Something to really worry about
AMDG (for those worried aboout whether this is Catholic)
Seymour Hersh, who seems to have an inexhaustable supply of leakers and informants, writes in this week’s New Yorker about U.S.-Israel cooperation on Lebanon and seems to draw a line from that cooperation to a faction in the Bush Administration waiting to go after Iran. Even if only half of Hersh’s informants is right, there is much here to gnash our teeth over.
Most notable for me (I have just finished reading Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq), is the resistance, according to Hersh, of the Pentagon military (except for the Air Force) to an Iran adventure and perhaps even a cautionary stance by Donald Rumsfeld (maybe he too has read Fiasco).
Here is the link (I think) http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/060821fa_fact
I’ll look forward to the discussion (if not, I am going back to my sermons on Fiasco! by Thomas Rick and available on Amazon.
When Rumsfled is the voice of caution, it might be time to head for the hills.
Still, it’s precisely because I trust Hersch that I’m not sure about any impending attack on Iran. I seem to recall an interview that Hersch did with Amy Goodman of Democracy Now about a month ago, in which he himself expressed skepticism about the Admn’s intentions. He pointed out that any attack on Iran would dramatically inflame the insurgency in Iraq, and give immeasurable support to the likes of Moqtada al-Sadr. This was a big reason why the Army was so opposed to an attack — they know full well that the troops in Iraq would be under even greater pressure.
That said, the Bush Admn. has demonstrated a remarkable lack of interest in mere fact, and so it shouldn’t surprise anyone that the inmates running the asylum should now be contemplating an even zanier enterprise. The neo-cons have always had it in for Iran, and the evangelical-apocalypticists can’t wait for the nuclear re-appearance of Christ.
An attack by the U.S. on Iran has also seemed pretty remote to me for all the reasons EM raises, plus some others (at the moment, including the fact that the Israeli Air Force doesn’t seem to have been able to get the Hezzbolah bunkers–presumably not as fortified as the Iranian sites (nuclear or note).
But will or can the U.S. military say no to or resist an intense barrage from the “get Iran” faction in the administration.
Comments on my previous post: Fiasco cont’d rightly point out that it is not up to the military to make political decisions. In the case of Iraq, top generals seemed to have been unable or unwilling to resist Rumsfeld on the war plan or Cheney on the war declaration. It would appear that some of the informal checks and balances that governed the military/civilian relationships have failed.
This post, together with the two responses, one of which seems to be to self-directed, illustrate to me several problems with Liberals, both Catholic and non-Catholic:
1) A willingness to believe anything that makes Bush et al look bad, or makes the U.S. look bad
2) A willingness to ignore Iran’s publicly stated goal of the annihilation of Israel
As far as Israel being unable to penetrate Hezbollah’s bunkers, I don’t really think that’s the problem, which is FINDING the bunkers, conveniently embedded among civilians and thus providing cover and great propaganda for the (may I be politically incorrect here?) islamo-fascists.
The homicidal sociopath who rules Iran (by the way, did anyone see Mike Wallace’s intervew with him? Isn’t he a charming and intelligent fellow? How could he possibly be bad?) may, and very soon, force the issue, if he hasn’t already by supplying weaponry to Hezbollah.
But then, Liberals tend to believe, as Cindy Sheehan has proclaimed, that the REAL terrorist is George Bush.
By the way, have you heard the joke about the Nobel peace laureate who said she would love to kill George Bush? Oh wait, its not a joke. See The Australian (July25) story about Betty Williams’ remarks to schoolchildren (!).
Liberals. Gotta love them.
Robert Schwartz,
You should know better. But I guess the slinging is good, so why not?
It is worthy to note that liberals never stole a presidential election. A conservative Supreme Court no less.
What is stunning is that in all discussions of the Resnick court, Bush vs Gore is interdicted. No wonder Scalia who loves banter avoids the shameful subject.
If you gotta love liberals then nothing less than infatuation will do for conservatives.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/15/opinion/15tues4.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
Bill:
What is it that I should know better? And what is it I’m slinging?
If you can supply documented proof that someone “stole” the election, I would be pleased to examine it. Come to think of it, so would every Democrat on the face of the earth
Are you speaking of Ohio Supreme Court Justice Alice Robie Resnick? I must confess that you’ve definitely lost me here.
Well, to tell you the truth I don’t HAVE to love liberals, but someone’s got to do it… ;))
And Bill: Nobody loves conservatives; we’re all alone out here :((
Maybe that’s what’s wrong with us, eh? We’re looking for love in all the wrong places? Thank God for my wife: she’s delusional, she thinks I’m OK.
Peace (or not)
Meanwhile, we do well to stay with Peggy’s point on Iraq. BTW, she is doing a real Christian service by focusing on this excruciatingly pitiful war which was poorly planned in extremis.
The disaster continues as Washington has no clue.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/16/opinion/16Wed1.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
Meanwhile, we should not forget about this administation, and too many Christians, shameless political use of the Schiavo case. Now Mr. Schiavo is returning the favor.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/16/washington/16schiavo.html?hp&ex=1155787200&en=87077282f26c049e&ei=5094&partner=homepage
It is not a matter of liberal vs conservative. I voted for Reagan because I believed Carter was not a good leader.
We need conservatives with a conscience, as John Dean is graphically explaining.
How about sticking to the subject? Which is the civilian-military face-off at the Pentagon and in the Bush administration.
I agree — let’s get back on topic.
