In response to Captain Ed’s post on Iran’s “smoking guns” (linked in my earlier piece), Glenn Reynolds writes:
[Iran’s involvement with the insurgency in Iraq] has been obvious for a long time anyway, and I don’t understand why the Bush Administration has been so slow to respond. Nor do I think that high-profile diplomacy, or an invasion, is an appropriate response. We should be responding quietly, killing radical mullahs and iranian atomic scientists, supporting the simmering insurgencies within Iran, putting the mullahs’ expat business interests out of business, etc. Basically, stepping on the Iranians’ toes hard enough to make them reconsider their not-so-covert war against us in Iraq. And we should have been doing this since the summer 2003. But as far as I can tell, we’ve done nothing along these lines.
[my emphasis].
Notice, if you will, the modifiers Reynolds employs. Killing radical mullahs and Iranian atomic scientists. Certainly one reasonable course of action, if your goal is to beat back an enemy actively supplying an insurgency that is targeting your troops while they simultaneously vie for control over the entire middle east by way of bringing nuclear weapons online.
Reasonable, that is, unless you are so pumped up on insufferable piety that any violent (read: military) action taken against Iran—or against enemies of any kind who refuse to wear insignia, it seems— is de facto a war crime, and needs to be shouted down for its “extremism” and “barbarism.” Else, how can you burnish your “conservative libertarian” bona fides?
Which brings us, of course, to Glenn Greenwald(s).
Modeling his self-righteous schtick after Andrew Sullivan’s lucrative brand of hyper-moralist hysteria and what he expects us to believe is “sensible” conservative libertarianism, Greenwald(s)—whose penchant for sweeping generalization is only ever balanced by the strutting self-righteousness of his calculated personal attacks—takes issue with Reynold’s position, reducing it (as is Greenwald’s(’s) wont) to a cartoon, then lamely attemps to color it in with big bold strokes of his mighty moralist crayon (which, rumor has it, was once used by Ted Kennedy to doodle a picture of a Hooter’s waitress on the Senate floor!)
In Greenwald’s(’s) world, targeting nuclear scientists operating in violation of international law, or targeting mullahs agitating for the destruction of the west and Israel, is not a pragmatic proposition, offered as a way to avoid a larger regional conflagration, or an all out war. Instead, it becomes the front end of that slippery slope upon which Greenwald(s) is ubiquitously perched, a Sisyphusian figure doomed by the Reichsführer* Bush to scold us for all eternity, even while we ignore his blistering rectitude:
If we are to be a country that now sends death squads into nations with whom we are not at war to slaughter civilians—scientists and religious figures—what don’t we do? American credibility in the world has fallen to literally unimaginable depths over the last six years, but it is critical to remember that with a President never to face the electorate again, many Bush supporters—and certainly the White House itself—are headed in the direction of increasingly extremist and bloodthirsty measures. And it is hard to overstate what a complete disregard they have—really an intense contempt—for the values that have long defined this country.
Those values being, of course, the necessity of waiting for your enemies to draw first blood, so that, wounded, you can at least claim the moral high ground.
Which has worked really well since 911.
Of course, the elephant in the room here is that Iran has been at war with us since 1979. And they are of course involved in the insurgency in Iraq—though Greenwald accuses Reynolds of believing so “blindly” (presumably, the link Reynolds offers is insignificant enough for Greenwald(s) to dismiss the accusation “blindly”—but hey, he’s on the side of the angels!).
Further it is both dishonest and absurd to characterize radical mullahs and nuclear scientists working on creating the weapons that could change the entire balance of power in the middle east as mere “civilians” who we wish to “slaughter.” Ask yourself: why is Greenwald(s) so dedicated to bracketing out Reynold’s modifiers by the time his Jeremiad reaches its signature, predictable whine? Is it because “radical” mullahs and Iranian “nuclear” scientists are legitimate threats to the US—and many people not hungry for full-scale war might find something less than “extremism” or “barbarism” in Reynold’s position?
Now, I don’t happen to agree with Reynolds on this. But that doesn’t mean I find the suggestion irrational or repugnant—just, from a contemporary political standpoint, unworkable.
What I do find repugnant, however, is people like Greenwald(s) who hide their immense contempt for “the values of this country” behind pieties and outrage offered in bad faith, a rhetorical position intended to keep those who are trying to puzzle through difficult issues on the defensive, making them endlessly “prove” they aren’t “rogue” elements in the war against Islamism. And for all of Greenwald’s(’s) constant carping about how Bush supporters “routinely” label the loyal opposition “traitors,” he is fairly quick to insist that those who float the idea of covert warfare tactics are somehow hostile to individual liberty, freedom, representative government, and rule of law.
In an update, Reynolds responds—though not directly to Greenwald(s):
Meanwhile, outrage on behalf of Iran is analyzed here. And some of those who are outraged say it’s terrible to attack “religious figures and scientists.” But wait—wasn’t the left calling American bomb builders “mass murderers?” And the mullahs hardly deserve immunity for their actions because those actions are cloaked in religion. Certainly few on the left would extend such immunity to Christian religious figures who acted in the same fashion. But to be clear, I think it’s perfectly fine to kill people who are working on atomic bombs for countries—like Iran—that have already said that they want to use those bombs against America and its allies, and I think that those who feel otherwise are idiots, and in absolutely no position to strike moral poses. We may wind up doing so via airstrikes, but it would be better to do it in a more selective manner.
Unusually forceful diction for Professor Reynolds—though in his defense, you really have to shout to be heard all the way down in Brazil.
(h/t Rusty)
****
More here.
That’s the closest I’ve seen the good professor come to “Jane, you ignorant slut!” in a very long time. Good for him! It’s nice to know that his blood occasionally boils, too.
Great post, Jeff. A close reading of just about any Greenwald post reveals similarly dodgy use of language.
But then, he performs ventriloquism on himself, so . . .
Sigh. The old “politics ends at the water’s edge” adage has never been less true. The solispsistic calculus of the modern American left dictates that Bush, Republicans, and anyone who agrees with them must be treated as a greater threat than foreign fascists who are actually killing our soldiers, developing nukes, and promising to use them to wipe out Israel.
But hey, it’s not like Iranian nuclear weapons researchers and mullahs exhorting the masses to murder are doing anything really bad, like hunting whales, that would justify threatening their lives.
But if Ayatollah Khomeini were to put a fatwa on Shamu? Well then, it would be on.
Yes, it is unusual for Reynolds to break a sweat about anything requiring a modicum of passion. But, he, and others find their voices rising a few octaves when their nuts are being squeezed. Too many of his sacred cows are poised, helplessly exposing their soft underbellies to the meat-packers blade
for him to wax smugly in his porcine stature any longer, and it’s pissing him off. Perhaps he should take his own medicine. Heh.
I’ve felt the Iran issue gaining prominence over the past few days, and on Sunday I remarked over at Althouse:
Iran is going to be a major issue in the upcoming election. It’s a security issue, so as long as it’s being talked about, Republicans will benefit.
And since nutroots won’t want it talked about, anyone who raises the subject will naturally be subject to mean-spirited ridicule. Nutroots will minimize the threat posed by Iran and make excuses for the Iranian terrorists killing Americans and Iraqis. They will continue to cozy up to Iran the way John Kerry has. Anyone who tries to raise the Iran issue will be accused of wanting a full-blown conventional war.
1: Does that seem like a reasonable expectation of how this issue will be discussed for the next two years?
2: Do you think President Bush has deliberately avoided addressing the Iran issue because he wants it to fester until it’s useful in the upcoming presidential race? Is he allowing Iranian agents more slack to kill American troops for political benefit?
Greenwald sounds a lot like alphie, GW alarmists, Amanda, and so on. Can’t we just understand him?
I find it interesting that the mullahs are civilian religious figures when they’re shot at, while in point of fact, one should expect to find religious figures in the political-military chain of command in a theocracy.
As far as Glen’s broader comment:
I have to admit being more than a bit perplexed by hearing this sentiment in light of the tactics employed and endorsed by Sherman and Lincoln in the Civil War. Or, by Le May, and FDR/Truman.
And I shudder to think of how he would have viewed the brinkmanship of McNamara and Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis – a conflict, which, by the way, was later estimated by JFK as having 1 in 3 odds of metastasizing in to a full-scale nuclear exchange.
Out of curiosity, I clicked over to Glen’s article. There’s too much concentrated smug stupidity to tackle all at once, but even the quotes of Lincoln he cites in his article are selectively highlighted to avoid drawing attention to key phrases such as “by any captor” which add significant depth to the discussion.
Gah….
TW: It’s as if there is real, consequential history of anything prior to ’85.
I figure he is trying to get a gig at SadlyNo!
Does that really mean something to you, cleo?
Don’t we have, like, spies to do that shit for us? Or did we get rid of them all in the “peace dividend” days of the early ‘90s? Can Valerie Plame take care of it?
PLEASE GLENN I’M BEGGING YOU TO LINK TO ME, EVER SINCE I GAVE PW OVER TO MY MONKEY BOYS OUR TRAFFIC HAS GONE TO SHIT.
I’m beginning to suspect that cleo is a sockpuppet with a biography.
Of course I guess we can forget those on the left screaming that one of the real enemies of the US… Iran, was going unpunished while we are in Iraq. Funny that Glenn is already prepping himself & legions for a pre-emptive attack on the reasons behind defending ourselves against Iran & they automatically assume that any & all action will of course involve ground troops. Forgetting that in the Iraqi model, Israel has to bomb the nuclear sights first & then we bomb them – years later – from the air for a decade or so before the troops are actually rolled out. Maybe they do understand that the Iranians mean business, like they did w/ Saddam, but fear the political positioning that they would have to assume in order to support the troops, again, but no the war.
My guess is they realized the mistake of not attempting to undercut, outright, any show of military strength – something the Middle East not only understands, but respects/fears – while trying to build the preferred political bridges w/ their sob sisters in the EU. All-the-while still ignoring that cars are still burning every night in Paris. Its that vision of “real†peace that he wishes to have, a place where America is no better or important or stronger than anyone else & we all go down the drain together.
I also think Daryl is correct in assuming that this is also about political power, because really what else have the Democrats got? The economy is booming, unemployment is below the previous 3 decades average, the deficit is shrinking at unheard of rates – especially given we are at war – & tax revenues are the highest they have ever been, because of the well timed tax cuts. This is why healthcare is their center front position & why they’d prefer to be against the war in Iraq, but not outright shun it, yet.
The Democrats took care of that back in the 70s. You know, deserting our South Vietnamese allies, gutting the CIA.
Did a good job of it, too.
Question: does anyone else here see the irony in someone with the username “semantic leo”, who can’t put a comprehensible, coherent sentance together?
Glenn Greenwald must be beside himselves with indignation.
–
One of the most frustrating things about this sort of moral preening is that it totally skims past the fact of the role of deterrence and retaliation that underlies the effective rule of law and international relations. This sort of essentially Mosaic approach to international relations has been the most effective and reliable guarantor of peace over the last thirty millennia of organized warfare among civilized humans (although it should be noted that this history of organized warfare among primates predates the rise of mankind). The sort of allegedly New Testament ethical outlook that informs so many of these sorts of accusations is a false posture that forgets that even pacifism is not a suicide pact. Heck, for that matter, even Ghandi who is revered for his nonviolence noted in these two quotes:
“Fear has its use but cowardice has none.”
“Better far than cowardice is killing and being killed in battle.”
I admit I raised an eyebrow when I read Glenn’s suggesting for whacking mullahs and nuclear scientists. I’m afraid I do not agree with him.
However, it is an alternative to the wide-scale carnage that comes with an actual war. The Greenwalds of the world have to ask themselves what we do when attacked in a climate (such as we have now) of clandestine warfare. Do we:
A) Engage in a relatively sanitized war in which we target only the political leaders of the enemy nation, or
B) Conduct an old-fashioned above-board war in which innocents will inevitably be killed.
Of course, I suspect Greenwald would opt for
C) We absorb the blows and wring our hands while lamenting the past bad deeds (which may or may not have actually been ours) which made Them Hate Us.
I’ve often said facetiously that we should send in our crack TreacherBots, which will target only very bad guys and put them gently to sleep and send them dreams in which they’re shown how very very bad they’ve been and how much we really want to be their friends, so they’ll wake up all sorry and eager to make nice, and then we’ll buy every one ice cream and ponies and there won’t be any wars ever.
But if we had those Greenwald would only complain about brainwashing. And that the ice cream was making the ponies fat.
Cock Slap: PW has feasted on a bounty of traffic thanks to your pal Amynda Magotte
B Moe: Does that really mean something to you, cleo?
Why do you have to rag on cleo’s style? I for one am partial to mixed-meat metaphors. In fact, I will take it a step further:
This is really getting Reynolds’ goat. Too many of his sacred cows are poised, helplessly exposing their soft underbellies to the meat-packers blade for him to wax smugly in his porcine stature any longer. He’s been following Bush the chicken hawk like a sheep ever since 9/11. He’s endorsed all of Bush’s bullheaded decisions and is too stubborn to admit that we’re losing in Iraq–stubborn like a mule. That’s why Dems kicked so much ass in the midterm elections.
You can’t argue with a barnyard. That’s my motto.
Daryl,
At this point, I start to lose the plot – was it that “Four legs good, Two legs bad.” or that “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”?
BRD
What’s this “traffic” of which you speak?
You really got my goat, Daryl. I think you may know a little more about snakes in the grass and birds in the bu$h than you are letting on.
If Greenwald couldn’t play outraged moralist, what would he do with his time?
Play with his…?
Sock puppets?
Seriously–does anyone have a CLUE what Greenwald’s actual suggestions are for dealing with President Map-Wiper and the Frothing Mullahs? If there are any apart from, “You know the world would be unicorns, cotton candy, and a 24-hour Oprah channel if it weren’t for Chimpy and the Neocons violating the values of this country.”
I’d appreciate a tip on how to place the little “tm” next to the bold portion.
I think his plan is for he and Mona to bore the mullahs to death with their self-regard.
<i>
The Knackers Truck?
This can’t be good ………
<i>though in his defense, you really have to shout to be heard all the way down in Brazil.
</i>
No…not really, a SSB CB ilegally modified to above channel 40, a 100 watt kicker and the right atmospheric conditions and Brazil is as easy as it’s women. Alaska and Australia really require a shout. Not that I did anything the FCC would frown upon back in the day, but I might have proof.
I don’t get that. The CIA is a bunch of wankers that would run to the New York Times at the slightest hint of any intention we might have of attempting a covert action against Iran. Lucy. Football. Sheesh.
Elsa: It’s perfectly obvious where the pages are. He’s given them to Marcus Brody.
Professor Henry Jones: Marcus? You didn’t drag poor Marcus along did you? He’s not up to the challenge.
Walter Donovan: He sticks out like a sore thumb. We’ll find him.
Indiana Jones: The hell you will. He’s got a two day head start on you, which is more than he needs. Brody’s got friends in every town and village from here to the Sudan, he speaks a dozen languages, knows every local custom, he’ll blend in, disappear, you’ll never see him again. With any luck, he’s got the grail already.
[Cut to middle of fair in the Middle East, Marcus Brody wearing bright suit and white hat, sticking out like sore thumb]
Marcus Brody: Uhhh, does anyone here speak English?
I forgot. Nobody in the military or the CIA can speak Farsi. Or even looks dark enough.
Damn our uber-aryan nation!
Alphie, the movie quotes thread you were thinking of was at another site. Please spend your time there.
I am super-cereal. Even if you tried to have DoD run whatever covert action you might have in mind the CIA would find out about and piss themselves. And then they would call James Risen. And then we’d be all like, “Darn that Mr. Risen and that despicable New York Times. Traitorous fiends!”
But it’s cute how Reynolds now assumes that if we DID run a covert action against Iran, HE’D sure as hell know about it.
He’s assuming someone at the CIA would have leaked it to the NYT.
There are alternatives. Maybe the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) needs a covert arm. Competition for the CIA.
cleotus
It’s not as though the words
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc!
suddenly appeared on Glenn Reynolds’ site today.
Not just pretty words.
happyfeet claimed:
When did he do that, exactly?
It’s not in the posting linked, at least.
Hmm. I didn’t get that from his post—though I think it fair to say that if nuclear scientists and radical mullahs started turning up dead in bunches, the finger would probably be pointing either our way or Israel’s.
to be fair- I enjoyed the quote, Alphie.
I wouldn’t ascribe that degree of heartless calculation to even the likes of a Clinton, much less any other President. It reeks of treason.
OTOH is it possible that Bush feels constrained by the current political climate? Is it possible he wants to make the Iranians pay for their perfidy, and would like to take actions intended to save US servicemen, but knows that his ability to undertake any serious or seriously effective actions have been constrained by a politic that is hell bent on opposing anything he even suggests? Does he fell trapped by circumstances?
Hell yes.
And, for the obtuse crowd, that’s not an excuse that’s an indictment.
There is actually some truth in that. What would we have to do to win that credibility back?
That would do the trick!
Credibility = “By Allah! What won’t they do!?”
You don’t lose your towers and Pentagon with that kind of credibility.
With credibility like that, you don’t even have to go to war….
Hmmm.
@ Jeff
I think the emphasis on atomic scientists is perhaps for efficiency’s sake rather than anything else.
While bombing the living shit out of a research scientist trying to produce an improved vending machine falafel would be a significant stroke against the enemy in the War on Terror, it would perhaps be not as significant as the bombing of an atomic scientist.
Though I gotta admit man: a vending machine falafel that tasted good would be pretty damn kick-ass.
(raising hand..)
Oooh! I have a question!
Since they are saying that Mookie Sadr may have fled to Iran, NOW can we shoot him?
I mean seriously. If he’s just gonna STAND THERE in front of that IED factory, well, two stones are worth an early bird in the bush! Or something.
What I find so interesting is that even folks like Reynolds are of the opinion that Bush and Co have never really given much effort in dealing with Iran. I remember Iran along with North Korea and Iraq being mentioned as the starting three in the Axis of Evil speech a few years ago. I find it hard to believe that Bush has ignored them. In fact, it should be most disturbing to Iran that both the US and Israel are, well, pretty damn quiet about what they plan to do if Iran decides to go nuclear.
Glenn wrote:
Sorry – wasn’t digging at Glenn so much as going in Robert’s direction…
But I do think Glenn betrays an assumption that we’d see some sign of US covert activity, if only in Iran’s reactions… and anything Glenn could possibly see would be seen with exponentially more clarity by Seymour Hersh… and we’d all be making popcorn and settling in for Abu Ghraib II: This Time It’s PERSIAN.
I think everyone will hear about it if The Decider decides to go the super secret agent route.
How do you say Bay of Pigs in Farsi?
Ok. Alphie is making my point more concisely than I am. Something is wrong.
Just saw that news item myself. What a pansy!
OT: AP’s new official ”Timeline: U.S. Involvement in Iraq” starts:
that’s cause we’re learnin’ him hp….maybe someday he’ll learn enough to go somewhere they appreciate his
blithering idiocyunique talents!It’s a great point. From my experience in Intell and Counterintell, I don’t think America can keep a secret anymore.
If the leftists at the State Department don’t reveal it, Congress will.
We haven’t been able to conduct actual covert operations since the mid-eighties…..
Let’s not forget that the only reason the Bay of Pigs invasion failed was because another puss-hound Democrap President didn’t have the cojones to send the air support he promised.
Kinda like Clinton did in Somalia.
The world doesn’t reward failures of will–just ask alpee….
alphie, your brand of stupid makes my very teeth hurt…turn it back a nitch, m’kay?
How about al-Sadr running to ..Iran, of all the places to go. Now just why would he go there???
Why is GG always whining about the decline of libery, freedom, yada, yada, yada in the US from his Brazilian hideaway?
Didn’t he execute the Leftist Threat – “I’ll leave if…”?
OT: Second Blogger Quits Edwards Campaign
‘CUZ OF THE BUGGERY!
To paraphrase a classic Don Imus rant, happyfeet:
“You know those cyanide capsules you carry? Now is the time…”
Major John,
Because there’s no place like home.
Nah, couldn’t be.
While I disagree with Glenn’s opinion of what to do about Iran, I understand where he’s coming from.
I’m embarrassed to admit it, but Alphie does have a point. I wasn’t thinking Bay of Pigs myself, but of the last time we attempted a covert operation against Iran. (That’s right, I’m talking to you, Jimmy Carter)
I believe a Clancyesqe military Special Forces operation would have a better chance of success than a CIA operation, but still be too risky and frought with moral issues. Both are things that looks good on paper, literally. They come from people who see the world through the lens of a spy novel or action movie, where the good guy always wins.
The problem is that any solution we propose will be the wrong solution to the progressives. Whatever war we support will be the wrong one. “No, we should have liberated Zimbabwe…” (or Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia) will often come from the same people who complained about the international legality of our resumption of hostilities with Iraq, either without seeing the contradiction or ignoring it in their quest for further arguments. Then they’ll suggest the miraculous special forces should do the job, until someone actually proposes the covert solution, at which point the moral objections rear their ugly heads. Sanctions are good, until someone puts starving children on TV, then they’re bad.
Why have all of Iraq’s political leaders visited Tehran recently, Maj. John?
To apologize for America, mostly.
And to ask for help, of course.
We aren’t at war with Iran, remember?
By the time the West wakes up to the threat, the Rubicon will have been crossed. I’m really pessimistic about any semblance of peace five years hence.
I think you should aim your question at some Iranians and not the good Major, alphie.
You complete sack-of-shit lightweight.
Desert One. Another Democrat presidential failure.
Now go back to the other thread alfie and tell us all about the secret chinese oil holes.
Another great point, Alpee!
Nature abhors a vacuum. As it looks like America is going to cut and run, the Iraqi leaders want assurances of peace with their only Islamic neighbor with an army.
The Iraqi leaders don’t trust the filthy leftists in America either!
Don’t be so harsh on Greenwald and Sullivan. Both appear to be unfortunately under the influence of their meds which are leading to the inability to maintain consistent thinking much longer than a few hours. Sullivan’s situation appears to be more desperate than Greenwald’s, and appears likely to skate off to full blown dementia within the next several months.
Amyl nitrates, ecstasy, some cocaine and Absolut Cosmopolitans?
TW: I am person13.
I don’t follow either Glenn or Glennda, because frankly I get them confused, and when I see a quote from one or the other I have to confirm which side of the teetertotter he’s on so I can parse accordingly.
But I have been pondering this Iran situation of late; it seems that the administration is talking out of both sides of its mouth on this issue. I think I saw today that Pace is downplaying the official Iran connection in Iraq. Shouldn’t everyone be marching in lockstep? Didn’t they learn from the Iraq smashup? They’re cross-talking, and kicking the issue around like a soccer ball. Then I got to wondering, maybe this ambiguous posturing by the U.S. is a calculated ploy to manufacture confusion and uncertainty within the echelons of the Iranian government. Because it sure has me perplexed.
….And I think to myself, what a brilliant strategy! There’s no better way to undermine an intransigent bully than to rip the rug of predictability out from under his feet. Nah, too much to hope for; just more dysfunction and poor communication.
The proper term is “Reichsführer”, by the way.
Yep.
German General Doenitz said about the American Military:
“The Americans are well suited for warfare because war is chaos and the Americans practice chaos on a daily basis.”
Dönitz was an admiral, not a general.
He was also Adolf Hitler’s successor, serving as President of Germany for 23 days.
Alphie – now my molars are aching.
They went to Iran to appologize for America. OK – any proof of that startling, uh, position?
More likely to have made a threat or try to strike a bargain (“you know, those whacky Americans are about to surge…”)
So you think al-Sadr fled to Iran to appologize for American. That’s a special type of dumb.
I ate my IL ARDC card because of a fledgling lawyer troll (actus). You tempt me to flame broil my History degrees …
And retake that typing class I last had in 8th grade…
If it makes you feel any better, alphie was kind of arguing past the point of the post. Greenwald was arguing about the principle of the thing, not the practicalities. He didn’t say “If we are to be a country that now sends incompetent death squads into nations with whom we are not at war to slaughter civiliansâ€â€scientists and religious figuresâ€â€what don’t we do?”
I’m not sure I can say I’m against assassinating scientists working on weapons of mass destruction in violation of international law as a matter of principle.
alphie: you’’re fucking with us, right? i swear to god, you’re either monkyboy or you’re channeling him. i just know it.
Neither assassinations or specops raids are going to deal with the underlying problem – which is the Islamic Republic of Iran.
There goes another thread.
EVER SINCE I GAVE PW OVER TO MY MONKEY BOYS
anti-vagina bigot.
What is it with you guys and your obsession with trolls? You pounce on people like hyenas on a corpse, but it’s not always a corpse. Maybe people would honestly like to interact with you.
Thank you, Civilus, for living up to your name.
Oops, sorry that I misspelled your name, Civilis; I reverted to my Latin teachings; don’t even know which ones!
I don’t have the inclination to waste my time at GiGi’s site to see his latest pink-tutued high dudgeon.
However, I’m finding it ever so tedious that the Left continues suffers from short-term memory loss…. I’ve spent the better part of the last couple of years debating the merits of going to war to liberate Iraq and being sneered at that the US should have just sent SuperDuper Secret Agents in Black Helicopters to assassinate Saddam.
And now it’s a GiGi “tsk tsk you nasty boys you!” whine fest … with not a bit of cheese or crackers in sight.
These are NOT innocent moral mistakes. GiGi et all are moral cretins who drool to see America humiliated on the world stage and its military (which they LOATHE) crippled. Hence, when one argues “A”, they will take “B”. If one then argues “B” they’ll pretend shock and vapors and start arguing “C” or “A”.
feh
Darleen,
There’s not a solution to every problem in the world.
Sometimes you’re just checkmated.
Nobody here is offering a solution that “solves” the “problem” of Iran.
We’re just debating which empty gesture to perform.
‘K so I fucked it up and I don’t know html for an umlaut either…..
Have you heard the quote, King of History?
Or was it my imagination? Who said it then? Kesselring?
OK, cynn, since you’re not much of a troll riddle me this. If diplomacy is the preferred method of dealing with the Iranian nuke issue, why do some feel it necessary to hobble our diplomats by tearing up our “OR WE WILL KICK YOUR ASS” card? Can you explain that one to me?
Put another way, do you think there is a benefit for the Iranians to believe that we could and would make war with them if they don’t cut the crap? Or that perhaps we might start offing their atomic scientists and/or mullahs?
Also, do you think it would be a horrible idea to visit some actual death on the parliament of Iran while they are in the middle of one of their “death to America” chants?
Look, alphie. The idjits in Tehran would love to turn Israel to glass, like most of their neighbors do also. One question would be “what happens if Israel turns Tehran into glass first?” A few well placed bullets is hardly an empty gesture. Neither are a few well placed bombs of any description.
Besides, what would the Israelis lose besides the weeping and gnashing of teeth from the Useless Nations every time Israel does ANYTHING anyway, including breathing.
And do note, that the “nobody” includes yourself.
OK. If I were King for a Day I’d wait until they tested their nuke and then nuke Tehran and a couple of other large cities. Let the dead bury the dead.
Hey, we’re already a pariah nation, the world already hates us. What are they going to do? Not join out coalition of the glowing?
Parsis Delenda est.
“Problem” “Solved”
What the fuck good is a deterrent if you never use it?!
TW: of course86 the turd world would bitch, but at least they would fear us.
Alphie,
I think you’re partially right about the general sentiment of “no good options” – something that is glossed over in much of the debate (from both sides of the aisle).
Diplomacy won’t stop the Iranian nuclear program anymore than military action short of outright war to overrun the whole country. In both cases, the effect will be to slow or halt the nuclear program for some length of time at some cost. The cost/benefit analysis is the underlying point of departure for both sides in the debate.
I think one of the more unfortunate facts of the matter is that the staunch opposition to the use of force makes the use of force more likely in the end analysis, simply by eroding deterrence by making the threat of force less credible.
In either case, the problem goes back to one about the fundamental nature of war, questions about non-combatants, and surrender. This is something I wrote about long, long ago in a couple of posts, but the essential structure of the arguments are equally applicable to how one deals with the role of the state in an era of asymmetric proxy wars, such as the one with which we have been engaged with Iran.
The similarity to the cases I wrote about is that the question of who is a “lawful combatant” and who is a terrorist isn’t defined by capability, but rather intent. In the case of the Iranian nuclear program, diplomacy affects intent, while force affects both intent and capability (either through direct action or deterrence). To achieve a long lasting answer, one must ultimately address intent, but short of regime change, I cannot foresee a situation in which Iranian intent is so severely curtailed as to reduce WMD progress to zero, which brings us back to your basic point.
There are no good or complete (let alone good and complete) solutions – it’s a question of cost/benefit analysis, and any predetermination that a given option is doomed to failure (as Mr. Greenwald seems to have done) is axiomatically short sighted and counterproductive.
BRD
OK, I’ve got it. We can hire Vizzini to knock off a couple of radical Mullah’s and blame it on Syria. After all framing others to start a war is a prestigious line of work, with a long and glorious tradition.
Bears repeating…. Well put.
Defense Guy:
1) Our own government is sending the we’ll talk / we’ll kick butt rhetoric out there lately. Nothing is off the table, and everything’s under the table.
2) Yes, I thought I made that clear. I don’t think we should tip our hand either way. Hard, I know. I think I am with Darleen, above, that killing religious leaders and scientists isn’t a cost-benefit at this time, given how poorly the conservatives define those roles.
3) Don’t let me interrupt your therapeutic soak in the blood of insignificants.
Sorry BRD, I would have preferred a couple of comments to appear as buffer between your well thought out response to alphie and my moronic movie reference.
Defense Guy,
Just think of it as a buffer between your comment and Alphie’s.
BRD
Oh not true! We could withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan. Let the Islamic version of the Khmer Rouge take over and pay the dhimmi tax. For domestic policy, we’d have the federal government confiscate the commanding heights of our economy where trade unionist could riot for raises at will(Inflation? Who cares.) And after all our economic and military strength is tapped, we’d be the insignificant Euro-trash type country we’re supposed to be!
TW:picture81 it.
Diplomacy = dhimmi tax
Cynn,
Your point that the administration is keeping all options open is well taken. I don’t know if I can speak for others here, but my main concern is that much of the Democratic leadership and many opinion makers have been so vocal in their opposition to the use of force, that it makes using force much more politically difficult for the administration, and hence reduces the credibility of deterrence.
The Iranians (and pretty much anyone) can follow the tone and volume of the political debate in the US, and so should be forgiven for thinking that the US lacks the intestinal fortitude to make a deterrent threat credible (or back use of force by the current administration) – in turn, making use of force more likely in the longer term, be it next year or next administration.
BRD
cynn
Not sure I see it the same way as you, but I do appreciate that you think a parliamentary body chanting “death to x” can be classified as insignificant, or that the idea that they get themselves what they are asking for others is somehow me soaking in their blood.
I guess we all must define our enemies as we see fit. In any case, let me allow you to get back to basking in your own self righteous glow.
How old are you boy? 1979 is not just a Smashing Pumpkins song.
Iran’s involvement in Iraq, given the Shi’ites, was totally predictable. The only element of unpredictability is the extent to which the Iranians are supporting the Sunnis. Myself, I expect the Sunnis are getting support from their Sunni brothers in Syria and Saudi Arabia.
Of course this raises the issue of widening the war, a la Laos and Cambodia. I see three problems. We don’t have the manpower for anything other than aerial demonstrations, and these tend not to be terribly effective. Second, the American public is not prepared for this. Third, the world is not prepared for this.
I get a strong sense of frustration and calls for unilateralism here, but practically speaking I don’t see it happening.
Whacking a few Iranian scientists might be effective as a delaying tactic. I’d support that, but, unforunately, I was under the impression that the US can’t do assassinations. But maybe we can, who knows. One thing I would expect is that if something of that nature was going on, we would not be informed about it. I also don’t see us subcontracting that mission to Israel either, because I don’t think they could be sufficiently covert in Iran. But maybe some other ally would like to give it a shot.
Assassinating political leaders is also I think officially forbidden in the US. But another problem with assassination is that it doesn’t really solve the problem, there’s always someone else who thinks the same way to slip in. I realize assassination is a choice for many but I am skeptical of its ultimate utility. If there has been some humongous change on the basis of assassinations, I’d like to hear about it. (Of course definitions of “humongous” may vary.
We have essentially cast out lot for a Shi’ite controlled Iraq. The stability of that state presupposes that we not attack Iran. Otherwise we will lose our gains, such as they are. On the other hand Iran is supporting insurgents against us, and is working on nuclear technology. I see no quick fixes here.
The only military option that makes any sense is a sustained bombing campaign of Iran which will probably cause large human casualties. The casus belli would revolve around Iranian support for Iraqi insurgents, I doubt one can construct a legitimate casus belli just because a country is developing a nuclear weapon. I for one don’t think that’s a good option, but we’ll see what happens. No one here is in a decision making capacity, anyway.
HOW DARE YOU SOAK IN BLOOD LIKE THAT, BRD!
If we’ve been at war with Iran since 1979, why did Michael Ledeen and the other right-wing war boys sell them missiles in the 1980s, mishu?
You wonder why you get treated like a troll, plead for civility, and then have the audacity to close with that?
Mad mullahs and nuclear scientists are hardly innocents. And I seem to recall much soul searching on the left about ‘why do they hate us’ coupled with routine calls to jettison all support for Israel. Perhaps the Iranian populace needs to consider their responsibilty for the acts of their governance. Perhaps the Iranian rulers need to consider the precarious situation they are placing their populace in as well.
Either way spare me your holier than thous. Hypocrite.
Blood?
You’re soaking in it?
Madge, is that you?
Defense Guy, that was not my point. Your suggestions were over the top, admit it. Loosen up, o loyal opposition, or we shall surely go down together.
Wow…. Even suggesting defeating out mutual enemy is considered ‘over the top’ by the left.
Cynn thinks the Iranian Nuclear Mullahs are just a debate society arguing the opposing point.
Cynn, maybe that whole “death to America thing” is just playing devil’s advocate as a manuever to get some points from the debate judges….