Not on our part—something NRO contributor Barbara Lerner finds unfortunate. From “We’re Losing World War IV”:
Today, Iran’s emboldened mullahs are on a triumphant roll, waging a bloody, three-front proxy war against us, using the Mahdi army to assassinate dreams of peace and democracy in Iraq, using Hezbollah to blow up those same dreams in Lebanon, again, and using Hamas to make a grotesque mockery of them in the Holy Land. Now they threaten to activate Hezbollah terror cells, here in America and throughout the world, to kill and maim us at home and inflict more carnage on our allies. This week, they mocked our efforts to prevent them from becoming a nuclear power, announcing that nothing we do  in the U.N. or elsewhere  will stop them from going nuclear, and sharing their WMDs with other rogue states and Islamofascist terror groups at will. More ominous yet, they threaten to unleash an apocalyptic surprise on us on August 22, the night they believe Mohammed lit up the skies by ascending to heaven from the Al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem.
Despite all this and more, we have yet to admit that Iran is at war with us, or to seriously consider striking back at her, and, in speaking of our own war aims, we never dare use the v-word  victory  anymore. Instead, we make head-in-the-sand happy-talk about “peace,†“democracy,†and “ceasefires,†rejecting any military action against Iran for fear of “widening the war† as if Iran were not already at war with us  and rely on the U.N. and “the international community†to thwart Iran’s nuclear ambitions and to prevent her proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah, from continuing to bring death and destruction to our smallest, truest, and most vulnerable ally, Israel. In doing this, we ignore two obvious realities: rather than restraining Iran, U.N. heavyweights Russia and China are busy arming her, and the perfidious EU will not even recognize the plain fact that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. Instead, these old-Europe “allies†join with our Islamofascist enemies in demonizing our brave soldiers in Iraq, and damning Israel for daring to fight back against unprovoked aggression, pursued with openly genocidal intent.
Worse, we meet the jackals halfway by endlessly apologizing for sins our soldiers and guards are falsely accused of, in Iraq and Guantanamo, and by urging “restraint†on Israel  as if she weren’t employing near-suicidal restraint already. Then, we congratulate ourselves for our “courage†in standing up to international pressure by not forcing Israel to stop fighting for her life immediately, and promising, in return, to “protect†her with a “peace-keeping†force of enemies, led by the reborn Vichy France of Jacques Chirac and Phillipe Douste-Blazy  the French foreign minister who just called Iran “a stabilizing force.†The only good news in all this, for Israel and for us, is the fact that these cowards are unlikely ever actually to deploy, because they will not go in until all fighting stops, and there is little chance of that while the people of the Book still live, augmented by a growing tide of French Jews, seeking refuge in Israel from the ever increasing violence against them in France. Even in the midst of war, hundreds more arrived in Israel last week, feeler safer there, despite the rockets raining down on their heads, than they did living as unprotected dhimmies in the land of their birth.
Our U.N. representative, John Bolton, is an admirable man and an outstanding spokesman for America, but his masters in the Oval Office and the State department have saddled him with an impossible job. Diplomacy before a war can sometimes provide an honorable alternative. “Diplomacy†in the midst of a war we are losing by failing to confront our main enemy is a euphemism for appeasement  a dead end road. The more eager our president is to rely on “the international community,†the U.N., and our EU “partners,†and to avoid, at all costs, any military confrontation with Iran, the more confident of ultimate victory the mullahs become. To them, and to hundreds of millions of Muslims around the world, watching Al Jazeera or its like on their TV screens, it looks like Iran is winning one glorious Islamist victory after another, striking blow after paralyzing blow at the once-mighty giant of the Christian West, while we cower in fear, afraid to strike back. We look like losers, while Iran looks invincible, and that image of invincibility is the most effective weapon Iran has in its hugely successful battle for the allegiance of the Muslim masses everywhere. Most Americans are still unaware of Iran’s promise to light up the skies with a great surprise on August 22, but Muslims everywhere are keenly aware of it; most await the day with growing excitement.
We should not wait, passively, for the Iranians to unveil their surprise. We should light up the skies with our own surprise: a massive aerial bombardment that wipes out most of Iran’s nuclear facilities, and decimates the ranks of its mullahs as well as those of the Revolutionary Guard and Basij forces that keep them in power, defeating these monsters and decimating their fan base by shattering their image of invincibility. Retired air force Lt. General Tom McInerney already has a plan to wipe out most of Iran’s nuclear facilities from the air. As I’ve argued , we should augment it with additional targets and let fly, as soon as possible, with no forewarning, for maximum effect. Lt. Col. Gordon Cucullu, one of the few who argues in public for a similarly bold course sums it up this way:
By waiting for a first strike we are put in a position of playing a retaliation game after we have already endured unacceptable losses in population and perception. Once America and Israel are seen as weak enough to defeat, then the international jackals will all join in for the kill. This is what our enemies hope to accomplish…We face a crisis of major proportions. Hesitation may be fatal.
He’s right. The time to act is now.
Banging the drums of war? Or a prudent course of action we are likely to eschew as the result of years of trading national interest for fillips of international acceptance?
Personally, I’m not much interested in discussing further how seriously we should take Iranian threats. Because the bottom line is, they are making them—and we simply cannot afford to be wrong about their intentions.
Meanwhile, from Drudge:
In a WALL STREET JOURNAL op-ed Tuesday, Princeton’s Bernard Lewis writes: “There is a radical difference between the Islamic Republic of Iran and other governments with nuclear weapons. This difference is expressed in what can only be described as the apocalyptic worldview of Iran’s present rulers.”
