17 Comments

Winston:

Then again the question is: Why American policy-makers in the executive branch do not want to confront Iranian regime for what it has done!

Jun 11, 2007 - 11:32 pm Dan:

Professor, Reagan kept his eye on the ball. And at that time, the ball wasn’t in Tehran, it was in Moscow, in the Kremlin.

From REAGAN’S WAR, we know that the President laid out a long-range plan to implode the Soviet Union.

He gave himself several tasks.

RESTORE America’s economic strength.

Restore America’s military.

Implode the Soviet Union.

Shatter the Warsaw Bloc.

He accomplished those tasks.

He didn’t have the time to get around to dealing with islam. He only had eight years, and he was an old man when he left office. He couldn’t do everything, he had to prioritize.

The chore of handling Tehran fell to his successors, and had they half as much cleverness as they flatter themselves they possess, that would have been handled rather rapidly.

But the George Herbert Walker Bush administration, with Jim Baker at State, didn’t see islam as a problem. They saw Israeli intransigence as THE problem. They preferred to spend their time strong arming Jews, instead of bringing the full force and fury of this country down around the heads of the terror masters, in Riyadh, in Damascus, in Tehran.

It’s so much easier to castigate Jews, then it is to take on religiously motivated monsters.
As for the Iranian menace, soon as the Cold War was over, we should have squared accounts with that regime pronto.

But it’s not too late to take care of that bill.

All it takes is one of the Cardinal Virtues, namely courage.

But as I mentioned before, whatever appetite Bush had to grapple with the nation’s enemies is gone, absolutely gone. Take a look at how he’s abandoned all hopes of reforming the UN. Another one of his whifty ideas, that he couldn’t be bothered to exert the will and force to make reality.

Of course he tries to veil his weakness with talk, talk, empty talk. He moves Carrier Battle Groups hither and yon. As if that regime takes notice. They know it’s all for show.

And who more than you truly understands how much contempt that regime has for George Bush, for Condi, for this administration, for this country.

That regime laughs at us all day long. They’ve seen Carrier Battle Groups come, they’ve seen them go. But what they haven’t seen is an air wing of American Naval Air paying a little courtesy call to Tehran. And they’re not likely to see it, least not with this administration.

But hey, Nicholas Burns has all the answers. I’m sure that Karen Hughes can conjure up another pen pal program.

Yea, that’s the ticket.

Jun 12, 2007 - 12:58 am a Duoist:

Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II; the entire final quarter of the 20C is Mr. Thrall’s litany of American realism bouncing off of American idealism in dealing with theofascism in Iran. Pragmatism, and just plain rational common sense, has been completely missing in our foreign policy toward Iran since 1979.

The most depressing part of Mr. Thrall’s scholarship is not simply its accuracy or his interpretation, or the hundreds of American lives thrown away; the really depressing thing about his article is the conclusion the reader has to make that it’s obvious that well-intentioned and very bright people in our government still do not know, nearly thirty years later, the pathological homicidal/suicidal nature of Khomeini’s ideotheology of the ‘learned jurisprudent.’ By its nature (Griffin), theofascism will never normalize; it seeks it own death by committing homicide, and is compelled to seek confrontation constantly until it achieves the death it seeks most: its own.

Will Schultz, Berger, Brzezinski, Carter, Clinton, Bush, et al, respond to this article? Will all of the contestants to be the next American President–in both political parties–even read it? Will the New York Times, WAPO, or the WSJ reprint it?

Likely not. But what a powerful article this is for the argument for a philosophy ‘regime change’ in Iran.

Jun 12, 2007 - 6:24 am marjan:

Duoist, you just hit the nail right!
The fact is that in order to defeat an enemy you must understand its philosophy, ideology and its intentions short term and long term. That is something that our latest series of American Presidents never even did seek to know. The enemy read this weakness long ago and played their chess game masterfully.
Indeed the islamo-fascist regime occupying Iran has been the biggest menace to the world’s peace in its entire existence of 29 years. They live in hate, martyrdom, violence, death and they breath in it all. That is their ideology, their soul and their being & essence. It is of course incomprehensible for our American Presidents to understand this culture of death and mayhem. Some who know the truth do not have any power since our own culture of PC never lets it out. It will be buried before it gets out!!!

Jun 12, 2007 - 12:02 pm Frieda:

I agree totally!
Also lets not forget when he wanted to fight the Communist in Afghanistan, his administration and later Carter’s administration funded the Taliban and the Muslims to fight communism. That is where the birth of militant Islamism started!
In retrospect, I wished they let Afghanistan remained communist, at least the women population would not have suffered and tortured as much as they have since fall of communism.