Hersh was on Democracy Now again a couple of nights ago, discussing his piece with Amy Goodman. He underlined something that he discusses in the article: the idea that Israel had cleared some sort of incursion into Lebanon with the Bush Admn. at least a month before the kidnapping of the soldiers. So the Hezbollah attacks provided an unwitting pretext for something the Olmert govt. had been contemplating already. He also emphasized how the Israeli bombing of civilian targets was seen — again by civilians like Cheney — as a dress rehearsal for a U.S. bombing of Iran. So the inmates really are running the asylum.
There’s also a possible domestic connection here. In a recent issue of the Nation, Max Blumenthal discusses the formation of a new Christian Zionist lobby which, he asserts, has had the ear of the Bush Admn. on both Iran and Lebanon. Many prominent evangelicals have welcomed, even openly salivated, at the prospect of a nuclear showdown with Iran. It’s not clear exactly how much influence these people have, but it makes one ponder.
I’m sorry about getting off point; I realize that it is me you are referring to. But the points I keep trying to stir up for discussion are, I believe, foundational to the points the long-suffering ms. Steinfels wants us all to focus on. Let me explain.
Beneath the surface of this and many discussions revolving around Iraq, Israel, and terrorism lies a supporting fabric woven from various strands of ideological positions. A partial list of these strands, in no particular order and without arguing their validity, would look like this:
1) Bush is illegitimate; he stole or manipulated the 2000 and 2004 elections.
2) The war in Iraq was initiated for oil, or for the enrichment of Halliburton, or both (the preferred formulation)
3) The Iraq war was poorly planned as to reconstruction and unification
4) The Bush administration (the Enemy) and Israel (the errant friend), are scheming to go to war against Iran and its client Syria
5) Deranged and fanatical Evangelists have Bush’s ear
6) Iran’s ruler’s threat to wipe Israel off the map is simply the irrelevant blusterings of an eccentric, but essentially decent and sincere man, and we need not be concerned
7) If only the Democrats can regain the House and Senate in ’06, and the presidency in ’08, we can have a sane and reasonable foriegn policy
8) We (the U.S.) created terrorism by the Iraq war, our iniquitous policies, and the mistreatment of Islamic countries
9) Our outrageous favoritism toward Israel has inflamed the Palestinians and the rest of Islam
10) It is best to not bash Hezbollah; they perform a lot of valuable social services in Lebanon and thus may in fact be a net positive force there
Maybe someone could initiate a blog specifically to address one or more of these issues, an action that would mitigate ms. Steinfels’ understandable frustration.
RFS lists a number of charges, most of which are easily addressed.
1 — You don’t have to think that Bush is illegitimate to oppose his administration’s policies. Many conservatives and Republicans are now put off by the war in Iraq. Personally, I loathe the Bushies, but I have no opinion about their “stealing” the elections.
2 — The war in Iraq WAS started, in part, for oil. Jack Straw, Blair’s foreign secretary, said so to the Daily Mirror before the invasion. But neo-conservative geo-politics also played a role.
3 — The Iraq war WAS poorly planned — many Bush Ad. officials admit it, as do many Army officials. Paul Bremer says so in his recent book.
4 — IF Hersch is right, the Bushies are planning to attack Iran. Hersch has also said, I might add, that the Israelis are not entirely sympathetic to such a plan.
5 — Blumenthal makes the assertion about evangelicals — it’s debatable. We should keep in mind, though, that many evangelicals do have the Adm.’s ear, and that many of them — especially Hagee — are deranged and fanatical.
6 — No one on this blog has asserted that Ahmadinijad was “a decent and sincere man” about whom “we need not be concerned.” The issue is how you deal with him. There have been many wacko world leaders whom we haven’t attacked, let alone nuked.
7 — I’m a good lefty: I don’t trust the Democrats either. Look at Hillary Clinton’s triangulations, worthy of her husband.
8 — We HAVE helped to recruit terrorism by our bungling in Iraq — again, Bush Admn. and Army officials, as well as terrorism experts, all agree about this.
9 — Our Israeli policy HAS inflamed the Palestinians and the rest of Islam. They all tell us so. In itself, that’s not a reason to modify our policy, though I think we should, for other reasons.
10 — Hezbollah, in providing social services as well as wreaking terrorism, is much like the IRA in northern Ireland. I think we should ponder this analogy, as have several Israeli columnists.
Let me also add that Vali Nasr, an expert in international relations and military affairs, has argued that Iran’s interest in nuclear weapons stems, not from fear of the US, but from the geo-politics of Islam. As Shi’a, they’re very afraid of Sunni Muslims in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan — that, Nasr contends, explains their nuclear program. There was a helpful review of his book in last Sunday’s NYT Book Review.
Well, gee Eugene, I guess you’ve thoroughly resolved all those issues, eh? Why I didn’t just ask you to begin with, I don’t know. Its all so simple, 1,2,3, done.
End of discussion. Next?
Yes, well there’s always the original question, isn’t there.
In a tussle between the military and civilian at the Pentagon over Iran, what recourse does the military have to resist the order to attack if they believe it is not a war that should be fought–or could be won. That is one of the points of Hersh’s article. This is a conversation that should have also preceded the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
To RFS: Rather than sneer, why don’t you reply to the points I made?
To Margaret: The military officials who oppose an attack can go straight to the press with their misgivings, or they can resign in protest before going to the press. Both, obviously, would require enormous courage — the sort that military officials didn’t display before the Iraq invasion, and that Colin Powell didn’t display, even as, what he now admits, he knew the evidence for WMDs was flimsy all along.