February 2, 2007
HE ALWAYS DOUBLES DOWN:
From the Wonderful Folks Who Brought You Iraq: The same neocon ideologues behind the Iraq war have been using the same tactics--alliances with shady exiles, dubious intelligence on W.M.D.--to push for the bombing of Iran. As President Bush ups the pressure on Tehran, is he planning to double his Middle East bet? (Craig Unger, March 2007, Vanity Fair)
In the weeks leading up to George W. Bush's January 10 speech on the war in Iraq, there was a brief but heady moment when it seemed that the president might finally accept the failure of his Middle East policy and try something new. Rising anti-war sentiment had swept congressional Republicans out of power. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld had been tossed overboard. And the Iraq Study Group (I.S.G.), chaired by former secretary of state James Baker and former congressman Lee Hamilton, had put together a bipartisan report that offered a face-saving strategy to exit Iraq. Who better than Baker, the Bush family's longtime friend and consigliere, to talk some sense into the president?By the time the president finished his speech from the White House library, however, all those hopes had vanished. It wasn't just that Bush was doubling down on an extravagantly costly bet by sending 21,500 more American troops to Iraq; there were also indications that he was upping the ante by an order of magnitude. The most conspicuous clue was a four-letter word that Bush uttered six times in the course of his speech: Iran.
In a clear reference to the Islamic Republic and its sometime ally Syria, Bush vowed to "seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies." [...]
[A] series of recent moves by the military have lent credence to widespread reports that the U.S. is secretly preparing for a massive air attack against Iran. (No one is suggesting a ground invasion.) First came the deployment order of U.S. Navy ships to the Persian Gulf. Then came high-level personnel shifts signaling a new focus on naval and air operations rather than the ground combat that predominates in Iraq. In his January 10 speech, Bush announced that he was sending Patriot missiles to the Middle East to defend U.S. allies--presumably from Iran. And he pointedly asserted that Iran was "providing material support for attacks on American troops," a charge that could easily evolve into a casus belli.
"It is absolutely parallel," says Philip Giraldi, a former C.I.A. counterterrorism specialist. "They're using the same dance steps--demonize the bad guys, the pretext of diplomacy, keep out of negotiations, use proxies. It is Iraq redux."
Do we really need to demonize a guy who's such a loon that the Iranians are about to depose him themselves? Setting aside the Holocaust denial shtick, here's all you need to know about Mahmoud: he hasn't even figured out what lying about WMD got Saddam. Posted by Orrin Judd at February 2, 2007 6:20 PM
OJ,
If Iran truly moderates, and moves toward the Western Model, you will be known as the smartest man in the blogosphere.
OTOH, should Bush actually invade/bomb, and turn the Iranian people against the US, I believe even you would have to admit that the foaming at the mouth left was pretty much right about Bush's motivations/competence.
or am I missing something here?
Posted by: bruno at February 2, 2007 7:51 PMBruno,
What you are missing is that Iran has been a declared enemy of the US for at least 30 years. Ask Jimmy Carter.
Posted by: sam at February 2, 2007 8:16 PMWe won't invade no matter what. We could bomb their nuclear facilities if we think they're really building bombs. Indeed, we'd have to so that Israel doesn't do it.
It would be better to have them mad at us than let people think they can develop weapons with impunity. That's why it ought to be coupled with attacks on North Korea if it happens.
But Khamenei will sort it out first.
Posted by: oj at February 2, 2007 8:53 PMThis is what carrier groups are good for, oj.
Posted by: ghostcat at February 2, 2007 9:03 PMToo many men. They're a waste of money.
Posted by: oj at February 2, 2007 9:54 PMWhen you care enough to send the very best ... showing of the flag.
Posted by: ghostcat at February 3, 2007 12:11 AMSomeone is missing the point about the military-industrial complex with that "too many men" crack. One supposes the money were better spent on choo-choo trains.
It is not that the military are "mercenaries," as per that recent folk-enemy/culture-traitor slur. They are the military--society's arms, to be supported, and supported as well as possible, by the rest of the system.
In the first place, we need the warrior class to keep the system in balance politically, lest the wishfully thinking peace-creep side draw us into needless wars. They do this by enabling aggressors to dare to test our forebearance.
Furthermore we need a present force to maintain world law and order and freedom of the seas. Waiting until it starts and then laying keels isn't going to do it.
Posted by: Lou Gots at February 3, 2007 8:42 AMLou: a Pax Americana if you will...
Posted by: Bartman at February 3, 2007 8:53 AMB - The world should be so lucky.
Posted by: erp at February 3, 2007 10:22 AMNo, the money is better spent on unmanned weapons that deliver warheads faster and more precisely.
Posted by: oj at February 3, 2007 10:38 AMNo, the money is better spent on unmanned weapons that deliver warheads faster and more precisely.
Another example of perhaps why those who make the "chickenhawk" argument might be onto something, but not in the way they intended. The same for the spectacle in the Senate this past month. Those who make their living with talking (i.e. politics and lawyers and intellectuals) are the ones who should be disqualified from discussing military policy, because they live in this dream world where words are stronger than actions. One where if the other guy wants to kill someone, talking him into only beating the crap out of him and leaving the victim a quadriplegic is considered a "victory for compromise" and a sign that "he's someone we can work with."
At least your outright appeasers and the cowards are honest about their intentions, even though both groups always seem to give us the same results.
Posted by: Raoul Ortega at February 3, 2007 1:58 PMBesides being historically ignorant; the role of the IRGC and Defense Minister Mustafa Chamran in
creating Hezbollah from the rump of the Musa Sadr
movement, their connection to the Badr and Sadr
brigades et al; the clear evidence of nuclear
development at Bushehr (within carrier strike force range) Natanz,(within range of a Special
forces cross-border taskforce) It is remarkable
how some one one; who only avoided a charge of
libel for jurisdictional reasons, in regards to
the 'October Surprise' delusion:
can still be employed by a reputable (well it
really is the Ilustrated Kos) magazine