ML:

militant islamism started quite a while ago, it’s wrong to blame reagan for that one. the main american mistake was of course carter’s falling for Khomeini, nothing since has compared to that.

Jun 12, 2007 - 8:21 pm Dan:

“Militant islam” is jihad, and jihad started with Mohammad himself.

Jihad carried islam across the Mideast, to the straits of Gibraltar, to the Pyrenees and beyond. Jihad swept across Anatolia and up to Vienna, in Austria. Jihad swept across the Hindu Kush down into the land of the five rivers, which we know as the Punjab, Pakistan.

Jihad gave islam power, wealth, untold strength.

And up until the 1700s, jihad drove muslim armies forward.

But about that time Western science shifted the edge on the battlefield decisively in favour of the West, Christendom. Some of the last burning embers of old time jihad, captives, raids, ransoms, this country confronted in the war against the Barbary jihadists. And our Naval fleet blasted forts, blasted harbours, blasted muslims and blew their naval pretensions right out of the water. Our action was greeted with joy by the Pope, who proclaimed that this new country did more in several years than all the Europeans had done in several hundred.

So jihad went on to the back burner. But there’s nothing unusual in that, for jihad always had a prudential aspect within it. War is obligated when success is likely. But jihad is not obligated when it would be a futile gesture.

So for a couple centuries, the West was allowed to forget about this menace, this threat.

But now jihad has emerged from the shadows, for muslims detect weakness in Christendom, weakness in the champion of the West, weakness in Europe.

Our fathers, men like Le May, Spaatz, Bomber Harris, Halsey, they would have made short work of the pretensions and pathologies of jihadists.

But now we have Rice.

Now we have Baker, Scowcroft, Powell, they don’t want to confront the house of al saud, they want to enrich themselves. They want to sit on boards, they want to swing deals, they want those speaking fees.

Armitage, Zinni………….. Who in his right mind would delude himself that such men have a clue about what we’re facing.

And as for Bush, he’s out there prattling on about “islam is peace.”

So instead of making short work of our enemies, and teaching them that jihad is futile, we’re delivering the message that islam can hang with the United States.

That’s what we’re seeing with all of these captives.

It’s the beginning of the return of old time islam. Captive taking goes right back to Mohammad himself. It weakens the enemies of islam. It creates a mindset of parley, dealing, bribery, ransom, all of which contributes to psychological exhaustion and timidity.

History tells us with absolute clarity what we’re dealing with.

But it’s a nightmare.

And the graduates of the Ivy League, in Foggy Bottom, who learned to view everything through the prism of race/class/gender, don’t know what to make of islam.

And what’s more, if they did have a clue, they wouldn’t have the nerve to do what’s necessary.

And thus we go on.

The future shall know these years to be those that “the locust hath eaten.”

Jun 13, 2007 - 1:08 am Azad Andish:

“Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it, misdiagnosing it, and then misapplying the wrong remedies.
Groucho Marx ”

US administrations have been the definition of this quotation at least in dealing with Islamofascists and Mullahs of Iran.
I bet Hillary will be faithful to the same rule.

Jun 13, 2007 - 1:47 pm Cynic:

Thrall writes:

Others who shared Weinberger’s view that the costs of withdrawal would be negligible included Baker, Vice President Bush, and Weinberger’s Military Assistant, Major General Colin Powell. Shultz, however, saw the importance of signaling American resolve differently. “If we are driven out of Lebanon,” he said on the day after the barracks bombings, it will be a major blow to the American position in the Middle East. If we want the role and influence of a great power, then we have to accept the responsibilities of a great power.

How true that was.
I suppose as CIC Reagan was responsible but what advice did he get from Weinberger, Bush and Baker to make the correct decisions?
I suppose that even back then what was in Baker’s mind was to do with the Saudis.

Jun 13, 2007 - 4:15 pm Carlos:

Michael:The perception about Rafsanjani in some West governments was that he is a “moderate”or “pragmatic” leader.
Moderate in what line of service?
And now he is under suspects to made the Ok to carry out a terrorist attack in my country,Argentina.
Please no more mistakes on this kind of people.

ML:

Indeed, he has been indicted for murder in Argentina, and is on Interpol’s watch list. I think that brings to three the number of countries in which he is wanted for murder…

Jun 13, 2007 - 4:29 pm Ran:

“militant islamism started quite a while ago, it’s wrong to blame reagan for that one.”

