When the hell did 'pacifist' become a dirty word?

I have to admit that there might be circumstances in which war with Iran is our last and only option -- but we are far, far away from that situation.

Our last and only option for what? To prevent them from annihilating America with their Muslim hordes? To prevent the smoking gun from becoming a mushroom cloud? How are the Iranians, natural enemies to the people who actually did attack us on 9/11, an existential threat to the U.S.? Perhaps, it is because they are a "fake democracy" (read Islamic state)?

Well, at least it's not in Israel's interest. Unfortunately with Iraq, we had to go through a catastrophic invasion and occupation before it was understood that it wasn't in Israel's interest. But now, thank God, we don't have to bomb and invade another sovereign country and kill untold thousands and spend $billions because it arguably would not be in Israel's interest.

I'm not a pacifist. I have to admit that there might be circumstances in which war with Iran is our last and only option -- but we are far, far away from that situation.

I have no idea why this comment is in this post. I think it actually adds legitimacy of those you're arguing against.

How did this idea that it is okay to attack any country, any time, anywhere ever become SOP for America, beacon of freedom and independence?

and where exactly did steve come anywhere close to even suggesting that?

michael ledeen is stupid. no two ways about it. he's a lot of other things as well. but first and foremost he is stupid.

Steve Clemons,

I'm particularly worried that there are bad guys in Iran who so desperately want to consolidate their political positions inside Iran that they see a hot conflict with the U.S. and/or Israel as "helpful".

Thanks.  We seldom approach international trash-talk from this angle.  On the one hand, Ledeen & Co. are certainly shameless in their cynical elevation of Ahmadinejad's leadership position.  On the other hand, who is really certain about the state of Supreme Leader Khomenei's health, let alone his leadership.  Cynicism and mindless aggression are among the darker components of human nature, and not uniquely neocon qualities.  And no, I am not advocating attacking Iran -- as much as it is unfortunately necessary here to disclaim.

This passage that you quote from Ledeen strikes me as particularly revealing:

"Washington diplomats have steadfastly refused to see the Iranian regime for what it is: a relentless enemy that seeks to dominate or destroy us. This blindness afflicted the first American negotiators shortly after the 1979 revolution, and has been chronic ever since, even though Iran declared war on us in that year and has waged it ever since."

I guess it's good to know that our "Washington diplomats" aren't crazy and paranoid--but it isn't reassuring to know that a crazy paranoid like Ledeen is actually taken seriously by many influential people. That Iran wants "to dominate or destroy us" is absurd. The goal of the war they "declared" on us in 1979 wasn't to dominate us, but to liberate themselves from our domination of them, which we had accomplished through the installation and support of a brutal (but pro-American/British) dictator, the Shah.

Leeden and his compatriots have a grand strategy for the Middle East, which is simply to overthrow anyone they believe is a threat to Israel. Their goal is to draw the US into this cause, using American military might, treasure, and blood to make Israel more secure. Their strategy, however, will in the long run be costly both to the US and to Israel, since it will create an even more hostile Middle Eastern world. Those who have true American (and I believe Israeli) interests at heart must expose this insanity and do everything possible to prevent it from becoming American policy.

Do you think it's really all about Israel? Because when I read the NeoCons, I always get the sense that even Israel is one prize on the path toward whatever it is that they're really trying to do.

Oh, and maybe I'm just cranky today, but Steve Clemons, please refrain from referring to opposing poliiticians or officials as "bad guys." They may or may not be "bad" but please remember to be specific about what makes them "bad" or us "good." To do otherwise is to be sucked in to the "diplomacy by people who despise diplomacy" side of things.....

zkosmo:

I don't know whether John is at this point in his life a pacifist. But, if he is, he has more grounds to be one than 90 plus percent of the folks you and I correspond with on the internet.

John is one of the few representatives from the Greatest Generation on the TPMCafe. He served our country in WWII as a young man in Europe as part of the 82nd Airborne. John has seen what war means in real, human terms.

I know you didn't know that but I think you should know that in light of your question. I once did not know that about John either.

Bruce

>> Iran wants to dominate or destroy us

Michael Latreen has me all confused now. Reagan convinced me that the country that wanted to dominate or destroy the United States was... Nicaragua.

Would Iran and Nicaragua please have a playoff match to decide who's the designated dominatrix/destroyer?

Meanwhile, Michael, do me a favor: go flush yourself!

Valdron:

I agree completely with your first point. I also agree that Michael Ledeen is someone who is likely to be influenced by how he believes that a war with Iran will somehow benefit Israel.

But my question to Clemons was an attempt to have him address this notion (that I believe many are pushing at least implicitly) that if we go to war with Iran it will because the U.S. has acted at the direction of Israel and its hard-line supporters in this country.

Bruce

"We MUST be able to talk about what is and is not a threat to the United States. Americans have a right to that discussion."

That is precisely what we are discussing, and this American is participating in it.

Bruce,

I'll try to say it more simply. The oil and power and war profiteering interests of the guys like Cheney are having one heck of a success using pro-war Jews in their game to get us into war. Far from a shadowy Jewish conspiracy, the neocon Jews are being USED as the front men for this effort to get us into war. They're being setup to be the scapegoats. If we can't talk about this, the Cheney forces are going to be successful.

