Iran and The Consequences of the Democrats' "Bush Lied!" Attack
By RHD Posted in User Blogs — Comments (74) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
From the Diaries for your daily dose of doom...
Bush's policy seeking to restrain or eliminate the threat posed by the Iranian push to obtain nuclear weapons was always less than serious. Its main elements were, first, a reliance on the British-French-German (B-F-G) negotiations to reduce or eliminate the threat by diplomatic means; and, if (when) those negotiations failed, a possible referral to the Security Council. Nothing of significance has been accomplished by the B-F-G negotiations, except for passing bouts of self-delusion (by the B-F-G team, not the Iranians), along with the passage of long periods of time during which (from all that appears) the Iranians have just kept plugging forward in their determination to obtain the Bomb.
The Iranians have not made a secret of their intentions, either -- first and formost, to wipe Israel off the map, and secondarily to strike at the Great Satan both because it is the main prop for the Zionist entity and because it is evil in itself.
Given that situation, how to explain the Administration's policy on Iran? After all, the Bush Administration has consistently said that the US cannot wait until a military threat becomes imminent before taking action -- that was, for example, expressly made the US policy in dealing with the threat posed by Saddam's Iraq, and is one of the Administration's main answers as to why the "Bush Lied!" attack is fundamentally a bogus rewriting of history.
The Bush Administration has also consistently emphasized the necessity of taking preemptive action against murderous Islamofascist regimes and tyrants, before they are in a position to use WMDs against the US or its allies. That description obviously fits Iran.
The threat posed by the Iranians can hardly be underestimated at this stage. While I don't know whether the Administration has any reliable estimates of the time remaining before the Iranians develop a deliverable nuclear device (similar estimates were not reliable with respect to Iraq in 1990-91, and there have been obvious problems with the reliability of intelligence generally in that part of the world), nevertheless the operative assumption must be that the Iranians will succeed in the near future -- say, 3-5 years. Certainly, if a non-functional regime such as N. Korea can develop such weapons, and with AQ Khan's network floating around, it would be imprudent to assume that the Iranians will not succeed in the relatively short term.
The Bush Administration was already hampered in dealing with the Iranian threat by the necessity of focusing on the military effort and resources required in Iraq and Afganistan. Perhaps more significant has been the necessity of dealing with neo-isolationist tendencies in US domestic politics, particularly the impact of the Democrats' inability to get past their visceral opposition to US military operations abroad, even if (as in voting for the Iraqi war) the Democrats sometimes allow more immediate electoral concerns to trump that knee-jerk policy holdover from the Vietnam era. Whether you agree with that view of the source of the Democrats' nearly unanimous opposition to the Bush Doctrine, it is incontestable at this stage that these domestic political considerations effectively preclude the Bush Administration from acting militarily to address the Iranian threat today.
These domestic political limitations on the US ability to act decisively to press the Iranians to eliminate their nuclear program are even more noteworthy -- and portend badly for the ability of any US administration to deal effectively with long term threats such as Islamofascism -- given the relative success, at historically low levels of casualties, of the Iraqi and Afganistani campaigns. Despite the relatively low levels of casualties in Iraq and Afganistan for such ambitious operations, and the extent to which both societies have moved from brutal fascist states to far more open, proto-democratic regimes, the conventional wisdom for much of the US -- and all of the Democratic side of the political sphere -- is that Iraqi war was a mistake from the beginning and today is an utter failure. The Democrats' policy precription, which the most visible Democratic politicians in Washington try to disguise but which is quite apparent nonetheless, is that the US should just cut and run (to what supposedly safe haven, I have no idea).
While the current effort by the Bush Administration to counter the Bush Lied! attacks are laudible if late, the political damage has been done. It is certainly imperative on the Bush Administration to defend loudly and often the necessity of dealing with the Islamofascist threat, and I hope that Bush, Cheney and others do so daily for the remainder of this Administration. But in terms of the domestic political limitations on the Bush Administration's options for dealing with Iran, the political damage is almost certainly irreversible at this point.
So what are the options? There are now, and probably never were, any credible diplomatic means of dealing with the Iranian threat -- see, e.g., the results of the B-F-G efforts. Sanctions might have had a chance to change the Iranians' conduct, if they were put in place and enforced early on, while the Iranian efforts were still relatively unadvanced. That time has long past, and in all events, the history of the UN's fecklessness in dealing with Iraq casts serious doubt about whether it was ever realistic to expect that the Security Council would take any such action against Iran. Even if such sanctions had been adopted at an early stage of the Iranian nuclear program, it was always open to serious doubt that they would succeed (as the Iraqi example also demonstrated). Since, as a practical matter, the US and the B-F-G team have not been able even to get the issue before the Security Council, and in all events, it is probably too late for a sanctions approach to work even if it were adopted, the sanctions alternative, weak as it is, has essentially become moot.
Where does all of this leave us and our allies, particularly the Israelis? No place secure or safe, for sure. Other than diplomatic efforts to control the threat (including the sanctions option through the Security Council), the only remaining option of any significance involves the threat or use of military force, either directly by the US or through a surrogate (i.e., Israel). Certainly the Europeans would not, and in all reality, could not present the Iranians with a credible threat of military action to stop the Iranian nuclear program. For the reasons explained above, I do not believe that the Iranians would regard the US as presenting a credible threat of direct military action to stop their nuclear program at this stage. I do not mean to dismiss the possibility that the Israelis may act independently, whether or not they obtain overt or tacit support from the US. But they too seem to be preoccupied on various fronts.