“In Islam as in Judaism and Christianity, there are certain beliefs concerning the cosmic struggle at the end of time—Gog and Magog, anti-Christ, Armageddon, and for Shiite Muslims, the long awaited return of the Hidden Imam, ending in the final victory of the forces of good over evil, however these may be defined.”
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad “and his followers clearly believe that this time is now, and that the terminal struggle has already begun and is indeed well advanced. It may even have a date, indicated by several references by the Iranian president to giving his final answer to the US about nuclear development by Aug. 22,” which this year corresponds “to the 27th day of the month of Rajab of the year 1427. This, by tradition, is the night when many Muslims commemorate the night flight of the prophet Muhammad on the winged horse Buraq, first to ‘the farthest mosque,’ usually identified with Jerusalem, and then to heaven and back (c.f., Koran XVII.1).
“This might well be deemed an appropriate date for the apocalyptic ending of Israel and if necessary of the world. It is far from certain that Mr. Ahmadinejad plans any such cataclysmic events precisely for Aug. 22. But it would be wise to bear the possibility in mind.”
True enough. And so the real question is this: do the Bushies and our international allies have the political will NOT to call Iran’s bluff if, indeed, intelligence sources are telling them that Iran could, in fact, have just such an end times scenario in mind?
The second guessers will of course scream and gnash their teeth. But the moment we let political fears hamstring us in the battle against Islamic radicalism is the moment we will have lost the war.
None of which is to say we should necessarily strike Iran preemptively; only that, if our intelligence agencies are telling us that there’s a chance that Iran has nuclear capability and could launch offensive strikes—either on their own or through proxies—we should be prepared to act.
And every country professing to celebrate freedom should be on board.
Discuss.
(h/t JWebb and ahem)
I don’t think we can be wrong about their intentions—they’ve made them quite clear. The only open question is about their abilities, and that’s where we can’t trust the “five years away” crowd.
(You know, the ones who did so well on tracking the Indian, Pakistani, and North Korean nuclear programs.)
August 22. Two weeks to go. Maybe it isn’t 1938, maybe it is 1940. Is December 7 just around the corner? Anyone want to make a big money bet one way or the other? At least it could finally be a defining and clarifying moment.
TW: firm. Is it a firm date, or not?
Great. Grand.
In the meantime, WTF can anyone do about it? The way I see it, there’s only a few people in the world who can act to truly ensure this doesn’t happen. I hardly ever hear these people talk of ultimatums or real action, either; so I feel pretty confident that the only thing I can do in this situation is 1) be glad the 22nd falls after my vacation and 2)bend over and kiss my ass goodbye.
I hate reading shit like this, makes me really pissed I’m saving for retirement; because sometimes it seems like I’m not going to make it that far.
I don’t think it will be Mohammed that will light up the Iranian skies on August 22, the correct answer is “George W. Bush”…
She’s right. Western civilization is beset by self-doubt. In the face of challenge, it just throws up its hands in despair. That’s what I think the European response represents: Despair. It’s drowning in its own decadence. The US has been infected, but some of us are still healthy.
The idea of a pre-emptive strike is a good one, but it’s never been in fashion and that won’t changing any time soon. People deceive themselves to the very end. You can ridicule the way politicians try so hard for a diplomatic solution until the very end, but you have to understand that the pressure to do so is intense. People are frail. The up-side is that times like these reveal character in a way that is inspiring.
Don’t despair. People have been shouldering their way through the shit for millenia.
I think it’s very improbable (not impossible, but very improbable) that Iran has what it needs to make a really catastrophic strike on the 22nd — plus, I’ve lived through a lot of predictions of the end of the world so far, so I guess I’m getting jaded.
I wouldn’t doubt they’ll try somthing that’s meant to spark the Big War About Everything. Fascists, like kzinti, tend to strike before they’re ready.
The reality of our inability to do anything about Iran is the same reality the Lebanese government faces. They allowed Hezbollah to become a part of their government because even if they had the will, they didn’t have the resources to fight Syria and Iran. In the same way that Hezbollah/Syria/Iran have opposed a secular, western friendly society in Lebanon, the far left, through their useful idiots in the media, academia, and the Democratic Party oppose Jeffersonian Democracy in America. They are as adamant about Marxist Egalitarianism being the way in America as the Islamists are about Islamic Totalitarianism being the only choice in the mid-east.
With the enemy at home in full force, we have no preemptive military option in Iran. The sad fact, I fear, is that America has no stomach for a long ground and air war with Iran. We will not strike Iran, with anything other than a token effort, until they strike us. Maybe nukes hitting Israel and Europe will be enough. Maybe it will take a nuclear attack on American soil. Then we will totally destroy Iran with a massive nuclear response. We can defeat them militarily. I’m not sure will will emerge from that with our society in tact.
I’ve extracted a few memes out from among the local anti-Semites.
One such meme is that it is not in the Zionist interest to have a sane Arab democracy on its border. “Zionists” here are defined as Israel’s Ashkenaz (east European) elite. Zionists, in this (TW) view, need Hamas, Assad, Mubarak, Hezbollah and the Wahhabis around so that they can argue for Israel’s continued existence in its current form.
Another meme is a resurrection of the 1920s: that “the Jews” – again, Ashkenazim – were responsible for Lenin’s and Stalin’s worst excesses. Solzhenitsyn (sp?) recently wrote these allegations into “200 Years Together”. This book is not yet translated into English but has been paraphrased by nationalists like Wolfgang Strauss into German, further translated into English by our friends in the Institute for Historical Review.
