But realistically the most helpful thing I can do for Iranians and Venezuelans is use my platform as a pundit to discourage the United States from launching a war with the former country or mounting a coup in the latter country. Extravagant denunciations of the Iranian regime do much more to increase the odds of a war with Iran (bad for Iranians) than to boost the fortunes of Iranian democracy.

Are the people who govern Iran nice people?  Hell no.  Do the Iranian citizens deserve to be killed in a war because they have bad leaders who are bad because they don't hold the same values as we do?  No again. 

There seems to be an unholy alliance between neocons and some liberals.  Both want to see the "spread of democracy" for entirely different reasons.  The neocons feel that democracies spreads free market capitalism and doing so is at the top of their priority list.  Some liberals see the spread of democracy and see an improvement in human rights. But to advocate spreading democracy through war for either end is counterproductive.  People who advocate the use of war as something "good" up to this point in history have been brutal, oppressive and un-democratic.  It isn't possible to change a society's behavior in an instant because those behaviors are part of their cultural psyche.  Let's say we could invade and conquer Iran tomorrow and impose a real democracy in Tehran.  The new "democratic" leaders wouldn't be much better than the group we just removed because no matter how "progressive" they are their values will be won't be much different from the values of the people we just removed. 

So in the end all that will be accomplished is that tens of thousands innocent civilians will be killed and the truth that war is the most immoral, imhumane act mankind can commit will be reinforced...yet again. And I agree with you Matt I don't see people of my ilk running the show in Washington anytime in the near or distant future.

Neither war's stated reason was to "spread democracy".

Kosovo? The jury is still out on the long term success of changing their cultural behavior. And on top of that there was an on-going genocide occurring.

And Japan? One example doesn't make a "rule" and we were at war with them because of their war-like proclivities.

"Neither war's stated reason was to "spread democracy"

Sure. But "spreading democracy" wasn't the stated reason for the Iraq invasion, and it's not likely to be the stated reason for any bombing of Iran.

-----

I have no real desire to keep quibbling over points in your original post. My main point is that the language in your original post seems to be arguing that war is always wrong, and I'm not in agreement with that.

Why do you think that the most practical and effective way to stop us from bombing Iran is to put a Democratic administration in place? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the last Democratic administration DID bomb a bunch of stuff, including bombing a bunch of stuff based on trumped up intelligence.

Sure. But "spreading democracy" wasn't the stated reason for the Iraq invasion, and it's not likely to be the stated reason for any bombing of Iran.

Yes but it was settled upon after the fact by the Bush Administration after all the other reasons were proved false.  And some portions of the left want to use war as a tool to promote human rights.  As far as Iran goes their nuclear program is front and center but I guarantee that we will hear the "spreading freedom and democracy" meme every day.

I have no real desire to keep quibbling over points in your original post. My main point is that the language in your original post seems to be arguing that war is always wrong, and I'm not in agreement with that.

I thought I was pretty clear that I was referring to specifically to spreading our values (economic or human rights) through war is bad.  But I do think on a bigger scale war is just wrong.  But sometimes wars do have to be fought but a certain threshold should be reached justifying it.  Our country is attacked is one, a country invading other countries unprovoked (Japan, Nazi Germany in the 30's & 40's and Saddam invading Kuwait for example), or where documented mass murder/genocide is being committed are all examples of when war sadly must used...I say sadly because everytime war is waged innocent people end up dying. 

Ahhhh...the "rising tide lifts all boats" theory. I do agree philosophically with that but in reality it isn't perfect. But it is a far better option than war.

In a sense the spreading of wealth through global free markets to improve the condition of people and spread democracy seems to have both socialist and capitalist underpinnings.

It seems that the old conservative/liberal/progressive descriptions are disappearing and there is a reshuffling going on. Neocons and some liberals are aligning on foreign policy for example while traditional "Goldwater" conservatives and progressives seem to agreeing more times then not.

It is more than "rising tide", though better economies would be good for all.

It is also a process of subversion and co-option whereby we are able to plant our memes (low hip hugger jeans, disrespect to adults, abortion on demand, NSYNC, Britney, ...) directly into their living rooms and bedrooms via computers, ebay, skype, levis, cds, dvds,) while we build up our leverage points by creating reasonably well paying, labor respecting jobs that depend on trade with the outside world.

