A Little War Goes A Long Way
"This is not really about whether 15 British sailors and marines are freed, or placed on trial or live or die. There are a lot of military men and women being killed these days. Many of them by Iran."
by Jules Crittenden
I hope by the time you read this, it is out of date. Frankly, I’m amazed as I write this it hasn’t happened already. I am dumbfounded that the Iranians have persisted, with no practical goal beyond harassments and humiliation, and I am exasperated that our usually strong leadership has allowed them to do so.
I hope that by the time you read this, the cruise missiles have already impacted; the stealth bombers have taken out radar and missiles sites; the land and sea blockade is in place … nothing moving in or out of an Iranian port and any road traffic that doesn’t risk death from above. I hope, by the time you read this, the destruction of Iran’s military infrastructure is underway.
Because we are magnanimous, and more importantly are concerned about the long-term price of oil, operations to reduce Iran’s oil production facilities can await a later phase. It’s not clear to me what the holdup has been. I know there are certain niceties civilized nations like to observe. Iran has made little pretense of observing them for a long time. Niceties we’ve observed to the point of allowing them to bind us.
Iran seized British sailors who were lawfully providing security in Iraqi waters. Iran has held and attempted to humiliate those sailors, in defiance of international law and the United Nations Security Council. The European Union, one of the few parties that might be expected to apply any economic leverage on Iran, in typical spineless fashion has declined to do so.
Iran of course has a long history of ignoring the former and being coddled by the latter, so none of that is much of a surprise. Perhaps, like a spoiled child whose tantrums and demands set the family’s agenda, Iran at long last needs to be shown some boundaries.
But this is not really about whether 15 British sailors and marines are freed, or placed on trial or live or die. There are a lot of military men and women being killed these days. Many of them by Iran.
Iran has been meddling with murderous results in Iraq and Lebanon, two countries it prefers to see wracked with war and instable. Iran has declined to cease and desist. Iran wants to force us out of Iraq in the most humiliating way possible. Iran wants to dominate Iraq and Lebanon. It wants to use them as part of its plan to encircle and ultimately destroy Israel. It wants to control as much of the world’s oil supply as it can. It has been working aggressively and criminally toward those ends for decades.
Therefore, it is time to take this opportunity to reduce Iran’s capacity to make war. Its nuclear sites, its military facilities. The roads and bridges it uses to transport the materiel and personnel of its demonic foreign policy. It is an opportunity the Iranians are giving us, on a platter. It is not clear to me why we are not taking it.
Iran has calculated that we won’t act in defense of British sailors. I can’t imagine why we would allow Iran or anyone else to think we would not support our allies who have stood with us in combat as forcefully as we would if those were our own sailors.
There are those who think the sailors may be harmed if we take forceful action. That may be. Iran needs to be made aware that that would be extremely unwise course of action. But in war, there are sometimes casualties, and the fate of millions of people in wartime cannot be held hostage by concern for a handful of sailors and marines.
Iran further calculates that both George Bush and Tony Blair are politically marginalized and incapable of action. I am not sure why the mullahs think that. I don’t think they have really been paying attention to what is happening in Washington.
The only obstacles at this point, theoretically, are an ostrich-like Congress, a war-weary American people, and a tired Army.
We’ve already seen that a nearly evenly divided Congress, incapable of taking definitive action, not only can but must be ignored. The Congress that cannot uphold its own votes has no mandate to dictate terms to the president, particularly in perilous times that call for strong leadership. The American people I talk to, many of them no great fans of our president and our ongoing state of war, are exasperated with the Iranians and with Iraq. President Bush can explain it all after he launches the attack. The road to victory in Baghdad runs through Teheran, and Teheran is doing everything it can to block that road. We need to engage Iran, just as the Iraq Study Group correctly stated. Just not in the manner that strangely myopic group advised.
As for the Army, we don’t need to engage in a land war with Iran. We don’t care occupy Iran. We simply need to neuter it. If Iran chooses to respond in bellicose fashion, that really won’t represent much of a change. A conventional response by massed Iranian forces would be entertaining. Guess who wins that one. The unconventional attacks have been underway for a long time, and any heightened aggressive action by Iran’s proxies in Iraq, well, that would be a gift. An opportunity to destroy them.
This is not about George Bush’s pride or Tony Blair’s pride. The shameful legacy of Jimmy Carter, the master of dithering failure and humiliation, should be history by now. It is about restoring peace to the Middle East. And that is not going to happen as long as the Iranians believe they can behave with impunity in the manner they have been as recently as yesterday, last week, last month, and last year, for the last three decades.
A little war could go a long way. A little war with Iran is the key to achieving peace.
Footnote: A number of people have wondered what happened to the spirit of Nelson, and have noted that it once would have been unimaginable that England and the Royal Navy could be humiliated as they have been over the past week. Nelson was a master of audacious, aggressive and innovative tactics. But some scholars believe Thomas Cochrane, his contemporary, could well have been Nelson’s superior at that game, but saw his career derailed by political enemies, who saw to it he was wrongly jailed on false charges.
Cochrane, unfortunately, may be the more appropriate historical example from British history now. With his first command, the100-foot sloop HMS Speedy, he captured 50 ships in a year. What should have been his greatest victory at Basque Roads was stolen from him by an admiral who held back the fleet.
Today, we have the ability to act, as both Nelson and Cochrane did despite compromised circumstances. The forces arrayed against us today have no less a goal that Bonaparte did, and need to be treated with the same contempt and unbridled aggression that he was.
Jules Crittenden is an editor and columnist for the Boston Herald.
Crittenden’s web page is at Forward Movement.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
58 Comments
1. Mouse:Just read your piece.I am utterly, absolutely, delightedly pleased to say: “I could not have said it better myself.” Note: I’ve been to the computer ten times today to read about the bombs dropping. It hasn’t happened, but this piece is at least in the right spirit.