These memes are increasingly showing up in comment boards and are, I think, what inspired Mel Gibson. They are common among pseudointellectual cockwavers who want to appear wellinformed.
These memes are preparing the groundwork for a new “Great Lie”: that Israel, or at least its Ashkenazim, should remain on its own in this struggle. America’s supporters of Israel are wrong where goyim and treasonous where Ashkenaz. Since the memes are so popular among those of Yeats’s “passionate intensity”, who vote and volunteer, it will be politically difficult for any administration to act in its own interest if it is seen as acting in the interest of The Jews.
“Why should we be in danger of World War III because of those people?”—Daniel Bernard
</blockquote>The idea of a pre-emptive strike is a good one, but it’s never been in fashion and that won’t changing any time soon. People deceive themselves to the very end. You can ridicule the way politicians try so hard for a diplomatic solution until the very end, but you have to understand that the pressure to do so is intense. People are frail. The up-side is that times like these reveal character in a way that is inspiring.<blockquote>
You don’t even realize how disturbed you are, do you? Why don’t you stick with torturing small animals and leave my country out of your sick fantasies.
And, by the way, does this mean if nothing significant happens on 8/22, you people will stop agitating for another catastrophic military adventure doomed to failure at its conception? Please?
A great read and for the most part dead on, but,
give me a break.
Rumsfeld and others haven’t been shy about saying that that is our exit strategy in Iraq and the war on terror in general. We can’t help it that the MSM is actively avoiding broadcasting any such talk.
I doubt that Iran has any cards up it’s sleeve for the 22nd. Just more empty islamist bluster.
If they really do have something going for the 22nd and it involves Israel, rest assured that the Israelis will promptly deal with it. If they do anything against us, they will have made the same mis-calculation that Hezzbollah made when they kidnapped those two IDF soldiers.
Our greatest enemy and the only enemy that will defeat us is the leftist enemy we have within our own borders.
I always love it when “any excuse will do” is leveraged by millenialism. Why lose weight?
Just for kicks, visit one of these sites. For the best view of someone trying to accumulate cash for doomsday scenarios, you must visit Hal Lindsey, the grandaddy of millenialism-for-a-fee.
Hey – have a nice day!
How is that a substantive comment, David?
The question being raised here is can we afford to wait? What are the stakes?
The easiest thing in the world to do is to sit back, wring your hands, call everyone who discusses this stuff seriously sick and suggest they are bloodthirsty, and then parade your own self-righteousness in front of the crowd.
But preening self-satisfaction doesn’t save lives. And it ain’t the bailiwick of adults forced to discuss unpleasant issues that leave us with very tough choices.
Yes, especially when what you consider “not waiting” is so obviously counterproductive.
That’s uselessly broad.
“This stuff” being use of explosives, then not the easiest thing, just the responsible and effective thing.
Now you’re just kicking dirt.
Another meme is a resurrection of the 1920s: that “the Jews†– again, Ashkenazim – were responsible for Lenin’s and Stalin’s worst excesses.
This is really frightening. This goy knows that a few apostate Jews were prominent Leninists and Stalinists. They were Jewish only vaguely, biologically. Thousands more suffered because they refused to become what the komissars wanted them to become, just as their Christian brothers suffered.
The American left’s recent bout of anti-Semitism is very dangerous, and it is linked to the denials that its internationalist pacifism requries.
Launching a preemptive strike based on the Islamic version of the Tim LaHaye (or whatever the guys name is) series would make us a laughingstock. Our only choice is to let them attack us first in two weeks. (It isn’t like they can get nukes onto US soil yet.)
One of the things I like most about GWBush is that on the 22nd the Iranians can deal us a “catastropic stroke” and by the 30th most of Iran will be smoking ruin accented by follow up blasts… hopefully a stray cruise missle or two will hit Syria (due to a solar flare that fouled up the GPS guidance system).
tw *works* for me
I don’t know. These folks have updated their prediction every week now for two months.
One more update and they’re pretty close to August 22.
TW: That’s what the website says.
Being prepared is counterproductive? To what?
“What are the stakes?” is too broad a question? How do you figure? How can you comment on such matters without considering the possible outcomes?
How is calling people names responsible or effective defense policy? And what of those people currently talking about the use of explosives, like the President of Iran?
You’re in over your head, david. Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
This idiot makes actus seem erudite.
/ignore David.
SteveG sez:
I think the “us” in this case is probably Israel, which may have a differing view on the prudence of waiting for a strike. The big question is strike them with what?
So was Normandy counter productive David? How about the Civil War? What about the island hopping campaign of the Pacific during WWII? Vietnam, now a thriving culture very unlike that of North Korea, that was counter productive? And how about Korea, that too, I suspect?
Just crawl away man, just crawl away.
What’s it like, living life scared? Tell me, I’d really like to know what it’s like to be so perpetually fearful that you are paralyzed into inaction. That even the discussion of what our duty may entail in the future renders you fetal on the floor, hands over your face muttering the word “no” over and over again.
This is a conversation for adults. If you can’t add anything substantive, just sit back and read, you may actually learn something.
TW:appear; It appears that David just can’t handle the truth.
