M.J. Rosenberg

Ironically some of the same Democrats who threatened to oppose Pelosi's bill as being too soft on Iraq are the self-same Dems who wanted to preserve Bush's prerogative to unilaterally attack Iran.

I find it incredible that any rational person is considering attacking Iran.

If we attack Iran and the shit hits the fan, these same Democrats will be running from their vote and their support for Bush when 2008 comes around and they have to run for re election. I suggest they look at Hillary's attempts to ameliorate her Iraq war vote. Its Iraq/WMD deja vu for the Dems.

The voters gave the Dems control of the Congress for two reasons, Iraq and Republican corruption. If enough Dems now seem to be pro war, and a possible attack on Iran stays in the news, they will be back in the minority in 08.

Pro-Israeli agents of influence have infiltrated and corrupted our whole system of government, and Israel will fight to the last US Marine to get her way in the Mideast - and this requires putting down Iran as a potential strategic competitor, regardless of the damange to US interests in the region. They did this with Iraq - which resulted in a civil war there and Arabs/American killing each other - no skin off of Israel's back. Suits Israel just fine, in fact. Better a destroyed/weak Iraq than a stable one that isn't under Israel's thumb like Jordan, and better Americans hating Arabs and vice versa, after all.

No mystery there.

That's it, Congress has to publicly stand for a drug test...SOMEbody's smokin' dope...

I'd like a little more information. . .

...about the author Daniel Rieff.  What are his bona fides?  Can I be pretty sure he's not cherry picking?  The article in the New York Times strikes me as pretty lightweight, and Mr. Rieff is no Seymour Hersh.  Is that too harsh? 

Thanks in advance, Mr. R. 

aMike

While there isn't that much to the article, the issue is immense.  Who, in our party, will oppose senseless war?  If we make Islam the enemy (a substitute for Communists of yore) then we have a very large problem, 'cause there are a lot more of 'em than there are of us.  Iran, itself, is a substantial country. 

This is not the end of WWII, where we had the good will of 2/3 of the world on our side.  We have alienated all the non-elites of the world (outside of eastern Europe) and a good many of the elites.

It is time for us to behave like good neighbors rather than big bullies. 

Why is it on the table? It's not as if the Iranian hordes were about to spill over the Minnesota border. The default position for war with any country should be off the table.

The story needs to be read in the context of revelations earlier this month about the lobbying that deleted the language from the supplemental Iraq war funding bill that would have required the President to consult Congress before attacking Iraq.

This is at odds with comments made by those Democratic congressmen who led the fight against inserting the Iran provision in the supplemental bill such as Gary Ackerman and Eliot Engel.  They denied being lobbied on this issue by AIPAC. 

Was there other lobbying, or are these Congressmen lying?

They are lying.

Next question?

SeeDee

When we are led by an intellectually impotent individual such as 'W' who is basically a 'bully' himself, and our political process is held hostage by a clique who controls world financial matters to a large extent and whose political agenda is based on what is good 'not 4America', but what is good for some foreign country, what can one expect?

One re-inforces the other, and we go on being the bully in the eyes of most of the world.

I am not sure why this is so shocking. General Odom is very much opposed to the war in Iraq becuase he is concerned about Iran. He argues that fighting in Iraq weakens the U.S. in any confrontation or diplomacy directed against Iran. Murtha is against the war in Iraq because he is worried about China.

That Iraq is a disaster does not make Iran or other countries benign. Also remember at the beginning of the Iraq war the public supported with 73% of Americans favoring it. Americans don't like losing not war.

Despite the pacificism of many at TPMCafe and the belief in the good intentions of everyone but America elected Democrats, who only fools believe are in the pocket of AIPAC, both want to make sure America and American interests are protected and they get reelected.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

What's your evidence?

Actually, the military-industrial complex prefers "war on terrorism" as the never-ending cause to fill their coffers. "War on Islam" is too obviously discriminatory for our public officials to mouth except for idiots such as Santorum and his war against Islamo-fascism.

Tom

I don't think that War should ever be an option on the table.

War is what happens when all the options fails. It is the final refuge of the incompetent and the murderous. It is the sport of tyrants.

After all, have any Democrats yet paid a real political price - other than having to endure a certain amount of grief from people like me - for their support of the Iraq war?

John Kerry paid a price, and Lieberman almost did, but in general your point is well taken. Of course, it's too soon to know if Clinton and Edwards will pay a price in '08.

Know your enemy well, for in the end that is who you become. ~~Old Chinese Proverb

A lot of the table talk seems aimed to impress a domestic audience by our bring-it-on President and his supporters. This is not signifcantly unlike the rhetoric of Ahmadinejad. 

The danger of saber-rattling, unfortunately, is that it has a self-fullfilling prophecy aspect to it that itself can lead to war. The higher the level of rhetoric, the more difficult it becomes for the rattlers to back down.

Know your enemy well, for in the end that is who you become. ~~Old Chinese Proverb

"war is a menu item for anyone who attacks us."

Look, I'm not necessarily arguing for all options on the table. But I am specifically pointing out that saying "all options is on the table" certainly fits with our history for some time. Communist containment brought us Korea and Vietnam. What about Kosovo? Iraq was a preventative war. What about Afghanistan? What if the Islamic extremists, let's say led by Osama, in Pakistan take over the Paki nuclear facilities?

None of these would be an attack on us.

They didn't need any lobbying. Eliot Engel is a total 'pro-Israel' tool of the AIPAC variety.

Rieff specifically refers to Iran's nuclear ambitions. I don't think we're on a timetable where Iranian nuclear weapons are pointed at anyone. But if this happens, do we just shrug and turn away? Just asking since Rieff simply isn't discussing it in this article.

And that's the nut-case Bush. What about the Democrats who Rieff also smears in this piece?

What nuclear ambitions?

Iran is entitled to a civilian nuclear program, and its economic rationale appears to be plausible.

Iran has consistently denied pursuing nuclear weapons. Islamic clerics have issued fatwahs denouncing nuclear weapons as anti-islamic. There is no actual evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons.

The allegation that Iran is developing or seeking or has nuclear weapons ambitions comes largely from the same nimrods who decided Al Quaeda was not a threat until after 9/12; who blew it with Osama at Tora Bora; and who bungled or lied about Iraq wmd's. Look at Iraq today... You figure these are credible people?

Best estimates are that even if Iran was developing a nuclear weapon, it is at least five years away from one. A single nuclear weapon is worthless, so they need to develop enough for a second strike capacity. And they need to develop a viable delivery system. So add another five to ten years onto that.

You're talking war on the table now for a threat which is intensely hypothetical and may be entirely unfounded, and which even if real, will not materialize for a period of between five to fifteen years.

Is thsi for real? Come on.

Dead under Bush, perhaps. Also dead for the Democrats? Not needed in the world today?

I am not supporting the Iraq War misadventure by any stretch of my imagination. Nor do I support the absolutely horrible foreign policy mistakes of this administration.

Rieff has taken the position that Democratic candidates stating "no option is off the table" means they want to redeploy TROOPS from Iraq to face Iran. I have great difficulty in following this logic.

I am also pointing out that it is not beyond MY imagination that extremists could take over a nuclear facility--in Pakistan now or in Iran in the future, coming from whatever Islamic sect you desire. Under that situation, are we still going to state that "all options are off the table". These are all hypothetical, which means I've gone further than Rieff who seems to believe that our Democratic candidates just can't wait to invade Iran, which, again, I find a shallow assessment.

The US has never, before this administration, threatened to go to war against another country to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons. Nuclear anti-proliferation has always been a policy pursued through international bodies and diplomacy. The idea that launching an unprovoked war against another country is an option that needs to be "on the table" is something entirely new and vicious that has come to us with Bush/Cheney; it has never been part of American foreign policy before. There is no reason for Democrats to sign on to this new aggressive doctrine.