Sadly, what is lost I think is your point that Iran is not a natural enemy of the United States and that there are reasons to believe that, at some point, if we play our cards correctly, Iran and the United States can have a productive and friendly bilateral relationship.

This, in my view, is the prospect that most terrifies Ledeen and other neoconservatives, Bruce. They are not really so much concerned about the prospect that Iran might "dominate or destroy" the US, as they are concerned about the possibility that the United States will eventually resolve its security concerns with Iran, and achieve good relations with the country. It is essential to their strategic plans that the United States and Iran remain enemies.

This is my terror Bluebell.

The universal assumption in the United States is that the Iranians can't put anything up in the air that could stop an American air attack.

We have this assumption that we are perfectly at liberty to bomb anywhere in the third world with impunity.

And the truth is that is mostly true. In 12 years of bombing, Saddam Hussein never put a scratch on the American air force. US air missions in Bosnia, against Libya, against Sudan and Afghanistan were carried out without risk or consequence.

Iran's air force is numerically inferior and technologically several generations behind the American air force. The prevailing wisdom is that they will not pose a challenge, and that the United States could sustain air operations over or on Iran indefinitely without risk.

But just supposing that the Russians, say, decide to weigh in. Supposing that American fighter pilots suddenly find themselves facing swarms of 'Iranian' fighter jets far more numerous, far more technologically advanced, and with far more experienced and aggressive pilots. Supposing that the Iranians 'suddenly' have missiles far more accurate and lethal.

What happens then? What happens if and when America's 'cost free' air raids suddenly have a cost? When lives are getting lost in numbers? When American aircraft are being shot down? When 'Iranian' defenses are such that the exercise becomes very expensive, or even fails outright?

Does America just pull back and go home?

Or does America point the finger at Russia?

And if that finger points, then what happens in the subsequent confrontation?

And if the finger doesn't point, well, what happens with that new Iranian/Russian alliance. What happens in Pakistan, or China, or Syria or half the countries in the third world when the word gets out that Russia's prepared to face off against the Big Blue Machine once again.

Certainly it has flaws. Given the state of satellite surveillance and intelligence, I just don't believe that the Russians could move sufficient numbers of missiles or aircraft into Iran to make a significant difference without being detected.

On the other hand, I can imagine situations where this is detected and the White House has to take some calculated risks.

Another scenario might be where the Iranians invite the Russian air force in for joint exercises. That would be very overt, and it would clearlyl have a deterrent intent.

On the other hand, what if there is a scenario where after an American raid begins, or before it commences, the Russians simply overtly or covertly enter.

I take your point with respect to Iranian antipathy to Russia. On the other hand, the current Russia is neither the Imperial Russian state of the Tsars, or the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Rather, it's a state that has seen the liberation, and is trying to build a functioning relationship with its former Islamic territories. I think the Iranians are prepared to recognize that.

And more to the point, politics makes strange bedfellows. Sure the Iranians hate the Russians. But the American government has publicly announced the intention and goal of regime change, has funded and supported terrorist operations from Kurdish and Baluchi territories, sits in Afghanistan the gateway for Iran's heroin problem and in the event of air raids, they will face a potentially major and enduring attack which will claim hundreds, perhaps thousands, even tens of thousands of lives.

Facing all that, it strikes me that if the Iranians can get the Russians involved on they're side, they'll take it.

So the questions are very real. In the event of an American air raid, or even in the event of a threat, would Russia intervene, and how would they intervene. Is Bush ready for an accidental superpower confrontation? It's the accidental ones that are scariest, since no one has a clue what to do. Anything can happen.

Iran is a fake democracy -- but there are elements of democracy and popular will being expressed through elections there.

I think it is extreme to label Iran a "fake" democracy. It is certainly true that Iran is a very limited democracy, and that the Guardian Council is able to limit the range of choices available to Iranian citizens. But that doesn't mean that these citizens have no choices at all or no effective representation. Iran is governed locally by city and village councils that are elected by the people they govern, and the Iranian Majlis passes real legislation that is responsible for the general governance of the country. Again it is true that the Guardians are empowered to proscribe certain parties and candidates, and they have exercised this power, sometimes very aggressively, as in 2004, sometimes not so aggressively. But even as they do exercise this power, members of the reformist coalition do continue to win at least some seats. It is not the case that the holders of elected offices are simply appointed from the top.

It is also the case that there are over 200 sanctioned political parties in Iran, many of them part of the reformist coalition. Even when the leadership has worked to limit the electoral viability of these parties, they continue to operate, meet and run websites with government sanction.

I don't want to discount the very real and serious limitations of Iranian democracy, and various kinds of government oppression of dissident and reformist voices. But I think there is little doubt that the Iran is the most democratic country in the region. The Iranian revolution was brought about through a combination of Islamist and Republican forces, and the Iranian constitution and system of government continues to reflect the significance of both elements.

Valdron:

You don't have to be polite to me; advocate as you wish.

I didn't bring up Israel in this thread; others did. I responded and tried to crystallize issues that had been raised on the thread.

My comments and those of others speak for themselves.

If you want to judge me and suggest that all I want to do is talk about Israel then go ahead. I am happy to talk about what I do besides posting about Israel and I am happy to identify who I am and where I live and what I do for a living. My life is not just talking about Israel.

What's your life all about Valdron, besides insulting people (even when you say you're not you can't help yourself for heavens sake).

Bruce S. Levine
New York, New York

Howard,

they might mount a D-DAY type operation. How would you like to wake up some morning to see 5,000 ships off our Miami coast and 2 Airborne divisions dropping on the Florida Peninsula and assaulting Ste Mere Augstine?

Insulting people? Yep, that's about it. It's a necessary public service, little appreciated (particularly by the most deserving). It's a fact of life that unpleasant things need to be said, in order to remind people of the important things. Turns out I'm good at it.

All in all, I'd rather be in Philadelphia.

According to Aviation Leak, Russia has been selling its (n-1)th generation SAMs to Iran for at least 10 years. Exactly what capabilities these export versions have compared to the hometeam versions, and what kind of Trojan horses might be embedded in them that the US knows about, are of course known unknowns. But personally I think it would be foolish to assume that Iran is going to lie back and take any punishment that another sovereign nation chooses to dish out.

sPh

~

Bluebell:

Please don't miss the above link . . . It fits right in with your point.

Shake, rattle and roll . . .

~OGD~

Well, I am a pacifist.

I don't believe in war as an option. I don't believe in war as a legitimate foreign policy tool.

I believe in a legitimate right of self defence for myself and on behalf of others. Pacifism is not synonymous with suicide.

There are always choices to make. All too often those who preserve their theoretical moral entitlement to violence, whatever they profess, merely preserve the option to actual immoral application.

I once listened to a 'liberal' announce that he did not believe in torture, while acknowledging that this was a subject on which 'reasonable people could disagree.' He was dead wrong. There is no 'reasonable' pro-torture viewpoint, any more than there's a 'reasonable' pro-pedophile stance. Some things are simply wrong.

Claiming to be opposed to war in 'this instance' but arguing that there is a reasonable 'pro-war' view is sophist nonsense. Conceding that war is an option, is conceding the foundation, it's like that old joke about the woman who agrees to sleep with a man for a million dollars and establishes what she is, it's just a matter of arguing for the price after that.

Bruce, I'll jump in here because (as I implied in my earlier post) I do believe that a war with Iran would be very unlikely if it were not for certain hard-line supporters of Israel. As you've probably seen, a 1994 interview with Cheney has been circulating on TV recently in which Cheney lists all the reasons the first Bush administration decided not to overturn Saddam Hussein. By 1998 (long before September 11), with the passage of the "Iraq Liberation Act," regime change in Iraq had become US policy. How did this rather dramatic change of heart occur? I think a lot of the credit goes to the lobbying effort of people associated with Bill Kristol's Project for the New American Century (PNAC), most significantly Richard Perle. As far as I can tell, the earliest call for regime change in Iraq after 1994 came in 1996, and the author was Perle. In a position paper written to advise incoming Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm), Perle (along with others later advising the second Bush administration, including Douglas Feith and David Wurmser) called for regime change in Iraq:

"Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions. . . . Since Iraq's future could affect the strategic balance in the Middle East profoundly, it would be understandable that Israel has an interest in supporting the Hashemites in their efforts to redefine Iraq . . . . Most important, it is understandable that Israel has an interest supporting diplomatically, militarily and operationally Turkey’s and Jordan’s actions against Syria, such as securing tribal alliances with Arab tribes that cross into Syrian territory and are hostile to the Syrian ruling elite . . . King Hussein may have ideas for Israel in bringing its Lebanon problem under control. The predominantly Shia population of southern Lebanon has been tied for centuries to the Shia leadership in Najf, Iraq rather than Iran. Were the Hashemites to control Iraq, they could use their influence over Najf to help Israel wean the south Lebanese Shia away from Hizballah, Iran, and Syria. . . ."

I quote Perle et al at length because I think the passage paints a clear picture of the overall strategy of these neocon supporters of Israel, which starts with the remaking of Iraq and moves on to address Syria, Hezbollah, and Iran.

Now, I do not want to make the claim that PNAC wanted regime change in Iraq only because of a desire to promote Israeli security. The PNAC group included folks who, while they may support Israel, really are motivated by other interests. These folks include militeristic cold warriors with a hawkish view of foreign policy, oil men, and others who are enamored with using force to accomplish various "strategic" or even idealistic ends. Cheney and Rumsfeld fall into this group. I believe that the pro-Israeli folks were the first to suggest regime change in Iraq, but the suggestion found a sympathetic ear among the cold warriors and oil men. And without the support of those cold warriors and oil men, the Iraq war would not have happened, regardless of what Richard Perle may have wanted. Perle, Feith, and Wurmser, however, understood the support they would need from these other Americans as this additional quote from "Clean Break" shows:

"To anticipate U.S. reactions and plan ways to manage and constrain those reactions, Prime Minister Netanyahu can formulate the policies and stress themes he favors in language familiar to the Americans by tapping into themes of American administrations during the Cold War which apply well to Israel. If Israel wants to test certain propositions that require a benign American reaction, then the best time to do so is before November, 1996."

Perle et al. were actively involved in manipulating US officials by presenting "cold war" arguments attractive to those officials while in reality pursuing their ultimate goal of promoting Israeli security. I think the fact that a future American assistant secretary of defense (Feith) signed a letter advising the prime minister of a foreign country about the need to manipulate the opinions of American officials is worth looking into further. More important, though, is the fact that this paragraph gives us reason to distrust the stated arguments of some of these hardliners about America's reasons to pursue war. Their real motives for war may be different than their stated motives and may have little to do with American interests.

So what does this all say about Iran? After the disaster of Iraq, I don't see much strong support among Americans for another war in the Middle East. The strategic reasons (from an American perspective) to attack Iran are also weak. Oil is not as big an issue in Iran as it was in Iraq, and while the Iranian nuclear program may be a potential future problem, it is not a current threat. Iran's alleged support of Iraqi insurgents and its growing influence in the Middle East should first be addressed with diplomacy. And even if America had stronger strategic reasons for war with Iran, we need to question whether we have the resources to engage in another conflict in the Middle East given the strain and cost of the Iraq war.

For all these reasons, I cannot imagine the US going to war against Iran. Yet, we know there are people like Ledeen pushing for it. Why? The only reason I can think of is because these folks are still committed to the vision of Perle, Feith, and Wurmser. They still want to march from Baghdad to Damascus and Tehran. They want war with Hizbollah and Hamas. They are obsessed with "securing the realm" through force--and they are working hard to influence American officials to commit additional American blood and treasure to their cause. Caveat emptor.

Hmmm...I have friends in some parts of Florida, but others might do better after invasion.

Seriously, let me comment on a Normandy-style invasion, a smaller version of which was planned for Cuba during the 1962 crisis. It was, IIRC, in 1990, at a historical symposium, when fUSSR papers were produced showing the Soviet commander in Cuba had around six tactical nuclear weapons, and the authority to use them against an amphibious invasion.

Today, nuclear weapons might not be needed, given that amphibious force would have been tracked for days prior to invasion. Strong air units, equipped with precision-guided missiles could be in place, as well as submarines.

This really isn't a bad example, not specifically for Iran, but worst-casing threats and seeing how credible they may be. There is no accident that the US Marines long ago abandoned the idea of landing on defended beaches, in preference to going around or over them.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

J. McCutchen

Americans need to ask themselves - why has our media featured Obama's supposed lack of foreign policy experience when the likes of

Norman Poderhoretz and Rudy Giuliani are allowed to roam free of straighjackets?

Maybe the question is never asked because the answer is too real, too true, too disturbing.

And where exactly did I say that Steve suggested that? I'm suggesting it. When I say it is SOP, obviously, I mean it is the attitude of those running things, the people in charge. The PNAC preventive war seems to be the guiding principle of the administration and I think it should be fought tooth and nails by critics. The doctrine of "pre-emptive war" without an imminent existential threat is illegal.

A preventive war against Iraq went forward because we acquiesced to this doctrine. Remember that was portrayed as a last option, too. I started with Steve's quote because it has become a common attitude of FP experts on all sides that we have to approach these evil rogue nations with everything on the table.

The fact that Steve is a liberal critic of the administration but feels obligated to keep a potential preventive invasion on the table represents a change in general U.S. FP for the worst. I'm not singling him out here, but it seems the first option when discussing Iran is whether we bomb them or not. We start discussions with an assumed hostility against Iran and the idea that we have the right, as last resort of course, to bomb them into submission.

Iran is our enemy in the WOT because we proclaimed them our enemy. We have thwarted any good faith negotiations Iran has signaled and trumped up false allegations of attacks by them against us. We are about to declare Iran's Revolutionary Guard, a sovereign nation's military force, a terrorist group.

They are not and show no inclination and do not have the ability to capably attack America, which is the only thing that should trigger our last option. I cannot see how we could even go to war with Iran, but Ledeen and his cohorts are not just talking crap. They want to start another war and I think people need to speak out strongly against it, even as a last resort.

Iran has a sizable Jewish population which has resisted Israeli bribery to emigrate. In recent months, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, Israeli officials and some American Jewish communal leaders have urged Iranian Jews to leave. But so far, despite generally being allowed to travel to Israel and emigrate abroad, Iranian Jews have stayed put.

According to the statistics compiled by HIAS, 152 out of 25,000 [some estimate 40,000] Jews left Iran between October 2005 and September 2006 — down from 297 during the same period the previous year, and 183 the year before. Sources said that the majority of those who have left in recent years cited economic and family reasons as their main incentive for leaving, rather than political concerns.

The situation for Jews improved in the years after the revolution, and Judaism is one of the recognized minority religions in Iran. Jews, Zoroastrians and Christians have rights enshrined in the Islamic constitution, and they each elect their own member of parliament and are entitled to worship freely but not to proselytize. The result is the only Jewish community living under an avowedly Islamic regime. In Tehran, where the majority of the community lives, there are six kosher butchers and about 30 synagogues. In addition, there is the Jewish hospital, which has a Jewish director and is funded by donations from the Diaspora, though the vast majority of its staff and patients are Muslim. Children attend Jewish schools where they are taught Hebrew and receive religious training. All principals are Muslim, the schools do not close on the Sabbath and the curriculum is supervised by the government.

With all respect to the Resistance, one wonders why some of the collaborators didn't put Hollandaise on the asparagus.

Seriously, I'd like some of those that are convinced of an immediate Iranian threat to describe how it would work. Alternatively, have independent experts do their best to describe the scenario, as was done with a hypothetical Israeli strike against Iran.

Of course, given a number of the weapons involved, this is rocket science, so talk radio pundits need not apply.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

"I do want to say that I think Israeli worries about an Iranian nuclear weapons program are realistic, given Israel's small size and position just a few hundred miles from Iran. Because of those circumstances, Israel would be vulnerable to an Iranian first nuclear strike. Even its own large number of nuclear missiles might not be an adequate deterrent, because an Iranian first strike could literally destroy all of Israel, and might be able to do so with almost no warning and before a counterstrike could be launched."

True.  But Iran is a theocracy and one of their holiest sites is in Jerusalem -- the Dome of the Rock.  It is hard to imagine how they could ever justify a first strike to the Muslim community including their own population.

Sometimes I wish somone would just dump some of those oil-eating microbes in all the oil wells they could find in the Middle East.  Maybe that would stop this madness.

"Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business" Echoed recently by Jonah Goldberg and "the only way to achieve peace is through total war" "The purpose of total war is to permanently force your will onto another people"

No 1933 German Nazi pig could have said it better. Jackboots on a Jewish person are particularly unattractive. Jackbooted thugs no matter the ethnicity of the booted just make me so damned mad I want do what my uncle did to several SS guards of a death camp he helped liberate as a platoon Sgt. in WWII. After seeing what had been happening in the camp he marched several of them into the woods outside the camp and converted the bastards to fertilizer.

Hey Val, cut it out -- you're stealing my shtick after I stole it fair and square.

"Seriously, I'd like some of those that are convinced of an immediate Iranian threat to describe how it would work.........

Of course, given a number of the weapons involved, this is rocket science, so talk radio pundits need not apply."

Howard, so what you're saying is, the mile wide half inch deep crowd are excluded.

Check!

Bruce,

nah, I'm not a pacifist, I simply need a more convincing reason to go to war than most others.

Refer to newer post, near top of page.

The NY Times is playing along with the Bomb Iran crowd, as usuall too:

In disingeniously dismissing criticism of Michael Gordon's articles linking EFPs to Iran, Clark Hoyt, the NY Times Public Editor claims that Gordon's previous articles had already provided "strong evidence" of the Iranian origin of the EFPs... but the New York Times itself reported the discovery of EFP factories in Iraq back on April 7...

Since Herman Goering's explanation of how you have to call them traitors to start a war properly.

noblesseoblige said:

I read Bill Kristol sycophantic "Why Bush Will be a Winner" as a shameless ploy to court favor with Bush by flattering him. In fact, the article snuck its way to the Oval Office and much was made of Bush's appreciation.

I'm still waiting for the David Broder predicted surge in the polls for Bush.

Broder interviewed Fred Thompson recently and Thompson said; I would have opposed adding the Medicare drug benefit to medicare, "A $17 TRILLION add-on to a program that's going bankrupt."

Broder never asked him how he arrived at the $17 Trillion figure.

Purple State:

Your post is excellent, worthy of substantial discussion, and is a credit to the Cafe. As you may have seen earlier in this post, however, I have been criticized for having a singular focus on Israel. Accordigly, while I disagree with that stinging charge, it feels too wierd for me to continue to participate in this particualr discussion. I reserve the right to post again when I feel comfortable, but I don't think that further participation by me in this thread would be productive (even though I submit that the comments I generated from you and Dan K suggest that, absent the criticism, I think my participation would have been at least a net positive).

I do understand your concerns but do have a different take on many of the material facts about which we could stipulate (and we can stipulate outright that neoconservatives like Michael Ledeen are doing a disservice to this country by their advocacy of aggression against Iran). I would be more than happy to address them with you at length on another occasion, but I will not do so under these circumstances.

I do want to thank you for corroborating what I said in response to my critic, and that is that it wasn't me who first raised Israel in this post. As you can see, even without my participation this thread demonstrates, that both before and after I posted yesterday morning, there's lots of Israel talk--as well as talk about Jews--going on around here.

Hope you got in some good fishing up there since the last time we spoke.

Bruce

Two topics often spoken of here at TPM are the war and anti semitism. My thoughts on both:

There are some things you learn with your eyes that you never forget.

I learned two things with my eyes during WWll, things I never forgot;

The horrors of war; and anti semitism, as practiced by the masters.

War;

Oh how easy it is to send others to war when you yourself don't have to do the fighting. How many, who are quick to war, never entered the military, even in peace time. I think many are John Wayne wannabes, tough guys, living vicariously through soldiers in the field. The coward who eggs on the bully to pick on other school children. The Michael Ledeen types who are out to save the world at other's expense.
The cretins who have comfortable wars, comfortable because they never have to sacrifice anything.
I made two combat jumps; Normandy, Holland; and fought in the Bulge and the Rhineland campaigns, and those 4 battles also represented my 4 closest friends, young men, 20, 20, 21, 21, who lost their lives, one in each battle. People don't die neatly in war, more often then not, they die from massive destruction of their bodies.

I loathe the people who have created this war. I want the criminals who lied and cheated and pretended and twisted and perverted reality and those who rationalized their crimes so they could send over 3500 men and woman to their death, nearly 30,000 to come home torn, some never to be whole again, thousands more to suffer mental damage, and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians to be swept into the garbage can of "collateral damage," to pay.