RTO Trainer:
I love stuff like this: So for those of you who are interested in bible prophecy, in detective stories, in understanding God’s love, in intellectual puzzles, in Stargate type Sci Fi from 3,500 year old documents written in Hebrew and from 2,000 year old documents written in Greek, or in the absolute spiritual truth that lies just beneath the thin and perishing plastic veneer of this wicked and Pharisaical administration of mankind, which promotes morality with its lips but rewards immorality with its currency, which promotes multilateral peace with its lips, but wages unilateral war with its armies and its bureaucrats, which praises God with its lips but destroys this planet he created with its technology and leaves more than half the children in the world in want of food, medical care or schooling.
I tried diagramming it, but the migraine got in the way. Why can’t millenialists remember the K.I.S.S. principle?
SteveG,
I brought up the prohecy site a a joke and I don’t beleive in “end times” prophecy.
But as a very real world issue, it is not necessary to get a nuke onto US soil.
Imagine what a simple dirty bomb detonated a mile or so off either seaboard would do with the correct prevailing winds. Or out in the Gulf of Mexico where odds on the winds are greatly enhanced.
How about an actual nuke in a shipping container in harbor? Or even approaching harbor, for that matter.
Nuclear devices are the instruments of men, not of prophecy, but that doesn’t mean that “appocalyptic” would be an inappropriate description.
David writes, to ahem: “Why don’t you … leave my country out of your sick fantasies”.
Which “country” is that, David? ahem only mentioned the US. You sounded, for a minute, like one who claims that ahem’s true loyalties are not to the US. If so, to which “country”, or nation, would that be?
“We (U.S.) have a long fuse,
but at the end of the day it’s
attatched to a big-ass bomb.”
Dennis Miller
Preemptive = prepared. Orwellian much?
Outcomes of what, in particular? Some imagined, hypothetical, future Iranian attack of some kind on an unknown target? Like I said.
I think it’s important to rebuke some people when they forget what makes us decent human beings and America a great country. Hint, it’s not big bombs.
Sorry, I didn’t know you were Iranian. That’s what I get for assuming.
Obligatory insult. Check. What to do? Oh, yeah:
I know you are, but what am I?
Hah!
I was reading Ace or Blackfive, can’t remember & this David showed up & got chased off yesterday.
And, by the way, does this mean if nothing significant happens on 8/22, you people will stop agitating for another catastrophic military adventure doomed to failure at its conception? Please?
David, on the off-chance that you’re sincere and not simply trolling to pass the time, I’ll try to answer that question, or at least the variant of it that’s a little less akin to “Have you stopped beating your wife?” – If on August 22nd, or at some other point in the future when a threat is considered real enough to bring to the forefront, and then nothing comes of it, will such threats no longer be discussed seriously?
The short answer is no. The reason should be obvious: no one can predict the future; we all just do our best from one day to the next to anticipate threats and opportunities, accentuate our threats, and eliminate, reduce, or at least compensate for our weaknesses (which is known in the business world as SWOT analysis).
If we only discuss strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities, then how are we ever to address threats? You will admit that threats do exist, won’t you? As human beings who don’t want threats to become destructive and even deadly realities, we must be aware of them. How can that happen without discussion and debate?
I recognize and acknowledge that you are not suggesting any sort of involuntary free-speech curtailment, but rather a sort of voluntary self-censoring, so don’t take this as me accusing you of being a fascist or anything like that. But my question back to you is, what do you see as a positive outcome of such self-censorship? Who would benefit? Who might be harmed? Who is harmed by not self-censoring on this topic?
I ask these questions seriously, not as a “gotcha”, and I would appreciate a sincere and substantive response.
Uhhh, that should say “accentuate our strengths”.
Oops?
I find it bizarre this confusion of personal bravery and the typing of belligerent remarks. On the contrary, your shrill support for “blow them up first” plans are a direct result of your personal cowardice. My threshold for asking others to place themselves in harm’s way and endangering (and taking) the lives of perfect strangers is much higher than yours, which is attributable to your paralyzing (except for your typing) fears.
.
Therefore, in your Bizarro world, we should cease all discussion about pre-emptive strikes and any talk about possible responses to a hypothetical islamic ‘first strike’.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the modern protectors of Correct Political Speech.
God help us.
Maybe people not throwiing around stupid crap like this:
and having JG reprint it approvingly.
David,
So I take it that your solution is to wait. Until when? Until Iran has nukes? Until Tel Aviv is a smoking crater? Until Iran controls most of the mid east through threats and nuclear intimidation? Until Iran touches off a nuclear arms race in the mid east that is doomed to end in horror? Until the whole world is thrown into an economic depression by Tehran’s destibilizing antics? Until New York is a smoking crater? Chicago, LA, Houston? When can we stop waiting and address the threat that is right in front of our faces? Why ask those questions though huh Dave? Why indeed when you can just stand on the sidelines stroking your ego and preening in your moral vanity.
Your a moral coward my friend. An intellectual lightweight clutching to his percieved grand intellect and superior morality like a drunk clutching his last bottle of wine. Unwilling to loosen his grip lest one of the other bums take it from him, allowing sobriety and thus reality to insinuate its way into his mind, blasting apart his fantasy world and leaving him soiled, cold and painfully aware of who and what he really is. Your day is coming David. One of these days a lot of people are going to die because fools like you made it impossible for good people to fight evil. The only question is when that day comes will you be able to accept your place in history or will you sink deeper into the moral depravity abyss that you currently call home?
I just checked boxofficemojo, and the House Season 2 DVD is set to comeout on that day, so if you were waiting, you might want to try and grab the episodes off of the torrent sites, cuz you may not be able to see them.
Just doing my part.
Thrilled I am that you aren’t in my Chain of Command.
Sorry, but going to dangerous places, killing people, breaking things, and possibly dying in the process was part of the job description when we signed up.