Apr 1, 2007 - 3:06 am 2. sofa:“Let’s Roll”
Apr 1, 2007 - 3:25 am 3. Herr Morgenholz:I agree without reservation. I would venture that half the engagements involving US forces in Iraq can be directly traced to Iran. Being that we are already at war with them, it only makes sense to halt their abilities without invading. Call it the “nut and run” strategy. Kill their lines of communication to Iraq, air defense, and navy, and decapitate the regime. No more gasoline or other imports. Minimalize impact to civilian infrastructure and let the opposition sort it out.
Apr 1, 2007 - 4:30 am 4. Bernard:British fecklessness used to be an oxymoron. Remember?
Apr 1, 2007 - 5:58 am 5. Brendan:Plus great military action should occur on an auspicious day; April Fools seems apropriate.
Apr 1, 2007 - 6:13 am 6. Jeffersonian:Iran has been living on 28 years of borrowed time, doing little but promoting the murder of anything that smacks of the West. It’s time to remind them who their daddy is.
Apr 1, 2007 - 6:47 am 7. bob nilssen:2 things – 1) because of the middle east’s climate, it’s better to start wars in fall or winter rather that spring or summer and 2)you don’t let iran set the date and manner in which war begins – anyway, they, you know “folks”, say bush will move against iran in late 2007 – hope so.
Apr 1, 2007 - 6:53 am 8. Barnabus:Attack Iran? To what end? If it is not part of a much larger plan involving regime change then it is futile. If attack, then you say not to attack their oil facilities? Until you demonstrate that you are willing to accept the consequences of an oil disruption (i.e. well over $100 oil and a severe recession in the world economy) then their behaviour will continue.
Apr 1, 2007 - 6:53 am 9. mkstach:We remember that Nelson, when ordered to hold back from attacking the Danish fleet at Copehagen, held the telescope to his blind eye. Modern commanders look too much to the political signals instead of looking towards victory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Copenhagen
Apr 1, 2007 - 7:38 am 10. PD Quig:“The only obstacles at this point, theoretically, are an ostrich-like Congress, a war-weary American people, and a tired Army.”
But t’will suffice.
Apr 1, 2007 - 8:49 am 11. Brian:HAHAHA…..How can you be so ignorant?
If we attack Iran due to the fear mongering of our media, we will spend another trillion dollars in a war of aggression that very well could lead to many more wars for us. Iran has every right to defend their waters, as we would if some war ship or any ship came within 30 miles of our borders. We have no right to attack Iran, and no freakin possible way to win. Our military is stretched almost to the limit across the world, and I am not going to war if drafted.
Apr 1, 2007 - 9:14 am 12. pop:hi, you are in wrong way !!!
Apr 1, 2007 - 9:36 am 13. Matthew Goggins:iran has power with it’s oil, it’s rocket ,……
you saw a little of it’s power in war between hezbollah and israel ..
iran can destroy israel with it’s rocket, iran can attack usa benefit in all of word …..
it’s not easy for usa , if usa attack what will happen after that …???
usa can’t attack iran now.
Good article. I didn’t know about Thomas Cochrane, he was a very interesting person.
Two comments:
1) If we can get Iran to back down without our attacking her, then I think that is more of a victory than attacking her.
2) If President Bush and Prime Minister Blair are reluctant to distract the coalition from the surge at this moment, then I am not going to second-guess their judgement.
Apr 1, 2007 - 10:42 am 14. Smokey:We have no right to attack Iran, and no freakin possible way to win.
Well, there you have two flat wrong statements. Iran has committed egregious acts of war against the U.S., beginning with the kidnapping of American diplomats and their families under the inept Jimmy Carter.
When a country commits acts of war against us, we have every ‘right’ to retaliate. And we’ve learned from Iraq. Simply destroying Iran’s infrastructure without committing troops would get the job done just fine, and turn the Iranian populace against Ahmadinnerjacket.
And, re the post below by ”pop.” Who let that whacko out of his cage? Brian should meet pop. Those two oughta get along just fine in their anti-American delusion.
Libs. *sheesh!*
Apr 1, 2007 - 10:50 am 15. jacksecret:Time for a little Beach Boys people…ok, sing along with me now…..Bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran, bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran….
Apr 1, 2007 - 10:56 am 16. Jon:“HAHAHA…..How can you be so ignorant?
If we attack Iran due to the fear mongering of our media, we will spend another trillion dollars in a war of aggression that very well could lead to many more wars for us. Iran has every right to defend their waters, as we would if some war ship or any ship came within 30 miles of our borders. We have no right to attack Iran, and no freakin possible way to win. Our military is stretched almost to the limit across the world, and I am not going to war if drafted.”
We don’t need to occupy Iran. No need for a ground invasion. A 2 week air war would end Iran’s aggression for the forseebale future. End of story. Iran IS NOT Iraq.
Apr 1, 2007 - 11:09 am 17. pch1013:Yes… Iran is three times as big as Iraq and has more than twice its population.
If the aim of the war isn’t to achieve r√©gime change in Tehran, what’s the point?
You might also pause to consider who besides the U.S. foreign-policy √©lite desperately wants the U.S. to attack Iran: the Sunni insurgents in Iraq and al-Qaeda would be absolutely thrilled to see both the U.S. and its enemies’ sponsors bogged down in Iran.
Apr 1, 2007 - 11:46 am 18. Toad:To the commentors who believe Iran has the weapons to compete with the U.S., Britton, or Israel, you had better do some more studying. What they have is hype. Their airplanes are 30 years old and barely flyable. Their rockets are ancient compared to the west’s arsenal and its defenses. They might get lucky and hit something with one out of a few hundred missiles fired, but that is about it. The west could turn them into ashes today if they wanted and neither Iran nor any of their arms suppliers could stop it. They do appear to have bought some new and good Russian defense systems, but it can’t hit what it can’t see. Iran is totally defenseless to an attack by the west if the west chooses.