(I am kidding about which memes we would be implanting....)

"If you think that the current administration trumped up the Iraq intelligence prior to the invasion for the purposes of deceiving people..."

Of course I do. You don't? I didn't think that was in question anymore.

There seems to be an enormous amount of evidence that there was an operation out of the VP's office to pressure the intelligence agencies into dropping or marginalizing reports that disagreed with the administration's pre-conceived notions of Iraq intelligence.

This differs from a mistaken judgment about which intelligence view is correct. This was an effort to shape the intelligence reports the rest of the bureaucracy and Congress was viewing to influence the debate in the run-up. And this was an effort to (even more importantly) protect the intelligence paper trail in the event no WMD's were found.

When I say the administration trumped up the Iraq intelligence prior to the invasion for the purposes of deceiving people, I'm not saying they manufactured false reports out of whole cloth. But when they got raw intelligence from dubious sources - such as the Curveball stuff - they went out of their way to discourage normal doubts about the provenance of such raw intelligence and to move it into the finished intelligence. Similarly, when reports came in that would not have supported their case, they did their best to have them removed from the finished intelligence.

I think I'm well within the bounds of the reality-based community to call this "trumped up", and I'm not aware of the Clinton administration playing any kind of similar games. It's not standard behavior.

I think a general skepticism & less rightoeusness for the sake of righteousness is in oder. People do need to realize that foreign policy excursions, don't exist in a vacuum, they can have PR consequences, they will change the way events between rival factions play out (which means de facto, "intervention" IS taking a side) and obviously, our actions have consequences that we won't always be able to predict.

That said, I find Matt's post_raq foreign policy opinions have gone past the trheshhold of stteley eyed realism and have touched upon the domain of plain apathy & amorality, objectively at the very least. I think the low point in this was his recent article in TAP discussing Darfur (which there is legitimate skepticism on) where he questions whether or not what's going on there can really be considered genocide. This leads me to believe that Matt's pseudo-isolationism is not just skepticism or realism but has become an obsession searching for a justification, of which the amoral quietness of realism can certainly suffice when convenient.

It doesent have to be Hawkishness, but it would be nice if liberals could formulate what they are FOR in foreign policy rather than railing what they are against (which is alot). And when I say what we are for, I mean something beyond espousing a perverse humbleness, pseudo-isolationism, the sense that we shouldn't even unilaterally participate in adopt-a-starving african boy infomercial programs without the permission of the U.N, & a framework that judges foreign policy actions less on their rightness & correctness than on what the neighbors think. I'd sooner pledge undivided devotion to Scowcroftian/Kissengerian realism than that.

"the SSCI report on prewar intelligence states that there is "no evidence" that any such pressure affected the intelligence community."

You are entirely correct about the SSCI report, but IMHO, that report is badly flawed, and Jay Rockefeller was badly outmaneuvered in the preparation of the report.

However, the fact that the SSCI determined there was "no evidence" of pressure and manipulation of intelligence does not change the fact that a reasonable person looking at the available evidence would come to a different opinion.

And to show I'm a reasonable person, let me further clarify. I'm not saying that the administration knew there were no WMD. I'm not saying the administration created documents. And finally, I'm not saying Dick Cheney had evil motives in what he was doing.

But I am saying the administration pretty clearly and obviously pushed and manipulated the intelligence to a degree unseen in the post-WW II era. Even the shenanigans around the Vietnam war didn't reach the level of intelligence manipulation practiced in 2002 and 2003.

The independent Robb-Silverman commission found the same as the SSCI.

I know, perhaps Robb et al were outmaneuvered by those crafty Bushies, like Rockefeller (and, one assumes, all of the other Democrats on the SSCI, all of whom also voted for the report). But at some point, though, maybe you'd consider the possibility that they all are right and you are wrong. I would think that a member of the reality-based community would, at least.

another afterthought: something about this

criticize illiberal regimes more harshly

strikes me as not quite right.

