will stop arguing that the holocaust is a myth and that Israel must be wiped from the face of the earth? That they will stop supporting Hamas and Hezbullah, the terrorist groups that are tearing apart Lebanon and the Palestinian territories? That suddenly there will be peace, love, and happiness all over the world between Iranians and Americans of good will? You must–because that is how you seem to treat the very real issue of Iran’s very real threat.
Robert, you’re always good for a label, a straw man, or both
I thought the telling point in the column was the quote from the “Saudis.”
I do not doubt that the Saudis–strong Sunni muslims–would like to see Shia Iran attacked … I’d LOVE to see their cities burning and their oil tankers sinking as the long-delayed retribution for taking our people hostage (which arguably was the start of islamic extremism’s belief that it could attack the west with impunity) … but neither my nor the Saudis’ heartfelt desires change the fact that Iran is causing trouble in the world, that Iran is supporting terorrism, destabilizing both Lebanon and the Palestinians and working hard to prevent stability in Iraq … and seeking nuclear weapons … nor does it change the fact that the US is the only country that is both willing and capable of doing something about it. Thus it will fall to us to deal with the Iranian problem … or does someone actually believe that the Iranian leaders are just a bunch of peaceful, misunderstood Mullahs who only want the evil USA (and its nasty Jewish friend, Israel) to stop picking on them?
Really, you are almost as terrifying as the Iranians; almost, because I presume you are not building centrifuges in your garage.
Is there no distinction to be made between a threat (however ones assesses it) and doing something about it? Is burning and sinking the only response? Are the Iranians a unitary polity? You caricature the resistance to a war with Iran. Why? Because we’ve done so brilliantly in Iraq. Get a grip!
Ms Steinfels,
You acknowledge that the Iranians are “terrifying” yet you want to rule out taking military action against them. Please remember that what went wrong in Iraq has been our efforts to rebuild it into a stable, peaceful democracy–efforts that the Iranians have done all they can to udnermine. But if our only goal is to remove the threat, we can achieve that quite easily at little cost to ourselves.
Please point me to ANY example of a threat that was removed without military action (and Libya does not count–they turned over their nuclear program ONLY after we had smashed Iraq)?
Please show me ANY country where we were able to appeal to the opposition groups inside that country (as I presume you’d prefer we do with Iran) to help change their government?
Please show me ANY country where sanctions actually changed their policies? An do not pretend that sanctions “worked” in Iraq–first of all, it is clear that Saddam THOUGHT he had a weapons program even if his own people were lying to him. Secondly, we had NO way of verifying whether he did or did not have such a program UNTIL we invaded …
I will add another fact: Saddam was clearly following the opposition to the war buildup (as he made clear in a Dan Rather interview) and it was later revealed that he clearly expected something small like a cruise missile attack, not a full-scale invasion … I would argue that the people who protested for peace actually made war inevitable by making Saddam think it wouldn’t happen. The same is true for those who try to appease Iran–they make war with Iran far more likely than if the world presented a united front against Iran’s actions.
“Please show me ANY country where we were able to appeal to the opposition groups inside that country (as I presume you’d prefer we do with Iran) to help change their government?
Poland?
“Please point me to ANY example of a threat that was removed without military action”
Communist Russia?
“Please show me ANY country where sanctions actually changed their policies? ”
South Africa?
“Please point me to ANY example of a threat that was removed without military action (and Libya does not count–they turned over their nuclear program ONLY after we had smashed Iraq)?”
The classic case, of course, would be the Soviet Union and its satellites. The Soviets were a far more credible enemy than Iran. But the history of diplomacy is full of examples.
“Please show me ANY country where we were able to appeal to the opposition groups inside that country (as I presume you’d prefer we do with Iran) to help change their government?”
Any true Reaganite would tell you to look to Eastern Europe. Admittedly in the case of Poland, the Pope may have played a major role. You might also look to China. There is a world of difference between the government of Mao and the current administration.
“Please show me ANY country where sanctions actually changed their policies?”
Sanctions are a tricky thing, since countries have only been using them for a relatively short time. There is a historical argument that says that sanctions against Japan by the US actually caused the pro-war with US party to get the upper hand and may have precipitated our war with them.
But the sanctions did work with Iraq. What we proved (and you admit this) in our invasion is that Hussein did not have a viable weapons of mass destruction program. You may also remember that his regular forces were under equipped. The purpose of the sanctions was to do this and they did, whether Saddam “knew” it or not.