There is, of course, always the possibility that domestic uprisings in Iran will result in regime change, or otherwise derail the Iranian nuclear threat. That possibility, greatly to be wished for, is a highly speculative scenario at best. It would be folly to base US (or Israeli) policy on it at this stage.
Domestic political considerations, including particularly the "Bush Lied!" attacks and the overwhelming opposition of the Democrats to the Bush Doctrine in general, have effectively precluded the Bush Administration from adopting an effective response to the Iranian threat. While the Bush Administration could engage in bellicose rhetoric, of varying degrees of bluntness, it is doubtful that any foreign observer would be impressed at this stage, given the difficulties being experienced by the Bush Administration in even sustaining a national consensus for seeing the Iraqi war to a successful conclusion. This week's Senate resolution only compounds those problems. Surely, it is obvious by now that foreign enemies of the US have become at least as adept at reading the domestic political situation in Washington as the N. Vietnamese were 30 years ago. It seems we are bound to repeat that history, but this time in a much more dangerous context.
Worse, the intransigent partisan wars in Washington, and in particular the wholesale opposition of the Democrats to any sustained efforts to defeat the Islamofascist threat, almost guarantees that the next President will have even less effective options to deal with the Iranian problem. If a Republican succeeds Bush, the dimensions of the threat will assuredly be far worse than the are today, since the Iranians will either have developed or will be on the verge of developing a deployable nuclear device. Yet the domestic political constraints will, if anything, be even more constricting. If a Democrat succeeds Bush, bear in mind that currently the strongest voice on the Democratic side for dealing forcefully with the Islamofascists is Hillary Clinton. If you want to scare yourself silly, just play out the scenarios where Mme Hillary is the commander in chief tasked with defending the US from nuclear blackmail by the Iranians -- and, as noted, she would be the best of the lot on that issue among the current contenders for the Democratic nomination.
In short, there are no effective options based on direct US action to deal with the Iranian threat. All of this presents a picture that is dismal enough from the perspective of the US. From the perspective of Israel, it poses a far more immediate threat to the survival of the country. Surely the Israelis cannot accept a situation where a regime that has announced a policy of Israel's utter and complete destruction is allowed to develop nuclear weapons. Nor, unlike the Democrats in the US, do the Israelis have the luxury of such short term delusions as dismissing the Iranians as a non-imminent threat that can be dealt with later in some unexplained but certainly non-military manner -- the Iranian regime is already the key source of rockets, bombs and munitions for Hezbollah, the Palestinian Authority and other sworn enemies of Israel.
These considerations suggest that the likely result is that, in the short term, the Israelis will be forced to take preemptive action against the Iranian nuclear facilities, to the extent they can be identified and are susceptible to destruction from the air. The consequences of any such military action by the Israelis are themselves potentially disastrous, but a vain hope that the Iranians will come to their senses is not a responsible answer to the threat of a nuclear Holocaust aimed at Israel (and perhaps the US as well). Given the announced intentions of the Iranian regime, I expect that the US (at least if the action occurs during the Bush Administration) will provide at a minimum tacit support to the Israelis, even if the Administration's public posture is more measured. The Democrats, I am afraid, will go nuclear in the only sense of that term that they seem to understand -- blame Israeli warmongers and the Neo-con claque supposedly running the Bush Administration. If the Iranian threat is still looming in 2009 and a Democratic Administration succeeds Bush, the Israelis may well be on their own in dealing with the fall-out (both nuclear and political) if they wait to take action until that time.
All of this is deeply depressing. Do others see the situation differently?
90% of Iran's trade is with Europe and 90% of that trade is by sea. We can cripple the Mullahs with EU support if the Chinese or Russia veto sanctions. That may remove what little support the regime has left causing a revolt. At least it will make progress in WMD production harder.
I see it the same way, and you're right - it's deeply depressing.
The way the Democrats have railed on Iraq, including the lack of WMD, it will be impossible for a president to ever take preemptive action again. The next time, we'll be sucking in mustard gas in Grand Central Station before the military will be allowed to go in.
I don't even think Congress would go along if there was a mushroom cloud over Israel.
My spies (who include at least one Iranian ex-pat who was a figure in the Iranian government at the time) tell me that then-president Jimmy Carter signed an agreement with the Mullahs that the United States would never use military force to overthrow them. I cannot verify whether this is true. If it is true it would be one of those Double-Super-Secrets that can only be released via direct order from a disgruntled Democrat in the CIA.
Such a thing would explain much.
The Israelis will do what they have to do. Israel is a one-nuke country, meaning it's only going to take one nuke. The Iranians know it, and the Israelis know it. That the Israelis have not already taken out Iran's nuclear facilities means that they are as certain as they can be that Iran is still some distance away from having a bomb.
is well demostrated by Iraq.
Labled a credable threat with WMD, it was invaded only to find no threat and no WMD.
The problem was error in intelligence. Now the credability of the US is doubted, not so much as to if we will kick a$$, but will we kick the right a$$. Iran demostrates this.
Iran has the desire for a bomb and may even have purchased them from their Red Commie friends. If we bang the war drums to go get them, the rest of the world wonders if we have the goods or are we repeating the Iraq intelligence mess.
Indeed our citizens will fear the same.
At the moment, the Bush admin is saying that they are not a fault over Iraq because we believed the same intelligence as the Dems and other govenments. It may be a good defense, but hardly encourages confidence.
