Edward Luttwak’s amazing career!
The Forward carries a profile, ”The Operator: The Double-Life of a Military Strategist,” by Laura Rozen of Edward Luttwak, the man who agitated us so much a few weeks back. He’s more than a scholar and public intellectual–a bit of Indiana Jones in the man.
In passing there’s a reference to his NYTimes op ed piece: “Iran is also central to Luttwak’s thinking about America’s own political landscape and the current presidential race. When we met in February, a day after Maryland’s Democratic primary, Luttwak said that he was supporting Hillary Clinton because he thought she would be most inclined to order air strikes on Iran. Contrary to conventional wisdom, as always, Luttwak said that direct conversations he had had with a certain leading Republican presidential candidate convinced him that this person, under the influence of war-weary Pentagon brass, would be disinclined to order such military action. As for his opinion about presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama, Luttwak took a preemptive swipe at the candidate’s elite American supporters who might be under the delusion, according to Luttwak, that Obama would improve America’s image in the world, arguing in a May 13 New York Times op-ed the exact opposite: that the Muslim world would see Obama as a heretic. ”
But much, much more here:
Wasn’t there a Washington Post article (by John sullivan as i remember) on how Obama’s “clinching” of the nomination was already brightening the image of the US around the world?
Of course, that focused on the general populaces and not just Muslims.
But, some balance….
Hmmm..
I am naive but I prefer foreign policy issues transparent. What was the reason for Iraq inavasion (WMD, oil)? About many things and no one thing? Still no clear answer but what isn’t discussed in the US press is the fact that it had a great deal to do with Israeli security (interpreted of course according to the Israeli political line – eg. Iraq funds Palestinian Hamas styled groupd, destabilize the funding and a political solution can be brokered because we will be secure). The US does not talk about that but it was there and at least was a factor.
Then the push to go after Iran. According to ultra-right Buchanan Iran is fully within international law in pursiung nuclear energy. And when you research it, it turns out to be largely true. Iran has a good case under international law.
I think the US needs strong leadership and the ability to faciltate political solutions which includes publicly rebuking Israeli agression when appropriate. They would be perceived as much more honest brokers of peace if this was the case.
Enough with the anti-Semite card and guilt. We should view Israel is a state like any other. And get into the habit of separating the religion from the state.
I have no dog in the Isaac/Ishmael fight.
There were probably many forces at work on attacking Iraq, including oil, Israel, the impulse to end the Gulf War in 1990 with an attack on Baghdad, the view that Hussein was about to get out from under the UN sanctions, etc. There were many reasons, some of them contradictory, for attacking Iraq.
An attack on Iran seems more closely tied to Israeli pressures–though as someone said on another blog the other day, their own nuclear deterrent is sufficient to stave off Iran (which of course does not yet have any nuclear weapons). As we see from the Luttwack profile the war with Iran crowd may themselves have divergent interests (he thinks only Clinton would have the “nerve” to strike Iran). But there does seem to be a fevered ideological impulse here focused rightly or wrongly on Israel’s security, now and in the future. If I were an Israeli I would wonder about friends like these…
The same issue of the Forward that I posted above has a critical assessment of the AIPAC meeting at which McCain, Clinton, and Obama spoke… There is a quote from one of the participants suggesting the purpose of the triumverate speaking: Israel needs a friend in the White House. Of course, what Israel needs is a real friend in the White House, one who will help do what needs to be done to create two states.