 |
June 04, 2006Cartoons, Then and Now...It's somewhat bemusing to see various bloggers (such as Glenn Reynolds) get rather on the excited side about protests in Iran triggered by the so-called 'cockroach cartoon' (more background here). If memory serves, Glenn a few months back thought protesting over something as trivial as cartoons was pretty on the lame side. Now he routinely links to updates from the revolution-to-be in Iran from a blog-site whose proprieter seems to be, with all due apologies, a bit on the under-informed side as to what it all means. Still, it makes for a fun show, what with the innocent Pyle-like exuberances, links to often biased news sources taken as gospel, and myriad exclamation marks! The reality, of course, is that the Azeri minority in the north of Iran has long felt repressed by Teheran, and the cockroach cartoon lit a fuse of sorts. But before we start mindlessly cheerleading the protests ("Bloody clashes in Tabriz! 4 Protesters were killed in prison!" Like, cool!), we might stop a second and think about the implications some. First, while fanning the flames might seem like the right thing to do (if it's bad for the Mullahs, it's gotta be good for us!), we are currently in no position to protect any of these protestors if matters take a more violent turn. There are also regional security implications. For instance, the government in Baku is being very careful indeed not to be seen to be supporting the protestors, lest Iran potentially think about retaliatory moves to destabilize Azerbaijan. Regardless, is our next chapter in the war on terror (now that some appear to have gotten bored with the Mesopotamian bog, which appears so 2005....) now going to be about supporting Azeri, or Kurdish or Arab irredentists in northern and southern Iran and such? Glenn recently linked to this "analysis" and approvingly declared: "I think that's pretty much the strategy". To quote from all the strategerizing: Finally, Politically (…by other means…) Iran’s regime is vulnerable. They sit on an ethnically diverse populace that while a majority is Shia Persian, there is a significant, and militant, minority of Kurds in the West, and Arabs in the south (who conveniently sit on a good chunk of the country’s oil fields.) In the vein of “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter,” perhaps we should start fomenting a Kurdish nationalist revolt across Iraq’s border –as Iran seems to be just as willing to foment a Shia revolt in Iraq. The Kurds would love weapons and money to fight “the man,” and as long as we make it clear that they can’t carry out their revolution in Turkey, it would cause significant problems for the image-conscious Iranian regime. In the south, significant across-the-border Information Operation campaigns targeting the Arabs in Iran should simply say: “look across the border, where the Iraqis are getting a cut of their oil wealth –how much are you getting from your regime?” Alas, our erstwhile strategist forgot that the disgruntled Azeris also are ready to fight "the man." But perhaps this post was cobbled together before the 'cockroach riots', so that the analysis neglected to mention Iran's largest and arguably most disgruntled ethnic minority (in a post about, you know, large and disgruntled ethnic minorities in Iran). As for Iraqis enjoying the fruits of their oil wealth serving as inspiration for Iranian Arabs (the blog Glenn links to appears unawares that ethnic Arabs are only 3% of the population there) to take up arms, I feel our earnest strategist is flying a tad blind on some hard realities there as well, no? Regardless, do we want, per chance, a fourth or fifth civil war (whether low-grade or otherwise) in the region (Iraq! Afghanistan! Sudan! Hamas-Fatah! Persians vs. Azeris, and throw in the Kurds too!) Are we all good Wilsonians now, keen to ensure all Middle Eastern minorities have their own homeland? Perhaps soon we will be advocating for Turkomen and Assyrian and Baluchi homelands as well. It all smells like some form of Schumpeterian 'creative destruction', no? No one appears to have a clue where the chips would all end up falling, but full speed ahead (cue exclamation points aplenty), and if it's trouble for the Mullahs, or those god-awful Sunnis, or whomever the Bad Guys du jour are, it must be a good thing. Or something like that. Look, it's certainly true that some of Iran ethnic minorities have been feeling more emboldened of late given Iran's greater isolation in the international community. In time, a more enlightened government in Iran should be coaxed and persuaded to grant greater autonomy, linguistic rights, etcetera to some of them. But let's not conflate our noble sentiments with freedom exportation expeditions along the lines of training and equipping Azeri and Baloch and Kurdish and Arab separatists to establish Free Iran 'safe havens' or some such, whilst ferreting out the Persian Ahmad Chalabi to air-drop in and lead the disgruntled tribes to Damascus (read: Teheran). We're not watching Lawrence of Arabia re-runs here, are we? Have we learned nothing? And have we already forgotten Iraq, amidst all this breathless arm-chair banter about Iran? I like to finish a job I've started, rather than to half-ass it, move on to the next debacle, even whilst the train wreck still smolders next door. What say you? Comments
I've seen the Instapundit's gleeful reporting about Iran. Glenn Reynolds is hard to take seriously. Unfortunately his inclination to be a flag waver is too strong. He should, as he mentions he likes to, stick to using his self powered mower. Posted by: Fumanchu at June 4, 2006 02:36 PM | Permalink to this comment
Greg, I enjoy the BD blog but really wish you would not indulge your penchant for ad hominums so frequently. Glen Reynolds has never held himself out to be a specialist on foreign policy - that's why he calls himself the Instapundit with an insta-opinion. When you can match his resume in accomplishments, incomprehensible workload and varied interests [not to mention readership numbers] you can return to slamming him for lack of nuance. Save the wisecracks for Rumsfeld, who so richly deserves them. Posted by: wks at June 4, 2006 03:14 PM | Permalink to this comment
To late Greg, we moved on to Iraq way before Afghanistan was over. The Afghanistan war will rage for years until we bleed out a la USSR. Posted by: tregen at June 4, 2006 03:24 PM | Permalink to this comment
It's certainly tempting to find the people who're ready to kill and give lthem guns. That worked very well for us against the russians in afghanistan. It sows dragon seeds, but we can deal with those later, after they grow up. It's the CIA who traditionally has performed this service for us, and we say they're in disarray. But traditionally the analysits have tended to be liberals while the agents have tended to be conservatives. The traditional "rogue agent" might find himself with less supervision and more support.