Hawkishness is not a necessity. The problem is more like this: self-defeating liberal style says: Chavez has great ideas and is doing great things, instead of bashing and plotting against Chavez, America should be more like him. That's the wrong rhetoric. You have to think like this: America always can do better than everyone else if they would try, no need to be copying other countries, good or bad. If you want some of Chavez's social programs in the U.S., for crying out loud, talk about them as an American idea, leave him out of it. By praising Chavez as someone to copy, one sounds like one would prefer living in Venezuela--it's the love it or leave it thing. If you run on the "we are much worse than other countries, we should be ashamed" message, you are going to lose. But I don't believe a "live and let live" attitude towards "illiberal regimes" hurts with a majority; the hawkish attitudes appeal to a minority.

I think the people who are dismayed at the direction this country has gone and in particular with its foreign policy have one exxential task to perform which is the sine qua non of stopping future foreign policy debacles and needless tragic, neocolonial military ventures. It is NOT electing Democrats per se. We have seen previously with LBJ and presently with liberal warhawks such as Tony Blair (without British support the Iraq fiasco would NOT have occurred) in Britain and the vile DLC/New Republic nexus here at home, that the Democrats can be (if we allow it) as vile and as vicious, as corrupt and as offensive, as the Republican neo-cons we oppose. Dems have often led this country into tragic military actions with as little purpose or thought as the Republicans. What will prevent bad policy is not the election of another group of criminals and thugs coming into power with a different label; it is forming a party of true opposition to the policies and goals of the Bush gang and their Democratic enablers. The smug blow-hard Beinart (just like Wittman, Lieberman, Biden, Clinton) wants to paint the antiwar left as pacifists; OK, if he will accept the label of fascist and racist and imperialist for there are many of these supporting the Iraq war. Many people understood from the beginning that Iraq was not about WMD or 9/11; it was about oil, and regime-change, and dominating the Middle East, about showing off new military hardware and power, and maybe keeping the Chinese in line. Any fool could see that. That Beinart and his Democratic warhawks could not, would not, and did not means that as long as these folks control the Democratic Party we are all in danger. Not only will they smear the antiwar left and the progressives at every opportunity, but as Beinart's reception by the Mainstream Corporate Media shows, they will be the voice of the non-opposition Opposition Party. If we do not wrest the Democratic Party from this lot, we might as well forget November...It really won't matter much. These Dems will do Republican bidding just to differentiate themselves from the Progressives. As someone put it on another post, every moment for these guys is a Sister Souljah moment.
I think Lincoln in talking about the principle of "popular sovereignty", said he'd rather have his tyranny in the undiluted form of Russian tsarist absolutism, rather than dished out in hypocritical form by the Congress. I think we are better off with an oppositon party that opposes the corrupt foreign policy of Bush/neocons/DLC that is out of power, than a Democratic Party of Zell Miller (DLC) and the rest of his gang Lieberman-Beinart-Wittman-Biden-Hillary in power and enacting Republican policies. For those who were around during Vietnam, my memory was that the knowledge that that tragic disaster was a Democratic venture from the start, made it a much greater frustration and a much more bitter pill.

It is also a process of subversion and co-option whereby we are able to plant our memes (low hip hugger jeans, disrespect to adults, abortion on demand, NSYNC, Britney, ...) directly into their living rooms and bedrooms via computers

This strategy doesn't seem to be undermining theocracy here. If anything Dobson, Fallwell, and Robertson seem to be doing better not worse because of this kind of culture.

"The independent Robb-Silverman commission found the same as the SSCI."

I'm fulling conceding that No Controlling Legal Authority has said the administration has broken any laws or broken any government ethics rules in regards to their behavior with intelligence in the run-up to the war.

And I'm further conceding that I know of no laws or government ethics rules broken.

"But at some point, though, maybe you'd consider the possibility that they all are right and you are wrong. I would think that a member of the reality-based community would, at least."

While not having read either of the committee's reports, I'd be willing to stipulate that they all are right. My quibble is with the scope of the investigations.

What I'm pretty sure I'm right about is that there is overwhelming evidence that there was a non-standard, unprecedented, and massive effort to manipulate the government's internal intelligence product by reaching all the way down to the lowest levels of the intelligence community, and that this effort was run out of the VP's office.

"...were outmaneuvered by those crafty Bushies..."

Actually, sorta, yes.

But not generic Bushies. Dick Cheney.

Just like LBJ was master of the Senate, Cheney is master of the national security WH. And a large part of that is his mastery of the executive branch bureaucracy. He's proven this at every stop on his executive branch resume.