If is like having an employee that makes errors, but can do a good cya to dodge firing. Does that kind of employee become an inspiration leader? Doubtful. Other employees will remember the cya.
since we pre-empted the possibility of same
has saddam escaped
have wmd been used agaisnt us
if not, then it appears we pre-empted same
bin laden killed 3000 without wmd on 911 and hundreds in the 90s
the problem with not taking pre-emptive action
This wouldn't surprise me since he told the Soviets he wouldn't attack them if they invaded Afghanistan.
Everyone knows he has the words "I won't hurt you" tattooed on his stomach.
Take your own case. You've been banned here, what, four times? You registered 'redav' on 11/03. We shoulda zapped it then, when we nailed 'redalabama.' But we didn't. So here you are.
Oh well, better late than never. Bye.
Is that he is purging the "moderates" who blew up the Synagoge in Buenos Aires as part of a "moderate" Iranian policy.
He's publicly commited to competing with bin Laden as the chief architect of the new Caliphate. His "imagine a world without Jews and Americans" conference pretty well announced his intentions in advance.
More likely that Iran HAS nukes already, it merely is perfecting it's ICBM and MIRV tech. Considering that tech dates from the 1960's it's doable.
Iran's new President wants things: 1. Destruction of Israel; 2. Killing the remaining Jews world-wide; 3. Destroying America; 4. Creating a new Iranian empire across the Gulf and ME, from Southern Europe to India; North to Central Asia and South to Africa.
None of these are realistic goals but insanity never stopped Saddam, Stalin, Mao, big Kim, or Pol Pot.
Most likely happening? ICBM attack against Israel and Southern Europe, along with either smuggled weapons loaned to Al Qaeda or an Iranian ICBM launched from a freighter in the Pacific at San Diego and LA.
Once THAT happens it will be all down the ruthless killing; even "President Dean" would be quickly removed by a coup if he failed to respond massively with nuclear weapons to a nuke attack on us.
And yes Peanut Head and Dems are fools. There is no other word for it.
The "domestic political considerations" that are being heavily factored into your discussion will only restrain any administration until there is another terrorist attack in our country. The MSM and the Dems anti-war position will be simply untenable if there is another successful attack on US soil. Most analysts agree it is only a matter of time. The fact that another terrorist attack in the US is what it will take to wake people up, well, that really is depressing.
regarding the development of the Mullahs' nuclear weapons program is quite serious, I can't sign up for the 'deeply depressing' movement. That would be too counterproductive, and I don't have a 'free' prescription drug plan to pay for all of the anti-depressants.
The Mullahs in Iran are counting on our reluctance to hit hard targets in civilian areas, and they already know the EU-3 lacks the will or the resolve for direct confrontation. It is not in the Mullahs' best interest to misunderestimate the will or the resolve of President Bush should push come to shove. It would be a fatal misunderestimation on the part of the Mullahs to think that they will be allowed to possess a nuclear arsenal.
I'm confident Israel will act in her own best interest when it comes to the Mullahs' desire to eliminate the Jewish State, but not overly confident to the point that we follow the path of the appeasers in the EU, or at the UN, and fail to act. We should continue our diplomatic efforts at the UN Security Council while we go forward with our research, development and deployment of 'low-yield' tactical bunker-busters.
The Democrats are to blame for Iran? We have what percentage of our active forces in Iraq and afghanistan? As expected in a prolonged conflict, recruitment numbers are dropping. How in the world are we expected to scare Iran. I doubt the are emboldened by a political party that doesn't have a majority anywhere in Washington. Isn't it more likely they are emboldened that American cannot provide an substantial assualt on them?
And yes, America will have a serious problem staging another pre-emptive war. That's the price for being dead wrong. *not saying lied, saying dead wrong. What do you expect? If the new CEO of a company tries to take most of your comapnies assets and try a radical new product line, and it bombs, does the board let them try it again? Very unlikely.
That said, we still have recourse against Iran. We do have air superiority. Assuming we can get some correct intel, we can destroy their WMD programs and there is little they can do about it. Combined with sanctions and monitoring, we can keep them from actually posessing nuclear weapons until we have leverage to actually stop them.
Bush, Iraq, wmd, pre-emptive war, etc significantly if we get hit again
or will they blame bush and not the terrorists
and say they attacked cause we are over there
I doubt it
I do suspect that it could be the death nail for the party assuming that nail has not been hammered home already
or is it knell
heck, I cant know everything
what do you think the dems would do
rally around the president and wax 1941
I dont think most of them have the character
some do
i think Biden and Schumer would like to
unite on the war and argue domestic issues
According to the Constitution, Treaties with foreign states must be approved by the Senate and signed by the President. There may be confidential working agreements with foreign states, but there are no binding secret Treaties.
So, while nothing that Mr. Carter did or might do would ever surprise me at this point, we are not constrained by what he did, in the absence of a Treaty.
you didn't intend for that particular response to be directed at my comment. :-)
Sorry, meant to post it on the main diary. As A side not I do agree that Israel would likely be instrumental in containing an Iranian threat if it reaches that point. Much like they did with Saddam many years ago. And certainly justified after the rhetoric coming from Iran's joke of a leader.
