Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

With this recent episode involving the British sailors, I am reminded of what Hezbollah did last summer. Cross into Israel and seize some IDF soldiers and when the Israeli tanks began to pursue, ambush them with mines and prepared anti-tank rocket positions.

Dropping some JDAMs in "retaliation" will only strengthen the mullahs hold on political power and we lack sufficient infantry to accomplish genuine regime change and reconstruction.

But we are in a bad position. Do nothing and the West appears weak. Do something ineffectual and that is even worse. Bomb their infrastructure and make the Persians eat dirt in the dark and another generation of kids will grow up hating the Great Satan.

No good options.

Posted by Bill White at March 28, 2007 12:14 PM

Indeed. This situation isn't (so far) the Embassy Hostages, or the USS Pueblo, but one would do well to remember both, and the limited options of those times...

Posted by Frank Glover at March 28, 2007 01:37 PM

IMHO legitimacy is solely dependent on who decides who is in charge. Iran has some degree of legitimacy because its president (and a number of other offices) are decided by popular vote. Against that however, is that the "Supreme Leader" is decided undemocratically by a small committee of pseudoreligious leaders. This leader has substantial power to filter the candidates for election and goes a long ways to making the government of Iran illegitimate.

As a side note, the republican/democrat oligopoly in the US is the key source of illegitimacy in the US government. That needs to be corrected before the US can be considered to have a legitimate government.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at March 28, 2007 02:18 PM

President Achmadinijhan(yeah whatever) is about as legitamate as that German guy that was Chancellor from the mid-thirties to april of fourty five.

Posted by Mike Puckett at March 28, 2007 03:51 PM

The US is not in a good position to complain about Iran violating the sovereignty of other countries, given that the US itself sponsored a coup in Iran that overthrew a democratically supported president and installed an autocratic king.

Then there was the time that the US shot down an Iranian airliner over Iranian waters and killed 290 civilians. That one could have been excused as an accident, except that the US never actually apologized.

Basically the US has never had much respect for Iranian sovereignty.

Now, this is not to say that Iran is good and the US is bad. On balance, the US is a much better world leader than Iran. The point is that if there is a good reason to attack Iran, Mark Steyn's argument isn't it. Steyn's argument is so blatantly hypocritical that it just plain doesn't work.

Attacking Iran right now would be an extremely bad idea anyway. However bad Iran is, we have made it our ally by overthrowing Saddam Hussein. The such-as Iraqi government that we are nurturing is deeply pro-Iranian. Steyn's agitations are like the surgeon who removed the wrong lung from a patient, and now wants to fix the problem by removing the other one too.

Posted by at March 28, 2007 03:57 PM

"As a side note, the republican/democrat oligopoly in the US is the key source of illegitimacy in the US government."

Nonsense. America isn't a real democracy at all, and hasn't been since the spin doctors and advertisers got their hands on the political process.

As an example of this, when was the last time America had a Presidential candidate who wasn't a multi-millionaire?

The USA is a plutocracy, and has been for decades.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at March 28, 2007 04:45 PM

Y'know, they just don't teach civics anymore.

The United States of America is a Republic. It is often termed a "democratic republic" because the legislature is elected by direct local/state popular vote, and the executive on something fairly close to that--but, individual voters don't get to vote on anything short of an amendment at the federal level--and that's never really been done.

Posted by Big D at March 28, 2007 05:18 PM

Steyn should be even more miffed that the Saudis have just snubbed Bush, making the grand alliance against Iran that Cheney has been craving even less likely. We have an administration that is literally falling apart in scandals and everyone who can is trying to distance themselves as much as possible.

Posted by Offside at March 28, 2007 07:24 PM

Iran is as much a soverign state as is any country. It has a clear rule of succession that is in some form or fashion related to the wishes of the people.

actions of elected rulers do not negate the realm of soverignty...to argue otherwise is to take soverignty from the basis of our Declaration where rights come from the people to where soverignty evolves from the opinion of others...

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at March 28, 2007 07:26 PM

We have an administration that is literally falling apart in scandals and everyone who can is trying to distance themselves as much as possible.

Yeah, really. The Democratic Congress has only been there for three months and it's already hell's bells in the Administration. Who knows what will be the next thing that Bush officials can't explain. Like why they kidnapped an innocent Canadian citizen and had him tortured in Syria.

Posted by at March 28, 2007 08:22 PM

Meanwhile Bush tried to explain Iraq to the National Cattlemen's Beef Association today. As you might expect, it was a load of bull.

Posted by at March 28, 2007 08:31 PM

It's always great when people assume the arrogance to label a country which has a culture and history that goes farther back in time then most countries on the map as illegitimate. I hope the morons currently in charge of the USA learn from their adventures in Iraq that invading Iran will only lead to deeper sorrows and quagmires.