"All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." - I.F. Stone

I find nothing to disagree with. Again, this is not the position in this article.

I also think we need to take a close look at the War Powers Act which gives some 60-day leeway to the executive to launch missiles and the like. Particularly after the Bush mess.

I also would point out that Republicans and Democrats were sensible until Bush. Now, we'll have to insist on ways to protect ourselves from "Bush-like" policies....assuming we can EVER get this guy out of office. 2009 seems a century away.

There's a big difference between stating "all options are off the table" from saying "war is not all the table."

You appear to be operating from a position that its war or nothing. War is 'all options.'

As I've noted, your suggestion of extremist terrorists taking over a nuclear facility is interesting, but war or a military attack on a foreign country experiencing a terrorist incident is probably the worst thing to do.

Well, the Cuban Missile Crisis with the USSR installing nuclear silos 90 miles from the Florida coast comes to mind. It was a blockade and a lot of shoe pounding, but it seems to me that was a provocation that we would have gone to war over. There was nothing international about it in terms of diplomacy--strictly between the USA and USSR. And Cuba would have had nuclear weapons.

But, still, this is the heart of the matter. And Rieff could have been this clear in his article.

What is considered provocation? Rieff rather outrageously suggests that our Democratic candidates want to redeploy troops from Iraq to Iran on rather flimsy premises. The argument could have been exactly what provocation should, would, could cause this country to go to war?

I think we all agree that Bush overstepped. But where is the line? Is it dropping bombs against a suspected Osama site? Is it hitting a Chinese building that was "suspected"? Is it enforcing the "no fly" zones in pre-war Iraq?

Mental experiment: suppose that enrichment program in Iran evaporates tomorrow. Will Iran still be treatead as a threat by our foreign policy establishment?

And how realistic is the scenatio that the following will not come to pass:

(a) we withdraw from Iraq

(b) Shia win the civil war in Iraq by dint of superior numbers (OK) and ample Iranian help (ouch)

(c) Syria, Iraq, Iran and Hezbollah will not form an aliance

(d) Israel will not feel any pressure as a result.

"...the three front-running Democratic candidates seem to base their logic for a drawdown in Iraq not on the desirability of bringing troops home but of being able to deploy them elsewhere. They and their policy analogues (figures like Richard Holbrooke and Ivo Daalder) argue that Iraq is a distraction in the global fight against the jihadists and that leaving Iraq will free up forces to pursue that struggle more effectively elsewhere."

That is Rieff. Three front-running Democratic candidates are Clinton, Obama, Edwards. Rieff is charging that these three candidates want to draw down Iraqi troops in order to redeploy them elsewhere....Iran.

As I mentioned elsewhere, Rieff was merely outrageous. I think a foreign policy discussion is overdue on questions surrounding what constitutes provocation; what role does monitoring of nuclear facilities play in containing nuclear weapons (and shouldn't America be monitored if we're requiring it of other nations). Lots of interesting, meaty questions. So I called Rieff shallow for not bringing them into the discussion.

There are nuances to your answer that simply are not broad enough.

If a terrorist group attacks us then this is an "act of war" against a country? So if a terrorist group from Beijing blows a hole in an American ship, our response would be....? I doubt we would bomb Beijing...What's the diff? Simply that the country we bomb doesn't have nukes? What if it were South Africa, would bombs be justified then?

Now you provide examples of a humanitarian intervention in Kosovo. What stopped us from assisting in Rwanda? What stops us now in Darfour?

One action outside the UN (Kosovo) and one inside the UN (no-fly zones in Iraq) is certainly not consistent.

Your point on nuke development is simply that we haven't faced the situation before--the closest was the Cuban Missile Crisis. We failed to prevent nuke development in India, Pakistan, China, and (due to idiot Bush) now North Korea. I don't know that I would know our response right now.

Why? Because our post-Cold War war policy is a mish-mash of inconsistencies. There is no coherent policy. That's the real issue. Reiff argues that there is a coherent policy between the Republicans and Democrats. I simply don't see the coherency in our policy at all.

Yes, usually. He started having doubts around Afghanistan; Iraq sealed it.

"All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." - I.F. Stone

On March 25, 2007 - 11:51pm Valdron said: I don't think that War should ever be an option on the table.

War is what happens when all the options fails. It is the final refuge of the incompetent and the murderous. It is the sport of tyrants.

I migh add that war allows the shirkers among us to vicariously become warriors, and enables them to strut around bellowing
"USA, USA, we're number one!" or maybe "We're kickin' ass!'

What is most absurd in this situation is that the White House and much of the country is seriously contemplating going to war against Iran over its nuclear program, and yet to this point the United States government has not spoken directly with the Iranian government to explore ways of resolving their dispute without war.

The White House conveys the impression that the only options now available are, first, sanctions, and then war if sanctions don't work. This seems to suggest that all other avenues have failed. And yet the most obvious avenue has yet even to be explored.

It appears to be the position of the US government that the only proper relationship between the US government and Iranian government is that of dominant partner to submissive partner, and that no communications between the governments can occur until Iran has assumed the submissive posture.

My feeling is the current US government does not truly seek a resolution of the dispute, and wishes to intensify the dispute so as to provide a pretext for regime change.

I love this stuff about how Rahm Emanuel "served in the Israeli Army". He volunteered to help out during Gulf War I, went to the Galilee and spent his time rust-proofing brakes. I'm not sure whose interests are being served by pretending he used to kick down doors, Uzi blazing -- probably his. I had a friend who did his service in the Israeli Army as a member of the Air Force band -- he's now a classical trumpet player. He used to tell girls "Oh, yeah, I was in Lebanon..." and shake his head. He didn't mention he was in Lebanon playing the overture to "Petruccio", but it was a good way to get some action...

"All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." - I.F. Stone

You still seem to restrict options to use of force. To say "all options are off the table" is to claim that diplomacy, international co-operation, economic arrangements, sanctions, etc. are not options.

A bombing raid is an act of war, nothing more, nothing less. Nobody drops nerf bombs.

In the case of a bombing raid on Iran, there are something between 12 and 30 nuclear sites that would have to be attacked. Many of these are in populated areas or are hardened.

The targets are located inside the country. To hit these targets, you would need to attack Iranian air defense installations to prevent reprisal, blowing up aircraft, missile sites, hangars, airstrips, radar installations and air traffic control towers. You would also have to attack civilian aerial sites in order to prevent surviving Iranian military from using these areas as fallback.

You would also have to attack military and civilian command and control centers in order to prevent coherent self defense responses, including dispersing or hardening of targets. Along the way, communication and transportation centers, radio, television, telephone, bridges, railways.

It's estimated that an 'air raid' would involve as many as 400 targets (perhaps more), across several days of bombing. Direct casualties would be in the tens of thousands.

All this for nothing more than an unproven suspicion uttered from a source who have been caught in an astonishing series of lies.

Eloquently put, I wish I could express myself like you Dan K.  I read a massive amount of political analysis of the Dem's spending bill, but only one source mentioned this incredibly important attachment:

Democrats Vow to Bring the Oil Back Home (Harper's)

http://www.harpers.org/sb-democrats-oil-1174575083.html

Make sure you click on the link found in this piece, for the Dennis Kucinich letter to his Democratic colleagues, informing them about the Bush-inspired oil company perk attached to the Dem spending bill. 

It's hard to believe the Progressive Democrats of America threw over Kucinich in favor of Edwards.  Although maybe not, once you realize that they're playing for a 'winner' and not for progressive values.  Bush was a 'winner' also.  Twice.  So what?