Although Iran would be able to rally a large amount of forces against Isreal in retalliation, I doubt they would attack back due to Israel's nuclear status. At least one would hope they didn't have the sense to strike back.
the only consequence has been yak yak on the tube, continued hatred by despots, etc which bothers me not at all so long as we dont spoil a crying baby
let it cry
and it will fall asleep
like whigs
by actually shooting at us planes
yeah israel would be justified
Im a lawyer
a good one
plead the 5th
you hurt your case with each utterence
the deal Secretary Rice facilitated between the Israelis and the Palestinians which will allow the Palestinians to control Gaza's border with Egypt contained several incentives for Israel. For example, the continued delivery of JDAM's and bunker-buster technology that was previously promised but was withheld by the administration following several highly publicized missle attacks against select, high-ranking members of Hamas.
Lets have a hand for the thought police.
Lets see no cussin', no personal attacks, makes an observation and whack a mole.
What he'd do make a pass at someone's daughter.
or is that an assumption on your part.
And I did not know that arms shipments were being withheld form Israel on account of them hitting terrorist targets.
If that is true, then I am disgusted.
He was banned previously and signed up under a new ID, instead of asking politely to be unbanned.
For instance, when the Israelis whacked Saruman the White, no one cried bitter tears. We have not withheld Mavericks or AAMRAAMs from the IDF because they've been whacking bad guys.
Another terrorist attack on Bush will be used as a chance to blame the White House, attack the Patriot Act, and declare that Republicans have made us no safer. The war in Iraq will be blamed, of course.
Next we will begin hearing that greed led us to attack the wrong nation.
And the Dems will scream like little babies, and the mainstream media will create headlines like:
"Senator Schumer Calls post-9/11 Security Measures "Deeply Flawed;" Blames Attacks on poor Planning by Bush Administration."
That's what we're up against. These babies want no part in the real fight. They've already sold their souls; what do they care? Christianity and white males are, afterall, a greater threat to this nation than poor, misunderstood, and oppressed Islamists.
And I can only hope that we have an administration in power that will be there to aid Israel when he makes the move to end the threat.
Things are going to get extremely vicious if it comes down to this, and every indicator seems to point that way. As I understand it, Iran has strategically located its nuclear development sites in civilian areas. A strike agains their nuclear weapons program will necessitate civilian casualties. Muslim civilian casualties on the hands of the Israelis could well lead to an all out war in the Middle East.
Honestly, the only way I see this issue resolving itself is if Iran comes under extreme pressure from other Islamic states in the region and is met with brutal sanctions. I don't know if either can be expected, though we can hope that some major diplomatic acrobatics can at least prevent the top from completely blowing off the situation.
If Israel is drawn into action, I can only hope that:
- other nations are not drawn into the conflict
- a US administration that poses a credible threat of action is in power
- Israel can survive without resorting to nukes (am I crazy for thinking that this is unlikely?)
between the Iraelis and the Palestinians is real. The "possible incentives" used to persuade Israel to go along with the deal is speculation, as indicated in the title of my comment. Normal military shipments and contracts with Israel have continued uninterrupted to the best of my knowledge.
The shipment of some 'bunker-busters and related technology' was interrupted, but not cancelled, following the missle attacks by Israel on suspected Hamas terrorists (leaders). It is unclear whether those shipments have resumed. Tentative action regarding Iran's nuclear weapons program at the UN Security Council must also be factored into this equation, and its possible 'that' may be the reason those shipments were 'delayed'.
"Israel's need for bunker-buster technology is inversely proportional to the Security Council's success in stopping Iran's nuclear ambitions. With history as my guide, I don't have much faith in the UN's ability as a problem solver." - IMHO
President Bush and Secretary Rice are serious about maintaining a positive momentum in the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. It is a vitally important link in President Bush's strategic plan for the democratization of the Middle East, and pressure was applied to Israel to move the process forward.
Substantial progress in this strategic plan has been made on two distinct fronts, Israeli-Palestinian and Iraq, as evidenced by recent events. Three, if you want to include the recent developments between Israel and Jordan. Not that anyone relying on MSM for information regarding these positive developments would know that.
thanks but i wanted to make clear that i think the dem party would sign its death warrant by an inappropriate response to another attack in the us
My reason for responding to your post is to discuss the term "up against"
and see if you find any truth in my view of the msm and the dems
One reaction I have to the term confirms my belief that we are up against an impotent foe if we will just be conservative
reject the msm false history since vietnam and even mccarthy
nixon beat mcgovern and there were commies in the govt!
and call the dems what they are in blunt terms
patton was right
americans hate a coward
and love a fight
lets make sure that we dont seem to be cowards to take on the dems and msm!!!
be reagan
also lets all agree that we no longer care what the msm thinks and will quit defining success as convincing them to like us and report the news esp the news about what we do correctly
they wont
ever
except maybe at our funerals
see reagans
l;ets nopt acheive a great victory
run hopme and watch tv
and then act like losers when the dems and msm spin it into a gargoyal
our voters see thru it and many dem voters will come to us if we lead and dont appologize for being consevative
and they want to beat the enemy too
at least 25 % of them
a lot of blacks in fact resent the dems for their denegration of the good work in iraq by so many blacks
we just need to keep calling their bluff like we did the past 10 days
only more bluntly
thanks man
that Iran was the ultimate destination for the troops now in Iraq
even before the dems latest appeasment reprise
to be serious when they're busy trying to send the Republican chairman of PBS to a revamped Devils Island, for spending public money on conservative broadcasting. It's as a child who can't see the ocean for the sand castle he's building. If Hillary is our best hope in the Democratic Party I'm giving 10 to 1 on holocaust. Last; Israel probably has the keys and combinations to every lock in every Iranian installation going. The guy who changes the toilet paper in the bathrooms is probably an Israeli nuclear engineer. Under president Hillary Clinton the old adage is reprised, It's dangerous to be America's enemy but fatal to be her friend. Israel would do what we wouldn't, and without asking our permission.
you'd really do well to devote more time to your commentary and a lot less time to the administration of a site you don't own. Just my two cents based on some very good advice my Mom gave me some years ago.
between al qaida and Iran over the past ten years? Or about Irans sponsorship of terrorists? Do you think we should have removed the Iranian regime before or instead of Iraq?