Posted by X at March 28, 2007 10:26 PM

Yow! Look at all this, "... but the US is so much worse!"

Could we possibly accept that:

a. The British had far more to lose in Iran, and was far more involved in the events of 1953 than the US?

b. In the context of the Cold War, the US did a lot of things that later generations judge using today's (vs. then contemporary) standards?

c. As a sovereign state, Iran is violating a number of international conventions, and that it in fact has conducted acts of war against the US, UK, and many others?

Just wondering. Because, you know, if the US is as e-v-i-l as a number of posters are implying, I should move to a country that isn't so e-v-i-l.

Like, say, Iran.

Posted by MG at March 29, 2007 02:39 AM

It's always great when people assume the arrogance to label a country which has a culture and history that goes farther back in time then most countries on the map as illegitimate.

No one is talking about the ancient Persian culture. We're talking about an illegitimate criminal regime that has been in power for less than three decades.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 29, 2007 04:31 AM

Fletcher, you wrote:

Nonsense. America isn't a real democracy at all, and hasn't been since the spin doctors and advertisers got their hands on the political process.

I don't see that as a real problem. The spin doctors and advertisers have long been a part of the political landscape.

As an example of this, when was the last time America had a Presidential candidate who wasn't a multi-millionaire?

Bill Clinton and John McCain to name two recent examples. Remember also that successful experience as the head of a nontrivial business (which often results in considerable wealth) is a good indication that the person can do well as governor or president.

Robert, you wrote:

IMHO actions of *unelected* rulers do negate the realm of sovereignty. That's my point. And anything which biases an election process (such as a council of unelected mullahs or an entrenched two party system) weakens the claim to sovereignty.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at March 29, 2007 08:09 AM

I'd say Iran is legitimate and has been for some time. If for no other reason than presidence has been set with UN acceptance and various nations diplomatic missions in Iran. The US may not recognize Iran's government as legitmate, but the UK should, as it has previously done so before this incident.

Legitimate or not, attacks against a nation's military force is an act of war. It can be argued that Iran is right and that the UK initiated the attack, thus it acted in a warlike method against Iran. I don't buy it, as decidedly neutral parties have stated otherwise.

In this case, I think Iran's strategy was to kidnap UK sailors believing that the UK citizens desire to respond militarily against Iran was less than the US. Further, a US response would be tempered by the risk of causing the execution of UK sailors. If we didn't have people on the other side, then everyone would recognize that any execution of UK sailors was a decision made entirely by Iran and would hold Iran entirely responsible for such a decision.

If Iran suffered a strike against any country, yet did nothing but maintain the POW status of the UK sailors; then it's position on this issue would be more legitimate.

Posted by Leland at March 29, 2007 08:29 AM

Karl,

The U.S. has an entrenched two party system because they have geographic districts where a plurality wins the seat. Such a districting scheme always produces a two party system. It's political science, not corruption. If you want lots of parties you can institute proportional representation. Then instead of two coalitions of voters (the two party system) you can have two coalitions of parties (the government and the opposition).

I like the two party system better. It can teach people (when they let it) that they have to support the other members of the coalition, promoting cooperation, consensus and compromise. Proportional representation seems to put some decidedly odd people in power.

Yours,
Wince

Posted by Wince and Nod at March 29, 2007 08:47 AM

If the US is as e-v-i-l as a number of posters are implying

The US certainly isn't evil. But it does have an evil streak. All countries do, but the US can act on it any time because it has been the world's greatest military power for 65 years. The problem is that America's evil streak is the side that Mark Steyn likes. Rand Simberg too, if this post is any guide.

It doesn't work to dismiss the Shah of Iran as ancient history. It's true that the US reinstalled him in 1953, when Donald Rumsfeld was only 21 years old. But he was the same American toady that the current Iranian regime overthrew in 1979. What goes around, comes around.

The USS Vincennes shot down Iran Air Flight 655 on July 3, 1988. It was a lot like the Soviet downing of KAL flight 007 in 1983, except it was worse. The one decent thing that the US did was settle when Iran filed suit at the International Criminal Court. That may have something to do with why the present administration hates the ICC --- losing face is intolerable to them.

Posted by at March 29, 2007 08:49 AM

Wince,

I know and agree. IMHO proportional represention is definitely better. The winner-take-all system just isn't working for the US. But you don't need coalitions. That's crazy talk from the parlementarians.

The education lesson isn't worth the cost.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at March 29, 2007 09:03 AM

The USS Vincennes shot down Iran Air Flight 655 on July 3, 1988. It was a lot like the Soviet downing of KAL flight 007 in 1983, except it was worse.