And somehow you manage to preen over being risk-averse?
May the Lord save me from self-righteous fools overly concerned with my safty. My training will take care of the bullets, rockets and mortars.
Getting a little ahead of the intelligence there, aren’t you. Oh, that’s right, reality is not scary enough for you to maintain the required fear level to mindlessly send our kids out to kill the strangers.
I presume waiting = not blowing people up.
Blah, blah, blah.
david
What would you do if you were the POTUS now, regarding this threat from Iran? In addition, would you allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons? Why or why not?
What kind of completely clueless retard comes on a political blog, a place where people gather for the express purpose of discussing FUTURE POSSIBLE OUTCOMES OF CURRENT POLICIES AND DECISIONS, and makes a mind-numbingly idiotic statement like that. David has out dumbassed actus in my book. I am going to have to stop and think about that for a bit.
Who else is unsurprised that David characterizes Soldiers at “perfect strangers?”
I have the distinct impression that he’s never so much as met one of us, let alone known one as a friend.
David is nothing more than a less-pithy version of actus, i.e. deserving of our inattention.
BTW, for the record, I think Iran’s “August Surprise” will be a nuclear weapons test, not a strike.
Screw the intelligence, these maniacs announce what they intend to do to any that will listen!
Have you heard of Mein Kampf? See any irony?
I’m sure you don’t.
Dumb and dumber. When it’s all over, and millions are dead, little blankie-clutchers like Davey will cry, “how did we let this happen?”
Don’t be too hard on David, his perspective has historic roots.
I beleive NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN had the same attitude towards outside threats to his country. And we all know how well that turned out.
Dave: You’re not able to make fine distinctions. Your brain isn’t working. Knock it against the wall a couple of times. Maybe that’ll fix it. If not, I’ve got some extra AA batteries.
There’s a quantum difference between making a move strategically and with tempo to avert a major humanitarian catastrophe–say, the annihilation of Israel–and the malicious offensive destruction of innocent people for the fun of it. That would be what Hezbollah is currently doing. I’d call it genocide, but– Hey, what the hell, I will call it genocide.
Face it, you’re used to being banned by Jane and Kos. They’re positive stalinists when it comes to free speech. Ask Joe Lieberman.
And I’m not Jewish, if that’s what you’re alluding to. But I’ll gladly convert in your honor.
What kind of person goes trolling? I have a theory: deeply hostile assholes. Think of it, Dave. Why would you bother to force yourself on a room full of complete strangers just in order to sit around in a butterfly chair, drinking your host’s booze and bitching about the cable reception and the conversation and the guests? You wouldn’t do that unless you were a deeply hostile asshole. You can leave any time you want to. Besides, the light of your moral purity is melting the ice in my drink.
But first, get me a juice box. Bitch.
What threat? A current threat to the US? Doesn’t exist.
David,
I am going to go out and share a limb with the other poster “Citizen Journalist” and engage based on the premise that you’re actually interested in discussion and not drive-by trolling.
We can neither rule out the possibility of Something Bad Happening on 8/22 nor can we assume that something will happen. We just don’t know at this point. So the question at hand is how we deal with this manifestly stark uncertainty.
Would it be safe to say that you would be willing to wait until some sort of Sufficiently Scary Thing happens before responding?
Would you advocate not acting preemptively given that the Sufficiently Scary Thing may (in this or other instances) be a mass-casualty WMD attack?
For my part, I would consider the discussion of actions to be taken or avoided in anticipation of whatever (potentially insignificant) events the 22nd holds for us. And in that discussion, it is incumbent upon us to actually explore the realm of possible solutions in a rigorous and intellectually honest answer. So, in keeping with that, I would like to know what you think.
BRD
Former marine. Nephew in Fallujah.
You ignored the second part of the question entirely. As to your assertion that they haven’t made a threat, I refer you to this.
Care to take another crack at both my questions? Or would you rather just continue on as you are?
I mean, we are just talking here, right David?
Maybe that’s because you are clueless. Will you type an equally strident admission of error September 1? I imagine not.
“What threat? A current threat to the US? Doesn’t exist.”
So we shouldn’t take Iran’s president and 30 years of history at face value?
I see, nothing to see here, move along.
TW: take, as sit back and take it infidels..
This would be a good time to find the 11 href=”http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/07/national/main1873057.shtml” target=”_blank”>Egyptian college students</a> that have gone missing in our country.
Like I said…
An example of why people like David should simply be ridiculed twice and then ignored. He writes:
From my post:
And:
Couple his willful omission of my having set up the very conditions he presumably requires—intelligence sources that are leaning toward one particular reading of the temperature in Iran—with his “sending the kids” meme (we have a voluntary army, David, and they are more adult than you’ll ever be by the time they’ve finished basic), and you can see his obfuscation, goal post moving, and utter insincerity.
This is not a discussion with him. It’s a game of burnishing his moral bona fides before a crowd of people he assumes has blood dripping from their fangs.
Note to David re the chickenhawk trope you keep obliquely trotting out: many of the readers here are active duty or have served in the military.
They don’t need your protection; you need theirs.
Remember that.
WARNING: Highly disorgnaized rant follows:
Oh, and who are these mighty jackals? France? Germany? Russia – who cannot even control her own interior? China – I’d worry more if I were Taiwan than the US. Let us keep a bit of perspective, huh? Move in for the kill? By landing troops in New York? C’mon!
Oh, and Barb, some of us are not afraid to use the word “victory”. The Task Force next to mine (Eagle) was TF Victory – that tell you our intentions? Good God I am tired to the DEATH of the whining pessimism. Iran is winning? Really?! Her proxies are getting slaughtered all over the place, her own populace is restive – Arabs, Azeris, et al. ,and she is “winning”? Hey, put down the copy of Le Monde, Speigle or the NYT…
Is Iran a threat that needs to be dealt with – HELL YEAH. Does the “we are a doomed bunch of puds” article quoted above piss me off mightily? YES.
Is my reaction mostly to the tone and style? Probably.
Snap out of it Barb. Losing would be living in Fortress America, ala Pat Buchanan, and telling oursleves its OK. Or following the John Kerry “plan” and run away from everything and wait for the UN or the EU to tell us what we can and cannot do, per the “international test”. The initiative is ours, our enemies are dying like flies and lashing out as hard as they can because they see the writing on the wall.
If you were an Iranian leader would you feel safe and happy right now – or would you rather be back in the pre-9/11/2001 situation?
Gah, I am afraid I am too upset to argue this out in an organized fashion right now – I’ll check back when perhaps I can.
You might consider e-mailing your nephew to find out what’s really going on.
Yikes. Eqyptian students
I’m sorry, David. I don’t believe for one minute that you’ve ever been a marine.
I thought it was moot after the first answer.
…pile of crap. You trying to figure a way to foil Dr. Evil’s plans to blow up the world, too?
A marine wouldn’t post under a fake email.
David,
Out of curiosity, what was your Occupational Speciality and when were you in? In my discussions with Marines I’ve seen a fairly broad spectrum of people (in most respects), and have found many of the discussions to be quite interesting.
BRD
I guess you’re pretty much a dick, then. Shock.
Why would it be. I’ll repeat it since many are talking to you at once.
If you were the POTUS would you allow Iran to acquire nukes? Why or why not?
These questions are relevant regardless of the other issue, as Iran is trying to acquire nukes.
Maybe you should take a breath, because so far I have been nothing but civil to you. I am trying to determine what the source of this allegation is, and so far no luck. Can anyone help? Where is Barb getting this from?
I don’t believe for one minute that you’ve ever been a marine.
In a fantasy, perhaps?
Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
A former Marine that doesn’t believe in contingency planning?
Riiiight.
Yes. David has a very active imagination.
So “what are the stakes” is not to broad anymore? You have suddenly been enlightened that there is no threat at all? I guess it would be too much bother for you to rationally explain why people threatening to kill us isn’t really a threat at all?
Heh. This may be so, but I’m trying to source the claim from the article. Any idea where she is getting this from?
David strolls back in here, drops trou, and deposits this steaming turd on Jeff’s carpet:
and you guys want to engage this guy in a discussion?
OK.
Me too.
David, have you been reading the speeches and pronouncements of one Mr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? He’s got some fairly well-defined plans and thoughts about the future of the middle east, and indeed, the rest of the world. Do you simply ignore his quite formal remarks and plans or do you take account of them and develop a contingency plan in the event that he might actually be serious?
Pablo, you must be the special one around here. I think it’s nice you’ve found a place you are comfortable and accepted. Now go back and read what we’re talking about and get a clue, we’ll wait.
So, should I take it, David, that you don’t want to answer my questions re: Iran and nukes?
David – actus without the manners?
Don’t hold out great hope for substantive answers, I am afraid our host may have already accurately predicted the course of this “dialogue”.
I am interested in some answers too, DG.
BTW – AFKAF, Air Force at Khandahar Air Field by chance?
I still call bullshit on you being a marine. You don’t sound like any marine I’ve heard recently. It’s a simple enough matter to settle. BRD asked you a civilized question. The answer is simple and doesn’t violate your anonymity.
You guys keep talking about planning. Why is that? No one disputes planning. It’s the preemptive bombing crap that is the issue.
Now that’s stupid, crazy stuff. What’s JG’s comment?
Passive as it may be, I read that as approval. Of bombing. Now what were you saying about planning?
David,
Given your spotty responsiveness, I suppose that expecting a response to a question from you at this point is so much wishful thinking, but nonetheless, debate, democracy and all that.
Your responses seem to imply that you do not think that a premptive strike of any sort in response to or based on recent Iranian declarations is unjustified at this point. Is this correct?
If this is the case, what course of action would you recommend that the US take in response to Iran’s development of a nuclear program?
Thanks,
BRD
So any planning is OK, so long as it’s not planning to do anything about it? Or are only some options totally beyond the pale? If so, what are those things, and why?
Because once we know what you refuse to consider, we’ll know the extent to take you seriously.
My MOS was ground electronic warfare, I fixed radios. PI to 29 palms to albany to lejeune and out. 85-89.
To All:
As far as it goes, there are some serious merits to the case for not striking pre-emptively. Granted, I haven’t seen any of those cases made beyond vitriol, bile, and tantrums.
Would it be worth it for the civilized and adult among us to further that debate?
BRD
Like I said, you guys keep confusing planning and bombing. Should we link to a dictionary?
BRD:
A battle group or four in the gulf wouldn’t be a bad idea… and submarines, lots and lots of submarines… and drills on the east of west boarders of Iran… lots of drills…
Give me a break, man. There’s, like, 10 of you.
David,
To let you in on a little secret, one of the great techniques of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy is Pundit Mitosis. It’s how we spawn.
BRD
David: Thanks.
Seems to me you’re the one getting confused over the distinction between words and deeds.