Should the west attack? No, but a few things to stop incoming and outgoing goods and people would force changes to occur inside Iran, and, it should take place – now and with force just to show that they are so insignificant in terms of the power they keep boasting of.
Is there a reason the west has not done more yet? Maybe and probably.
Apr 1, 2007 - 11:53 am 19. venividivici:Brian,
Don’t worry, we can win without you. We’ll deal with your kind after that.
As I’ve been thinking recently, we need a civil war in the West to rid ourselves of the unappreciative (like yourself) among us. As a student of history, I know civil wars are the bloodiest and most destructive, but they enable history to move on rather than get caught up in sterile debates.
Apr 1, 2007 - 12:18 pm 20. Bill Gordon L. Stafford:Iran and Iraq fought a longer war than we have been in Iraq and it was a tie. I propose an air war only with drones and cruise missles.
Apr 1, 2007 - 12:42 pm 21. borderbum:Oil……..it’s all about oil.
Iran, with its oil supply diminishing annually has found a way to maintain or increase revenues and at the same time provide increased oil revenues to all other oil producing nations, many of which have priorities significantly opposite than us in the west.
The more the pot is stirred, the more the price of crude increases
and that enables Iran and other regimes to contine funding extemist activities.
It is shameful that two Great nations tolerate the many blatent actions from a country of many wonderful people but led by a bunch of pork bellied camel riders.
Apr 1, 2007 - 12:47 pm 22. pch1013:“We’ll deal with your kind after that.”
Do tell. Are we talking gas chambers here?
Apr 1, 2007 - 1:08 pm 23. Thomas:I can see that I will make little headway in what I am about to say but then again I only write because I am motivated by pure disgust. That image at the outset of the article is so jingoistic, foolish and utterly absurd. It is embarrassing for such a jingoistic and puerile image to represent America as if we are one in sentiment and direction. Most people on this board and the PJM site are neo-cons and oxygen-thieves who have never done a damn thing for their country but that are the first ones to cry out ‘my country right or wrong.’ These people represent that great brain trust that calls anyone a ‘Liberal’ who may disagree with their grasp of ‘reality.’ Enough of the Kabbalistic bipolarism concerning the false dichotomy of the ‘right’ and the ‘left’. If you are really that jingoistic then follow the creed ‘error has no rights’ and see where that takes you but the truth is that America lacks the moral character to follow that standard but would rather follow vacuous rhetoric and platitudes. This war and the impending conflict is all about Israel, not about America and that may sit well with the Neo-cons here at PJM but some Americans are getting sick of the double-mindedness of their overlords who are merely using the American military as a jack-hammer to destroy what they want destroyed and also using our tax dollars to prop up a state that can not stand on its own. And I thought American values were all about ruggedness and standing on your own? I guess our ‘ally’ Israel is incapable of doing that.
Apr 1, 2007 - 2:28 pm 24. Kevin Murphy:Sadly, it’s going to take Iran getting the bomb before we do anything. It may take them using it. The metastasis in Iraq, along with the constant yammering of defeatists, has sapped the national will.
Apr 1, 2007 - 2:52 pm 25. ObiJohn:We don’t need to actively attack Iran… yet.
What should be done is an IMMEDIATE naval blockade of Iran. No oil gets out. No gasoliine gets in. We tell the mullahs the blockade stays until the leadership of Iran turns over the British sailors illegally kidnapped and pledges not to do it again.
I think we’ll get the sailors back, maybe a little worse for wear, but no way will Iran pledge to refrain from further provocations… that would be too much loss of face. It doesn’t matter. We made our point, got the sailors back, and eroded support for the extremists in the government with the population and with the less-extreme elements. And, we further weaken the tottering Iranian economy, and greatly reduce their gasoline stocks so if we have to go in we’ll be fighting a mob on foot, not a well-armed and well-trained military.
Ultimately, though, we’re going to have to go in to Iran. It was obvious that after 9/11 the only way we’d get a lasting peace in the Middle East was to get rid of the troublemakers: Iraq, Iran, and Syria. Iran is and has been the largest troublemaker, Iraq was next, but Iraq was centrally located and strategically the best place to clean out first. Most of our problems in Iraq are being caused by Iran and its proxies. When will we realize this and drain the swamp, instead of dinking with the alligators?
Apr 1, 2007 - 5:11 pm 26. Johan Amedeus Metesky:A few cruise missiles into their gasoline and diesel refineries and a naval blockade of tankers coming in and the mullahs regime should fall as soon as the economy grinds to a halt.
BTW, Thomas, I’d address your deep concerns about the evil cabal of Jews pulling the strings but I’m late for a meeting of the Elders.
If Jew haters weren’t so dangerous they’d be pathetic.
Apr 1, 2007 - 5:16 pm 27. Purple Avenger:well over $100 oil and a severe recession in the world economy
That didn’t happen during the Iran/Iraq war, nor during either of the two Gulf Wars.
What convinces you it would happen now? Guess what – market anticipation of an attack is ALREADY built into the price of oil today. That’s the way markets work.
Apr 1, 2007 - 5:23 pm 28. venividivici:pch1013,
Let your imagination run wild. If this truly is a battle for survival (an ‘existential’ battle), why should ‘my kind’ forswear any method that would advance the cause of victory in said battle? Can you give me an answer to that question? The best advice I can give you is that the fate of the Brians of the world is entirely avoidable by getting yourself on the right side of the ideological divide.
Again, as a student of history (my perspective on history is essentially an amalgam of Thucydides and Machiavelli) I think I have a pretty good grasp on what happens to civilizations that don’t defend themselves. I want to avoid that outcome, ergo I advocate the strongest possible military strategy against those who have alternative ideologies, whether they be Muslim or simply a more generic form of anti-Western.
Apr 1, 2007 - 6:27 pm 29. Jim:Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad needs to be made aware that the killing of the 15 Brits is punishable by hanging. Then, we tell him, if the Brits die, he dies. A cruse missile could most likely take him out right now with only the destruction the building he’s in and all occupants. Then we give him a secret personal countdown. Monday your gas refinery, Friday your nuclear buildings… This is a gift.