Cheney and his team were smart bureaucratic warriors who didn't dream of doing anything against any laws or rules that would leave any fingerprints behind. It's why the limited scope panels aren't finding any such fingerprints - there aren't any. The VP's office didn't even do anything technically wrong in the original Plame business - until Libby tried to get cute with the Grand Jury, of course.

But the fact that there is No Controlling Legal Authority to say they did anything wrong, and the fact there likely never will be, doesn't mean there isn't an overwhelming amount of evidence that something non-standard, unprecedented, and massive went on.

The culture wars started when the south made the choice to import African slaves. The culture wars that blew up in the 60's were as much a result of the civil rights revolution as they were about war. The protesters were merely the scapegoats. We were losing a war abroad. We were facing enormous social change at home. We were letting women into Harvard for God's sake.

Stop apologizing. You didn't segregate the schools, keep women out of law schools or start the war in Vietnam.

"I'd suggest the most practical and effective way to stop that from happening is to put a Democratic administration in place in a couple of years."

And what happens if Bush launches the Iran war THIS year?

No answer.

I thought so.

Josh Bolton has already leaked this when he said, "The Dems will lose over Iran."

I have yet to read a SINGLE Democrat deal with that statement and that scenario.

Good post, Matt.

Glad to see someone here taking a rational stand on Iran.

Now if only the Dems could find a SENIOR Democratic politician ready to stand up and say that military action against Iran has to be taken off the table completely because it is illegal.

Only Peter DeFazio and a small handful of others have done that, and they've been ignored.

The Dems also need to find a Democratic campaign manager who has some clue about what to do WHEN - not IF - Bush launches the Iran war BEFORE or during the fall elections.

I have yet to read ANY Democrat deal with that scenario - because they are all in denial about its existence, despite Josh Bolton's clear statement, "The Dems will lose over Iran."

"National politics is not a chess game that is played by two individual strategists, who can think several moves ahead, with various layers of feints and disguise and misdirection. It is more like a game of soccer played by a gang of drunken monkeys with giant blimp-sized balls."

This really is a chess game. It's not played by a single strategist on each side, but it is played by a small number of strategists.

If one side plays a disciplined chess game while the other side plays like drunken monkeys, guess who's gonna lose.

"we end up with a stoked-up, hawkish body politic – including among Democrats. Then when the Democrats do get into office, their hands will be tied by the fervency of public opinion."

Bill Clinton got elected to office pledging to be a Democrat who wasn't afraid of using force. And he did use force. But in ways that seemed sensible to me and many other Democrats.

I trust the next Democratic administration will look more like the Clinton administration on national security than it will like the current Republican administration. And adopting a Beinart-ian rhetoric isn't incompatible with that in any way, shape, or form.

This really is a chess game. It's not played by a single strategist on each side, but it is played by a small number of strategists.

That's delusional Petey. Who are these "small number of strategists"? Strategists can tell the delegates at a convention to shut up about their antiwar stance, but it doesn't work so well. Because everyone who can read can develop a clear sense of where the rank and file really stands. The strategists can control what their own candidate and his chief supporters say, but their power to control the national debate is decidedly limited.

Bill Clinton got elected to office pledging to be a Democrat who wasn't afraid of using force. And he did use force. But in ways that seemed sensible to me and many other Democrats.

Every candidate pledges not to be afraid to use force. No matter who runs in 2008, we can guarantee in advance he or she will say "I will not be afraid to use force when necessary." Even Dennis Kucinich would say this, while at the same time advocating his Department of Peace. It's standard boilerplate.

Clinton ran a relatively dovish campaign, in the golden glow of the Soviet collapse, with the public gredily eying massive peace dividends. His most prominent military-related campaign pledge was to allow gays in the military. And in part because he was a draft dodger and it wasn't his strong suit, but also because the public was fixated on domestic economic issues, his strategy was to avoid discussion of military and national security affairs. It was "it's the economy, stupid." He then promised to "focus like a laser beam" on the economy, and barely touched on security issues for a couple of years.

Upon assuming office, he lead with the gays in the military pledge, alienated the military further in his first weeks in a way from which he never recovered, was taken to the wood shed by Sam Nunn, and retreated back into the domestic policy bunker. It took him at least 2 or 3 years to grow into his role as commander-in-chief, a role for which he was ill-suited, and to which he had evidently given little thought prior to assuming office.