Jon,
I suspect that putting assets in theater, including staging of aircraft in Diego Garcia and in the Gulf will probably be one of more liekly scenarios. It gives the sabre rattling effect while preserving strike options if everything goes pear-shaped.
BRD
Yes.
short version:Take advantage of the great time lead we have to continue economic pressure while enticing Iranian moderates. Repair int’l relations to solidify support for keeping up the pressure. Engage Iranian leadership and allow for a resolution whereby they eventually save face while capitulating. Realize preemptively turning Iran into parking lot is not an option. Goals for a start.
Oh, and David/david—if you want a calm, respectful discussion, it’s important not to begin it with crap like this:
Don’t get pissed that people responded to you in the same tone you opened with.
TW: You’ll get better results that way.
You walked in here of your own accord, Marine.
So, you advocate the US say things? About bombing? Not actually do anything? Huh?
Interesting take from commenter @ Belmont Club.
rattlergator said….
If you are willing to be patient, and unconcerned about being tagged as a hack or simpleton for agreeing with the “stay the course” mentality, it’s pretty easy to see that everything in the Central Command’s area of operations (Horn of Africa over to the Central Asia “Stans” including Pakistan) is happening at a time and place of our choosing. Including this conflict.
It appears to me the “invisible” strategy is to let this current Israel – Hezbollah thing play out (all in all, the Hezzies are doing minimal damage), let them think they’ve “won” a standoff. Why? Because Hezbollah is unknowingly providing a beautiful service for us. The “Axis of Evil” connections are being made more and more plain.
Is it the considered opinion of those on this blog that John Bolton is just doing a dance at the United Nations, taking orders from D.C. and saying “yes, sir” or “yes, ma’am”? Or, as someone ignorantly stated the other day, that Condoleezza is a moron? Or is Bolton working his end of the strategy?
This entire event is further defining the limitations of the United Nations, is it not? As well as defining the limitations of nation-states, is it not? And, thank God, it’s also making plain some of the limitations of the IDF too, is it not? They are a great fighting force, but they aren’t Superman—and their people need to know that.
We’re playing a modified game of offense in America and Israel because that’s all we can politically play right now. It’s a Latin American football (soccer) styled offense rather than a North American football styled offense. No big attack, endless probing—then counterattack.
The beauty of this modified game of offense, though, is that we are making them show their hands before they would have liked to do so. Not only are they banking on our impatience, they are further banking on the old rules carrying the day. But their propaganda is having less and less effect. We’ve previously demonstrated the ineptitude of the Taliban in Afghanistan (What proof! What proof! I can still hear that punk bitch Minister Omar shouting), and the bluster of Saddam in Iraq (his end is no doubt near). And although those who secretly hoped for American failure are still pimping for civil war, the Iraqi government is about to start dropping a hammer and enforcing discipline in an Arab kind of way. The absurdity of bitching about Abu Ghraib is about to be made quite clear. And now, finally, we start to zero in on the head of the snake. Not Iran, but Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs.
Keep on probing, boys. Shoot. Move. Communicate. Advance.
These Iranians think they’re being so very smart but it’s not Iraq that’s going to be under threat of partitioning, it’s Iran.
The end game is to allow the true center of Shiism (Najaf, Iraq) to regain its central status and to dethrone the mad mullahs of Iran. Only then can the various strains of Islam come to some modern accommodation with one another and the death cults marginalized.
At least, that’s the way this hack sees it.
8/08/2006 06:50:49 AM
tw: less maybe less is more.
Shorter version: Nothing of that will actually work. Iran will get the bomb. Iran will use it to blackmail the west. Western economies will tank. Iran will then pass nukes on to terror groups. Terror groups will detonate in Isreal and/or US.
Global nuclear war. World returns to dark ages. Millions dead.
Gee Dave, thanks for all your help.
And if the planning calls for pre-emptive attacks, I suppose you would call that a bad plan, eh? I assume that you simply don’t see the the little gap in your thinking.
Eh? Which gap? The one where contingency planning and pre-emptive strikes are mutually exclusive.
TW: I suggest that you study military history, with emphasis situations where commanders willfully turned a blind eye towards obvious courses of action.
David,
I think the broader distinction being made is one of “taking options off the table”. For example, at no point has the US ever adopted a “No First Use” policy regarding nuclear weapons. During the Cold War we gamed out and planned for any one of a number of contingencies that went from tactical use of nukes all the way up to and including full scale strategic nuclear warfare. In many respects the fundamental deterrence architecture was reliant on both the US and USSR understanding that they themselves and their opposite numbers were willing and able to use nuclear weapons. To that extent, a “No First Use” policy undermined deterrence, making warfare incrementally more likely.
In this same spirit then, I think that while folks have considered preemption as a strategy in Iran, the deeper underlying question is whether or not a deterrence structure vis a vis Iran is stable, given our possible inclination to rule out a large number of options, or more importantly, whether or not Iran percieves the US to have ruled out options. It is in this environment that we consider the possibility of a pre-emptive strike.
Or, to turn this around another way in the context of your suggestions, given the relative lack of success we have had in political-economic measures in the cases of North Korea, Iraq, and Cuba, will such a portfolio of options produce desirable results, and how willing are we for our efforts to fail?
BRD
David says:
Great lead time? So I assume you’re putting a lot more faith in the “five years away” assessment, and less in the “two weeks away” assessment. That’s fine, as assumptions go, though Jeff’s premise at the top is
So, while allowing that soft diplomacy is a fine option for the five-year timeframe (setting aside, for the sake of argument, Iran’s co-opting of our potential partners), what actions should we consider if it turns out that Iran is a real threat in the immediate to short term?