And no US government, either Republican or Democrat, has ever addressed Israeli nuclear proliferation.  Israel now has a nuclear arsenal larger than Britain's.

Reiff simply doesn't have a problem with assigning the top three Democratic candidates with the desire to redeploy troops from Iraq to Iran. He simply does not agree that these candidates are sitting still in a boat--he presents that they would actively pursue a direct military confrontation with Iran. I find that argument weak.

If you agree with Reiff, then simply say so. If you disagree with him, then say so.

All campaign rhetoric is for domestic consumption. One of the most virulent anti-communists was Richard Nixon, and he opened foreign relations with China. The anti-communist rhetoric played well with the locals.

but the point, Valdron, is that no one is promoting that. Rieff is making the assumption that if the dem candidates want to see the troops redeployed from Iraq, it is to move them to Iran.

 "...the three front-running Democratic candidates seem to base their logic for a drawdown in Iraq not on the desirability of bringing troops home but of being able to deploy them elsewhere. "

Robert Parry has some interesting, fresh ideas on the re-deployment of US troops:

"Meanwhile, a repositioning of U.S. forces out of Iraq could include putting some American troops in Israel to ease security concerns there and to help relocate settlers off the Golan Heights and out of occupied Palestinian lands.

"The image of U.S. and Israeli troops cooperating to resolve longstanding Arab complaints would go a long way toward defusing anti-Americanism and hostilities toward Israel. The relocations also would clear the way for Israeli peace treaties with Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinians."

A Greater Israel by Robert Parry, published Feb.13, 2007

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/5455

Isn't it interesting how outrageously radical and pie-in-the-sky real peace appears to be these days!  It's getting to the point where the idea of peace seems to be not only un-American but maybe also insane.   (hard to know what this signifies)

It's not only shallow, it is damned sloppy "journalism" and I use that word reluctantly. Now we have Rosenberg suggesting that dem candidates are "for" war with Iran, when not one them has said any thing even remotely like it. These people seem congenitally incapable of separating campaign rhetoric from reality.

It is exactly this kind of misrepresentation, distortion and downright falsehood that colours the public's perception of candidates and drives a discourse that is based not on understanding and nuance but on irrational and false assumptions that are simply reactionary.

Look at the headline of this post - dems "for war with Iran" - reactionary, hyperbolic and ruinous to dem candidates.

This is really nailing the true cause of this tragedy, Tom. Well said.

You think with Rahm's obvious skills in politics and interrogating newbie congress members that Israel put his talents to good use by: rust-proofing brakes, or even for troop morale starring in a ballet? ha ha ha!

Rieff never said that the Democratic candidates' stance is that war is inevitable BevD. His point was that the candidates have refused to express opposition to military action against Iran.

It also seems to me that if one's public position is that in dealing with Iran, all options must be left on the table, one can be said by virtue of that statement to be contemplating military action against Iran, along with all of the other options one is leaving on the table.

Well, I guess it would seem like that if we were all kids, but frankly, I think it is possible to separate reality from rhetoric. The candidates said the same things about Saddam in 2000, but I can't remember when any considered a "pre-emptive war" as an option.

I know what Rieff said, and his essay is an example of the kind of sloppy journalism that is prevalent at this time - just because any of them said that "no options are off the table" it doesn't mean that they are against war with Iraq because they are for war with Iran. Redeploying troops from Iraq doesn't mean it is to send them to Iran. That is the material point of his essay, Dan, and it is wrong - no one has said that, no one has advocated that and what Rieff is doing is ratcheting up the rhetoric with no responsibility. He could have called the candidates and asked them if that is what they meant and then quoted their response but instead we have the Amazing Kresgin telling us what they think.

It was a blockade and a lot of shoe pounding, but it seems to me that was a provocation that we would have gone to war over.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Rieff does not say that. What he says is that:

the three front-running Democratic candidates seem to base their logic for a drawdown in Iraq not on the desirability of bringing troops home but of being able to deploy them elsewhere. They and their policy analogues (figures like Richard Holbrooke and Ivo Daalder) argue that Iraq is a distraction in the global fight against the jihadists and that leaving Iraq will free up forces to pursue that struggle more effectively elsewhere.

He never says the candidates have advocated moving troops out of Iraq so as to move them into Iran specifically.

What Rieff does say is born out by the candidates' public statements. Here is Obama on the topic in his Aipac speech:

As the U.S. redeploys from Iraq, we can recapture lost influence in the Middle East. We can refocus our efforts to critical, yet neglected priorities, such as combating international terrorism and winning the war in Afghanistan. And we can, then, more effectively deal with one of the greatest threats to the United States, Israel and world peace: Iran.

In her recent NY Times interview discussing her own redeployment preferences for Iraq, deploying troops north of Baghdad and in Anbar province, Hillary Clinton said this:

''It would be far fewer troops,'' she said. ''But what we can do is to almost take a line sort of north of -- between Baghdad and Kirkuk, and basically put our troops into that region, the ones that are going to remain for our antiterrorism mission, for our northern support mission, for our ability to respond to the Iranians, and to continue to provide support, if called for, for the Iraqis.''

So I think it is quite fair to say that the need to enhance our military credibility elsewhere in the region, including Iran, is a significant part of the logic of the leading Democratic candidates for a drawdown in Iraq.

At the top level of national political discourse I think the question of war with Iran is a beard that serves to hide the fundamental problem with U.S. foreign policy, namely that it relies for its influence upon military power first, last and always.

If it seems like the only difference between Republican and Democratic foreign policy is how close to Iranian territorial waters they are willing to park a carrier task force you would be correct. The Republicans have staked out the position that they would station that task force two miles inside Iranian space. That is clear, unequivocal and decisive. (Roll tape of a big warship plowing through ten foot swells. My preference is the footage of a WW I vintage dreadnaught. Maybe add a little Richard Rogers’ music from “Victory at Sea.) Now here comes the Democrat, let’s say Senator Jim Webb. He has actually commanded such ships. He was secretary of the Navy under a Republican president. His son is in combat – right now. What does he do? He starts to talk. Game, set, match.

As a matter of practical politics talking, and thinking, is seen as unclear, equivocal and indecisive. America does not see itself as a nation of talkers, negotiators, mediators, as persuaders. Talk is what second tier nations do. British influence is found in supporting U.S. policy. France or Germany dither as is their want but their impact is understood to be directly proportional to their support for U.S. policy. And so on. The foundation of American foreign policy is not wisdom, it is military force. All of this leads to the fact that when the moment comes to pull the lever in a voting booth, the ordinary citizen confronts the formulation “power given is power lost.” And in turn every Democratic candidate must wrestle with that reality. In a few months each of us will have to choose which, if any, Democratic candidate to support. A Democrat who bases his foreign policy on “talk” will not be a contender. (Can you say Al Gore or John Kerry.) Each of us will have to choose a Democrat who embraces force and win now, or one who eschews force and loses now but advances the dialogue.

You are joining Reiff apparently with the need to enhance our "military credibility". Obama does not even use "military" or "troops" in his reply. I can simply read his reply as moving troops out, without any further action, increases American influence in the region. I could define "efforts" as diplomacy and not military troops. Obama has actually said, during his US senate campaign, that he ruled out the use of troops in Iran but could see that missile strikes IN THE FUTURE could be necessary. Lots of coulds in that one, so I fail to understand Reiff's....ohmygod, we're gonna invade Iran.

Hillary is certainly more hawkish in wanting our troops in the region for three reasons--one of which is apparently to respond to the Iranians with troops.

Edwards apparently doesn't earn a retort from you so this alone disproves Reiff's position that all three share a gusto for using troops against Iran.

Instead of nailing down what Reiff sees as vaguely threatening positions, he goes off on a tirade that I would call jumping to conclusions.

stlounick sez:

"Obama has actually said, during his US senate campaign, that he ruled out the use of troops in Iran but could see that missile strikes IN THE FUTURE could be necessary."

For the record, here's Senate candidate Obama discussing the Iran options in September 2004 with the Chicago Tribune editorial board:

"Obama said the United States must first address Iran's attempt to gain nuclear capabilities by going before the United Nations Security Council and lobbying the international community to apply more pressure on Iran to cease nuclear activities. That pressure should come in the form of economic sanctions, he said.

But if those measures fall short, the United States should not rule out military strikes to destroy nuclear production sites in Iran, Obama said.

"The big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures, including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point are we going to, if any, are we going to take military action?" Obama asked.

Given the continuing war in Iraq, the United States is not in a position to invade Iran, but missile strikes might be a viable option, he said. Obama conceded that such strikes might further strain relations between the U.S. and the Arab world.

"In light of the fact that we're now in Iraq, with all the problems in terms of perceptions about America that have been created, us launching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in," he said.

"On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse. So I guess my instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran. ... And I hope it doesn't get to that point. But realistically, as I watch how this thing has evolved, I'd be surprised if Iran blinked at this point."

snip]

Obama's willingness to consider additional military action in the Middle East comes despite his early and vocal opposition to the Iraq war. Obama, however, also has stressed that he is not averse to using military action as a last resort, although he believes that President Bush did not make that case for the Iraq invasion"
http://tinyurl.com/yawtm2

Obama asks the question "at what point are we going to, if any, are we going to take military action?" and I wonder if he has come any closer to answering it.

I was responding to what YOU said. You said it was a "preventative war." Not that it was "sold" as one. Here is your quote:

Look, I'm not necessarily arguing for all options on the table. But I am specifically pointing out that saying "all options is on the table" certainly fits with our history for some time. Communist containment brought us Korea and Vietnam. What about Kosovo? Iraq was a preventative war. What about Afghanistan? What if the Islamic extremists, let's say led by Osama, in Pakistan take over the Paki nuclear facilities?

You keep changing the subject and then go off on a tangent about Reiff when you are just as inflammatory yourself.

So I ask you again -- what did this fiasco PREVENT?

Jan Knaus

How does this:

Earlier this year, Vice President Cheney insisted that the administration had not “taken any options off the table” as Iran continued to defy United Nations calls for it to abandon its nuclear ambitions. The response from Democrats was not long in coming. Senator Clinton helped lead the charge, reminding the president that he did not have the authority to go to war with Iran on the basis of the Senate’s authorization of the use of force in Iraq in 2002.

Square with this:

Members of the Bush administration can surely be excused for wondering why, when he uses such language, Cheney is accused of saber-rattling, whereas when the leading Democratic presidential candidates use the same language, there are virtually no complaints within the Beltway or on the major editorial pages...

What does he mean, they're using the same language?  How can this dolt get away with it, and get away with it he has, as witnessed by this "sky is falling" headline!  This is insulting, and this: 

But what Senator Clinton did not say was at least as interesting as what she did say. And what she did not say was that she opposed the use of force in Iran.

...is insulting to anyone with a brain.  I am no fan of Hillary's but this beats all!  She also did not say that she is against attacking Canada and nuking them to smithereens.  Hmmmmm -- very interesting...I guess that means that the Canada nuke option remains "on the effing table!"

Give me a break! 

And don't even get me started on the Obama and Edwards actually wanting to attack Iran crapola!

This guy is unworthy of the many responses (including mine) but I blame MJR for giving it legs.

Please be a little more scrupulous when you post something!  Thank you.

Jan

They shouldn't be rocking the boat and they should not allow themselves to be pinned down on any kind of response to anyone about anything right now. The foreign policy situation in that region changes almost daily. It is also foolish for them to offer anything more than an opinion and that should be done very cautiously.

Rieff is drawing a conclusion based on false assumptions - that campaign rhetoric is something more than it appears and that a solution that might work today will work two years in the future and thus candidates must decide now what their stance would be and allow themselves to be pinned down - that just doesn't sound very smart.

That Iraq is a disaster does not make Iran or other countries benign.

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

I clarified that I meant the reason the Iraq War was sold so effectively to Americans. It was presented primarily as a preventative war--America would PREVENT terrorists or Saddam using WMD. There were humanitarian reasons thrown in, like "brutal dictator".

Reill is certainly not a tangent. He simply sees no difference among the top three Democrataic candidates when it comes to Iraq. I found that shallow and my original statement provoked a storm of protest.

And, yes, I'm poking a stick into the hornets' nest. I am interested in a discussion with individuals who can tell me their thinking on the reasons for war that go beyond Reill's facile and shallow conclusions.

As to your question, I am undecided about America using preventative war. Our Iraq misadventure certainly doesn't prove the case since what it was supposed to prevent weren't even found in the country. I am conflicted about American military intervention to prevent genocide. Kosovo is an example in the past. Darfour is in our present.

Jan is on a roll :)

Howard, the Bush gang is back with another threat, this time its Iran. As Yogi would say; "Its deja vu all over again."
What despicable people.

I'm way more concerned with Pakistan.

The US is selective in where it applies nuclear containment which is certainly a pragmatic approach but it has always undermined the policy. If you enable Israel to have nukes and then assert nuclear containment as your policy against Iran, you have to be delusional to believe that Iran will see any logic in your position.

From Iran's perspective, they have one enemy with nukes in the Mideast and that enemy is backed up by the greatest nuclear power of them all and the one nation on earth which has used nukes against a civilian population in the past. And we're afraid of Iran? They have more than enough reason to be afraid of us. We don't have to put war on the table. War has been on the table for the US since 1941. That's what's beginnning to more than annoy any number of countries around the world.

What about the Iranian nuclear program makes you think there is a clear, present, and immediate danger? One technical factor is that they realistically have to deliver weapons by missile, not aircraft, and thus are under greater constraints of warhead volume and weight.

South Africa did not face sophisticated air defense, so had the luxury of using uranium fission bombs delivered by aircraft. Powers that have serious missile programs use, minimally, plutonium implosion systems, or, preferably, tritium-boosted fission or two-stage fusion. These technologies give much more yield for unit weight.

Would you care to comment on the immediacy of weapons-grade plutonium from the facilities at Arak and Bushehr?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

from Ynet News.com 1/23/07

US presidential candidate: Iran serious about its threats

(VIDEO) Former Senator John Edwards (Dem.) tells Herzliya Conference serious political, economic steps should be taken against Islamic Republic; 'in order to ensure Iran never gets nuclear weapons, all options must remain on table,' he says, adding that Syria should be held accountable for its support of Hizbullah, Hamas

 VIDEO - "Iran is serious about its threats," former US Senator John Edwards told the Herzliya Conference at the Interdisciplinary Center on Monday.

 "The challenges in your own backyard – represent an unprecedented threat to the world and Israel," said the candidate for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, referring mainly to the Iranian threat. In his speech, Edwards criticized the United States' previous indifference to the Iranian issue, saying they have not done enough to deal with the threat.

Hinting to possible military action, Edwards stressed that "in order to ensure Iran never gets nuclear weapons, all options must remain on table." On the recent UN Security Council's resolution against Iran, Edwards said more serious political and economic steps should be taken. "Iran must know that the world won’t back down," he said.

 Addressing the second Lebanon war, Edwards accused the Islamic Republic of having a significant role, saying Hizbullah was an instrument of Iran, and Iranian rockets were what made the organization's attack on Israel possible.

 Howard Zinn weighs in:

"The withdrawal timetable proposed by the Democrats gets nothing tangible, only a promise, and leaves the fulfillment of that promise in the hands of the Bush Administration.

"There have been similar dilemmas for the labor movement. Indeed, it is a common occurrence that unions, fighting for a new contract, must decide if they will accept an offer that gives them only part of what they have demanded. It’s always a difficult decision, but in almost all cases, whether the compromise can be considered a victory or a defeat, the workers have been given some thing palpable, improving their condition to some degree. If they were offered only a promise of something in the future, while continuing an unbearable situation in the present, it would not be considered a compromise, but a sellout. A union leader who said, “Take this, it’s the best we can get” (which is what the MoveOn people are saying about the Democrats’ resolution) would be hooted off the platform.

"I am reminded of the situation at the 1964 Democratic National Convention in Atlantic City, when the black delegation from Mississippi asked to be seated, to represent the 40 percent black population of that state. They were offered a “compromise”—two nonvoting seats. “This is the best we can get,” some black leaders said. The Mississippians, led by Fannie Lou Hamer and Bob Moses, turned it down, and thus held on to their fighting spirit, which later brought them what they had asked for. That mantra—“the best we can get”—is a recipe for corruption.

"It is not easy, in the corrupting atmosphere of Washington, D.C., to hold on firmly to the truth, to resist the temptation of capitulation that presents itself as compromise. A few manage to do so. I think of Barbara Lee, the one person in the House of Representatives who, in the hysterical atmosphere of the days following 9/11, voted against the resolution authorizing Bush to invade Afghanistan. Today, she is one of the few who refuse to fund the Iraq War, insist on a prompt end to the war, reject the dishonesty of a false compromise.

"Except for the rare few, like Barbara Lee, Maxine Waters, Lynn Woolsey, and John Lewis, our representatives are politicians, and will surrender their integrity, claiming to be “realistic.”

"We are not politicians, but citizens. We have no office to hold on to, only our consciences, which insist on telling the truth. That, history suggests, is the most realistic thing a citizen can do."

http://www.progressive.org/mag_zinn0507

No, you did NOT clarify that you... meant the reason the Iraq War was sold so effectively to Americans.

 Where did you do that?  Show us where you made that point!  You are a pretense dressed up as an innocent bystander.  You are a fake and a phoney, and I am done wasting my time with you.  You don't fool me for a minute.

Jan Knaus

A decade sounds about right, and, so far, I haven't seen anything really smoking-gun about it being a weapons program. There are things that would suggest such, including their developing capabilities for weapons-grade plutonium. Building heavy-water reactors at Arak is much more troubling than the uranium enrichment cascades elsewhere.

Harder to find, but definitely indicative of a weapons program, would be a hydrodynamic test facility. Such a facility, which has extremely high speed X-ray or other cameras that can measure the compression of metals by explosives, are absolutely essential if full nuclear testing is not available.

I can see sanctions, especially where they represent consensus. If anything, I'd rather see the Europeans be the "heavies" in this and the US try constructive engagement with Iran. There is, I believe, more good will than ever existed with Iraq.

What I do not see making sense is near-term military threats to Iran. I don't say have anything on or off a "table". The reality is that it's never truly off the table. Carrier task groups might or might not be noticed, but deployment of stealth bombers is always available, and about which a target country can never be sure isn't imminent. Still, I would be surprised if there aren't some Iranian agents outside of Whiteman Air Force in west central Missouri, the permanent B-2 base. Even then, the B-2's could forward-deploy at Diego Garcia or Guam. There's very little chance of having agents at Diego Garcia.

Just because the night sky seems clear doesn't mean there isn't a stealth aircraft in it. Don't give paranoids that image.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

What's the figures to Egypt and Israel, around a billion a year in aid? Warlords may be cheap by comparison: a couple of million here, a couple of million there, and you're just talking about 10-20 cruise missiles' cost.

One of the oddities about these theaters is that everyone I know who served in Afghanistan loves Afghan food if they didn't beforehand. When I've asked Iraqi veterans about food, there's a long pause, and then they usually say the dates are wonderful. So, if you are off to bribe an Afghan chieftain, the travel may be rough but you should get some good feasts out of it.

One of the interesting aspects, certainly dangerous to the people doing it, would be to send medical and other infrastructure development people to locales where they might be welcomed, as a low-key operation.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

I would submit that Libya's role was more in providing the proof that took out the Paki's black-marketing of nuclear technology. I do consider the removal of that network as a concrete positive for America.

Whatever...you were certainly "fooled" by the author of this article.

Good, how much do you even know about Iran? Their government is about as Islamic as you are. They're an oligarchy of corrupt old men, cloaking themselves in the guise of religious piety to legitimize themselves. Their record on human rights is shocking and horrendous.

We're not at war with Islam; we're at war with Islamic tyranny that threatens to spread to other nations -- if we allow it.

Brook, I am sure you have some perfectly rational reason for making this utterly irrational statement.  If you want to find a government of corrupt old men, you need look no further than the White House.  I am not easily fooled about the nature of politicians local or foreign, as any broad review of my pasts posts will indicate.  You, on the other hand, seem to confuse your dislike for the government of Iran with a genuine disbelief that OUR GOVERNMENT has essentially declared war on THEIR STATE OF BEING.

As others have said, this war is call "war on terrorism," but this is a very thin disguise.  When the terrorists were the red brigade in Germany and its allied group in Italy during the 70s and 80s, we did not exhibit such universal alarm. When the terrorists are called the "Michigan Militia," we exhibit no alarm.

It is only when brown skinned people who believe in Muhammad are human bombs that we get excited.  My many Middle Eastern acquaintances are not confused about what the "war on terrorism" is about.  If you are, open your eyes.

The author is Haaretz' correspondent in DC and his article is in the context of political posturing required of the Dems for whom he usually seems to have less regard than for than the GOP. He does the same for Republicans in this article and doesn't see much difference between the two sides on the issue:

http://www.slate.com/id/2162151/

Rosner has been running an ongoing polling project of 8 Israeli experts who are weighing in on which presidential candidates are best for Israel since last summer.He's writing these articles in the context of the presidential contests, not who realistically has the power to affect the current situation.

(So far, three GOP candidates, Guliani, Gingrich, McCain are considered "best" for Israel followed by Hillary. Obama and Hagel have been vying for last place as of the last several pre-AIPAC conference polls.)

link to the project is here:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerMain.jhtml

J. McCutchen

Truth or dare..

this site reports that according to a Russian journalist who allegedly has good sources on the Russian General Staff, Our Desperate Leader has set April 6th (GOOD FRIDAY!) as D-day for Operation Bite, a 12 hour shock and awe bomb fest and naval war against Iran

Triple hearsay at least ....but in these times with our President facing that disaster in the ME any war is possible any rumor of war plausible

Asked by RIA-Novosti to comment on the Uglanov report, retired Colonel General Leonid Ivashov confirmed its essential features in a March 21 interview: “I have no doubt that there will be an operation, or more precisely a violent action against Iran.” Ivashov, who has reportedly served at various times as an informal advisor to Russian President Vladimir Putin, is currently the vice president of the Moscow Academy for Geopolitical Sciences. Ivashov attributed decisive importance to the decision of the Democratic leadership of the US House of Representatives to remove language from the just-passed Iraq supplemental military appropriations bill that would have demanded that Bush come to Congress before launching an attack on Iran. Ivashov pointed out that the language was eliminated under pressure from AIPAC, the lobbing group representing the Israeli extreme right, and from Israeli Foreign Minister Tsipi Livni. “We have drawn the unmistakable conclusion that this operation will take place,” said Ivashov. In his opinion, the US planning does not include a land operation: “ Most probably there will be no ground attack, but rather massive air attacks with the goal of annihilating Iran’s capacity for military resistance, the centers of administration, the key economic assets, and quite possibly the Iranian political leadership, or at least part of it,” he continued

(Come on guys. It is just a bad Russian translation. The code name for this exercise is “Over Bite,” in honor of the real intellectual godfather of Neocon political theory, Mortimer Snerd.)

The whole neocon construction is crackpot but it is consistent; maybe I should say persistent. Everyone from Egypt’s Mubarak to the guy who parks cars at Langley told them that invading Iraq would just make things worse. The trouble is that it makes things worse for us but it doesn’t make things worse for the Neocons. In the document that so many like to quote about a “newPearl Harbor,” the Neocons proposed four core missions for the U.S. military, the third of which is a nasty little business labeled “constabulary duties:” “perform the “constabulary” duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions.” If you read this section the document talks about the Balkans and about the Iraq no-fly zone operation. These are dubbed “smaller-scale contingencies (SSC) to distinguish them from “major theatre wars.” The immediate goal of SSC’s is to extend and solidify American dominance, but ultimately they are one of only four pillars of the Neocon “Pax Americana” (their term). So as the chess players like to say, we are still in the books, that is, we are still playing the standard opening – the Neocon variation.

In light of this the issue of destroying the Iranian nuclear weapon infrastructure (which probably doesn’t exist anyway) is just a rouse. I suspect that most of the military elites who would object to this sort of thing on principled, ethical grounds have left. Sy Hersch seems to have confirmed that there remain some who don’t fancy a future date with a war crimes tribunal and so have drawn the line at using tactical nuclear munitions. But cruise missiles and JDAMS are just big noise makers in this day and age. It fits the Neocon strategy, it doesn’t bother the military leadership, and it scares hell out of the locals (that’s us). It is just an Iran no-fly zone. Yea they are gonna do it. And we’re still in the books!

As I understand it the issue posed by M.J. Rosenberg in this thread was supposed to be mainly about:

Ironically some of the same Democrats who threatened to oppose Pelosi's bill as being too soft on Iraq are the self-same Dems who wanted to preserve Bush's prerogative to unilaterally attack Iran.

His concern is:

Nevertheless, the fact that some antiwar Dems are prowar when it comes to Iran is, at best, highly troubling. These guys can cost us the Presidency. Or, even worse, lead us to an Iran war waged by a Democratic President.

I don't take seriously the possibility that either the Bush administration or a future Democratic administration would launch a war with Iran, so I was more interested in These guys could cost us the Presidency

It doesn't seem plausible that many voters would turn to the Republican candidate out of concern that the Democrats might launch a war with Iran. So I assumed that what he was getting at was the possibility that a significant section of the Democratic Party's support base would be so demoralized by the perceived lack of difference on these issues that they would not mobilize and vote for the Democratic candidate and that could cost the Presidency.

This interpretation is consistent with the fact that he is an enthusiastic advocate of Obama against Clinton and says things like:

I'm counting on Speaker Pelosi to put the Iran language back at the next opportunity. I have no doubt about where she stands, nor about the fact that she (not the DLC, neocon, conservative Dems) represent the party's base.

Pelosi (together with Howard Dean) made an utterly clear commitment that the Democratic party would not cut off funding for the war in Iraq immediately before the recent election and that's where she stands.

At the same time she has to represent the party's base by being as stridently as possible against the war, with more and more hostile resolutions to be blocked in the Senate or vetoed by Bush or whatever it takes to keep the Democrat party base represented while still having to provide the funds when the crunch comes.

Under these circumstances of universal posturing it is not just ironic but puzzling that some of the same Democrats who regard Pelosi's posturing on Iraq as being too soft to keep the party base represented have insisted on a weakening of the party's posturing on Iran.

I'm trying to follow American politics from outside and I'd be interested in other people's interpretations of this interesting phenomena.

My own interpreation is simply that when Congress finally passes the funding Bill after whatever dramas are required for the Democratic party base to feel represented it might be rather demoralizing to the base to be explicitly removing a prohibition on attacking Iran without Congressional authority in the full glare of a budget crisis whereas not posing about that in the first place merely gets people very mildly excited in topics like this.

The context for that interpretation is that I assume that people actually involved in politics full-time who believe it would be insane for the US to launch a war with Iran also tend to draw the conclusion, as I do, that therefore threats to do so are just posturing that cannot be taken seriously and therefore legislation prohibiting such an attack would only be considered if there was some useful point of domestic posturing that could be scored with it.

I've asked before:

I also see many posts here pointing out that the US literally cannot go to war with Iran, that it would be insane to do so and that the pretexts offered for doing so by the Bush administration make no sense whatever.

Q4. Do you believe the Bush administration is in fact trying to do something you believe it cannot do and that it would be insane to do. If so, why do you believe that instead of just treating it as empty posturing?

Q5. If not, why do you keep advocating that it should not do it when you know that it isn't going to do it?

The answers I got seemed to be along the lines that Bush might be insane so one cannot be certain he might not do it, so it is worthwhile campaigning against him doing it. (Campaigning apparantly consists of cheering each other on about how insane Bush is).

That's an approach to politics that makes it quite difficult to communicate. What can one say and what would be the point of saying it?

Is that what people here think about Democrats deciding to not to prohibit Bush from attacking Iran without approval of Congress. Are those Democrats supposed to all be insane too? Or are we supposed to ignore the fact that they not going to prohibit Bush from attacking Iran while preserving our beliefs that he might and that it would be insane?

Most of the discussion in response to the posting seems to about whether various Democrat candidates do, and whether they should, have a fundamentally different policy towards Iran than the Bush administration.

The context on both sides of both issues seems to be a common ground that the Bush administration is seriously preparing for (air) war with Iran.

Some seem to be emphasizing that such threats may be necessary as part of dissuading Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, while others emphasise that actually carrying out such treats would be insane and/or criminal.

Some seem to accept that its ok for Democrats to say "all options are on the table" but not ok for Bush to do it. Others see Democrats saying it as implying that Democrats are also seriously preparing to attack Iran.

So on the original question of whether this stuff could cost you the Presidency I would say yes. It just doesn't seem plausible that people this confused, this early, could get their act together enough to be electable.

But then I don't really understand American politics at all.

On the other hand maybe the "base" simply does not matter.

Hilary Clinton spelled out her position on Iraq quite clearly:

I think it’s very helpful that we’ve had a Democratic Congress elected, where the Democrats are saying, “We’re going to begin a phased redeployment, we’re not staying there forever.” It actually gives more leverage to Bush and the Iraqi government to be able to say, “You know what, this is serious, these folks are trying to pass legislation. They’re talking about limiting what can happen over here. Don’t you think we ought to start dealing with some of these festering issues?”

It also helps to concentrate the attention of some of the neighbors. How long are they going to fund the Sunni insurgents or the Shiites if they really believe that they might be left naked, literally holding the bag, with nobody in between and no American forces to point the finger at?

To me, if you look at this in more of a geopolitical way, a lot of what I’m suggesting and a lot of the moves that I think would be helpful, are ones that maybe or maybe not would ever come to pass — you know, you have to do something to see what the reaction is.

So, her redeployment is not a policy that would ever come to pass, but a pose (posture) that actually gives more leverage to Bush and the Iraqi government

If posturing to the base matters at all you would think Hilary would postpone saying that her policies are intended to give more leverage to Bush until after the primaries. To me its a very striking phrase that implies the sort of views expressed here aren't seen as being even worth pandering to.

The comments I saw on the interview were just about the fact she isn't planning to actually withdraw from Iraq which is hardly a surprise.

A google on the phrase actually gives more leverage to Bush suggests it hasn't been considered particularly noteworthy by others.

PS The link above to Hilary Clinton having spelled out her position includes a more substantive analysis. There's also a link from there to an example of an Iraqi Sunni Arab politician sympathetic to the insurgency discussing what he sees as the joint Iranian-US occupation of Iraq.

While the posturing about Iran policy in American politics is directed at Americans it seems to be forgotton here that both the actual policy and the declaratory policy itself are aimed primarily at audiences elsewhere.

It doesn't follow that the relevant audiences are Iranian either. Simply assuming that its primarily about pressuring Iran to not acquire nuclear weapons is remarkably naive. You need to actually consider who else is affected by whether US-Iranian relations are friendly or hostile before reaching conclusions.

The Israeli obsession about Iran is pretty useful in encouraging a withdrawal from the West Bank.

Likewise the Sunni supremacist obsession about Iran in Iraq would make it completely futile for the US to be trying to get an accommodation between elements supporting the insurgency and the Iraqi government (which the insurgents describe as agents of Iran) while not seeking to dramatize US hostility to Iran.

Rejecting the relevance of such factors after analysis is one thing. But facile talk about Dems Against Iraq War But For War With Iran without even considering such issues is completely superficial.

How so? In fact, I showed how stupid he was by quoting him twice, each quote cancelling the other out.

Jan Knaus

On the other hand maybe the "base" simply does not matter.

I think you nailed it with this sentence, Arthur. 

We didn't raise alarms over the IRA either, but we did get heavily involved in ending the conflict. Maybe you missed the press conference in 1994 when a brown-skinned Muslim man declared open season on Americans. I didn't.

Bush has not ordered political opponents seized, thrown in prison, lined up against a wall and shot. Iran is the only nation since WWII with an official policy of hunting down leftists/Marxists and slaughtering them. The irony being -- you would probably be dead, if you were Iranian. Are you saying you're not able to distinguish the difference between real tyranny and constitutional democracy?

The true ideological enemy of the brown-skinned man is evident for anyone with eyes to see -- and it's invariably another brown-skinned man. We see it in Darfur, Lebanon, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, and every other Middle Eastern nation where the oppressor of the brown-skinned is a jack-booted brown-skinned tyrant or radical fascist. The body count in Darfur and Iraq is way ahead of any Palestinian intifadah. Anyone complaining about double-standards in the Middle East should wake up and smell the Turkish coffee.

On March 27, 2007 - 8:50am Arthur Dent said:

The answers I got seemed to be along the lines that Bush might be insane so one cannot be certain he might not do it, so it is worthwhile campaigning against him doing it.

Reading your excellent post I came across the above and it immediately reminded me of something I experienced about 25 years ago.

During the Cold War I got some comfort in the idea of MAD, Mutually Assured Destruction, feeling that no one would ever start a nuclear war. Until.....

I started to hear and read of "limited nuclear wars", "survivabliltiy rates after a nuclear attack" etc.

Then one day I was watching Reagan making a speech on the Soviets and the Cold War, and a thought occurred to me that brought time to a standstill; the idea that those who decide whether or not to start a nuclear war know they and their families will survive it. That was sobering.

I guess neither Reagan nor Bush are clinically insane, but perhaps you don't need to be insane to do insane things.

And if you had read the rest of my statement, you would perhaps have realized that I am conflicted about initiating military action to prevent genocide. America intervened in Kosovo and so far we have not in Darfour. That is my conflict.

I’ve become something of a fan of Mr. Rosenberg’s postings. I read every one now. I like to follow his attempts to work through the problems of the Israel/Palestine labyrinth. I do not contribute to those discussions because the subject requires an erudition I lack and because I find the tenor of the larger dialogue on this subject, well, poisonous. So when Mr. Rosenberg pointed to the Rieff article I read it and, like you, I found Rieff’s comments facile and dull edged. Given his resume it must have been like finger painting for Mr. Rieff to write something so indistinct. I also stumbled over M.J.’s “Voters hate the Iraq war and hate the idea of war with Iran even more.” I don’t know of any convincing explanation of why the polls have gone from seventy-some percent for to sixty-some percent against the Iraq campaign over the past two years. As a practical political consideration, the only certainty that I might endorse is that a candidate should replace alacrity with circumspection when addressing the subject in public. Beyond that I don’t know that anything else is certain. But as I say I like Mr. Rosenberg’s work so I reread the material and gave it some thought. I found myself return to the wide-angle observation I offered in my first (of two) replies to this discussion. But now to your comments:

I think the second of my replies (above, the response to “jexster”) drives very easily between the horns of the dilemma you suggest confronts those who would argue that an attack on Iran should be opposed. As you would have it, the premises of insanity and impracticality can only lead to either a.) such an attack is unlikely to occur, or b.) the proponents of such an attack are beyond rational discourse and innured to practical considerations. In either case, you conclude, there is no compelling need for a firm public declaration against such an attack. As I suggest, whether sane or insane (I prefer crackpot*), such attacks are the considered policy of the Neocon and have been so for a very long time. As to the practicality of such a campaign, such campaigns are identified by the Neocon as a necessary pillar of the “Pax Americana.” So the Neocon sees this as a major policy tenet. Ignoring this fact won’t make it go away.

The larger point of your comment seems to move to the macro level that I also found myself taken to in my consideration of Mr. Rosenberg’s posting. The result for me was what you can read in my first reply (above). The minute someone starts talking about constraint in the use of armed force or subordinating such use to non-military considerations, the image is of someone painting paislies and dandelions on M1A1 tanks. It is Dukakis in the turret of a tank. It speaks for itself in the language of American politics. And I think you may agree with me about this. I take your sentence “On the other hand maybe the "base" simply does not matter” as an acknowledgement that something larger is operating here.

I think that Mr. Rosenberg’s posting a good one. He raises the real problem for progressives/liberals in this whole business. His last paragraph states his concern. My last sentence states my unhappy prediction: “Each of us will have to choose a Democrat who embraces force and win now, or one who eschews force and loses now but advances the dialogue.”

* Insane vs crackpot: Today when we say “insane” we refer to a medical condition or disease. Before this “insane” meant being outside of conventional norms of behavior, a moral failure. Before that it meant literaly the Latin “unclean,” to suffer an imbalance of the humors. But the oldest meaning can be found with the Greeks. For them the word meant to miss the mark, to be wrong. The seer Cassandra, worrying about the “sanity” of her prophecies about the fate that awaits Troy, says: “"Have I missed the mark, or, like a true archer, do I strike my quarry? Or am I prophet of lies, a babbler from door to door?" [Aeschylus, Agamemnon 1194.] I take the Neocons to be prophets of lies, babblers and so I prefer crackpot.

Thank you, Howard. I don't remember hearing or reading of nuke attacks being discussed by high level Gov officials in the 50s, 60s or 70s. I guess it was all hush hush, need to know basis.
On the other hand, maybe I just wasn't paying attention.

I do remember hearing what the results of a nuke attack might be, and the Cuban Missile Crisis incident sure was scary.

Arthur, I can only surmise what MJ meant here and I'll say upfront that I don't agree with him.

Bush and Cheney made threatening overtures to Iran--the IED materials supposedly stamped with Irani symbols; Cheney's "no option is off the table" which are the exact words used before the Iraqi adventure combined with the fact that Cheney is the VP and can directly influence a decision vis-a-vis Iran. We had military folks weighing in that Iran was not under attack by American forces. Senator Clinton rushed to the Senate floor and informed Bush that the Iraqi War Resolution did not provide "cover" for Iran. (That tells you exactly how BROAD that resolution from 2002 actually is.) There is a belief that Bush/Cheney will use any excuse to widen the war to Iran. I do not agree with any of that. I think Bush/Cheney were posturing with Iran as a push in the current negotiations.

IF we accept that Bush wants to widen the war into Iran THEN House Democrats who did not want to restrict Bush vis-a-vis Iran with an amendment on the recent war funding bill will be proven wrong, THEN the war with Iran must go badly, THEN it becomes a major issue in the 2008 elections, THEN the Democrats lose the Presidential election, THEN the original House Democrats will have cost the Democrats the elections.

Before we can reach that conclusion, we must accept that Bush wants to widen the war to include Iran. I do not accept that. I think it was posturing by Bush and Cheney in order to force Iran into negotiations on their nuclear ambitions.

They wanted to seize the Guinness brewery?

--
Howard

Arthur, in terms of threatening Iran, consider that even Senator Clinton rushed to the floor of the Senate to say that Bush did not have the Congressional authority to widen the existing conflict into Iran. American politicans floated a resolution vis-a-vis Iran and a possible war. There certainly are Americans who take Bush's threats to Iran quite seriously.

I also would note that the sailors seized were British and not American so I it appears that Iran is very wary of poking America directly. In terms of Americans themselves, remember Bush had very high support for Afghanistan and even for Iraq. Support for Iraq has slowly drained away over years, and that has not happened because Americans have suddenly become pacificists.

One element of the American character is the complete impatience towards folk who don't exercise their own self-determination and their own will to defend themselves in their own neighborhood. You have American admiration for the Kurds in Iraq (Hillary touched on this in her interview) and the impatience with a "limp" government which I think is what you are seeing towards the Iraqi government (and one that was seen in Vietnam).

If Iran had a whiff of strategic intelligence they would remove their current nut-job Prez, cease all military funding of Hezbollah, and allow the international inspections. Americans would swiftly befriend them because underneath it we have admiration for them--the very act of the "hostages" shows the extent of their determination to govern themselves without interference. The years since--including the nasty war with Iraq--prove that. It remains to be seen if Iran has any strategic sense.

The Sauds are in much worse shape. There is a rage towards the Sauds that simmers under the surface here in America. They have supported the most nasty aspects throughout their neighborhood. Hamas. Suicide bombers. Osama. Terrorists attacks all over the place and that spilled into America. The Sauds have been quite dismayed over this persistent rage. Their path is much more complicated because draining efforts that have a religious base of support will take some time. They can buy that time by solving the Palestinian issue.

I don't consider Bush an idiot AT ALL, but I do think he is a high-stakes player. There are no sure outcomes to any of this....but he is forcing these regional players to reconsider their own strategic moves in the region and in the world.

My two cents.

J. McCutchen

MJ Rosenberg Press Alert

US hawks see strikes on Iran as less likely now
Influential thinkers who backed a US-led invasion of Iraq now say containment, not confrontation, is best for Iran.
By Dan Murphy | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

WASHINGTON - Earlier this month when House leader Nancy Pelosi struck a provision from a $100-billion spending bill that would have specifically required President Bush to seek congressional approval before any military strike on Iran, it was seen as a victory for the hawks in Washington.
After all, the Democrats took control of Congress last year in large part because of voter anger over the Iraq war. If they were saying that Bush doesn't need their permission to take action against Iran, then his "all options are on the table" rhetoric looks stronger, and raises the possibility of expanded conflict in the Middle East.
But war with Iran, or even targeted air strikes at presumed nuclear facilities, is looking less and less likely. Despite tough rhetoric from both sides and increased tension over Iran's move to detain 15 British sailors last week, a variety of influential thinkers who championed the US-led invasion of Iraq are now saying that containment, not confrontation, is the best approach to Iran.

"I think the discussion has really shifted," says M. J. Rosenberg, the director of analysis for the Israel Policy Forum, a pressure group in Washington that favors diplomatic efforts to resolve the Middle East's problems and worries that the Iraq war has made Israel and America less safe. "The conventional wisdom in Washington has changed," says Mr. Rosenberg. There were influential people who thought that thought military action could be possible this year, he says. "Now, hardly anyone does."

And what do YOU think about it, jexter?

It looks like this set of exchanges is winding down. I join in thanking you for your contributions. I’ve started reading some of your other writing via Google and can see yours is an evolved and detailed analysis. If I was unclear the fault was mine. I try to be succinct in my comments and that doesn’t suit responses to precise comments like yours. I look forward to your next replies to TPM postings.

As a final comment I would like to say that I am intrigued by your observation that when speaking about Iraq, the absence of “any kind of coherent theory as to what it was all about” has lead to explanations driven by what you characterize as a kind of “cognitive dissonance.” I certainly will confess for myself that I have no coherent theory to propose. Such a theory would have to explain things like the Military Commissions Act and its provisions vis a vis Habeas Corpus. I am not speaking here about explaining the legal argument. I am refering to how Habeas rights were surrendered without so much as a wimper. Your home page is named “last superpower.” As you well know all superpowers are not created equal. Republican Rome was a vital and dynamic superpower. Austria-Hungary was a roccoco house of cards that fell almost without a sound, as the Soviet Union did in more recent times. A truly coherent theory about the purpose of the Iraq campaign might help an understanding of which kind of superpower the U.S. is today.

J. McCutchen

I think he's correct. Bush has been eviscerated. Still, I am at least mildy surprised that the hard right likudniks seem to be in retreat on IranWar. I suspect that they're want Bush to set a nicer table with a little diplomatic danse first.

But no one's going to follow his lead. Not even the Saudis who've effectively junked his PAL peace initiative and declared the invasion of Iraq illegal.

And what do I think of that? (sheesh sound like Rumsfeld answering my own questions)

I said at the very outset that Rice's so-called Israel/PAL peace push was a charade. I suspect so did the Saudis.

I also think that there are many many and varied stakeholders around a constellation of issues that desperately want to burn a Little Bush.

The conflagration's coming

Think there is any accuracy to the Russian report that Bush plans to attack Iran on April 6th?

Tom

Howard, thank you for reading the entrails for us.  There are a couple of military blogs I read regularly to try to get an idea of what's going on.  Col. Pat Lang became 'resigned'  to a US/Israeli attack on Iran about two months ago and doesn't bother addressing the topic anymore.  He's very concerned about 'force protection'.  US troops in Iraq, long supply line which he says would be compromised by Iran-allied Shia in control of those regions.  Some of his learned contributors have brought up the prospect of US troops having to fight their way out.  Lang reads the entrails a different way from you, concentrating on significances of US top commander postings and whatever scuttlebutt he can pick up from serving military. 

I also look in on Swoop.net which prepares intelligence assessments for corporate clients.  The last I read there was a 60% chance of attack on Iran before Sept. 2008.  Who knows?  Hope for the best, prepare for the worst  --  that's about all we the people can do these days. 

But you know, Howard, what really bothers me about all this isn't so much  'will they or won't they?'.  I've gotten kind of worn out on it.  What bothers me is the way these m'f's are keeping us all on the edge of our seats wondering what travesty they'll do next.  There are so many really serious problems waiting in the wings for our country and the world, related to climate change & peak oil. I wish our government could tear itself away from war games and geopolitical strategies and domestic political strategies and start thinking about the good of the country.  It's better to buy our oil than go to war for it.  And it's really pretty important to develop alternative energy sources.  (there, I feel much better than before)

Why do we worry so about jihad?  Doesn't anyone in America have a memory?  How many implacable movements of the 20th century turned out to be 10-20 year duds?  Who hears of the German Red Brigade anymore?  Where is the Weather Underground?  What has become of the inability of any westerner to safely travel to Algiers?  The Sandanistas are now a POLITICAL PARTY.  How many examplies are needed?  For god's sake, the Irish have stopped killing each other.

Of course there will ALWAYS be a new crop of bloody killers.  All the more so when we create the opportunity through black markets in drugs, prostitution, etc.  And a few of these groups will outlast others.  But, it is the fool who thinks he can predict WHICH crop of killers will still be with us when our grand children run the world, and which will be history with the next new year.