Apr 1, 2007 - 6:43 pm 30. Luc:pch1013 :
“We’ll deal with your kind after that.”
Do tell. Are we talking gas chambers here?
No! I don’t think that was the idea; but a length of rope and some soap would do you justice
Apr 1, 2007 - 6:45 pm 31. Jim:Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad needs to be made aware that the killing of the 15 Brits is punishable by hanging. Then, we tell him, if the Brits die, he dies. A cruse missile could most likely take him out right now with only the destruction the building he’s in and all occupants. Then we give him a secret personal countdown. Monday your gas refinery, Friday your nuclear buildings… This is a gift.
Apr 1, 2007 - 6:46 pm 32. Thomas:“BTW, Thomas, I’d address your deep concerns about the evil cabal of Jews pulling the strings but I’m late for a meeting of the Elders.
If Jew haters weren’t so dangerous they’d be pathetic.”
By your novel interpolation you have addressed it Johan. I checked out your cheeky site too and with your IDF paraphernalia along with your expected entrepreneurial products; you are not the least bit disinterested in the geo-political debacle. Thanks for the smearing ad hominem and the guilt by association fallacy in reference to the Protocols canard. Ah, the tactic shows you are a cyrpto-Jew and moreover, if the racial supremacy found in the Talmud and Kabbalah was not so dangerous it would be pathetic too. I thought the Jews did not believe in the Immaculate conception but it always seems that everything they do, say or conceive is done so immaculately. I wish I was that pure.
Apr 1, 2007 - 6:49 pm 33. Brian:“We’ll deal with your kind after that.”
So who is this WE you are talking about? Actually, if you support the war like the neo-cons do, go yourself, and have fun getting killed in the process. The rest of the world will do the logical thing and secure their own borders and declare legal wars. 9/11 was our fault, because we didn’t fix our own border problems. Iraq didn’t cause it, and Bush will need a better excuse than that to trick us into going into Iran.
Apr 1, 2007 - 7:42 pm 34. Yehudit:“Enough of the Kabbalistic bipolarism concerning the false dichotomy of the ‘right’ and the ‘left’.”
Kabbalistic?
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
If that’s a code word for “Jewish Lobby domination of US foreign policy”, it’s a very clumsy one.
Apr 1, 2007 - 8:23 pm 35. Lib4:Iran is next????
WTF
How about finishing in Afghanistan and Iraq first…and BTW where are we going to get $$$$ and troops for this War with Iran..
I am assuming you will be giving back you reckless GWB tax cut back and sending your son down to the recruiting office to fulfill your dream of endless war in the middle east….
Apr 2, 2007 - 2:10 am 36. Roy Earle:venividivici :
“Don’t worry, we can win without you. We’ll deal with your kind after that.”
pch1013 :
“Do tell. Are we talking gas chambers here?”
Thomas :
“This war and the impending conflict is all about Israel.”
“I guess our ‘ally’ Israel is incapable of doing that.”
“you are a cyrpto-Jew’
Brian :
“9/11 was our fault”
Sadly I have to agree with venividivici, that is, that western civilization needs to cut out the socialist virus, as represented by pch1013, Thomas and Brian, before it completely infects the democracies.
It is a choice of allowing another Sulla or Pinochet, who murdered roughly 5,000 hard core leftists but saved his country, or of allowing pch1013, Thomas or Brian to be the next Pol Pot, who murdered 2,000,000 civilians. Pol Pot didn’t use gas chambers like the National Socialists, he used people like pch1013, Thomas, Brian and Rosie O’Donnel to do the murdering and they did it with their bare hands. As their type would again, if the right buttons are pressed in their infected brains.
For example Thomas is just itching to kill Jews and Brian is a traitor who wants to kill Americans. Rosie wants to murder homophobes, whatever they are. pch1013 would have been a National Socialist in ‘33, like Thomas, because s/he/it thinks everyone who sides with democracy over socialism/fascism is evil.
Apr 2, 2007 - 2:29 am 37. Thomas:I can’t see people like this ever recovering their decency and supporting democracy again, for that reason venividivici is right, to defeat Islamic Fascism these people have to be neutralized, sooner or later.
Iran is a sovereign nation state. What right does America and Israel have to dictate what it can and cannot do? Is Israel compliant with IAEA inspectors? Does Israel allow UN weapons inspectors? Does Israel care that it used depleated uranium shells on civilian targets? Does Israel have the right to nuclear energy and weaponry but nobody else does? First is was Iraq, now it is Iran, soon it will be Pakistan then it may even be the Ukraine until they have secured all the realm.
I think there is an Orwellian theme here: “All animals are created equal but some are created more equal than others.” Which animal is the Jew? I know which one for that one thinks he is a G-d—–but he is not. Read the Talmud for details.
And now we see the brain trust strutting on the stage in the person of Roy. You do know that guilt by association is one of the weakest logical fallacies next to the argument from authority? I am sure you also use that one from time to time as well. No, it would seem that all have to be uniform on this neo-con site and to be socially uniform in perspective and enforced opinion by consensus—well that would be–Roy, you get the point.
Finally, just remember the new definition of anti-semitism; (an offensive and defensive verbal construct) an anti-semite is no longer one who hates the Jews but rather one (sg/pl group) whom the Jews hate. I am not an anti-semite and to even engage in that dialectic shows the divisiveness of the term. The points here center around the jingoistic nature of Israel and the cheerleaders in the USA called neo-cons. I do not believe in this incessant foreign interventionism and there are many others in America that do not believe in it either—they are not all liberals, anti-semites or your kooky assertion; socialists. No Roy, I am no socialist nor am I an anti-semite nor am I a fascist but I am a Latin Rite Roman Catholic who knows that his religion was never welcomed in this country and it is not welcomed in Israel either. And by the way, since you like to talk a big game about history with personages like Sulla et al, why don’t you look up Charles Martel or the Battle of Lepanto or the seige of Vienna led by Jan Sobieski and tell me who keep the Muslim armies away from Europe? It wasn’t the USA and the neo-con cheerleaders. But then again this war is not necessarily about terrorism, Islam or 9/11 it is about securing the borders of Israel. Wake up.