These bastards and their apologists should be stripped naked and forced to walk the main streets of America, allowing every city and town that has lost a loved one to injury or death in this shameful catastrophe to heap on them the scorn they deserve.

The willingness to send others off to die for a misguided war because the wingnuts wet their pants after 9/11 is called "cowardice" not courage.

The biggest problem about people who talk about "fighting for America" is that they expect others to do the fighting. Few have the balls to actually do the hard work of "defending freedom".

Me, if I thought our way of life was truly being threatened by an external foe (be it "Islamofascists" or whatever), I wouldn't have any trouble re-enlisting to fight that threat.

My moral compass would demand that I fight that war, to protect our way of life for my family.

Then again, I enlisted to fight a war, so I don't have a chickenhawk bone in my entire body.

So Mister Ledeen, grab a rifle and lead the charge across the Iranian border and I'll follow. And we'll take Dough Feith with us.

Anti semitism, as practiced by the masters;

I don't remember how I felt about Jews prior to my years in the Army, if I felt anything at all. But after the war there certainly existed a view, a sympathetic view that's been with me for the last 60 odd years.

My company liberated the Woebbelin concentration camp at Ludwigslust, Germany.
By then I had seen how badly people in occupied countries suffered, but this was different. Hollywood, with all its ability in special effects could never recreate this. Emaciated people in rags just laying there waiting to die. You couldn't tell if who you were looking at was a man or a woman, young or old. Pits where they burned the dead. The stench was horrid.
All we could do for those poor souls was comfort them until they died, then we buried them. We eventually left there and turned them over to, if I remember, the Fourth Armored.

Today I see people in this forum post comments, and now and then too quick the accusations of anti semitism fly. When I see these charges, and in some cases against innocent commentary, I wonder what anti semitism the one slinging the charge ever suffered. Was he the victim of a slur, did he lose a job, was he victimized by bigots in some way?
The Israelis are experiencing anti semitism far more serious than any American Jew here.
What form of anti semitism has Joe Lieberman suffered compared to some family in Israel who lost a loved one, perhaps a child, in a suicide bombing or some other form of attack?

I don't wish to be seen unsympathetic to groups that suffer because of some bigoted stereotype, I abhor that kind of treatment, but when you see the anti semitism as practiced by the masters, all else seems secondary.

JohnW1141,

The Israelis are experiencing anti semitism far more serious than any American Jew here.

Exactly how do we quantify or qualify such experience?  When discussions turn to the influence of Jews over US foreign policy, is it wrong to place off limits the historical memory of people who may have a reasonable degree of sensitivity to such discussions?  If we limit any and all discussion of antisemitism and its implications strictly to its most extreme historic examples, then are we not stifling the debate we presume to desire?

Mea culpa runneth over.

the Iranian origin of the EFPs... but the New York Times itself reported the discovery of EFP factories in Iraq

????

jexster,

excellent point.

JohnW1141,

Sorry, I have no mathematical equation or empirical studies to 'prove' my 'opinions', because after all, they're opinions, that's all I have. If my opinions don't fit your mold of reality or your standards of scholarship I suggest you ignore me.

I asked you some questions, JohnW1141.  I do not understand your defensive posture.  If I did not take your opinion seriously, I surely would not have bothered to ask.

SeeDee

John: VERY good post.

From one of the same generation you represent, I would like to call attention to the quandary that Neocons like Ledeen, et al., pose for me (and I imagine others):

From the WW II days, right on through the establishment of the present State of Israel and for some years thereafter, my convictions always supported the Israelis, their policies, and their declared aims (which seemed to be a 'peaceful' co-existence in the ME).

With the developements of the past 10 to 15 years, that appraisal of Israel and its aims
has gradually swung around to a point where most of the 'official' actions and policies of the State of Israel are viewed with profound suspicions.

And the actions of JEWISH-Americans like Ledeen, Lieberman, Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith can only be viewed with contempt and a conviction that the interests of the U.S.A. are secondary (if even that) to their concerns for Israeli expansionism.

All very troubling, to say the least...and I wonder if the Neocons have any idea how many nominally Israel-supporters are being pushed into the other category of critics of their (Ledeen's, et alii) inane biases and insane calls for savagery and war?

With the rule that every political movement or policy creates a counter-movement and/or advocates of counter-policies, do we suppose that the likes of Ledeen have any idea of the ultimate damages they could do to the cause of Jews in the U.S. and elsewhere?

Just don't leave out:

An Iraqi citizen, a Muslim, who lost his wife and children to a shock and awe war of choice bombing in Baghdad.

We count and name every person killed at the WTC or every person killed in an attack in Isreal. We do not count or even acknowledge the people we have killed in Iraq but I'd guess that number is more than the total of 1-9. We'll never know so we don't have to bother about it and besides they aren't good Catholics, or Unitarians or Jews.

Well, if the invaded Texas, too, I for one, will hail Florida & Texas new overlords.
But, seriously- this has been a informative & thoughtful thread. Thx to all.
Jesis, these guys leave out we overthrew a legit Gvt & installed a thug!
And they get away with it, daily.

Oops, sorry John, I'm sorry I missed that.

Let's face the truth about Ledeen and the neocons and call what they are proposing what it is...A Crusade.  All the neocons, and especially ones like Ledeen, feel they are doing the work of the "righteous Judeo-Christian God".  And they view any and all Muslims as the enemy.  They make what seems like a silly argument that Muslims want to come here and subject us to their religious/cultural mores.  The neocons to pay back their electoral supporters, the Christian Fundamentalists, have breeched the Wall of Separation.  So if another major organized religion gains a foothold in our society they could impose their religious morality on this country...all thanks to Ledeen and his fellow neocons.  A threat of the neocons own making since 9/11.

I remember Ledeen wrote an article some time ago (which me and artappraiser discussed) that basically said NOLA got what it deserved because it was wicked in the eyes of God.  It should give a good deal of insight into Ledeen's mindset.  Ledeen is a true believer, a wingnut of the highest order, but not all neocons hold their positions because they are religious zealots.  Many of them are more beholden to the military-industrial complex and it's money.  But they will support the goals of the religious zealots because whether for corporate profits or for an extremist religious agenda those are the voters, very active voters at that, who put them in and keep them in power.  And those supporters are more likely to support our actions in the Middle-East if they think it is root cause is for "The Glory of God".  The Islamic extremists are calling for jihad against "The West" and the Christian zealots in the US, aren't that concerned with terrorism per se, they want a Crusade in the Middle-East...A Crusade against all of Islam under the false premise that if we don't have a Crusade all of Christianity shall perish.

Steve:

First, generally a GREAT post, with one important caveat.

“an extremist Iranian government now committed more than ever to the acquisition of nuclear weapons.” ???

That’s a pretty war mongering statement Steve. Please share your evidence for that. What I see Iran committed to is refining its own nuclear fuel, a right guaranteed to them by BOTH the NPT and UN Resolution Number 1. So UNTIL you cite some evidence for your assertion, despite all your otherwise excellent, level headed writing, I will continue to see you as a “Judy Miller/ Michael Gordon” type of mouthpiece for demonizing Iran, and, despite professing to do otherwise, also beating the drums of preemptive war on Iran.

From my perspective, it is a totally different thing to understand nuclear technology completely (including HOW to assemble a critical mass and start the chain reaction) and to make a bomb. Japan and Germany also are in the same place. I for one, am grateful for, and applaud the Iranians for having the courage to stand up to USA hegemony on nuclear enrichment. To have your former boss (Jeff Bingaman) attend the Los Alamos National Laboratory “celebration” of building the first plutonium pit in 18 years is despicable, and something the ME sees as beyond contempt and hypocrisy. 6,000 active, and SAFE, nuclear warheads are not enough?

Ledeen, while an extreme example of the American Neo-Nutzi’s, is but a part of the much larger problem of America being in control of the American Nazi party. As you know, my father was a member of this party (just as the Iraqi’s were required to be a member of the Bathist Party to teach at the University). Let’s be clear on what the Nazi Party was-

a)a Party that saw Germany as having Superior values
b)a Party that militarized society to impose those “superior” values on the rest of the world.

So Steve, pray tell what is different here in the USA, to support an assertion that the US today is not very similar to the Nazi's of the late 1930's?

And let’s also not kid ourselves in what the designation of the Republican National Guard as a “terrorist” organization means – a precursor to a declaration of war against Russia and China, who, as part of SCO are engaging in joint military exercises.

"It is obvious that force and the threat of force cannot be and should not be an instrument of foreign policy" - Mikhail Gorbachev

"Force does not subdue, it enrages" - Richard Vague

Howard,

Even here, I really have to stop and think whether I'm giving a considered opinion, or a knee-jerk reaction to some of the "Israel can do no wrong and must protect itself from imminent destruction" crowd.

Please be specific.  Who represents that crowd here in this discussion, and exactly how are they stifling this discourse?  TIA.

I didn't say stifling discussion. As far as Israel not needing to be under any constraints, start with Bar Kochba. Davai, once in a while, will agree that some Israeli position was not justifiable, but most of his arguments try to divert any criticism.

I am not going to go back through posts, but I put anyone urging military action, in the near term, against Iranian nuclear facilities into that category.

The issue of "Israel can do no wrong and must always be stronger" differs from the position that an attack on Israel is necessarily anti-Semitic. Please correct me, but it is my understanding that we disagree on that point. To me, an attack on Israel is an attack on a nation-state.

Only if the attacker has a policy of attacking Jews worldwide do I consider it anti-semitic, and there are indeed groups that fall into that category. If Hizbollah indeed attacked a Jewish center in Argentina, I'd call them anti-Semitic. I'd also note, as ugly as they may be, they can't be destroyed in Lebanon.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

bell,

:-)

J. McCutchen

For seven years the inmates have run the asylum (with more than a little help from Hillary et al) but this reminds me of the asylum scene in "Bridge Too Far"

Iran has Bush by the short and the curlies. That's been obvious for some time. Now even the loons wandering and laughing in the forest can see what Lieberman et al still can't.

Or can they????

Shy and retiring that I am, very little inhibits my participation in discourse. Just to be clear, I do not believe that any people anywhere has a right to national self-determination, unless we really want the world to break into thousands of little nations. Now, if a country has a population that significantly shares a heritage, by all means let Ireland celebrate Irish literature and song, let China and France celebrate their contributions to gastronomy, and let Iceland celebrate its role in the development of parliamentary democracy.

I do not, however, support an ethnically-based "right of return", or preference for citizenship based on ethnicity or any religion. Or, to take my earlier examples, must there be independent countries for the Basque, Chechens, or Ibo? Do Kurds and Alawites have justification to split off from Turkey?

So, when someone starts throwing around antisemitism as an explanation of why a person critical of Israeli policy, unless it meets my criteria for antisemitism (i.e., opposition to Jews wherever they are found), I tune it out.

I hope you understand that my position on national identity is not specific to any particular identity. At the same time, I do not recognize a Jewish exceptionalism that, for example, Kurds do not have. It was Clemenceau, I believe, that suggested a language is a dialect with an army. In most of this sad world's history, national identity is what can be asserted by force of arms, and is slowly getting to a point where a number of nations recognize that position isn't always to their advantage. In a cold Darwinism, Israel has such overwhelming military superiority that I can see no plausible way its neighbors can destroy it.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

... plus the Iranians have learned a lesson from the situation in Nortk Korea -the US doesn't attack if you have nukes.Tom

... frighteningly the same crew of idiots has Cheney's ear today & Uncle Dick is pressuring Boy George.Tom

If we bomb Iran, we need to realize and accept that there is a strong chance that the public will rally toward rather than away from its current populist political leadership under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The worst situation would be to have a perception of citizen-given legitimacy behind an extremist Iranian government now committed more than ever to the acquisition of nuclear weapons.

eric, you mis-read Steve. You were probably confused by his mis-use of the word "now" when he should have used "then". The situation he described was a possible consequence of the US bombing Iran.

As you indicate, there is no proof, according to the IAEA, that the Iranians are developing nuclear weapons, but if the US bombs them then they would naturally re-consider, because the US doesn't bomb nuclear-armed countries. Steve's point. (Given that, they probably should have developed nuclear weapons before now.)

Iran is a fake democracy -- but there are elements of democracy and popular will being expressed through elections there.

This bothered me too, Dan K

Then I thought, what if I use the find-replace function on my word processor--Find Iran, replace U.S. -- and it all became crystal clear.  (I was still bothered). 

aMike

Re:  Michael Ledeen.

I'm working my way through Joe Conason's It Can Happen Here: Authoritarian Peril in the Age of Bush.  If you have it in your to read pile you might want to pick it up.  Chapter One, The Post 9/11 World View of Karl Rove, has a lengthy section on Ledeen--pp. 37 - 43.  What a nasty piece of business Ledeen is.  He has been a nasty piece of business for a very long time.

Conason's book, on the other hand, is a gem, MHO.  Every chapter provides yet another reason why impeachment is a moral imperative.  Every chapter is could serve as grounds for an article of indictment, and each has really brilliantly chosen quotations from Madison, Paine, Lincoln, et al. serving as headers. 

aMike

Not especially apropos. I think the Israel lobby is really feeling the pressure. The Walt-Mearsheimer book wont be out til Sept and its #120 on Amazon already.
And now this:

ADL Fires New England Director for Affirming Armenian Genocide (JTA)
Published: 08/19/2007
Andrew Tarsy, the head of the Anti-Defamation League’s Boston office, was fired after dissenting from the organization’s position concerning the Armenian genocide. Tarsy was fired Friday, one day after he publicly broke ranks with the organization over its refusal to acknowledge the massacres of Armenians by Ottoman Turks during World War I as genocide, the Boston Globe reported. In an interview in Friday’s Globe, Tarsy urged the ADl to change its position on the matter. "I strongly disagree with ADL's national position," Tarsy said. "It's my strong hope that we'll be able to move forward in a relationship with the Armenian community and the community in general." The ADL responded with a statement, due to be published as an advertisement in regional newspapers this week, saying it did not deny that genocide took place but reiterating its opposition to an effort, vigorously opposed by Turkey, to have Congress pronounce on the issue. "We believe that legislative efforts outside of Turkey are counterproductive to the goal of having Turkey itself come to grips with its past," the statement said. "We take no position on what action Congress should take on House Resolution 106." Tarsy’s firing is the latest twist in a saga that began with a letter to the local weekly in Watertown, Mass., a Boston suburb with a substantial Armenian population, criticizing the ADL’s position. On Tuesday, the Watertown Town Council voted to rescind its participation in No Place for Hate, an ADL-sponsored anti-bigotry program. Other Massachusetts communities are reported to be considering similar moves.

hcberkowitz said:

In fairness, there was a great deal of historical antisemitism (not especially anti-Zionism, given no State of Israel) in Europe, culminating in the Holocaust

Howard,

benign question, for learning purposes only;

Prior to 1930, was all of Europe a hotbed of antisemitism to the extent that Jews were being physically attacked and abused in other ways or did this become the norm with the advent of the Nazis?

And to take a page from your book, I imagine there were those who were not antisemitics and who actually may have helped Jews who were victimized. Sad to say, if these people existed they rarely get mentioned.

Gee, now theres a subject for discussion;

"The people around the world who aren't/weren't anti semites and what they did to help Jews victimized by this thuggery."