Do you think we should not have removed the taliban in afghanistan since thay did not have wmd?
would love your thoughts
You have more ID's than Carter has peanuts. Off to The Pile™ with this one, too.
in the tube...Eventually, ever nation state will have nuclear weapons. They can't be stopped.
This means that we must find ways to live together WITH nuclear weapons.
Unfortunately, as Paul O'Neill found out after attending the first meeting of the NSC in early 2001, Iraq was always Job One on the Bush Agenda. This was confirmed by Richard Clarke after 9/11 when Bush wanted to use it as an excuse to attack Iraq and demanded that Clarke provide evidence to support his plan. The Downing Street Minutes proved, if anyone needed more proof, that the decision to invade Iraq was made as early as June 2002, yet Bush maintained that it was a last resort and peace was still possible. Isn't that a lie?
I'll spare you the sorry littany of statements which the Administration made which were misleading, which I say is at least a type of lie. When you tell someone part of the truth to advance your position,knowingly leaving out critical information to the contrary, that's a type of lying and there's no doubt that that's what Bush did and is doing on Iraq and it was perfectly predictable, given their anti-Iraq bent even BEFORE 9/11.
Who are you, Casey Kasem? "Our next talking point first hit the charts back in 2004. And since then, it's become a favorite of moonbats from Cambridge to Berkeley. We'll have that talking point, and the media stooge who delivered it, right after this."
Fragrant aromas. The sound of powerful machinery. It's an experience you won't soon forget. Visit The Pile™, where it's always check-in time.
I am of the mind that the BUSH LIED! campaign on the part of the Dems gives the administration an opportunity with respect to Iran. Here's my political analysis.
We have, in the Iranian context, exactly the same factors we had in the run up to the Iraq war; an outlaw regime that:
sponsors/harbors/supports terrorists
hates the United States and Israel
wants/has WMD including nukes
is believed by all foreign/domestic intelligence agencies to be working on WMD programs currently
brutally represses its own people
is undemocratic
The Dems demanded a second resolution before Iraq so they could look like hawks before the 2002 election. Any day now, the Dems are going to come out en masse and recant those votes of support for the Iraq war. "If we had known then what we know now..." Friday night's vote in the House on troop withdrawl exposes the craven nature of this position on their part. Given the chance to put themselves on record, they shrink before the harsh judgement of the voters.
The Administration has a chance now to do to the Dems exactly what the House leadership did. If the President comes out hard against Iran in the State of the Union, the Dems will be in the position of gambling with US security based on their BUSH LIED! hysterics, or becoming even bigger hawks then the Republicans so as not to upset the voters before a critical election. I think the House vote proves they will choose the latter.
So much can change in this situation. Never follow the conventional wisdom as it is almost always wrong. The Arab street was supposed to take over the world if we invaded Iraq, remember? Instead the Lebanese people took Lebanon back from Syira, an Arab country. CW says that Bin Laden is in Pakistan. That almost guarantees he's not. What if Bin Laden is in Iran? What if this is shown to be the case sometime in the next two years? Suddenly, Bush would be completely unrestrained in his options.
Contrary to the MSM spin, we have the Dems on the run. They don't have a coherent position on the Iraq war and the War on Terror. I say the president should up the ante and take out after Iran and Syria. The Dems won't know what to do.
Iran is an awfully big country with an awful lot of oil underneath it. Most of the world would be very interested in seeing a peaceful rationalization to this problem. That includes Russia, India and China, as well as all of our allies. (Continental Europe doesn't count because they don't bring any power to the table. The UN doesn't count either because of hopeless corruption.)
I have a faint hope that we may be able to solve Iran through muscular diplomacy, as long as it's conducted largely in secret. I also (faintly) hope that Rice has both the brains and the... well, the ovaries to spearhead the effort. Especially with people like Bolton on her team.
Much will depend on whether Russia and China calculate that they have something to gain from tacitly propping up Iran as a counterweight to the US and Israel. This would be a very tempting calculation but for two factors: first, Israel is certain to preemptively attack Iran, and second, America is likely to retaliate in case of a nuke attack on our territory. Both scenarios will result in global disaster. America's Left has effectively taken us out of any kind of the geopolitical game by destroying our credibility as a military power. But it still is credible to smart people like the Russians and Chinese that we would inflict horrible damage on anyone who nukes us.
against Imperial Great Britains best thoughts, and Americas in the Cold War, it is time to allow the Russian Bear to unleash its fury southward? A combination of USA from Iraq and Afghanistan, and pressure from Russia, in a military joint effort if necessary, is what is needed.
The greatest military planners for centuries have feared Russian access to openwater thru the Persian Gulf. We can always hope that the regime change in Iran will maintain a neutral stance. Perhaps 21st century geopolitick has changed so much as to fear a mad Iran than a sane Russia.
that the conflict in Iraq must be brought to a victorious conclusion and the Middle East democratized is so we don't reach this WWIII scenario.