My advice: stop reading Instapundit. It's a waste of time. Posted by: praktike at June 4, 2006 04:12 PM | Permalink to this comment
Contra the comments of WKS, this isn't about whether Glenn's resume is better than mine, or whether his workload (heh!) is more intense than mine. It's about the United States' role on the global stage, it's foreign policy in the Middle East, and the future of the inhabitants and nations in that region. I emailed Glenn this morning why his stance has been bugging me. I paste it below to focus the discussion, not on Glenn versus me, but on the regional and international stakes. Here it is: You've previously asked me why I disagree with you on Iran. One of the things that has bugged me for a long time is your feeling that somehow the Iraqis could be enlisted to fight Iran (how could you wish for a reprise of the bloody Iran-Iraq war?!?), or that we can gin up a revolution internally with ethnic minorities there. Your frequent linking to bloggers breathlessly relaying (without any real context) protests in Iran leaves me with the sad feeling that you are happy to cheerlead sectarian discord in Iran whatever the consequences. This could lead to a civil war that could dwarf the nascent one in Iraq. Do you not stop and think about all the lives that would be lost? In short, you are cheerleading moving on to the next thing even as we face a profound crisis in Iraq (have you seen Zeyad on the Islamic fundamentalists gaining influence in Baghdad?). What about finishing the job Glenn? Iraq, contra Amir Taheri and other dubious sources, remains a festering sore. It doesn't give me any pleasure to say this, but in my view, you've lost most of your credibility on foreign policy matters (as it relates to the Middle East). My snarky tone inevitably leads to commenters defending you and turning this into some kind of pissing match, but that was never my intent. My intent is to stave off another calamity in the Middle East, which you seem blissfully (and perilously) under-concerned about. I write all this because we've had a good relationship, all told, and you've often been generous with your links and a gentlemen with me, so I felt I owed you an explanation. But we seem to have reached a fork in the road now, so I thought I owed you at least the courtesy of showing you what I had written, again with the proviso that I'm not trying to be disrespectful to you (I will likely post this in my comments section too, for context, so commenters, as I said, don't turn this into some cheap pissing match, as one already has).... P.S. Needless to say, perhaps, we could have more seriously entertained all these regime change thoughts in Iran, perhaps, if Iraq and Afghanistan were going swimmingly. But Afghanistan is increasingly problematic, and Iraq (despite your continued optimism), has become potentially the largest strategic defeat to US interests since Vietnam. I say potentially, because there is still a chance to salvage the outcome there. But you are not helping it by always stressing the positive, in my view. As you recently quipped about an interesting post by Armed Liberal, you go to war with the political class you've got. We could subsitute, just as easily, the blogospheric authorities you've got too. For had people like you admitted that we needed more troops in Iraq (it is increasingly hard to find truly serious people who don't believe more troops would have made a real difference, even to this day) perhaps we could have built more pressure on this Administration to do so, and perhaps things in Iraq would be going better.
Greg, for a big-time DC mover and shaker, or at least for someone who's a fish in the pond, you're surprisingly vulnerable/sensitive/touchy-feely, aren't you? I'm not trying to insult you: I'm genuinely suprised at the real dissapointment and sincerity in your post about unfortunate disagreements with.. laugh.. instapundit? Where have you been, greg? Have you been paying atttention at any time! Instapundit doesn't give! a! damn! about human life! And he's not the only one. Furthermore, he has zero interest in making substantive arguments or defending them. He links to all kinds of outrageous, provocateur, rabble-rousing trash, maybe even making comments that sound supportive but maintain plausible deniability later. Either he doesn't vet his own blog for whether he actually believes in what he links to, or else he really is so intellectually shallow that his beliefs swing in the breeze with each passing argument. Either way, the man's interests are as follows: Conservative popularity. End.
Can't win - I tried to avoid snark and that's what it looks like my comments were put down to. I was not trying to start a pissing match, I was trying to point out that Glenn's blog has a completely different focus than your's. His tries to point people in the direction of what he considers overlooked perspectives or opinions, usually those that are contrary to the conventional or MSM percieved wisdom. Glenn assumes that every one of his readers has already digested the party line on not enough troops and such, and see's no reason to flog those issues.
