Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

How much more should we take? None, zero, zilch, nada. We need to strike at Iranian interests NOW.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at June 7, 2007 09:41 AM

As long as the news only gets out through "The Corner", then nothing will be done. The President is barely making the case. At this point, I think it will require an Iranian force with planes or ships directly attacking US forces on the ground.

"I mean Jihad" is anything but dumb. He knows he can continue to fight by proxy. The controlling parties in Congress and UK Parliment want no war at all. The International Press hates the US more than Iran. As long as Iran doesn't make war overt, then others will be happy to point at the US troops and claim, "they're the bad guys".

Posted by Leland at June 7, 2007 09:42 AM

As always "punishing the regime" is left vague and ambiguous.

More specifically, what do you propose?

And for the record, Iran is absolutely working against our interests even if "war" has certain legal definitions that may or may not be satisfied.

The question is not what Iran deserves, it is what strategy is most prudent for us. And that, I assert has no obvious answer.

Posted by Bill White at June 7, 2007 09:46 AM

Bill it is obvious what a nation does when another nation declares war on it: you fight back.

At this point I am less concerned with how enraged the Arab street becomes or how moderate forces in Iran react. Iran is KILLING American soldiers.

My neighbors 32 year old son, Sgt Brian Daniel Ardron just married and father to a 6 month old child, was killed in a "multiple IED" attack two weeks ago. I don't know if Iran was behind that particular attack or not, but I DO know that Iran has been behind other such attacks. I know it, you know it and George W. Bush knows it.

Meanwhile we wring our hands and worry about what to do in fear of making someone not like us.

NEWSFLASH: They already don't like us, that is why they are killing us!

I am close to advocating bombing ANY target in Iran, it doesn't matter what but anything to get their attention. Put a cruise missile through an Iranian Republican Guard barracks window in the middle of the night, flatten up a Iranian Naval Facility. Then go on national TV and say this was in retaliation for your support of terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan, continue such support and the attacks will grow tenfold.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at June 7, 2007 11:06 AM

The current situation reminds me of all the junk we went through in the 80's and 90's, with state sponsored terrorists attacking our troops and other interests in the Middle East. Unfortunately, it will take (and indeed, took via 9-11) a direct attack on the US for the majority of people to support a war with Iran.

While I believe the Bush administration's blunders in Iraq have made the current situation worse, I do not believe ANY President could successfully convince the 'masses' that a war with Iran would be OK. The Iranian leaders aren't stupid - they see every day on CNN, Fox, MSNBC, etc. that a large number of US citizens want the current war ended. As long as they don't send a whole division of soldiers wearing Iranian issued army uniforms into Iraq/Israel, we won't do anything to them.

Posted by Tom W. at June 7, 2007 11:44 AM

Cecil,

The mullahs are crafty as well as evil.

First, recall that tossing a few JDAMs at bin Laden's tents accomplished nothing AND Iran has had 20 years to study what Israel did at Osirak and to prepare decoys and countermeasures.

I am reminded of a tactic once used by hoodlums in Chicago's low income housing projects. They would smash car windows driven by females, snatch their purses and run into the housing project. Then, they would dangle the purse out of a window and taunt the woman to come retrieve it.

I am suspicious that the Iranians are trying a similar tactic and unless we are willing to do what the Chicago police did -- massive foot patrols -- we will drop a few bombs, kill civilians and the mullahs will reply:

"Na, na, you missed"

Posted by Bill White at June 7, 2007 12:17 PM

The problem is indecision. We no longer have leaders who lead. They all tell us they will lead, "...after I'm elected." Well BS!!

If someone doesn't do something with the Iranians and North Koreans soon, they'll be fighting over our remnants by November 2008.

Posted by Steve at June 7, 2007 12:34 PM

The US has 3 basic options

1) Fall back to a more defensible posture.

2) engage in pinpricks at Iran

3) full bore invasion.

Simberg is cheerleading for option 2 or 3.

Minor strikes will have no result except to rally support
for the Mullahs, Olmert in Israel engaged in massive
strikes in Palestine and Lebanon for no real effect,
why would we expect more?

Bush is welcome to invade Iran, maybe he can do better then
the British did. It's easy to invade it's harder to occupy.

Of course, to pay for any war, one should have a tax and spending plan. I'd like to see one from Simberg before
he rashly advocates war.

Posted by anonymous at June 7, 2007 12:54 PM

Bill,
Osama did not have a country full of targets er I mean infrastructure. And did I say anything about Irans nuclear capacity being a target? It is, but that is a separate issue. We can hurt Iran and let them know we're not going to be a passive target any longer without going after the nuclear sites. Like I said, kill some of their soldiers. Heck, kill some of their politicians, put a cruise missile into their legislative buildings while in session. We could eliminate their entire Navy in a matter of days. Cruise missile a few mullahs houses. I could spend hours writing up target lists.

Or, we could just sit by and let American soldiers die. Which seems to be what you advocate Bill.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at June 7, 2007 01:03 PM

No American troops have been killed by Iranians oustside of Iraq. Maybe we should remove the troops from Iraq.

Posted by Jardinero1 at June 7, 2007 01:07 PM

I suspect that most Iranians would cheer if we hit the mullahs. They're not very popular, nor is their government.

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 7, 2007 01:08 PM

Jardineero1:"No American troops have been killed by Iranians oustside of Iraq."

That is a lie.

Jardineero1: "Maybe we should remove the troops from Iraq."

Yes, we should always do what our enemy's wish for us to do. Maybe we should give them the right to vote in US elections?

The free world is in a sad shape when such moronic views are being espoused.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at June 7, 2007 01:15 PM

No American troops have been killed by Iranians oustside of Iraq. Maybe we should remove the troops from Iraq.

Yes, well, no American troops were killed by Germans outside of North Africa in early 1942. Maybe we should have just pulled out. Is your general prescription for cases in which the enemy attacks our troops withdrawal?

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 7, 2007 01:19 PM

I think a good target if we decided to take something down to get their attention would be their single oil refinery. That would cause major pain, and force them to BUY gas from somewhere else.

Posted by Mac at June 7, 2007 01:38 PM

That would cause major pain, and force them to BUY gas from somewhere else.

Unfortunately, it would also inflict pain on the Iranian people, and perhaps increase their support for the regime. We need to find targets that hurt the mullahs (and Ahmadinejad).

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 7, 2007 01:47 PM

J, Except those 241 Marines in Lebanon, right? Leaving there did the indigenous population a lot of good.

Posted by Bill Maron at June 7, 2007 01:55 PM

I agree we need to deal with the mullahs. "How" is always the harder question.

Blowing something up might be fun but if we act and then fail to remove the mullahs and/or Ahmadinejad we might be worse off afterwards than we are now.

Who "won" last summer in Lebanon? The country's infrastructure was severely pounded yet has Hezbollah been defeated? Remember, they crossed into Israel and grabbed those soldiers to provoke an Israeli response, like that Cabrini-Green purse snatching business I described earlier.

With Ahmadinejad loudly screaming "Kick me!" what I am saying is lets choose our options in cold blood rather than be goaded into "We gotta do something!"

Posted by Bill White at June 7, 2007 02:01 PM

I like the idea of eliminating their entire Navy. It would be ana attack against a military target, so justifiable under the laws of war and with minimal collateral damage. It wouldn't really harm the general population. It would eliminate (or at least diminsh) the regime's ability to pull kidnapping stunts like they did with the Brits.

Posted by KeithK at June 7, 2007 02:20 PM

I think the pressure on the Iranian leadership is building. The anti-war crusaders have failed to end U.S. participation in Iraq, and Afghanistan, something I'm sure Dinejad was counting on, heavily. Truck convoys of Iranian-made weaponry have been intercepted and identified inside of Afghanistan, a threat to NATO forces. Our EU allies will have no choice now but to become 'concerned' about Iran and increase sanctions, for the protection of their own forces. The Iranian economy has already tanked and the population is unhappy. So it's possible that the mullahs will run out of options and be forced to cooperate. When? How long can they hang on? I don't know, but having patience might pay off this time. That would be the rational way out but who knows if the mullahs can be rational? Pile on the sanctions. The military option will always be there in any case.

Posted by Bacchus at June 7, 2007 02:25 PM

Peter Hitchens wrote this:

The Islamic (Iranian) leadership knows this and is glad of the threats and grumbling coming from Washington. Once it was able to use the great national trauma of the war with Iraq to unite the nation around its leadership, much as the Kremlin used the war against Hitler to give itself legitimacy.

Overt Western pressure will strengthen the mullahs not weaken them.

Posted by Bill White at June 7, 2007 02:39 PM

Unfortunately, it would also inflict pain on the Iranian people, and perhaps increase their support for the regime. We need to find targets that hurt the mullahs (and Ahmadinejad).

Or, it may drive the people of Iran to overthrow their government. Either way, the mullahs will be forced to understand their position. Oil refineries are good military targets, just like Navies, except in the refinery case, there's only one. The navy has a few more paper boats.

Posted by Mac at June 7, 2007 02:57 PM

The thread says that the Iranians are prosecuting war against us by proxy in Iraq. Well, they do so only because they are incapable of bringing arms to bear on us directly, here in the homeland. We would be better off thumbing our noses at them or ignoring them while they self immolate. Instead, we conveniently place American soldiers nearby for them to kill. Like I said, remove the soldiers and they won't be able to harm them.

This would have the dual effect of forcing the Iraqis to stop using us as a crutch and fend for themselves. As long as we are willing to fight for the Iraqis they will never fight for themselves. Like the French they will fight to the last American.

Third, a pull out would force the other players in the region; the Saudis, Syrians, Turks and Iranians into an accomodation. Our presence in Iraq benefits them by creating a venue where these neighborhood bullies cause all sorts of mischief. These bullies rely on us to police the area when things get too out of hand for them. The last thing they want is for us to pull out.

Posted by Jardinero1 at June 7, 2007 03:05 PM

Mac, there are some really big "ifs" here

How many casualties did Iran absorb fighting Saddam?

We lob a few JDAMs, sink a few boats and they will cry "Uncle" -- is that the strategy?

Posted by Bill White at June 7, 2007 03:06 PM

Rand Simberg swears:
"Yes, well, no American troops were killed by Germans outside of North Africa in early 1942."

Sadly this is at best ignorant, at worst utter sophistry.
I suggest Rand read the history of German submarine operations
in 1942, before he foolishly states this.

He will no doubt claim a sailor isn't a soldier or some such
nonsense.

Posted by anonymous at June 7, 2007 04:13 PM

Cecil, your comments don't go far enough.

One MIRV cluster launched by turning one key. That's all it takes.

The alternative is that, after a few years and a million or so US citizen deaths, many keys are turned - and most of the Islamic world goes up in smoke and ash.

They don't realise this. The lesson should be taught. Now.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at June 7, 2007 04:22 PM

Fletcher,
I'm pretty right wing war monger-ish according to some, but I stop short of nukes AT THIS POINT IN TIME.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at June 7, 2007 04:44 PM

Take custody of Kharg Island.

Continue operations, put returns in escrow.

Promise escrow to be distributed directly to citizens of the Persian Empire.

That outdoes Ahmadi-nejad, the mullahcracy, and cuts the thugs' paychecks.

Illegal? By what law? And what Executive will enforce that law?

Impoundment has occurred before, and it will happen again.

Posted by MG at June 7, 2007 05:05 PM

if we take kharg island, don't you think the Iranians will
turn off the valves?

So at best, we have a 100 Seals sitting on Kharg Island
getting shelled every day

Anon

Posted by anonymous at June 7, 2007 06:39 PM

Why would we have SEALS on Kharg I.?

And if the Iranians turn off the valves, then the illegitimate regime of the Persian Empire goes broke that much more quickly.

Finally, a non-violent impoundment of Kharg I. is far less destructive than (say) Fletcher Christian's proposals. Heck, a news blackout is even enforcable there.

I'm just saying... the mullahcracy has many vulnerabilities. Free cash flow generation is but one of them.

Posted by MG at June 7, 2007 06:42 PM

Let me see if I have this timeline down of right-wing policies on Iran:

1953: Necrocons in the CIA overthrow the elected Iranian government and install the Shah.

1953-79: Same necrocons train the Shah's secret police in torture and oppression, supply them with intelligence about democracy activists, and fund their domestic infiltration programs. Islamists are targeted far less due to their animosity toward Communism, and many are enlisted to root out democracy advocates.

1979-80: While democratic groups have been thoroughly dismantled by the secret police, Islamist groups have organized and spread their influence throughout the country. The Shah is overthrown, Islamists take the capital, and the anti-American Shiite theocracy is erected in its place.

1983: Hezbollah, operating on behalf of the Iranian theocracy, takes American hostages in Lebanon. The Reagan administration responds by selling missiles to Iran, which are then used in the Iran-Iraq War, but only one hostage is released. To release the other hostages, yet another round of missile sales ensues, but this time with the proceeds going to Nicaraguan terrorists--again, directly enlisting Islamic radicalism in the fight against leftist groups.

1985: The Reagan administration orchestrates a terrorist attack on a Beirut suburb that kills over 80 people and injures over 200 in order to get one suspected Islamic militant, but the militant survives.

2001-2002: Men from Saudi Arabia and Egypt murder three thousand Americans. George W. Bush gives a speech citing an "Axis of Evil." Neither Saudi Arabia nor Egypt is included in this axis. Iran is included, as are North Korea and Iraq, despite there being no connection whatsoever between North Korea and the other two, and the other two being mortal enemies.

2003: The Bush regime publicizes its "1% doctrine" whereby a 1% suspicion of attack taking place decades into the future is sufficient justification for invasion, complete territorial seizure, and regime change of any nation on Earth without need for UN Security Council imprimatur. This doctrine is followed by the military conquest of Iraq, which neighbors Iran, and is majority Shiite.

2003-present: An occupation originally promised to be temporary becomes effectively permanent. The White House follows a pattern of increasingly heated, provocative comments toward Iran, affirms its "right" to invade Iran under the same preemptive standard by which Iraq was invaded. Al Qaeda in Iraq wages large-scale terror campaigns against Iraqi Shiites. Iran responds by arming Shia militias, some of whom attack the occupation. Rand Simberg, in all his insight, cites this fact to accuse Iran of waging war on the United States.

All in all, this is a litany of cases where people who think exactly like you caused problems, and then proposed to "solve" them by causing even more. I have a hard time imagining a scenario where this isn't deliberate, because frankly the "solution" you propose for every problem seems tailor-made to multiply that problem.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at June 7, 2007 07:45 PM

Brian failed to mention how the CIA gave Osama Bin Laden his start by funneling money and arms to the Afghan Mujaheddin through Saudi channels. Yes, the CIA helped to create and train OBL and Al Qaeda. What future terrorists are we training today in Iraq or Iran?

Posted by Jardinero1 at June 7, 2007 07:57 PM

I for one supported the mujaheedin in afghanistan and the extremely important aid given them by the US (stingers, stingers, stingers). The highest priority at that time was the defeat of the USSR and I'm no xenophobe, nor do I mind Islam as long as it doesn't turn fascist --same for any religion.

Then the USSR crumbled (and Afghanistan played a small part in that).

And I guess this is what always escapes the "leftist" point of view on history: the world changed.

We, the free world, achieved what we aimed for with that world change and the fact that some (not all) of those mujaheedin then thought it would somehow be a good idea to attack those that enabled their victory is their decision and their responsibility. Not mine, not the CIA's.

Exactly the same thing happened in WWII. The US played a very important role in equipping, upgrading, and aiding the Soviet army. Together the Allies beat the Reich. Goal accomplished, the world changes, and the USSR turns on the their former allies. Their choice, their mistake.

I don't regret supporting the mujaheedin any more than I would regret supporting an alliance with the (fascist) communists to beat the (fascist) national socialists.

Posted by Habitat Hermit at June 8, 2007 12:31 AM

And there we have it folks. It's all the fault of the United States.

If only the US had never existed, nothing bad would happen.

Dr. Swiderski, did Mossadegh act within the constitutional confines of his office?

Did the British have ANYTHING to do with the events of 1953. How do their activities compare with that of these "necrocons" to which you refer?

Did Shah Reza Pahlavi have ANYTHING to do with his own downfall?

How about the famous necrocon James Carter? Did he have anything to do with radicalizing the Islamic Revolution?

A question for any readers:

Do litanies of purported American misdeeds (such as that proferred by Mr. Swiderski) remind anyone of Puritanism?

There is apparently no way for the US to exist in the world as it exists. If the US acts, the consequences are all the fault of the US. If the US doesn't act, then all the consequences remain the fault of the US.

Apparently, no other state, no individual, nor any other organization has the status of "actor" in the world. Only the US acts, and all else is object, acted upon.

Does anyone else see this denial of independence of action (of others) as a dehumanization of all other people? Is the rest of humanity REALLY a deterministic product of American in/action?

Just wondering, because, you know, Professor Swiderski seems to be REALLY smart, and, you know, voluminous in his scoldings.

Respectfully submitted,

PS: Mr. Swiderski, did I satisfy your demand for a "really good reason" for regarding Seymour Hersh as a liar?

Posted by MG at June 8, 2007 01:14 AM

So BS, I suppose that according to your world view the Iranians SHOULD be killing our troops?

Posted by Cecil Trotter at June 8, 2007 04:22 AM

Your first sentence is correct, 9-11 was murder. GW cites the "Axis of Evil," effectively putting these countries on notice to begin to mend their ways or reprisals will follow. Presidents have done that for many years. Jimmah had the grain embargo didn't he? Saudi Arabia and Egypt were not included, because they are not not by "evil" tyrants...though you could argue a Monarchy is not a suitable government for Saudi Arabia. Iran, North Korea, and Iraq all had/have tyrannical dictators or theocratic power mongers as leaders that can be shown to care little for their people. In Iran's case, its another glaring example of how religion is the cause of every major conflict. So what if there is no connection between 9/11 and Iraq, Hussein blatantly violated 17 UN resolutions because he thought no one would enforce them. WE did. WE acted and enforced resolutions that the rest of the complacent liberals couldn't enforce. Once again Brian, you build a house of left leaning factoids and expect it to hold against a hurricane of truth. Move into a brick house before the wolf eats you.

Posted by Mac at June 8, 2007 05:34 AM

Mac,

Saudi Arabia hosts a great many Wahabi schools that teach the radical strain of Islam that motivates al Qaeda. Wealthy Arabs living in the suburbs of Cairo, Egypt fund al Qaeda in much the same way Irish-Catholic Americans once funneled money to the IRA.

We cannot eradicate AQ without shutting down these sources of support.

Also recall the redacted portions of the 9/11 Commission report. Bill Maher did a comedy sketch to point out that he could not talk about it except to say that the country who involvement was most redacted rhymed with:

"Baubi Barabia"

al Qaeda is NOT primarily a state-sponsored entity even if Condi Rice prefers to treat it as such.

Anyway, Saudi Arabia is NOT a nation, it is an extended family and OUR dependence on petroleum weakens our ability to confront the threat directly.

Posted by Bill White at June 8, 2007 08:10 AM

Bill how are you going to shut down "these sources of support" in SA when you don't even want to strike Iran for DIRECTLY attacking and killing Americans?

Posted by Cecil Trotter at June 8, 2007 09:15 AM

Saudi Arabia hosts a great many Wahabi schools that teach the radical strain of Islam that motivates al Qaeda.

So what? I was merely stating that Saudi Arabia is not governed by extremist theocrats or tyrannical dictators. That's why they're not part of the "Axis of Evil."

Anyway, Saudi Arabia is NOT a nation, it is an extended family and OUR dependence on petroleum weakens our ability to confront the threat directly.

They are a Monarchy, take it or leave it. I agree its a lousy choice for governing in this day and age, but that's what it is. How exactly are we dependent on their oil when we don't use light sweet crude? How are we dependent on their light sweet crude when we refine heavy crude?

Posted by Mac at June 8, 2007 09:20 AM

Cecil,

I am not willing to make an ineffectual strike against Iran.

The proposals I have seen floated involve blowing stuff up for the video cameras and I have not seen proposals that will not move us closer to helping Iran establish a pluralistic secular society that can live in peace with the globalized world.

We can easily kill a great many Iranians (as did Saddam) and still fail to subdue our enemy.

Posted by Bill White at June 8, 2007 09:58 AM

Mac,

This is why "Axis of Evil" talk is an obsolete response to state-less terror groups like al Qaeda that more resemble a multi-national franchise or the Mafia than our Cold War adversary, the Soviets.

By ignoring the state-less aspects of Islamic terror (Saudi hate schools and wealthy Egyptian patrons) we end up trapped in the USA vs USSR or USA vs Nazi Germany model and thus we seek to fight the last war rather than the war we actually are in.

Posted by Bill White at June 8, 2007 10:03 AM

I am not willing to make an ineffectual strike against Iran.

Your perception Bill. The problem is, you are only certain in your mind. The facts and history may support your theory, but until that strike is made, its only a theory and it may be wrong.

I have not seen proposals that will not move us closer to helping Iran establish a pluralistic secular society that can live in peace with the globalized world.

One huge step moving us closer to a country that lives peacefully with its neighbors is to oust the tyrannical theocrat, self-appointed leaders. One step in doing that is to gain support of the people in overthrowing their government. There are ways to do that, both political and physical. The UN is thinking on a thrid round of sanctions now that the G8 has warned Iran again and I can't help but remember 17 UN resolutions that someone ignored because he thought they would never be enforced, remember him? Perhaps if the political isn't working, a more physical approach might.