And congratulations on your invention of the latest feminine mantra: "Grow some ovaries!"; a phrase Margaret Thatcher would rightly epitomize.
I love it, and you heard it here first!
with your premise that we were wrong on Iraq. Whatever the reasons for going there it was the right thing to do, there is no turning back from that course of action now. I think this product line is working and I also think that in a relatively short period of time we might just have two great allies on either side of Iran. As Michael Savege says: "More Patton,Less patent leather." Our Airforce would have them at our mercy in days, and if it comes to nucular blows(mispelling intended) Isreal most probably would end up wiping Iran of the map, which might not be such a bad thing. You know the jews aren't going to put up with another halocaust of any kind.
...with big ovaries! We need more of 'em, just like we need more men with big rocks. (But don't look for them among the Dems.)
;-)
unfortunately the US has stepped into the middle of a sectarian war taking place above an oil field. al queda is unlikely to the partner with iran for two reasons. (1) Hardcore Sunnis don't even consider the Shia true muslims. (2) the Persian/Arab split.
the underlying ethnic and religious issues on the ground between muslims dwarfs anything the American public is concerned about. Americans don't understand these issues and often the people with write for an American audience tend to gloss over them.
if you want to get a picture on how serious the issue is, take a piece of paper and mark today's date on it and count going forward the number of pure play shia killings that take place, also tally the number of times and Arab leader outside Iraq expresses regret for any death to shias.
this american understands we are now backing the majority against a former oppressive minority and al qaida
and we want to win
al qaida stepped on us
saddam stepped on us defying the ceasefire and harboring terrorists
did we wait to psychoanalyze japan after pearl
before we stepped
Gamecock-I agree with all of your points. Even in the present climate, the Democrats spend an enormous amount of effort, with the assistance of the MSM, to hide who they really are. Look at how few of them were willing to be straight about their anti-war positions in the House vote on Friday night. In the event of another attack, it won't matter what the Dems or MSM want to argue. The American public, the "sleeping giant", will simply not tolerate it. Fear is a good uniter...remember the country after 9-1-1. Despite the non-stop assault on the Pres. and the war in Iraq, the majority of Americans still know it's not the right thing to "cut and run." Perhaps I am too optimistic, but I think the backlash against those in the Democratic party (and there surely seem to be a lot of them) who are pursuing political power over national security in the GWOT will be tremendous, if and when we sustain another attack. In the meantime, I will keep praying for the President to have the vision and strength to fight the good fight.
the kurds are sunni. and that is a whole other separate issue for the sake of argument. an understanding of the Sunni/Shia spilt is not something so simple as psychoanalysis.
The Shia are also oppressed in Saudi Arabia as well. For that matter the Shia are an oppressed minority within Islam pretty much everywhere in muslim world with the exception of Iran and Lebanon.
The ultimate goal of the Al Queda is to purify islam. This means the irradication of what it heresy. The hardcore Sunnis, the Shia are heretics. This is why you see mosques being attacked, funeral processions being attacked.
In the 80s, we needed Iraq ro serve as a ballwark against the spread of Shia militant islam. Americans first experience with militant islam was shia islam but it was also Persian islam.
What the US is in the middle of is an intrareligious fight, masquerading as a budding civil war, masquerading on our end as a fight for democracy, beneath which a kurdish nationalist fight waits patiently to rear its head.
if want to get a sense of how deep the shia feel their pain within the islamic community, as shia to describe the events at Kerbala. For the Shia Kerbala is viewed with the same intensity as the Crucifixion in Catholicism. You would be hard pressed to find a shia who could tell you the story without shedding a tear or two and they are describing events that happened 1400 years ago.
nearly 1,400 years of intense animosity exist between the Shia and the Sunni, agravated by years of brutal Sunni minority domination of the majority Shia. In addition, the Kurds though Sunni, at bottom are nationalist first and have desired autonomy if not independance for decades if not far longer. The Turks vehemently oppose this, as does Iran (Israel supports it).
Bridging those longstanding antagonisims by imposing a blanket of democracy will be extremely difficult, and even if successful for a brief period, will be very hard to maintian for any sustained period of time. Civil war is far more likely than a successsful democracy, meaning some International armed presence to keep the lid on for a long time to come.
All ideology aside, that is the circumstance we face.
21 more American fatalities in the last five days?
against the minority former oppressors. Minority terrorist sponsoring, nation invading, ceasefire defying, wmd pursuing mass murdering dictator named saddam was less "stable" than a civil war against said unstable saddam by the vast majority of the people.
References: Ante-bellum slaves in the "stable" southern, border and northern states and DC.
confident that we will surrender the battlefeild and nations to their control for unencumbered nation state financed mass murder on American soil.
Hitler and Tojo killed a lot more Americans before we defeated them. Pre-911 surrenders cost us more than 3000 lives in the lower 48.
- Our ability to successfully counter Iran (which has been the main strategic threat in the region since at least 1980) is to create a stable Iraq as a counterweight. Thus we need to successfully conclude our Iraq campaign and create a military presence there that will enable us to put credible pressure on Iran from a position of proximity. If we succeed in Iraq, we will be much better positioned to deal with Iran. If we lose in Iraq, our position with Iran is rather hopeless. We still have enough time to consolidate Iraq and be able to confront Iran. So let's not wring our hands yet about Iran; our strategy is still sound.
- I also think with respect to nuclear weapons that Europe and Russia (and probably China too) do not want Iran to go nuclear. I can't imagine Russia wanting Shiites on their southern border armed with nuclear weapons. On this point we all have a common interest.