In what way was it "worse"? The USS Vincennes didn't know that it was a passenger jet while the Russians knew KAL 007 was.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at March 29, 2007 09:06 AM

The USS Vincennes didn't know that it was a passenger jet while the Russians knew KAL 007 was.

According to the Wikipedia page on KAL 007, which is detailed and referenced, the Soviets did not know that it was a civilian passenger jet. The defensible position is that both aggressors should have known what they were shooting down.

What was worse about the Vincennes incident is that IRA 655 was shot down over Iranian waters, while KAL 007 really was off course, over Soviet territory. There was also the fact that several officers on the Vincennes were awarded medals for heroism.

Posted by at March 29, 2007 09:22 AM

According to the Wikipedia page on KAL 007, which is detailed and referenced, the Soviets did not know that it was a civilian passenger jet.

Rand, did you pick up a new anonitard? One who doesn't recognize wikipedia as a source that can be edited by anyone, and is therefore unreliable as to any kind of controversial topics.

Posted by John Irving at March 29, 2007 11:22 AM

We're straying well off topic, but I'll continue.

Look both attacks were reprehensible. But keep two things in mind. First, the Soviets had plenty of time to track KAL 007 since it was over Soviet territory for a considerable period of time. Further, there was no reason to consider that the plane might be a threat even though it violated Soviet air space. In comparison, it was claimed the USS Vincennes had been fighting Iranian "gunboats" (the Iranians were mining shipping channels with these boats) at the time.

As an aside, The USS Vincennes attack illustrates (as one of several mistakes made that day) one of the dangers of putting an expensive piece of hardware unsupported in harm's way. They had very narrow margins in which to decide how to act. Ie, they had to quickly decide whether an aircraft was a standard passenger flight or a hostile military jet. One of the reasons I really dislike the huge hardware fetishism that exists in US strategic thinking.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at March 29, 2007 11:54 AM

First, the Soviets had plenty of time to track KAL 007 since it was over Soviet territory for a considerable period of time.

Granted. I'm willing to say that on balance, KAL 007 and IRA 655 were comparable acts of manslaughter.

But if the Soviets acted egregiously in this way, the Americans were equally egregious in other directions. They take a fight with Iran right up to Iranian waters, then they don't have time to assess a civilian Iranian flight that isn't even off course. You can imagine our reaction if Cuba did that to us.

And no, it isn't really all that far off topic. Look past the incident itself and consider how the Reagan Administration reacted to it --- the same Reagan who condemned KAL 007 as outright murder. It's part of a clear pattern: the ideological right has no real respect for Iranian sovereignty.

In fact, some of them have no real respect for the sovereignty of any foreign country. The John Bolton types think of the whole world map as a State Department regulation.

Posted by at March 29, 2007 12:19 PM

The USS Vincennes didn't know that it was a passenger jet while the Russians knew KAL 007 was.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at March 29, 2007 09:06 AM

that is not completly accurate. Robo Cruiser had on board the correct data to interpret that the airplane it engaged was a civilian airliner.

Errors by the combat crew, under the direct command of the Captain made that information valuless.

Robert

Posted by at March 29, 2007 03:44 PM

unelected mullahs or an entrenched two party system) weakens the claim to sovereignty.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at March 29, 2007 08:09 AM

Karl.

not really, in either case. Not at least as soverignty is discussed in The Declaration of Independence.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at March 29, 2007 03:47 PM

Robert, I see that the Declaration says that government derives its "just power" from the consent of the governed. I'm just naturally extending this conclusion. Namely, government is illigitimate if consent by the govern isn't routinely given.

So how do you demonstrate that the governed have consented to the government? Through free elections. I'm just pointing out that the two party system in the US inhibits this process to some extent for the US, but far less severely than the obstacles to democratic elections in Iran.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at March 29, 2007 04:53 PM

Karl.

I think that the "consent of the governed" is enhanced by the two party system...if it ever fails the governed then the governed will use their rights and create another party...

the people get the government (in the US) that they allow to exist when they participate in the political system. All the people have the rights of their creator but that is not enough...they have to excersize them.

To the extent that they do not then they let others run the system.

As for Iran...

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at March 29, 2007 05:53 PM

Look past the incident itself and consider how the Reagan Administration reacted to it

That's good. How about the reaction to the Iranians actively placing mines in International waters? The Reagan administration attacked and stopped the threat. Good call IMNSHO

Posted by Mac at March 29, 2007 07:32 PM

The Soviets shot down 007 after it was visually ID's by manned aircraft.