This is why "Axis of Evil" talk is an obsolete response to state-less terror groups like al Qaeda that more resemble a multi-national franchise or the Mafia than our Cold War adversary, the Soviets.

Can I get some of what you're smoking? Al Qaeda cannot be part of the "Axis of Evil" because its not a state, just like you wrote. The "Axis of Evil" speech was to lend strength to warning countries that have proven ties to supporting terrorist groups to mend their ways. These three countries singled out by the President have a track record of being tyrannical, radical governments that are more interested in domination than in governing. Why is it so hard to understand that other people have the right to be free, just like you do? Why is it so hard to understand that ruling a country with an iron fist and little care for the common folk is an evil thing? Or, as Europe tries to paint the US, it might be true with you Bill, you truly don't care about anyone other than yourself. We are NOT better than them, we just had better opportunities and made good on them. Now that we have everything, its a good time to reach out and share the wealth, and maybe set a few more societies free while we're at it.

Posted by Mac at June 8, 2007 10:32 AM

The "Axis of Evil" speech was to lend strength to warning countries that have proven ties to supporting terrorist groups to mend their ways.

But to do this and NOT take powerful steps to interdict support to Islamic hate schools and to AQ from rich Saudis and rich Egyptians causes the overall strategy to remain ineffectual.

By the way, has or will North Korea give up their nuclear weapons program? How well has the Bush doctrine actually been working with the Norks?

Posted by Bill White at June 8, 2007 11:13 AM

And,

I would be more supportive of our Iraq undertaking IF the plan was to deploy 100,000 more troops AND budget up to a trillion dollars from the US Treasury to do the nation-building thing right.

When Wolfowitz said that Iraqi reconstruction would be paid for with Iraqi oil revenue I knew right then the whole project was a sham.

Propose spending serious US tax dollars on a viable plan for Iraqi nation-building and I will support our staying in Iraq for as long as it takes. But the current Bush plan is to merely kick the can down the road long enough to evade blame when it fails.

Posted by Bill White at June 8, 2007 11:17 AM

how do you capture Kharg Island? You want to turn off
Iranian Oil Fields? Please tell me how.

Oh, BTW, plesae tell me the price of oil after your brilliant
operation

Posted by anonymous at June 8, 2007 11:39 AM

But to do this and NOT take powerful steps to interdict support to Islamic hate schools and to AQ from rich Saudis and rich Egyptians...em/>

And what would you like to do AFTER lunch? One step at a time. When and if the governments of Saudi and Egypt become radicals (they currently aren't) then we can add them to the global scum list. Right now, we continue to pressure them politically to solve their own problems.

I would be more supportive of our Iraq undertaking IF the plan was to deploy 100,000 more troops AND budget up to a trillion dollars from the US Treasury to do the nation-building thing right.

How about just waiting until Sept when Petreus gives his rocommendations? We'll see then the true color of the left...white...surrender.

Posted by Mac at June 8, 2007 11:49 AM

I would be more supportive of our Iraq undertaking IF the plan was to deploy 100,000 more troops AND budget up to a trillion dollars from the US Treasury to do the nation-building thing right.

Still won't work unless we change the fundamentals of our assumptions as to what Iraq should look like. The Shia and Sunni haven't come to terms with a 1500 year rift in Islam. Far be it from us to claim that it is within our power to solve that problem for them.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at June 8, 2007 12:39 PM

Mac,

Like I said, the Right wishes to pursue an unsustainable policy just long enough to blame the Left.

Posted by Bill White at June 8, 2007 12:43 PM

Mr. Anonymous,

My proposal was to continue sales, and put the funds into escrow, for distribution to citizens of the Persian Empire. If the mullahs cut off the flow from other places, they still lose their cash flow.

My proposal is designed to offer a counterpoint to Fletcher Christian's proposal of initiating nuclear weapons use.

The mullah's face many domestic strains. Like most despots, they seek to distract their populace from domestic problems by fomenting threats from outside. I regard their involvement in Iraq at least partly as an attempt to spark overt hostilities with the US.

I suspect a more effective response than overt combat is an indirect approach that may well involve military force, but force applied where the citizens of the Persian Empire aren't (like, say, Kharg I.)

Posted by MG at June 8, 2007 02:30 PM

"the Right wishes to pursue an unsustainable policy just long enough to blame the Left."

That is utterly ridiculous. Are you trying to take up anonymous' slack since he is banned?