Where our interests diverge is that the U.S. wants regime change, whereas the Europe, Russian, and China are more than happy to keep the Iran regime in power (without nuclear weapons) both for trade reasons and as a counterweight against the U.S. presence.
It will be interesting to see how these various interests play out.
at its core it is difficult for Americans to get their minds about what the underlying issues are. few in the MSM could tell you why the shia are the shia or even what "shia" means. the basic first order knowledge that would give one some idea of the landscape.
the first thing to do is to dismiss these concerns as clouding the issue but the reality is that once you understand the issue and the various interests often competing on the ground you will have a better idea of how to bring about the change you consider desirable.
it is not so much that the amercian project in iraq is unwinnable but that they way we have gone about it make it less so than were we to try another tact. to bring democracy to middle east you must first work to dismantle to the tribal structure the weaves throughout Arab life in many countries.
note the public break today between Zarqawi and his tribe. the attack in Jordan was too much for his tribe to bear and so they "disowned" him publicly. Whether this is actually the case is another matter but the thing Americans should focus on is not the "what" but the "how." The tribe only know broke with him because he crossed a line that put them in a tight spot.
The thing about the middle east is that most of what you can learn is hidden in plain sight.
would zarqawi have been put in a tight spot if we were having tribal dismantlement talks at the UN while Saddam continued to give him safe haven?
Democracy project HAD to follow ending open post 911 defiance of the US by a terror nation state, FIRST.
Given the progress over there, ie 2 elections and a third on the way with only the 4 sunni provinces unstable due to the actions of a few thousand , it appears to me that we are quite aware of your excellent points .
It will take time, like it did us. And Madisonian-federalism seems the perfect model.
It took 10 to 25 to 60 to 80 to 1200 years for the problem to develop and to strike us in our homeland.
But as JFK says, we dont do what we do because its easy, we do it because its hard.
And freedom is longing in every human heart and from what I have seen, the Iraqi people, who chose a minority Kurd as Prime minister, and who have shown such courage, are worthy and deserving of our help.
And by any historical measure is going spectularly well.
You make great points, but the issue you raise has nothing to do with whether we telegraph a defeatist exit strategy or leave as conditions on the ground incl the Iraqi armys condition warrants a declaration of victory.
I find these developement and the analysis as much a cause for concern as many of the other posters.
The discussion of strategic approaches to the possibility of Iranian Nukes is certainly good to consider, but, I will stand up and be the Redstate brand peace-nik (now with hopefully 100% more logic and pragmatism ;) )
If it comes to it a strong response, it may be necessary I don't put this out of the realms of possibility. The way that people have been discussing Nukes I find rather disturbing. Remember MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction)?
Even keeps paying lip-service to diplomacy and alternate posibilities. Rather then message board saber rattling, why not put some constructive thought towards non nuclear solutions?
None you want to use nukes (I hope) on civilians and believe me, the world will NOT be a safer place if the US resorts to strategic Nuclear weapon usage. One of the points of discussion regarding the weapons used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki that is rather indisputable is that it was the first use of nuclear weapons on civilians. This was the opening of pandora's box. It was this usage that made consideration of total destruction possible. It can never be undone.
Whether or not the other side instigates their usage, it will normalize the usage of this weapon if the US responds out of anything less then total necessith (I'm talking about loosing the lives of the military over a few nukes). The usage by the US will send a message to world that Nuclear weapons are ehh-Ohhh-Kay!!!
This will in turn cause paranoia on the part of other nuclear or potential nuclear powers and move the dooms day clock a hair closer forward. It has been moving back for a while.
My initial propossal (that I have made elsewhere) to start with is support by the US government for non-violence training for student groups in Iran. Remember non-violence? A bunch of poor people brought the (well armed) British empire to their knees in India.
Redstaters pride themselves on their logic and pragmatism. I can't see any logic to normalizing strategic nuclear arms usage.
I am (trolling :) ) putting forward this strong comment/opinion because I think that despite everyones concern over Iranian WMDs everyone is being too flippant about strategtic nuclear weapons.
What about this post is wrong (I'm completely open to suggestions/criticism which I expect. proof of my ignorance of military matters is here :) )? Ultimately I know that most of you probably partially agree with these points (and that much of what I've said is probably the sub-text to this discussion), I'm just trying to instigate :) a less conventional discussion which I haven't seen addressed in this thread.
The reason the democracy project is flawed in its current state is that it assumes first and foremost that we americans will be third party beneficiaries. this is not necessarily the case.
we are looking for a certain outcome nearterm and that has been what is sold to us publicly. but democracy, aka the will of the people, freedom, etc., are things which we cannot determine, nor control. yet the u.s. foreign policy to date has been predicated on having an ability to assume outcomes and act accordingly.
the upshot of all of this is that how we "feel" about our iraq involvement will have little to do with whether the country succeeds or not. our need to firmly fix the perception in our national psyche has everything to do with us and nothing do with the fact on the ground, many of which make the underlying program as concieved, quixotic at best.
You and I agree - we should fight against those who attacked us, we must defend ourselves. There's no question about that. But there is honest genuine question as to what Iraq has to do with that, if anything.
We are a powerful nation, but we don't have unlimited resources or will. If we squander our resources and will pursuing a mistaken target, what will we have when we truly need it? Its an honest question, one on which the fate of our nation may hang.
the most important asset we could possibly possess, ie deterrence of future would be islamo-facist conquerers of nation states that would assume they could act with impunity knowing all they have to do to beat us is last till a congressman balls on the floor of the house about amputees.