In other words, you’d do nothing at all.
Point by point:
the great time lead we have
Is that lead time in weeks, months, or years?
crontinue economic pressue while enticing Iranian moderates
IE, the Clinton policy. A policy that has not only failed, but been used by the mullahs for their own advantage.
Repair int’l relations to solidify support for keeping up the pressure.
Relations with who? Russia? France? China? They all sell Iran weapons, equipment, and Security Council votes in exchange for sweetheart deals for Iranian oil.
Engage Iranian leadership and allow for a resolution whereby they eventually save face while capitulating.
In other words, appease them and strengthen them. Hand them a victory rather than forcing them into a defeat (which would weaken them, and possibly give moderates a chance to remove them).
Realize preemptively turning Iran into parking lot is not an option.
Is any use of force off the table, or just the nuclear carpet bombing? I have a feeling you mean the former while couching it in colorful terms. If so, then what you’re saying is we should make it clear they needn’t take on a defensive posture, but can remain on the offensive.
If you don’t mean that all use of force is off the table, then I’d recommend being clear about that.
BTW—most of what you want to see done has been done. And hasn’t worked. The whole “deal with their leaders and try to let them save face” mindset was what led to Albright’s little dance in Pyongyang and to a nuclear-armed North Korea.
David, I see that you’ve responded with a plan of action. It sounds a lot like what the Bush Administration has been trying to do for 3-4 years now with little to no obvious success. How do you address concerns many have expressed, including Bernard Lewis of Princeton University, that the current regime in Iran is millenialist and not amenable to the inducements you propose? In other words, what if you are dealing with folks like David Koresh with visions of end times grandeur and a “can’t lose” mindset (if they get killed they go immediately to paradise, if they kill the infidels, they rule the world in preparation of the return of the 13th Imam)? Does that change your calculus at all? I’m just wondering.
Major John: One of the biggest regrets of my life is that I did not volunteer for service in the armed forces when I was young enough to do so. So, no, “AFKAF” isn’t an acronym representing a tour abroad. It’s “Artist Formerly Known As Fred” which is significantly less impressive. And by the way? Thanks for your service in keeping me and my family safe. I appreciate it.
I’m not complaining, but y’all need to have patience.
So, you don’t think it takes a disturbed (or at least abnormally calloused) mind to so casually dismiss the entire sum of human civilization that has fortunately brought us to the point where the pressure to reach diplomatic accords is intense? To opine that things should be otherwise is just sick and fortunately very rare (except, apparently, on this website).
David: I’d be interesting to know how you came to be a marine, yet hold the attitudes you do.
>>Former marine. Nephew in Fallujah.
I call bulls**t. Or David’s the first Marine to ever refer to himself as such in polite company. Once a Marine, always a Marine.
Semper Fi.
Worked so well with Maddie Albright and North Korea, right?
What’s that definition of insanity again?
One might argue that history actually teaches that this impulse to “reach diplomatic accords” can have disasterous consequences (c.f. Munich and Chamberlain, Neville) when actions might have been taken in lieu of more diplomatic jaw-jaw that would have saved millions of lives.
And why with the insults when so many here have, quite uncharacteristically, I might add; engaged you in civil discussion?
I’m going to look under Deb Frisch’s bed for :
11 Egyptian students:
1. IBRAHIM, EL SAYED AHMED ELSAYED; DOB OF 4/29/1986, PASSPORT 954757
2. EL DESSOUKI, ESLAM IBRAHIM MOHAMED; DOB OF 02/21/1985, PASSPORT 1002756
3. EL BAHNASAWI, ALAA ABD EL FATTAH ALI; DOB OF 04/02/1986, PASSPORT 934679
4. ABD ALLA, MOHAMED RAGAB MOHAMED; DOB OF 02/15/1984, PASSPORT 860972
5. EL LAKET, AHMED REFAAT SAAD EL MOGHAZI; DOB OF 09/01/1986, PASSPORT 943306
6. EL ELA, AHMED MOHAMED MOHAMED ABOU; DOB OF 02/02/1985, PASSPORT 595081
7. EL MOGHAZY, MOHAMED IBRAHIM ELSAYED; DOB OF 08/08/1986, PASSPORT 861073
8. ABDOU, EBRAHIM MABROUK MOUSTAFA; DOB OF 02/25/1984, PASSPORT 828682
9. EL GAFARY, MOUSTAFA WAGDY MOUSTAFA; DOB OF 07/01/1988, PASSPORT 861673
10. MARAY, MOHAMED SALEH AHMED; DOB OF 09/12/1985, PASSPORT 862634
11. EL SHENAWY, MOHAMED IBRAHIM FOUAAD; DOB OF 08/12/1988, PASSPORT 862534
Your premise is flawed.
History has taught me that civilization is exceedingly fragile. That when the barbarians threaten it—in the terms the mullahs are using, and particularly with the means they are trying to acquire—it is necessary to destroy the barbarians utterly. Anything less—trying to reach a “win/win” with the barbarians, for example—is the road to Munich.
And you can take that to mean Munich as in Chamberlain, or Munich as in the Olympics. Either one is a prime example of letting the barbarians manipulate the civilized into passivity.
Diplomacy doesn’t work when one side wants war. No number of treaties, promises, or summits could have stopped Napoleon, or Hitler, or the Imperial Japanese—they all wanted war, and would gladly use the negotiating table to paralyze their enemies.
Do the mullahs want war? They say they do. Why shouldn’t we believe them?