If memory serves… It was initiated by a warlord named Mohammed.

Jun 13, 2007 - 9:16 pm Winston:

Frieda

Militant Islam started in 1978 when Carter allowed Khomeini to take over Iran. Don’t blame reagan for it plz

Jun 14, 2007 - 12:45 am Frieda:

Yes, you are right the militant islamism started a while ago..but we had a long quite period for for decades. How could you not blame Reagan’s administration for helping Taliban to come to the power? He messed up Afghanistan so badly, Even from the beginning they miscalculated and supported Hekmatyar instead of Ahmad Shah Massoud.

Two American administrations (Carter and Reagan) helped to bring the worst government in the Middle East and we are paying for it 25 years later! we probably need another 25 years to clean them out.

ML:

it certainly made sense to support islamic fighters against the red army. keep in mind that the tactical decisions–e.g. hekmatyar or Massoud–were made by the saudis and pakistanis, not the americans.

Jun 14, 2007 - 1:11 am Dan:

You guys are forgetting why we went into Lebanon in the first place.

We didn’t go in to pacify Lebanon.

Nor did we go in to establish some sort of government.

The Arabs pressured the Europeans to come up with a plan to salvage Arafat and his gang of dirtball killers, who the Israelis were driving right into the sea.

So the Europeans leaned on the Reagan administration. At first, we resisted the idea of inserting ourselves into the drama. But the Europeans conjured up this kooky idea where we would intervene, provide a small force, a VERY small force, that would insert itself between the IDF and Arafat, and allow Arafat and his remnant to get out.

Of course while they were getting out, they pretended to be victors. Much of this entire effort was an attempt to salvage Arab pride. Because the Israelis, {you know, those supposedly “less than apes and pigs”} had just delivered a true thumping to the PLO, to Arafat, to his Lebanese allies and especially to the Syrians.

The IAF swept the Syrian Air Force from the skies, obliterating over eighty of their aircraft, to the loss of only one of their own. And as for Syrian surface to air batteries in the Bekaa, the IAF made short work of them too.

And Israeli armour brushed the Syrians back over the Hermon range in Lebanon, closed in on Beirut, an Arab capital, and started pounding Arafat.

That’s what happened.

The original Israeli idea was move into Lebanon, sweep the Syrians out, destroy Arafat and his creepy cohort, link up with Christian Lebanese to the North of Beirut, and turn all of Lebanon over to them.

That was a good idea. But European and American pressure prevented that link up, prevented the IDF sweeping the Syrians out, and thus left Lebanon vulnerable to outside meddling.

We had no business stopping Israelis from killing their tormentors. None. None whatsoever.

When we got hit, we either had to pound the Iranians, the Syrians and the Palestinians who were behind it, or pull out.

We pulled out, after some desultory long range shelling.

At that time, Reagan and Weinberger were still very early in America’s military buildup.

We were not the military power we would later be, just a few short years later.

Moreover, our armed forces weren’t being built up to be wasted taking down Arab armies.

They were being prepared for a passage of arms with the Soviets.

We pulled out, and we kept our eye on the ball, which was in the Kremlin.

AFTER THE FALL OF THE SOVIET UNION, then it was the time, THEN it was the time to pay off old scores with a vengeance.

We should have hammered that Iranian regime then and there.

We should have went off on them and made such an example of them, that a thousand years hence, men would still stand in awe at the wrath of the United States.

But we let that chance go.

Because we’re soft.

We’re soft.

And we’re going to pay for that softness, big time.

Jun 14, 2007 - 2:19 am Dan:

You guys are forgetting why we went into Lebanon in the first place.

We didn’t go in to pacify Lebanon.

Nor did we go in to establish some sort of government.

The Arabs pressured the Europeans to come up with a plan to salvage Arafat and his gang of dirtball killers, who the Israelis were driving right into the sea.

So the Europeans leaned on the Reagan administration. At first, we resisted the idea of inserting ourselves into the drama. But the Europeans conjured up this kooky idea where we would intervene, provide a small force, a VERY small force, that would insert itself between the IDF and Arafat, and allow Arafat and his remnant to get out.

Of course while they were getting out, they pretended to be victors. Much of this entire effort was an attempt to salvage Arab pride. Because the Israelis, {you know, those supposedly “less than apes and pigs”} had just delivered a true thumping to the PLO, to Arafat, to his Lebanese allies and especially to the Syrians.

The IAF swept the Syrian Air Force from the skies, obliterating over eighty of their aircraft, to the loss of only one of their own. And as for Syrian surface to air batteries in the Bekaa, the IAF made short work of them too.