We must be in Iraq in some numbers for years and may go to Iran next. But we must stay in sufficient numbers also to assure no taliban like state emerges.
And when we do withdraw, it will be on our terms of victory, not pushed by peaceniks out of weakness.
If we dont do the above, then it would be impossible to have enough resources for the war in a world that does not fear us or believe our word.
If we need more resources, we will raise them up.
we are in a difficult position in Iraq. It's taking much of our national will and resources to stay the course, whatever it is. In many respects we don't seem to know. Iraq has a population of 26 million. How can anyone suggest Iran next, a population of 68 million and not nearly as divided as Iraq.
The question can be seriously asked, did we not go into Iraq in part to demonstrate our power and supremacy, and do we not risk exposing that our power and supremacy is not what we thought it was?
Iran could truly expose that in plain terms.
in Iraq will eventually align with Iran - and do so through "free elections." Then what?
True they were glad to be rid of Safddam, but it doesn't necessarly follow tht they will then be in the US orbit.
This situation is very complex and not at all controlable or predictable.
We...go...not because... its easy, but because... its hard - bear any burden JFK paraphrase
We have nothing to fear but fear itself. We lost a half million men beating twop nations that make Iran and Iraq look like Grenada.
We took Iraq in 3 weeks. Iraq is now, what it took Germany and Japan many years to reach. As is Afghanistan.
The illusion of difficulty can be found 24/7 on msm and where dem lips are moving.
The language of cant do and defeatism is not in me, nor in the men that built this country and kept and keep us free. Its an American thing. It used to be best exemplified by democrats till 1963.
Live it.
preparing to refight the last war, and viewing Iraq, or Islamic fundamentalisim through the prism of WW-II and the Nazis strikes me as a bit the same.
Yes we won the conventional war in short order, but did we really understand the contest we were engaging in? This is hardly about fear. There is a difference between chosing a course out of wisdom and understanding and chosing a course out of fear. I would never suggest we do anything out of fear. But I do think it's wise to try and understand what we're dealing with, don't you?
Oh yeah, we did, in 1993 and in 2001 and DC and, and Africa, and Khobar, and USS Cole and.....
Wonder how we made "them" mad. We werent in Iraq.
Maybe we should just let Bin laden and Saddam rule us so we can make sure we dont p**s them off, and let Irans mullahs be the us sup ct.
What if Saddam invades Kuwait and Americans die liberating Kuwait and Saddam violates the ceasefire for 11 years and harbours islamp-facists like thope that attacked the US mainland?
Oh yeah, he did.
whatifwhatifwhatif
Getting out of bed is a risk.
strategically one must always ask "what if?" and "why"?
Understanding what makes one's enemies tick in no way means you agree with them or support them.
It could be argued that in some ways Osama is delighted with the Iraq situation. Osama didn't care for Saddam at all. Saddam, horrible as he was, was a secularist - not a fundmentalist Muslim at all. The end of this in Iraq may be fundamentalists in charge. Philoshoplically, they are opposed to everything we stand for.
Remember during WW2 when the US and other Allies were united with Stalin's USSR against Hitler's Germany? Maybe someone told Hitler that the US would never cooperate with Stalin, as Capitalism and Communism were mortal enemies - but Hitler was immediate and worse, so they did cooperate. After Hitler was gone, the Cold War started.
But I do think it's wise to try and understand what we're dealing with, don't you?
I answered
yes. weak americans who invite aggression, It is not wise for Murtha to take the house floor and cry about the wounded and dead and say its time to bring the troops home. I watched it live and can get the transcript and all his transcripts the past week.
We cannot be seen as withdrawing for any reason other than on our terms after a successful campaign. And we speak thru the president.
Murtha actually may cause us to keep the troops there longer lest the enemy AND POTENTIAL FUTURE ENEMIES think that we are leaving for the reasons cited by him.
axiom: perceived weakness invites aggression
democrats are seen as weak, soft appeasing spoiled babies
or to use UBL's terms, the weak horse..the paper tiger
Japan: Homogenous country, thoroughly defeated.
Germany: Homogenous country, thoroughly defeated.
Iraq: Multiethnic, religiously diverse country with an increasingly potent insurgency.
I can understand emotionally how many Americans feel we just have to do something. But at some point you put the emotions aside and look at the situation facing you.
It's like looking at Mein Kampf and the Tanaka Memorial in the early 1930s, and saying, "They don't mean it."
We found out the hard way that Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan did mean it. It took a long time and a lot of blood to make sure the resulting immediate threats were dealt with.
What will the excuse be this time?
Leaders and Commanders have to make choices given the information available to them at the time. That information may be wrong but as Bill Clinton might have said, it is what it is.
The hazard is that future Presidents will be reluctant to be proactive and we will all pay the price for that possible circumstance.
Mike Protack for U S Senate 2006
www.mikeprotack.com
Japan attacks us
Germany violates ceaasefire; fires on shipping
UBL attacks from a terror harboring nation state
Iraq in violation of ceasefire; firing on planes; harboring terrorists incl one who attacked us in 1993
war over
so we let Iraq become a terror harboring state since they are not
homogeneous?
must be very emboldened by all of this... most likely to the point of disdain. They have at minimum 7 years to do what they hell they want. Should be enough time to finish their nuclear missile aspirations... coming to a neighborhood near you!