On the other hand, show me a case where a western country invaded an eastern country and were greeted as liberators by the invaded.
Robert, I don’t know in the history of the world, if wars have actually solved any problems in the long term, but if the Saudis are so axious for this war. Do you know if they’ve offered to pay for it.
Poland and Soviet Russia were all part of our ultimate victory in the Cold War, in which we fought in Korea and Vietnam and Cambodia and Laos, we fought or supported fighting throughout Central and South America, we armed Europe to the teeth and placed our troops in the Fulda Gap in Germany for one and one reason only–to be there if the Russians invaded and thus make war with America the result of any Soviet advance into western Europe. The fact that the USA and the Soviet union did not come to nuclear blows themselves does NOT mean the Cold War was bloodless–ask the third world countries in which the war was often waged. Moreover, the case of Poland was one where the Coimmunists defintely used force in declaring martial law while we worked–behind the scenes–with John Paul II to support and sustain Solidarity (Read “His Holiness,” by Carl Bernstein and an Italian journalist)
South Africa was not a threat–it was an ally (my questions about military action and sanctions were not meant to be separate–they were both meant to refer to ways we handled our enemies, not ways we changed our allies)
Finally, my point is not that I want war with Iran–OK, I would love to see them punished for 1979–but that we MUST be credibly prepared to go to war with them if we want to see any changes there. If we are merely bluffing, if our peace movement seems to be blunting the edge of our sword, why on earth would they change? We must be ready and willing to go to war–it is the only way to prevent war (and to win the war if it comes to war). But if they feel we are weak, if they feel they can stall us forever, that will will NOT risk war with them … that will almost certainly bring about the very war you all wish to avoid. It’s a conundrum of history but one that has been repeated often.
Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union fell because of internal weaknesses coupled with diplomatic efforts by various parties. Korea and Viet Nam is not thought by anyone I have ever read to have had much to do with it. But the point is, we didn’t have to invade anyone.
Putting aside your idea that Iran must be “punished” for something that happened almost 30 years ago and for which the majority of the public must now be too young to have participated in, I am constantly amused (when I am not disturbed) about the Right’s constant fear that the US will appear “weak”. Our military expenditures are almost as much as those of the entire rest of the world combined.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States
By no stretch of the imagination could we be considered weak.
But what you are talking about is our ability and will to conquer Iran in the way, say, that Nazi Germany conquered Poland versus our ability to engage in a weak war such as the one we are engaged in now in Iraq. In the first case, were Iran a true threat to the United States in the sense that Germany and Japan were in the Second World War, we most certainly could conquer Iran. And the “will” that you are talking about would be there as it was in World War Two, because for us to do that kind of attack, we would need that kind of provocation (or rather, immanent threat).
But you want us to be “strong” enough to engage in the second kind of war, where we commit a small number of troops and resources (compared to a full scale war of conquest). You seem to think that this kind of war is as credible as a full scale war and you think that it works. So far in the last 60 years the US has been in two of these (Viet Nam, Iraq) and both have failed. I think the evidence shows that these half wars don’t work and that in fact “will” is not the problem. These wars did not fail because of “peace movements”. They failed because they are ill conceived in the first place. We knew in each case that we did not have the moral right to engage in a war of conquest where the United States would simply take total and dictatorial control of each country. We fooled ourselves in each case into thinking that since we occupied the moral high ground, we could engage in a limited war and that somehow one of the ever changing factions we backed would gain control of the country with our military support.
We don’t have the “will” to invade Iran in the manner that we invaded Iraq because most of the American public knows that Iran does not represent the kind of threat that you claim it represents, despite your fear mongering and that of the other neo-cons. If Iran really represented the kind of threat that you claim, the simple solution would be to conquer it. You are proposing that Iran represents a grave threat, but that the solution is to half conquer it on the assumption that someone inside the country will simply take care of the rest. But no amount of “will” would make this work any more that it would have made Viet Nam or Iraq work.
There will be no internal faction in Iran to support us if we attack. They will view an attack by us as outright war, aided by the Sunni. The Shiites in Iraq will likely think the same. The “democratically elected” Iraqi government that we claim to be supporting in the first place is allied to the Iranian government that you want to attack. How much clearer does it have to be to you? Our arrogant good intentions will not help us. We won’t be able to get away with attacking Iran “just a little bit”. We would have to conquer both Iran and Iraq if we play this game. Do we have the will to do that? Because we certainly don’t have the moral authority to do it and I think even the Right knows this.
How old are you Unagidon? “We knew in each case that we did not have the moral right to engage in a war of conquest where the United States would simply take control and dictatorial control of each country.” You must be confusing the United States with Russia, or perhaps the Germany or Japan of World War 11. Perhaps you are not aware that the President of Iran has threatened to wipe Isreal off the face of the Earth. He is not a fan of the U.S. either. We are not in Iraq to “conquer” Iraq. We are trying to stabilize Iraq. It appears that today, even History, can be re-written by anyone according to their opinion. The only problem with your argument is that everyone knows that neither Germany nor Japan are part of the United States of America.
Ms. Danielson: “We are not in Iraq to ‘conquer’ Iraq. We are trying to stabalize Iraq.” Before the U.S. invasion, Iraq was a stable, miserable country. Now, Iraq is an unstable, even more miserable country. The United States broke all the moral and legal rules constructed to reign in human warfare. How is this different than Russia, Germany, or Japan?
Dear Ms Danielson,
Perhaps I wasn’t clear on my points. Here they are again.
1. Mr Reid is afraid that we may appear “weak” to Iran. But we can’t appear weak. We spend as much as the entire rest of the world does on our military.
2. It follows that if we ever faced a legitimate foe, which I would define as someone who was a immanent threat to us, we could defeat that country. However, in that kind of war (and this is why I referred to Germany and Japan in WW 2) we would not hesitate to conquer the country to protect ourselves. And we could do it.
3. The weakness that Mr Reid is actually worried about refers to our ability to fight a half war, like we are doing in Iraq. He doesn’t suggest that we fight a full scale WW 2 war of conquest against Iran (and yes, Ms Danielson, we fought a war of conquest against Germany and Japan; that’s what “unconditional surrender” means.)
4. Iran, like any other country would find a full war of us against them a credible threat. We are not about to fight such a war because we don’t have a good moral reason to do it.
5. Mr Reid thinks a half war would work and that the threat of a half war would be a credible threat against Iran. I think he is wrong. First, it has not worked against Iraq. Second, despite all of our chest beating about regime change within Iran, there is no group that is going to take over the government there because we have decided to attack. Third, if we invade Iraq, it will be taken by the Iraqis as a full scale act of war and they will ignite a full war against us. Fourth, this will then draw in the Shiite population of Iraq against us. These people make up 70 percent of the population there and they (despite right wing propaganda to the contrary) have mostly been quiet up to now.
6. Iran isn’t a threat to Israel or anyone else. The president of Iraq did not threaten to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Iran is not going to nuke Israel. For one thing, it would be destroyed by everyone else immediately if it did that. Second, how would it help the Palestinians to nuke the Palestinian homeland?
7. Everyone knows this, including the thinking part of the American right. So what they have to do instead is invent a theory of the “crazy Muslim” who is just going to nuke people because they are insane and don’t care about the consequences. Sometimes the crazy Muslim is a Sunni named Saddam; lately the crazy Muslim has moved to Iran and his name is Ahmadinejad. The idea is to create a credible half threat (since there isn’t a credible full threat) so we can then mount a credible half war (since there is no moral basis for a real full war) against it.
Yes, we are not in Iraq to conquer it. That was precisely my point. If Iraq had been the threat we claimed it was, then we would have been in our rights to conquer it and further, we would have had to conquer it. And that’s the kicker. There are still people out there (and you seem to be one of them) that are astonished that we could invade a Muslim country, destroy its standing army, occupy its cities, kill its civilians, destroy its industries and power, water and sewage infrastructure, fail to keep any order, fill the place with mercenaries who are under no one’s control, and discover that they don’t like us and don’t want us there. Now the US is talking about doing the same with Iran, with another bunch of vague, shadowy, bogus, strung together excuses that are supposed to pass as some sort of moral authority.
Well Argued, Unagidon.
I am SO tired of having to come back and explain what I actually said–and not what Unagidon pretends to say that i said … where on earth did he get the idea that I was advocating a “half war” in Iran? Certainly not from anything I actually wrote in any post. Perhaps some of the neo-cons (which Unagidon incorrectyl assumes I am) feels the way he describes my views–but I certainly do not. I have repeatedly argued that our entire problem in Iraq is that we did NOT fight a full, all out war–I have repeatedly argued that we needed to use many, many more soldiers there … I supported the Iraq invasion because with Colin Powell as secretary of state I was expecting to follow the Powell Doctrine of using massive, overwhelming force–I supported a shock and awe that would truly shock and awe and not simply bluster.
And by the way–Ahmadinejad is a crazy muslim who believes in the second coming of an apocalyptic imam and if he gets nuclear weapons he will use them. To believe anything else is dangerously naive. But then you and other popsters here think President Bush wants to go to war as a thank you gift to the Saudis–so your biases have blinded you to anything even closely resembling relaity.
Sorry, Robert, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. For two reasons. First, I thought that you have been voicing approval for Bush’s latest sabre rattling, where he is only suggesting that we do “limited” military actions. But you are now on record for wanting a full scale conquest. And there’s the second thing. Iran has not done anything to warrant a full scale conquest by the United States. Thinking that the president of Iran might be crazy is simply not grounds for a just war, even in the secular world.
And no, I don’t think that Bush wants to go to war with Iran as a thank you to the Saudis. I think it is more complicated than that. But in general, I think he is trying to double down.
Iran is arming and training many of the insurgents in Iraq who are killing American soldiers and our allies on a regular basis–THAT is all the rationale we need for invading and overthrowing any hostile government. Whether we actually do it or not is based on other concerns, ranging from the startegic and military logistics of the attack to the political fallout in world opinion. But we have the right to do it if they harm even ONE American. Exactly how many Americans do you feel that Iran should be allowed to help kill before they have to pay a price?
If we have that right, then does if follow so do they? Or is all the morality in the world on our side because we live in God’s country?
Again, Unagidon tries to put words in my mouth that I do not speak. He would love to classify me as a religious zealot who thinks God is on our side. But in truth, in this particular case, it is we who are on God’s side–our troops and those we are fighting beside in Iraq are the ONLY ones trying to bring a better life to the Iraqis. The rest–Shia militia, Sunni militia, general “insurgent”, Al Quaeda-in-Iraq, etc., are out for settling old scores, killing their sectarian rivals, killing anyone who simply disagrees with their version of islam .. it is war, so we are also trying to kill–but we are trying to kill the ones who are causing all the needless deaths and destruction, the ones who are killing people for trying to vote or serving in the governemnt or the police or the army or trying to buy bread or just showing up for work or just going to the market …
Those who are killing American soldiers in Iraq are NOT fighting for anything that objectively is rational, reasonable, ethical, moral, or desirable … perhaps in you anti-American fantasy world, WE are just as bad (or even worse) than THEY are … but not in the real world: this is not Vietnam redux where we fought to prop up a pro-American dictatorship to prevent an anti-American Communist dictatorship from coming to power (though, in truth, given the choice, a pro-American dictatorship in Vietnam would ultimately have been better for US and for them … remember the boat people?) … in Iraq we are fighting on the side of free elections and democratic reforms … and if we do pull out before the job is done, Iraq will have no chance at all of becoming a better place to live.
But this is a pointless argument as Unigidon has declared in an earlier post that “Iran isn’t a threat to Israel or anyone else. The president of Iraq did not threaten to wipe Israel off the face of the earth …” when that simply flies in the face of reality. Iran’s insane leader has repeatedly called for the destruction of israel, for wiping it off the face of the earth–his statements are well-documented …
as for Iran being destroyed by everyone else if it nuked Israel–I can only point out that Senator Obama recently criticized Sen. Clinton for making just such a threat … so clearly Obama as president would NOT consider nuking Israel a good enough reason in itself for striking back all that hard against Iran … and as for the rest of the world–which considers Israel a problem they would just like to see disappear–the reaction would probably be that the israelis had it coming (their chickens would have come home to roost, in Rev. Wright-speak) … moreover, the Iranians would not need to Nuke the palestinain’s homel;and–they could quite effectively kill millions of Jews by blowing up Tel Aviv, which is more than 90-percent Jewish and leave the rest of the country (and most of the palestinains and Arab Israelies) perfectly safe …
Well, how could anyone rationally argue against any of this?
Sarcasm is not an answer, so I’ll accept the fact that you’ve finally seen the light.
Unagidon, my point was that despite the fact that we conquered Germany and Japan, they are not part of our territories. Thank God for those courageous men and women who fought to keep us free. They also deserve the respect of the conquered countries as well since their sacrifices helped all of us. And,what Robert Reid said…