Posted by Cecil Trotter at June 8, 2007 05:32 PM

MG: It's all the fault of the United States.

Petulance is the right-wing response every time the consequences of their actions are brought up. Which is probably why they never learn anything, and keep trapping this country in a Groundhog Day of foreign policy disasters.

did Mossadegh act within the constitutional confines of his office?

Not always, but the Shah had no formal authority to fire or impose a Prime Minister, and there were no illusions about Pahlavi's loyalty to Iranian sovereignty--he was an impotent puppet who took orders directly from CIA and MI6, depended on them completely, and had since the day they placed him on the throne. Moreover, there was no ambiguity about the will of parliament regarding Iran's oil resources: Mossadegh's nationalization plan was approved overwhelmingly. The forcible overthrow of Mossadegh and his cabinet, the imposition of a successor handpicked by the CIA, and the 180 degree reversal of oil policies in favor of contracts dictated by Pahlavi's foreign backers effectively eliminated the Iranian state. The Shah was not an ally of the United States and Britain, he was an employee, and had we respected Iran's rights when they became inconvenient, it would not today be an enemy.

Did the British have ANYTHING to do with the events of 1953.

They were the primary instigators, but held off when Truman refused to cooperate with the plot. Then Ike took office, put the brothers Dulles in charge of the intelligence apparatus, and suddenly anything at all was on the table--coups d'etat, fixing elections, political murders, you name it. Operation Ajax was one of their babies.

Did Shah Reza Pahlavi have ANYTHING to do with his own downfall?

Yes, absolutely. Nobody forced him to take the job the CIA was offering, but he chose to sell his country to us for the throne of a dependency. But while we are not responsible for his having been a scumbag, we certainly bear responsibility for what the CIA had of him, for its inherent contradiction with American values, and for the long-term consequences of those betrayals.

How about the famous necrocon James Carter? Did he have anything to do with radicalizing the Islamic Revolution?

He did nothing to alleviate the problem, and permitted CIA to continue its support for the Shah's increasingly autocratic regime. However, your remark, like your introduction, has little substance beyond sullen petulance: Carter would never have instituted the policies that created the situation, and his pragmatic failure to radically change those policies doesn't make him equivalent to those who created them. A president can't do everything, especially not in four years, and I don't think it's farfetched to think he was preoccupied with Egypt and Israel.

remind anyone of Puritanism?

No. The point was to illustrate that Rand's view on Iran is an ignorant cliche that's responsible for the very problems he proposes to solve; that people with an identical worldview who used, exploited, and terrorized other countries for the convenience of their policies created unnecessary enemies and ongoing dangers for this country.

If the US acts, the consequences are all the fault of the US. If the US doesn't act, then all the consequences remain the fault of the US.

This sounds like the complaint of a teenager. "It's not fair! If I steal your car, you blame me for stealing your car; if I don't steal your car, you blame me for coming home late because I have to walk!" I hate to break it to you, but you are responsible for both action and inaction, to the fullest extent of your knowledge of what is expected from you. You don't overthrow an elected foreign government for oil concessions and then respond to hearing about it with "mistakes were made."

Apparently, no other state, no individual, nor any other organization has the status of "actor" in the world.

Once again, you blithely invent your own straw man morality to excuse gross corruption. More than one person can be responsible for one thing, because there is always more than one action involved in anything. If you rob a liquor store, and your crime partner shoots someone, you are responsible for the murder, and that doesn't imply that he isn't--you are responsible because you knew that could be a consequence of your crime, and you committed it anyway. Why can't right-wingers understand these utterly basic principles of ethics and morality?

Mr. Swiderski, did I satisfy your demand for a "really good reason" for regarding Seymour Hersh as a liar?

No, and I had written 3/4 of a detailed rebuttal before my browser crashed. Here's the gist: The article you cite explicitly exempts Hersh's New Yorker articles from its criticism, which are the only sources of his that I've used, so none of my statements are called into question by it. Secondly, IIRC, most of its attributed claims were paraphrased rather than quoted, with no specific information about where they were made, so we don't know how much "liberty" the accuser was taking in describing Hersh's comments. Thirdly, it is reasonable that a journalist would feel more at ease to speak about raw information in an informal setting, and if some of it doesn't prove out, that doesn't make them liars. I don't know Hersh personally, and neither do you--we know him by his work, and his work is that of an impeccable journalist at the zenith of his profession.

Cecil: So BS, I suppose that according to your world view the Iranians SHOULD be killing our troops?

The Iranians aren't killing our troops--they're arming Shiite militias, some of whom kill our troops. But I guess the old NRA mantras don't apply when you're trying to build an Empire.

Mac: GW cites the "Axis of Evil," effectively putting these countries on notice to begin to mend their ways or reprisals will follow.

There was no such axis between them. Bush lied, and put them on notice that reality plays no role in the policies of his regime--i.e., there is no incentive to "mend their ways," because he would just fantasize some excuse and exploit their vulnerability. In other words, they saw it as imperative to develop a deterrent capability before he attacked them, and the dulcet treatment North Korea got after getting The Bomb compared to the invasion that greeted Iraq's weakness only proved it to the Iranians.

Saudi Arabia and Egypt were not included, because they are not not by "evil" tyrants

Saudi Arabia is the most thoroughly, shrilly anti-American civilization on Earth, and its leaders are petty thugs who tolerate most of it to avoid being deposed. It is the dynamo of Islamic radicalism--the ultraconcentrated stew of hatred and bigotry that gave us 9/11. Egypt is indeed a cruel dictatorship, even if merely run by a thug rather than a psychopath, and that brutality has created an undercurrent of white-hot rage against the US in the general population. Both governments spew unremitting propaganda against us and against Western civilization in order to divert their victims from blaming them for domestic problems. Only the most ignorant, supremely mad people would overlook this, and then declare three countries totally unrelated to 9/11 or each other the "Axis of Evil." I have to wonder if Bush's little non sequitur isn't indicative of schizophrenia.

Hussein blatantly violated 17 UN resolutions because he thought no one would enforce them. WE did.

No, YOU didn't. Inspectors were still in Iraq carrying out the mandates of the resolutions, but were forced to leave by the invasion. Cheney terminated the UN resolutions by force because he did not find them sufficient.

Once again Brian, you build a house of left leaning factoids and expect it to hold against a hurricane of truth.

"Left leaning factoids"? Do I need any more proof that the right is utterly, completely bat-shit insane? You indignantly accuse me of stating facts that supports my points! And your "hurricane of truth"? To dredge up one of the dozens of discredited, often mutually exclusive rationalizations the regime cited at one time or another for their actions, and totally ignore the litany of Nazi Sturmgeräuschen about invading other countries to prevent future threats. Maybe it satisfies the fascist vanity to realize that the Iranian people were terrified they would be invaded by this pack of psychotics, but all it did was increase the popularity and power of men like Ahmadinejad. And seeing what the necrocons have made of Iraq, not even the most eager domestic enemies of the theocracy in Iran want to see their homeland turned into Dick Cheney's charnel house version of "liberty." Your Glorious Leader has completely f***ed us in that region for decades to come.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at June 8, 2007 06:28 PM

How much more of it should we take? None. How many more Western soldiers' lives should we spend? None. What should we do? Nuke them till they glow, then shoot them in the dark.

This war won't be over until every Islamic city with a population over 100,000 or so is a glowing, smoking hole. And if Mecca, Medina and Qom don't qualify by that standard, them as well.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at June 9, 2007 04:35 PM

Fletcher,

This "war" will be over when we leave Iraq.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at June 9, 2007 05:14 PM

Brian:

Quite right. If the USA leaves Iraq without preconditions, those preconditions being blasting them back into the Stone Age first, the war will indeed be over.

We'll have lost.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at June 10, 2007 03:25 PM

We'll have lost.

We lost when we allowed Dick Cheney to start the war in the first place.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at June 10, 2007 06:07 PM

"We can easily kill a great many Iranians (as did Saddam) and still fail to subdue our enemy."
Posted by Bill White at June 8, 2007 09:58 AM

Actually, when Saddam's forces initially entered Iranian territory, the Iranian defenses were so ill prepared that Iraq's forces could have easily marched into and taken control of the Iranian capital. Instead, for no good reason what so ever, Saddam stopped his forces in the middle of the desert, had time to build up a series of entrenched positions (a-la WW1), and sat their and waited for Iran to organize and launch their million-man offensive. If you play to lose, well then, you end up losing.

I'd only pray that Iran try to march a million men through the desert in a tight line. All the more easy for A-10 Warthogs to make red mist.

Posted by Josh Reiter at June 10, 2007 11:31 PM

BS: "We lost when we allowed Dick Cheney to start the war in the first place."

Cheney isn't the President.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at June 13, 2007 01:44 PM

Post a comment