Apr 2, 2007 - 3:12 am 38. Petrius:Thomas, why don’t YOU wake up? Stop being such a sock puppet for f’ sakes!
Apr 2, 2007 - 7:17 am 39. pch1013:“pch1013 would have been a National Socialist in ‘33″
I’m not the one calling for the wholesale extermination of anyone who questions the policies of the current Leader.
I notice no one has bothered to address my earlier point about how a war against Iran would be perceived by our *other* enemies, namely al-Qaeda. If the U.S. attacks Iran over the fate of 15 captive soldiers from another country, we’ll have a very hard time convincing the Shia majority in Iraq that we’re not taking sides against them.
Apr 2, 2007 - 10:44 am 40. Brian:“Brian is a traitor who wants to kill Americans”
the only person advocating the killing of anyone is you and the neo-cons supporting another war of aggression.
Apr 2, 2007 - 11:02 am 41. Brian:Roy Earle :
“Sadly I have to agree with venividivici, that is, that western civilization needs to cut out the socialist virus, as represented by pch1013, Thomas and Brian, before it completely infects the democracies.”
Just to clarify, I’m a minarchist libertarian who wishes to rid our culture of the socialist virus as well. However, I feel that we must also limit the “wars” we find ourselves in to be of last resort, and instead choose to be more stringent in our border security, to prevent more 9/11’s from happening. Which is where 9/11 being our fault would come into play.
Apr 2, 2007 - 11:17 am 42. wayne:We don’t need gas chambers to get rid of liberals.
We have plenty of street lights and lots of rope … and most of the guns.
Besides, when it comes to pick and choose in a civil war, which side do you think our soldiers will come down on – libs or conservatives?
Apr 2, 2007 - 2:05 pm 43. venividivici:Brian,
So who is this WE you are talking about?
My self-description would be that I am an empiricist who uses analytical tools like game theory and microeconomics to determine courses of action with the best long-run payoffs. Although I wouldn’t describe myself as a neo-con, these methods of analysis definitely played a large role in the origins of the neoconservative movement, as they analyzed the empirical results of welfare state liberalism.
My analysis of the current situation is that we will have to go to war with Iran at some point (they’ve already declared war on us, in point of fact) and further analysis tells me that sooner is better than later, because the West isn’t getting any younger. We have all the tools we need to pound Iran into the same kind of submission we inflicted on Germany and Japan and I think we should, because that’s the best long-term outcome.
As for my going over to Iraq, I applied for and was rejected at one of the service’s officer candidate school back in the mid-90’s. I was already a bit older than the average candidate back then. If you think I’m some sort of coward, fine, but you must know that ad hominem arguments are amongst the weakest. Next thing, you’ll be telling me that I’m wrong because Noam Chomsky said so.
Apr 2, 2007 - 4:55 pm 44. pch1013:So, wayne, how would you identify the liberals? You can’t just go down the street randomly shooting people. And the last time I checked, political orientation was not among the categories on the U.S. Census form.
Apr 2, 2007 - 8:19 pm 45. Brian:You feel that we are trying to gain the best long term payoffs by invading two sovereign nations and pissing off the rest of the world? I’m sorry but I don’t get the logic there. If we piss off the world, it seems to be reasonable that those whom we invades’ allies will be much more inclined to be anti-U.S., and quite possibly be a “threat” to us later when they decide to protect themselves by building a nuke as well.
I honestly don’t believe that war with Iran is imperative. If we leave Iraq, stop giving a blank check to Israel, and force them to be reasonable for a change, and then stop interfering in all sorts of sovereign nations’ affairs that we would be much less likely to even have such “enemies”. To go along with that, securing our borders at home would probably do us a much greater good in the long run using microeconomics to show that securing now equals less damage later.
Apr 2, 2007 - 9:56 pm 46. venividivici:Brian,
You feel that we are trying to gain the best long term payoffs by invading two sovereign nations and pissing off the rest of the world? I’m sorry but I don’t get the logic there. If we piss off the world, it seems to be reasonable that those whom we invades’ allies will be much more inclined to be anti-U.S., and quite possibly be a “threat” to us later when they decide to protect themselves by building a nuke as well.
The logic is of the “Let them hate me, so long as they fear me” variety.
As far as other nations wanting to build nukes in response to us pounding Iran into the ground a la Germany, it seems to me that the two variables driving Iran (or any subsequent nation attempting to acquire nukes against the will of the US) are ideological fervor and a belief that the US will acquiesce in Iran’s acquisition of nukes. No other nation is as ideologically-driven as Iran and other nations will see what we did to Iran and will no longer hold the belief that the US will do nothing as they attempt to acquire nuclear technology. That’s how deterrent shows of force work. Your contention that there’s no strategic logic to my position says more about your capabilities as a strategic thinker than anything else.
If we leave Iraq, stop giving a blank check to Israel, and force them to be reasonable for a change, and then stop interfering in all sorts of sovereign nations’ affairs that we would be much less likely to even have such “enemies”.
While having no “enemies” is a lofty goal, I don’t think it’s worth compromising Israel to achieve it. Besides, I am happy to have Iran as an enemy in the same was I would have happily had Hitler as an enemy in the 1930’s and 1940’s.
To go along with that, securing our borders at home would probably do us a much greater good in the long run using microeconomics to show that securing now equals less damage later.
I don’t disagree, but I don’t see how securing our borders equals stopping Iran from making war on our interests. Iran went all the way to Argentina to blow up a Jewish center at one point.
I think your main limitation is that you can’t get yourself into the shoes of the Iranians and see the world with their eyes and calculating payoffs using their scale of values. You have a failure of intellectual imagination. This is very common among Americans because most of us are nice people who just don’t understand power politics.
Apr 3, 2007 - 4:32 am 47. sdemetri:venividivici appears to see the world through red, white, and blue spectacles. Unclearly, I might add.
“Your contention that there’s no strategic logic to my position says more about your capabilities as a strategic thinker than anything else.”
And you prove yourself a “strategic thinker” by this circular argument?
Attacking Iraq and driving the American ship of state off a cliff, weakening our military strength, our credibility, our negotiating positions in all manner of ways, is not a particularly adept strategic move, in my opinion. Torture, secret renditions, indefinite detentions do not support the fallacy of moral superiority, or even sustainable empire, but then again, maybe that’s not what is really that important to venividivici’s way of thinking. Might makes right? Beat the b**tards into submission, perhaps?
As an “empiricist,” interested in game theory and microeconomics perhaps some facts about the population of Iran might dispel some of your fog. Median age: 25. Many if not most would prefer access to western technology and way of life… think of the economic opportunities… Being such a young population, the 79 revolution is not even in their life experience. The aging mullahs, on the other hand, are aging and not enjoying overwhelming support. It is just a matter of time before they lose their grip on power. Yeah, it makes perfect strategic logic to descimate the Iranian infrastructure, inflame nationalistic feelings thereby strengthening the mullahs, and engender yet another hateful generation of young Muslims toward the west. This will act as a deterent against future ambitions and violence how?
I think your glasses are a bit smudged.
Apr 3, 2007 - 7:44 am 48. Tim:Lib4, you are a doofus.
The Bush tax RATE cuts resulted in HIGHER tax REVENUES.
Lower RATES produced more REVENUES than collected ever before in US history. These higher revenues occurred in spite of the many losses resulting from the terrorist attacks, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the devastation brought on by six massive hurricanes, etc.
If you raise tax rates, you will reduce the amount of money your socialist, nanny-state party has to dole out to all the “unfortunates” out there.
Why do you morons keep demanding actions that will defeat your own goals? What the h3ll is wrong with you?
Apr 3, 2007 - 1:28 pm 49. venividivici:sdemetri,
And you prove yourself a “strategic thinker” by this circular argument?
Brian asked where is the “strategic logic” in my position and I replied that the logic is “Let them hate me, so long as they fear me”. That is an example of a strategic position. You seem to imply that you think it’s incorrect. I think the time is long past for that debate to continue, but, I’ll humor you and ask why? If your rationales are the ones you list (attacking Iraq, weakening our military, etc.), they are all fairly superficial and historically ignorant, as I will now show you.
As Hugh Fitzgerald of Jihad Watch has argued many times, and I agree, attacking Iraq was not a strategic mistake and there were enough legitimate concerns about Saddam having WMD to merit invasion and regime change. Go back and look at the ’state of the art’ intelligence about Iraq. The consensus bonorum was that Saddam had or would soon have WMD even a nuclear scale. Something that was later confirmed when it was reported that he was about a year away from enriching uranium. Oh, and don’t forget that Saddam wanted people to think he had WMD, as a deterrent, ironically enough. I was initially a supporter of the “democracy” project, but I am much more skeptical now that some “empirical” evidence has come in showing that the Iraqis seem content to vote along confessional lines and have very little concept of “the greater good” outside of a religious context. There are things worth dying for, but that isn’t one of them.
Secondly, I don’t see how you can claim that our Iraq mission has weakened the military. On the contrary, the operational experience we are gaining will be valuable so long as the Middle East remains unstable, which seems likely to be a long time. Plus, having an operational base in the middle of the region is a major strategic asset.
Third, our credibility is bolstered by following through on threats like the ones we made to Saddam, not decreased. If a bunch of dictators and assorted anti-American groups dislike that, I don’t see the point in caring. “Can’t we all just get along” is fine as an opening negotiating position (in fact, I am well aware that “friendly tit for tat”, in which I commit to not making an unfriendly move until the other guy makes one, is “empirically” the best strategy for multi-round interactions), but at some point in the negotiations, if you realize the sides are too far apart for their to be any ‘win-win’ situation, it turns into a zero-sum game. Essentially, that’s what happened with Saddam in 2003 and it is what is happening with Iran now. You may be an unknowing victim of “conflict aversion”, which afflicts game participants who are afraid to walk away from a negotiation, once it’s been entered, without a deal, so they take a worse deal. Like a guy who can’t so no to the overpriced options at the car dealership. The Muslim world is offering us an overpriced deal and you just can’t wait to hand over the check.
Fourthly, simply by not being a Muslim, I am morally superior to the jihadis. Period. That “religion” is simply the divinization of all men’s worst traits (loutishness, sentimentality, aversion to change, willingness to submit, sexual anxiety, etc.). I say “men” for a very precise reason, since they are the only ones who gain anything from Islam. For everyone else, it’s nothing but downside, including men at the lower end of the status ladder in Muslim society. And if I were a woman, I’d rather have been born into even a primitive animist society than a Muslim society.
Fifthly, “Let them hate me, so long as they fear me” was Tiberius’ credo vis-a-vis the Roman Senate, as he tried to maintain the Empire against those Senators who would try to break it apart. As history showed, the Roman Empire was extremely durable, so “empircally” my philosophy of governance has a very long tradition of sustainability. If you want to debate the subtleties of technological change and the sustainability of empire under my theory of governance, fine, because that’s a debate worth having, but, as I said before, your objections against my position, as stated, are superficial and historically ignorant.
Sixthly, by relying on the as heretofore impotent Western-loving Iranian youth, you exclude yourself from historical agency. At the very least, then, you should support military action for regime change, since the regime in question that would be changed is the very mullahs you claim the youth do not support. However, you miss a huge factor in this which is that those very youth are being courted by the aging mullahs, with the promise of both material rewards (Middle East hegemony) and “spiritual” rewards (honor in Paradise for dying in battle). There are definitely a lot of dissidents in Iran, but they are obviously too disorganized (or strung out, as my understanding is that hard drug use is rampant in Iran. Do you really want to throw your geopolitical lot in with a bunch of druggies?) to matter in the relevant timeframe. Iran is now reportedly going to get enough nuclear fuel for a weapon within a matter of years. Are your youth going to rise up and take the reins of state by then? What level of certainty do you have about that?
So, for all these reasons, nothing you said has been persuasive. We should go to war with Iran and we should pound them into submission like we did the Germans.
Apr 3, 2007 - 4:50 pm 50. sdemetri:Thanks, venividivici, for your “history” lesson, but from where I sit you are a well spoken, articulate fool.
The young age of the average Iranian argues against military action unless you wish to alienate the majority of the population, and perpetrate violence against the West. The “welcoming” showers of gratitude and flowers in Iraq was quickly squelched by the bumbling incompetence of the Provisional Authority in country. I would be hardpressed after a devastating air attack on Iran, with no followup boots on the ground, no “Provisional Authority”, to believe our “liberation” of that population would be well received by those left in the chaos in Iran. Or quickly forgotten. For all your articulation and historical perspective, you fail to mention how this detail might be handled. More bombs, perhaps? Scorched earth?
What’s more, in 936 words you could give me no answer to that simple, I dare say, ancient question of how pounding anyone into submission will act as a deterent against future ambitions and violence. Especially in the current context, whether real or imagined, of a clash of cultures, of the West against Islam, where the Shiite/Sunni divide is likely to take a backseat under the perceived threat of further Western hegemony in the region.
Your doctrine is a dangerous one, promised to benefit war profiteers and investors… but no one else. No one else. What’s in your stock portfolio…?
Apr 4, 2007 - 6:10 am 51. AWJ:venividivici, you’re saying that your “philosophy of governance” is that of the (post-Caesar) Roman Empire, in which the legislative branch exists at the pleasure of (and preferably in fear of, according to our friend Tiberius) an all-powerful chief executive who is worshipped as a god.
Just checking that we’re on the same wavelength here.
Apr 4, 2007 - 3:29 pm 52. poorgeoffrey:Why not? America has an endless supply of boneheads and psychos to send over there. Bring it on.
Apr 4, 2007 - 3:57 pm 53. venividivici:sdemetri,
The young age of the average Iranian argues against military action unless you wish to alienate the majority of the population, and perpetrate violence against the West.
You’re again assuming that the mullahs do not have a strategy to cultivate the loyalties of the young and turn them against the West. They do, as I mentioned, in the form of the promise of Middle Eastern hegemony and honorable deaths in battle. This also appeals to the Shia sense that they’ve been oppressed throughout Islamic history, which means that Iran would have imperial designs on the Middle East regardless of whether the US existed or not. Simply refusing to address this by saying these youths (again, which youth, the drugged out youth or the politically engaged youth?) want Western technology, blue jeans, blah blah blah, is naive and uninformed. If the Western-loving youth can’t see the bigger picture that regime change is going to cause some causualties on their side, too, are they really mature enough to know what they want? They should know the score better than any of us and be willing to sacrifice to see us overthrow the mullahs, if that’s what they really wanted. If I were one of these Western-loving youths sitting in Tehran right now, I’d be of the opinion that better a few of my Western-loving comrades die than that the mullah regime live. If they are incapable of making that trade-off AND incapable of remaking Iranian politics in their own, non-second-Holocaust-seeking image, they simply become expendable, in the harsh logic of international relations.
Additionally, according to the Washington Post, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is more powerful now than they’ve been since the early days of the Islamic Revolution.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/31/AR2007033101105.html?hpid=topnews
Key section:
The Guard gained stature during Iran’s eight-year war with Iraq, when it fought some of the toughest battles, provided human minesweepers and took huge casualties. That generation has now come of leadership age, said Kenneth Katzman of the Congressional Research Service, the author of “Warriors of Islam,” a book about the Guard.
“They fought as young men, and now they’re middle-aged. They have gone from the battlefield to mayoralties, governates and management of ministries,” Katzman said. Tehran Mayor Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf was a senior Guard commander.
Maybe if Iran were just made up of ‘aging mullah’s and ‘pro-Western youth’, you might have a point. But it isn’t and your ‘youth’ are probably not going to be a match for the Revolutionary Guards any time soon. Seriously, I don’t know what you are basing your optimism on with regards Iran, other than the fact that you’ve repeated the optimists mantra so many times you can’t think anything else.
What’s more, in 936 words you could give me no answer to that simple, I dare say, ancient question of how pounding anyone into submission will act as a deterent against future ambitions and violence.
How do you think the world got it’s current politico-military configuration? It was by the current world powers pounding into submission would-be world powers. Hell, the world’s current configuration is called the “Post-WWII world”, not the “Post-UN Security Council Negotiations world”! Identifying rivals to hegemony and pounding them into submission is almost the definition of history. When Joyce wrote of history, he didn’t call it “A series of polite negotiations resulting in the realization that all disagreements between states were just misunderstandings”, he called it “A nightmare from which I am trying to awake”. The way you write, it’s as though pounding Germany and Japan into submission didn’t work. Do you just string words together not knowing what they mean?
Especially in the current context, whether real or imagined, of a clash of cultures, of the West against Islam, where the Shiite/Sunni divide is likely to take a backseat under the perceived threat of further Western hegemony in the region.
Depends who you ask. One of the leading Saudi sheiks just pronounced the Shia to be worse enemies of Islam than either the Jews or Americans. The rationale, of course, is that whereas no Sunni would ever become a Jew or a true American, he might become a Shia. So, again, your analytical superficiality shows through in your belief that somehow your statement about the Sunni/Shia divide being submerged under the need to confront a common enemy is analytically sound.
Your doctrine is a dangerous one, promised to benefit war profiteers and investors… but no one else. No one else. What’s in your stock portfolio…?
I hedge myself against disaster, for sure. It’s relatively easy and I suggest everyone should. It probably won’t matter, because when a nuke goes off somewhere in the world and my hedge offsets my losses, the government will probably take the money anyway through some kind of ‘terrorism windfall’ tax. C’est la vie.
However, the notion that I’m somehow trying to profit personally shows AGAIN that you don’t really read what I’m saying. If I wanted to profit personally from the current global situation, in which naive men like you are leading the West (and me) down a path of destruction, I’d just become a Muslim. Obviously, I am what the politically correct would call a “Neanderthal” with “regressive” ideas. I would fit right in in Islam. And I’d even get to have four wives, should I want them.
AWJ: In international relations, yes, if one is the hegemon, one should strive to be held in awe by ones enemies and be primus inter pares among ones allies. In domestic relations, I prefer small r republicanism, mainly because I don’t think people should preoccupy themselves with politics as much as they would have to in a democracy. Although, if I did have to live in a democracy, I prefer the Greek system of election by lot, rather than the demagogy of direct elective democracy.
Apr 4, 2007 - 5:26 pm 54. chuck:Boy, it’s not enough for you that America is neck deep in two wars that have spun completely out of its control. You want another front with a country that is more powerful than either of the first two. And over what? The temporary detention (and later release) of 15 British sailors and marines that for all you know could have in fact entered Iranian waters.
Sure is easy to play with other people’s lives, isn’t it?
Apr 4, 2007 - 11:00 pm 55. sdemetri:I completely agree with Joyce, but the difference between Iran, and Germany and Japan is that the jingoistic calls to confront Iran militarily are all pre-emptive. That was not the case with either Germany or Japan. Pre-emptively pounding ones enemies is what the aggressor does, in all but the most extreme of cases. Iraq didn’t fit that bill. Nor does Iran. The “poundings” given Germany and Japan were brutal, fall under the general definition of a just war, and were clearly in response to them presenting themselves as aggressors whom we had a general interest with most of the rest of the world in stopping. That criteria only partially applies to Iran. And while the rhetoric out of Iran is bellicose, they are not aggressors on the scale of either Germany or Japan.
Nasrallah after the summer war gained stature and notariety from across the Muslim world, from many Sunnis and Shiite alike. After an aggressive attack on Iran Muslim opinion isn’t likely to be galvanized against what might easily be viewed as a common enemy? It does depend on who you ask, but I believe it is just as likely as not.
My point about war profiteering is only this: in my opinion, no one would be made any safer or benefit from another middle east conflict except profiteers and investors in defense industries. No one. It would not prevent terrorism, and more likely would serve to foment more of it. Hopes of a moderate government in Iraq stabilizing the region are worthy but there is little evidence we will see that anytime soon.
I refrained from using “Neanderthal” to describe your doctrine yesterday.
I am, I believe, a realist. And I see no compelling reason to pre-emptively attack Iran. I do see a compelling need to sit down with them and talk, as do many others. Their express wish to talk in the past has been rebuffed in favor of finding some way of, it appears, executing the doctrine you propose. I think that is bad policy, dangerous policy, and likely to lead to more instability in the Middle East, in the long term, rather than less.
Apr 5, 2007 - 9:29 am 56. chefrad:Crittenden is the geopolitcal equivalent of a Liverpool soccer fan, white knuckles at the ready, frontal lobes sound asleep.
And no sense of embarrassment whatever.
Apr 5, 2007 - 9:30 am 57. venividivici:sdemetri,
And while the rhetoric out of Iran is bellicose, they are not aggressors on the scale of either Germany or Japan.
No, but their goal of Middle Eastern dominance virtually guarantees they will end up so. Besides, the logic of preemption is required by the threat of weapons of mass destruction, which wasn’t even on the table at the start of WWII, since the weapons were still theoretical at that point.
My point about war profiteering is only this: in my opinion, no one would be made any safer or benefit from another middle east conflict except profiteers and investors in defense industries. No one.
About a year back, the columnist Spengler made a convincing case that US strategic interests are advanced by chaos in the Middle East. If true, that means that as a society we all would benefit. Perhaps war profiteers would benefit most, but how would a small slice of society taking most of the benefit differ from everyday life as humanity has known it since the dawn of history? If all US citizens’ interests are advanced by Middle East chaos, there is no reason to fear it.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HC14Ak02.html
Looked at from the view of Belmont Club’s Three Conjectures, my policy of pre-emptive military action to enact regime change is actually the humanitarian thing to do. The alternative, once Iran gets nuclear weapons, destroys Israel then turns its remaining nukes on the West (assuming Israel doesn’t destroy Iran with its nukes, and potentially Europe, via the Samson Option, in which an on-the-verge-of-destruction Israel unleashes a nuclear attack against Europe in retaliation for Europe’s pussyfooting support of terror disguised as sympathy for the Palestinians et al.) is the complete annihilation of Iran. At least with my option, we may end up with another Iraq, which from a historical perspective really isn’t that bad (when I say ‘historical perspective’, keep in mind I mean all of human history since the invention of agriculture, not the last 40 years, which seems to be the sum and substance of the typical American’s view of historical time), or, if we can decapitate the regime to the extent that the pro-Western youth you’ve put your faith in can actually take the reins of state, it could be better than Iraq.
So, the potential downside of your suggested course of action, which would allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, as I see it, is the destruction of Israel, the destruction of Europe and the destruction of Iran. Unless you are 100% certain that if Iran is allowed to continue its course it won’t develop nuclear weapons, the potential losses involved in your scenario should spur you to pursue alternative strategies to the one you advocate.
Thinking ahead like this, by the way, is what is meant by ’strategic thinking’, to come back around to the first post in which you tried to insult me.
Apr 5, 2007 - 6:07 pm 58. Ahmadinejad — “Slap on the Mouth.” Teabagger? « Balance Sheet:[...] A little war goes a long way. [...]
Apr 23, 2008 - 5:13 am