Posted by Mike Puckett at March 30, 2007 06:49 AM

Here is what your precious Wiki actually said:

"As KAL 007 overflew Soviet territory, the Soviets scrambled Su-15 'Flagon' and MiG-23 'Flogger-B' fighters to intercept it. At 18:26 GMT, one of two Su-15s from Dolinsk-Sokol airbase shot down the airliner with a missile. The airliner crashed into the sea about 55 km off Moneron Island, killing all on board. Initial reports that the airliner had been forced to land on Sakhalin were soon proved false. Transcripts recovered from the airliner's cockpit voice recorder indicate that the crew were unaware that they were off course and violating Soviet airspace (at the end they were 500 kilometres to the west of the planned track). After the missile strike, the crew performed an emergency spiral descent due to rapid decompression from 18:26 until the end of the recording at 18:27:46. Initially information recovered from the flight's data recorders was witheld by Soviet authorities; it was only after the Yeltsin administration took power in an independent Russia that the recorders were released, 10 years after the incident."

It is higholy proable that the fighters first visually ID'd their target.

Posted by Mike Puckett at March 30, 2007 06:55 AM

It is higholy proable that the fighters first visually ID'd their target.

Posted by Mike Puckett at March 30, 2007 06:55 AM

Mike.

It is not highly probable...they did. The "air to ground" discussions that were monitored by "somoone" and played at the UN showed that the controllers followed typical Soviet air intercept procedures of the time, including IDing their target and then engaging it.

It also shows conclusivly that the Soviets were quite sure that it was an EC 135.

It was night and from the distances that they made the "visual" it would have been "a reasonable" mistake to confuse the two...particularly since they had been playing "mouse" with an EC not just a bit earlier in the evening.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at March 30, 2007 05:16 PM

It is higholy proable that the fighters first visually ID'd their target.

Posted by Mike Puckett at March 30, 2007 06:55 AM

Mike.

It also shows conclusivly that the Soviets were quite sure that it was an EC 135.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at March 30, 2007 05:16 PM

Hear that, Bush voters? Steyn thinks seizing sovereign territory, having people in other countries killed, and attacking places that never attacked you makes a government illegitimate. Glad to see at least one necrocon psycho has saned up and gotten with the program. Err, unless he only meant countries he doesn't like...

Posted by Brian Swiderski at March 31, 2007 04:46 AM

"Hear that, Bush voters? Steyn thinks seizing sovereign territory, having people in other countries killed, and attacking places that never attacked you makes a government illegitimate. Glad to see at least one necrocon psycho has saned up and gotten with the program. Err, unless he only meant countries he doesn't like..."

I knew it would not be long until BS came along and soundly trounced the Neocon Roosevelt administration for its unjustified attack on NAZI Germany.

Posted by Mike Puckett at March 31, 2007 09:11 AM

Mike: "I knew it would not be long until BS came along and soundly trounced the Neocon Roosevelt administration for its unjustified attack on NAZI Germany."

Now that's what I call a Jesus H. Non Sequitur.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at March 31, 2007 10:37 PM

Hey Mike, maybe BS can explain to everyone how the Germans killed all those people in Hawaii... wait a second, they didn't. well maybe he can explain why FDR agreed to the policy of stopping Hitler first and then finishing the war with Japan?

BS, I know this is difficult for you, but Mike is using an analogy. If the US shouldn't attack countries that haven't attacked the US, then how do you condone US involvement in Europe during WWII?

Posted by Leland at April 1, 2007 07:16 AM

Leland: "maybe BS can explain to everyone how the Germans killed all those people in Hawaii..."

Maybe you can explain who Iraq was invading and occupying when His Majesty conquered it.

Leland: "well maybe he can explain why FDR agreed to the policy of stopping Hitler first and then finishing the war with Japan?"

Hitler had wiped out half the world's democracies and conquered what had been one of the two most powerful nations on Earth just a generation earlier, so there was clearly more urgency.

Leland: "If the US shouldn't attack countries that haven't attacked the US, then how do you condone US involvement in Europe during WWII?"

I never limited it to the US. If friends, allies, or any other country is invaded by an aggressor, then it is legitimate for any country to join the side of the aggrieved if they choose. We chose to do so in WW2 because Nazi Germany was the Grendel at the gates; because it had waged the most shockingly successful conquest since Napoleon, overrunning formerly mighty armies like they were nothing; and because it was a SUPERIOR enemy that truly did threaten our survival.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 1, 2007 10:01 AM

because it was a SUPERIOR enemy that truly did threaten our survival.

Oh, so we should wait until our enemy has become better than us before stopping them?

Posted by Leland at April 3, 2007 01:23 PM

"Oh, so we should wait until our enemy has become better than us before stopping them?"

The strength of enemies is not relevant. If they do something we have a right to stop, we stop them. If not, then we don't. The US armed forces is not a tool of convenience for pruning off potential threats like some barbarous empire, so if that means facing a more powerful enemy later, then that's how it goes. It's not optional.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 5, 2007 12:19 PM

Post a comment