And Israeli armour brushed the Syrians back over the Hermon range in Lebanon, closed in on Beirut, an Arab capital, and started pounding Arafat.

That’s what happened.

The original Israeli idea was move into Lebanon, sweep the Syrians out, destroy Arafat and his creepy cohort, link up with Christian Lebanese to the North of Beirut, and turn all of Lebanon over to them.

That was a good idea. But European and American pressure prevented that link up, prevented the IDF sweeping the Syrians out, and thus left Lebanon vulnerable to outside meddling.

We had no business stopping Israelis from killing their tormentors. None. None whatsoever.

When we got hit, we either had to pound the Iranians, the Syrians and the Palestinians who were behind it, or pull out.

We pulled out, after some desultory long range shelling.

At that time, Reagan and Weinberger were still very early in America’s military buildup.

We were not the military power we would later be, just a few short years later.

Moreover, our armed forces weren’t being built up to be wasted taking down Arab armies.

They were being prepared for a passage of arms with the Soviets.

We pulled out, and we kept our eye on the ball, which was in the Kremlin.

AFTER THE FALL OF THE SOVIET UNION, then it was the time, THEN it was the time to pay off old scores with a vengeance.

We should have hammered that Iranian regime then and there.

We should have went off on them and made such an example of them, that a thousand years hence, men would still stand in awe at the wrath of the United States.

But we let that chance go.

Because we’re soft.

We’re soft.

And we’re going to pay for that softness, big time.

Jun 14, 2007 - 2:19 am marjan:

“If memory serves… It was initiated by a warlord named Mohammed.”

Indeed this is the fact.
For all the free thinking PIC friends out there, please read through this amazing link which describes history of Muhammad and his occupying army throughout Islamic expansion in the 7th century AD.

http://www.historyofjihad.org

May the truth be known far and wide!

Also books of courageous Robert Spencer are priceless!

Jun 14, 2007 - 10:39 am kourosh:

In the meanwhile the desperate Khomeinists do anything to create problem for US in Iraq. History shows that Khomeinists have adopted “End Justifies Means” from other anarchists and Marxists. During the backward revolt of Khomeiniists, they burn 300 to 400 people alive in Cinema Rex in Abadan and created such hate for the government in charge. Few months later while ABC was filming live, they conducted again a show in Maydane Jale and called it “Black Friday” Turned out that the Khomeinst elements were shooting people, who were escaping out of fear from the scene and then blame it on the government.

Now no one knows for the fact who acted in Samarra and blow up Askary Mosque. However, no one should rule out the possibility of Khomeinsits having hand in these type of activities. Khomeinists are trying to blame the act on another crazy and Khomeinie’s equivalent in Saudi Arabia, a guy by the name of ‘Bayan Jabrain”. Either way these crazy acts are all as a result of sick minds. Be Khomeinie or Jabrain the same result is achieved for terrorists and that is blaming the Western Civilization.

Jun 14, 2007 - 4:52 pm ajacksonian:

There was a time in America when we did not go to war to win, but to not lose. A war we were warned about that not winning it would cause us untold problems. A war where a President vacillated and then would not commit fully to fighting it. It took place during ten years that would change the course of America. For the worse.

Not Iraq (twice!), nor Lebanon, nor Viet Nam, nor Korea… all fall outs to that war that was fought to ‘not lose’. Not even in any of the small wars or moderate ones that the Nation was involved in. It was the first war where *not* fighting and letting trade and international bodies figure things out was put forth. The great unlost war that remained unwon.

In 1917 President Wilson heard from ex-President Theodore Roosevelt in Congress that if the United States did not go after all of the powers arrayed against the Allies that the US would not get much if any say in the Peace that followed. That from a man who fought at San Juan and who dedicated the troops necessary to win in the Philippines and win out against a long and horrific insurgency. President Wilson vacillated and then proposed that with one potential enemy, we would not fight them, but let trade and new international bodies after the war deal with it.

That is when we did not fight as a Nation to win. And so the war was unwon, unlost and worse would follow… and trade would be the balm that would cure the Ottoman Empire and the Middle East.

Let me know how it all works out, these 90 years later.

A war unwon because it would not be fought in support of our Allies.

America flinched.

And the bill, in blood, grows longer unless we put an end to the butcher that now drives radical Islam.

This time we dare not fight to ‘not lose’.

Because that is more horrible than any victory.

Jun 16, 2007 - 9:43 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed) remember personal info?
Comments: