Well, if the comparison is to Iran, you’re setting the bar really low.
I do think, however, the paper may miss the point. While limited surgicial strikes against Iranian targets is conceivable (though likely to fail), an all out invasion of Iran would be military insanity, and the Bush Administration knows it. Yet what cards do they have left to play? Iraq has stretched America’s military thin, and the situation there has been deteriorating steadily since fall 2003. The US is in a position of relative weakness, while Iran is in a position of relative strength — and has been cocky about it, risking the same kind of error of over-estimating its strength that the US made in 2003 (and 1999).
So what do you do? Well, you could threaten, making the Iranians think twice about their cockiness. The key there would be to get them thinking, "gee, Bush is leaving office soon, doesn’t have another election, maybe he is crazy enough to actually attack." That could limit Iranian actions, and aid the backlash against Ahmadinejad by even conservative clerics and politicians who dislike the way in which Ahmadinejad’s unilateralism has caused an anti-Iranian backlash world wide, and created fear in the Sunni world. Moreover, it could be a prelude to a diplomatic initiative — if the Bush Administration recognizes that there can be no solution in Iraq without the regional involvement of Syria and Iran — something most experts about the region believe, as discomforting as it might be to the idealists who thought this would spread democracy throughout the region — then clearly they can’t go to Iran on their knees. That would make Iran less likely to cooperate and make a diplomatic initiative more likely to fail. They’d have to get Iran to decide that its also in their interest to cooperate (and cease any intervention they might be doing) in Iraq.
This also puts al-Maliki in an interesting situation. He needs both the US and Iran (assuming they are active there) to ultimately leave Iraq or else he’ll risk being seen as a puppet with no real power. Right now the best possible outcome in Iraq at least in the near to mid term is for a US departure not to lead to a pro-Iranian Shi’ite dominated Iraq. We’ll see if the Bush Administration can pull that off. |
| |
Written By:
Scott Erb
URL:
http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
|
Remember when we bullied Hitler and Mussolini and the Times asked “Why did we go to war with Italy? They have no WMD program nor did they attack us in Pearl Harbor?”
I remember anti-war.com saying: “That bully FDR! He invaded Germany and inflamed the insurgents. Hitler was bogged down with the UK in the West and the USSR in the east. He wasn’t going to invade America. Now they hate us!”
I’m waiting for the Eastwood movie showing the Waffen-SS as loving fathers and husbands.
/sarcasm=off |
| |
Written By:
Jason Pappas
URL:
http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/
|
|
I think a big part of the complaint is that Iraq has been dreadfully mismanaged. The electricity situation, for example, or the continued stories of no-bid contractors embezzling unfathomable amounts of money. No one trusts Bush to do it right anymore, and he basically says "well I’m the president" and demands they do. |
| |
Written By:
Josh
URL:
http://www.conjecturer.com/weblog
|
With the help of UN sanctions and Saudi Arabia keeping oil prices low, I think we’re putting a good deal of pressure on Iran. With a little covert help to their opposition groups we can put a great deal more pressure on Iran. For those that worry about the power of Iran, how will us abandoning Iraq decrease their power? It will surely increase it tenfold. Iran is more vulnerable with us in Iraq than with us not in Iraq.
And remember, we’ve been catching and releasing Iranians in Iraq for years and all it’s done is encourage them, but now we’re bullying them? |
| |
Written By:
ChrisB
URL:
http://
|
I think a big part of the complaint is that Iraq has been dreadfully mismanaged. The electricity situation, for example, or the continued stories of no-bid contractors embezzling unfathomable amounts of money. No one trusts Bush to do it right anymore, and he basically says "well I’m the president" and demands they do. The policy on Iraq was driven by a fundamental misconception about politics. They ignored the political culture and history of Iraq, which gives it a certain range of political possibilities in the near term, and believed that somehow a modern, functioning pro-American democracy could be created if we simply removed the dictator and threw a lot of money at reconstruction and development. That’s not the way the world works! They used examples like Germany and Japan to argue this could be done, not recognizing the fundamental political/cultural differences in these cases.
Bush’s policy was not conservative, but idealist. I doubt his intention was just to help his oil buddies, I believe he was sincere in thinking this would spread freedom and help bring peace to the Mideast. Idealists almost always overestimate the ability of political power and force to alter culture and shape outcomes. That means that some of the biggest political fiascos are caused by well intentioned and idealistic plans of social engineering. And really at base that’s what this was: a big government effort to use force and tax payer money at social engineering to try to perfect or at least improve a broken system. Most people who are conservative or libertarian argue consistently that such efforts are unlikely to work. But for some reason, a lot of them didn’t recognize that this is what was going on in Iraq. |
| |
Written By:
Scott Erb
URL:
http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
|
So let’s see if I’ve got this straight. We go into Iraq, remove a murderous dictator, remove at least the threat of WMD, allow 18 million people to take a stab at an open self-government, rebuild their infrastructure, get their oil flowing again, build schools, train police... Oh nice try, Billy. First off, you have NONE of this straight, except the first line.
We went into IRAQ: yes we did. Score!
remove a murderous dictator: Expo Facto, Billy. That was not the reason we were given for going. Removing Saddam was Bush vengence and good war PR. Obviously this action brings no peace to Iraq, perhaps only more suffering. Saddam’s capture and lynching was not worth the life of one US soldier, much less 3000.
remove at least a threat of WMD: As well as the threat of retaliation by rainbows and puppies! Now, given all the early doubt (Downing Street Memo, Wilson, et al) and UN Inspectors finding NOTHING and Saddam opening up every area except his personal nether regions to Inspectors, you still fall back on this lie? Billy, Billy Billy... there NEVER WAS a threat of WMD’s from Iraq. If Iraq had the even the potential for WMD’s (except the ones we sold him to use on Iran) that was no solid reason to invade and occupy.
allowing 18 milion etc: Oh Billy, such flowery prose; so void of substance. Tell those who are forced to sleep in their businesses because of the early-evening curfew in their own Capitol City that they have a stab at open and self-government. Just like ours, right?
Build schools, train police: you mean rebuild the perfectly functioning public schools we bombed? Retrain and replace the police we shot and killed during the conflict? Trading Baathist police thugs for American police thugs?
The NYTimes is spot-on. Bush is a classic bully with a baseball bat, and his club of choice is the United States Military.
That you still defend Bush, so weakly, is indeed disturbing, Billy. You will fit in well here. |
| |
Written By:
Rick Day
URL:
http://goplobby.org
|
this time trying to bully Iran into stopping its meddling inside Iraq That meddling = killing Americans. So yeah, a fair amount of "bullying" is called for.
Poor Iran! Lets all have a good cry for them.
I officially give up on these people. |
| |
Written By:
shark
URL:
http://
|
why did Hezbollah and Hamas both become politically powerful? because both organizations were able to deliver desperately needed social services to the poorest members of their communities.
the newspapers are full of stories of iranians doing the same thing. banking, medical care and reconstruction aid is flowing across the border along with military expertise. and since Iraq is nominally sovereign, it’s not like we have the right to close the border (assuming we have the troop strength to do so).
As far as military aid goes, apply a "liberty" standard. The iranians are increasing iraqis’ liberty by providing alternatives to american hegemony. (please detect the note of irony in the foregoing.)
|
| |
Written By:
Francis
URL:
http://
|
I agree! The Iranians are increasing Iraqi’s liberty by killing them with death squads, IEDs and militias!
HAIL THE LIBERATORS OF IRAN!!!!
|
| |
Written By:
shark
URL:
http://
|
Bullying Iran...you mean like getting the EU, Russia, and China to agree to limited sanctions. I guess they are either bullies too or we have bullied them.
Oh, plus Jordan and other states are now worried about Iran and expressing interest in nuclear weapons...more US bullying I suppose. |
| |
Written By:
Harun
URL:
http://
|
If we bully tyrants, so be it. If opposing Iran’s aspiring Hitler is called bullying then we need more of it.
Of course in Iraq, our removal of Saddam send a clear message that was heard even in Libya. Our big mistake is nations-building in such a cultural desert. It wasn’t the bullying that was a problem; it was trying to “win hearts and minds.” Imagine if we stopped WWII after invading Italy to construct a model society to impress the people of Europe.
With Iran on the horizon, we stopped in Iraq to do social work. The problem isn’t that Bush is a bully but that he isn’t a “bully.” He’s too soft. Would Patton stop in Messina with Hitler sitting comfortably in Berlin? Iran is the “big one” – Saddam was a side show. Prior to the 2003 invasion I wondered if Iraq was a strategic move towards Iran. I never imagined that Iraq was the main goal.
The problem with Bush, and I’ve been saying this for sometime, is that he pretended to be tough. Now the left is saying that “tough failed.”
|
| |
Written By:
Jason Pappas
URL:
http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/
|
I agree that he’s been too "soft" in that he’s tried to fight an overly compassionate war- the only kind of war our wussified society can ever tolerate.
It’s the same stupidity that cost Israel against Hamas.
|
| |
Written By:
shark
URL:
http://
|
Thanks, shark. And yes it is the culture, Bush is merely a symptom. I’ve nothing against him personally.
Israel has the same problem. I remember reading Levin’s book “The Oslo Syndrome.” While Levin thinks the problem is unique to Israel, I kept thinking that Israel is a microcosm of the West.
Still, the cultural challenges are part and parcel of the fight. Perhaps I’m preaching to the choir but I find the same old songs invigorating. ;)
|
| |
Written By:
Jason Pappas
URL:
http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/
|
|
The NY Times wouldn’t know their butts from the Large Gaping Hole in Rick Day’s Head. This is the same newspaper that couldn’t ferret our serial liar Jayson Blair from its midst. They see the hole (which is as big as the hole in Rick’s head) where the WTC was and they think: Bush bad, Islamofascism nonexistent. |
| |
Written By:
Come on, Please
URL:
http://
|
|
What shark & J Pappas said - Bush is merely shouting at Iran, has been doing so for a long time. Bush has been quite multilateral in his condemnation of Iran, the reporting is incorrect as brute force has not been applied. |
| |
Written By:
unaha-closp
URL:
http://warisforwinning.blogspot.com/
|
I agree that he’s been too "soft" in that he’s tried to fight an overly compassionate war- the only kind of war our wussified society can ever tolerate. Yeah, too bad we’re not strong enough to have no moral qualms about killing innocents, turning women into widows, destroying the lives of children either by killing them or making them orphans, and unleashing suffering a culture. Yeah, only wusses worry about that stuff. Strong people don’t give a flying f*** about the suffering of others or the damage they do. They just want to win and conquer! But alas, we are a country with some since of ethics, and because of that we won’t be willing to engage in wars that aren’t in the national interest and which are based on conquest and aggression.
Too bad. Strong countries like Hitler’s Germany, Tojo’s Japan, Napoleon’s France, and the Kaiser’s Germany had oh so good track records! |
| |
Written By:
Scott Erb
URL:
http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
|
Iran’s aspiring Hitler LOL! Hitler was head of a powerful industrial giant, the strongest state in Europe, which built a huge military, the most lethal and well equipped of that era going into WWII.
Iran is weak, divided, and even if they get one or two nuclear weapons Israel has hundreds and could destroy Iran in a second. Hitler? Sheesh, when people start fantasizing that people like Ahmadinejad, who isn’t even that powerful in his own relatively weak country is some kind of Hitler, it looks more like a desire to fantasize some great struggle even if none exists. |
| |
Written By:
Scott Erb
URL:
http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
|
Yeah, too bad we’re not strong enough to have no moral qualms about killing innocents, turning women into widows, destroying the lives of children either by killing them or making them orphans, and unleashing suffering a culture. Yeah, only wusses worry about that stuff. Strong people don’t give a flying f*** about the suffering of others or the damage they do. They just want to win and conquer! But alas, we are a country with some since of ethics, and because of that we won’t be willing to engage in wars that aren’t in the national interest and which are based on conquest and aggression Actually, the problem is that we seem to have moral qualms about killing our actual enemies.
But then again, who can expect an academic to figure that out when he can call someone a de facto baby killer?
Good job Erby! |
| |
Written By:
shark
URL:
http://
|
Actually, the problem is that we seem to have moral qualms about killing our actual enemies.
But then again, who can expect an academic to figure that out when he can call someone a de facto baby killer?
Good job Erby My, what empty rhetoric. Face it, reality is proving your perspective wrong.
Deal with it. Reality bites. |
| |
Written By:
Scott Erb
URL:
http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
|
shark, I savor the irony of an ivory-towered academic lecturing the rest of us on reality.
|
| |
Written By:
Billy Hollis
URL:
http://
|
shark, I savor the irony of an ivory-towered academic lecturing the rest of us on reality.
I got news for you, rural Maine is far, far, from the ivory towers! |
| |
Written By:
Scott Erb
URL:
http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
|
Scott Erb wrote:I got news for you, rural Maine is far, far, from the ivory towers! Being in an ivory tower is a state of mind. Even your hair can’t get metaphorically long enough for you to climb down from the one you are in.
Your judgement in matters like this is simply not worth much, because you affirm counterfactuals (e.i., your opinions about the Vietnam war—consider Don’s posts in this thread if you persist in disagreeing).
You learned the wrong lesson from that history, such that you think we should repeat a mistake.
The ethical and moral blindness you show is simply staggering.
I wonder for what principle you could be induced to show moral courage?
Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp |
| |
Written By:
Tom Perkins
URL:
http://
|
Being in an ivory tower is a state of mind Actually, it’s a cheap way to avoid actually dealing with an argument. Insult the other person’s job (why would being a teacher be more isolating than any particular job)?The ethical and moral blindness you show is simply staggering. Then back up your position. I argue that not only was going to war in Iraq immoral and unethical, but that we share responsibility for unleashing the violence that has killed perhaps hundreds of thousands. This war, like the Kosovo war, strikes me as fundamentally immoral, a major world power using death and destruction carelessly to pursue political ends, but trying to avoid damage to itself (while not caring about the citizens of other countries).
Saddam by 2003 was a defanged tiger. When he was really dangerous, we were supporting him. The hypocracy behind the "we are doing this to liberate people from Saddam" is astounding. Now we are in a position where we can’t and aren’t protecting Iraqis (giving lie to the claim that if we leave it’ll get worse; we’re not doing much if any good now), and no ethnic conflict like this ends quickly. Now is the time for moral, ethical concerns about the death and suffering of innocents matters.
Moral courage would be for the President to admit this war was wrong, apologize, and work to both withdraw American forces and try to build some kind of regional effort for stability. Admitting error is a sign of moral courage. And I find it moral cowardness for people not to be able to recognize the failure and disaster of this case. Sooner or later, as with the global warming debate, those who hold on to an untenable position out of political dogmatism are going to be forced to admit error. Global warming is unequivocal now, even President Bush and the US government admit that. Just watch: the Iraq war is effectively ending America’s role as the world’s dominant power. It’s a tragedy caused by our lack of attention to the ethical and moral principles upon which our country was founded. |
| |
Written By:
Scott Erb
URL:
http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
|