I'm glad to see that Glasnost is against outrageous, provocateur, rabble-rousing trash, but one man's trash is another man's overlooked perspective or opinion. I just wanted to point out that the last two entries went up without knowledge of the other, but they seem to be saying the same thing, from the reality-based perspective as well as the uber-right-wing. Two sides of the same coin and all that. Posted by: wks at June 4, 2006 06:10 PM | Permalink to this comment
glasnost: don't read too much into this. first off, i am in nyc, not dc, just for the record. second glenn is a blog-pal, of sorts, although obviously our relationship has suffered these past months. he probably thinks i've become something of a snarky ass who doesn't give constructive recommendations, and i think he's grossly irresponsible with his linkage to vapid (but dangerous) foreign policy recommendations. why do i care? b/c glenn and i are fellow bloggers, and we've had dialogue, and it's only natural to check in and take the other guy's pulse here and there. and, if you can't persuade him on the merits, it can be frustrating, because it would be nice to have the guy with the most readership in your camp, so to speak, on major issues of the day. it's not much more than that, and it doesn't amount to a hill of beans (my little blog or Glenn's big one) in the grand scheme of things. hope this helps. we'll be back to normally scheduled business soon enough. Posted by: greg at June 4, 2006 06:23 PM | Permalink to this comment
Well, Greg, in this crazy world the problems of two little bloggers may not amount to a hill of beans. But this is your world, and these are your beans. On the other hand, weren't you writing just the other day that you didn't intend to respond to superficial right-wing cheerleaders any more? I forget the exact terminology you used, and as I recall you were in the midst of a lengthy post about Iraq at the time. Still, battling blogs does seem to be a time and attention-consuming activity. It must have some kind of value, otherwise you wouldn't do so much of it. I just know if I found myself burdened with a tight schedule and heavy workload I'd think about things to cut back on. Posted by: Zathras at June 4, 2006 08:02 PM | Permalink to this comment
Greg, I have followed Glenn on this. I have looked at Gateway pundit, and he seems to mainly be providing info and pics, which is good I think. I dont think those of us who are sympathetic to the notion of democratic revolution in Iran want to see Iran partitioned (any more than we - pace Joe Biden - want to see Iraq partitioned) What we WOULD like to see is a coalition between the national and religious minonorities in Iran WITH the antiregime elements among the Farsi, that would establish a new regime. We realize (as Joe Biden,more sane this time, said yesterday) that US military intervention would short circuit this process. We also realize, that we should support this process in some measure. Exactly what we should do is a reasonable subject for debate. I think, I hope, that the Rice offer, with BOTH its carrots, and its conditions, was in part a message to the Iranian people. I hope we will also support radio, TV, and other media to take our message to the people of Iran. And I hope that there are CIA folks on the ground who are working in a smart and subtle way with people inside Iran, and that this is coordinated with a work with exiles. I would hope we are NOT caught between the extremes of some rightwing blogger fantasies of ethnic war, on the one hand, and a deluded belief that the current Iranian regime is contributing to stability in the region (when it is in fact opposing stability, from Iraq to Lebanon to Palestine). Posted by: liberalhawk at June 5, 2006 03:59 PM | Permalink to this comment
"Iraq! Afghanistan! Sudan! Hamas-Fatah" Im sorry, is the civil war in Sudan somehow our fault? This is an unstable region, it has LOTS of civil wars - thats why Zbig, IIRC, called it the arc of crisis, or something like that. Afghanistan had a civil war for years BEFORE 9/11 - Sudan has had one or another ongoing civil war for years and years. As for Hamas - Fatah, if Fatah had ever cracked down on Hamas as they were supposed to under Oslo, they would have had the civil war then, under probably better circumstances. However they were NOT pressed to, and instead used Hamas, and this is the result. The point being that past policies did not stabilize this region, much less give the people of the region hope. The question now is what policies will lead to real improvement. Failing to give APPROPRIATE, and WELL PLANNED support to the people of Iran, as they wrestle with the regime, would not be such a policy, IMHO.
Greg:
Well, gosh. How is it then that Instahack almost always links to right wing opinions ? Are those the only part of the blogosphere that has opinions contrary to "convention or MSM perceived wisdom" ? Face it, Instahack is just another DailyKos, and is a reason I read both irregularly (once a month or so). They both have heavy ideological axes to grind. But Kos makes no pretense of being a libertarian or non-partisan or of posting some great nuggets of wisdom. And both link to stuff that is outright lies at times. Yes, Instahack and his flock were all over the cartoon thing a while back, explaining how it showed Islamic societies were backward, how this was standing ip for the West. Now we have the Azeris, whatever their legitmiate grievances with the Iranian government, doing exactly the same, and the great Glenn promptly links approvingly to it. And how come Instahack doesnt link much to Zeyad anymore, anyway ?
greg, you have the right to blog about whatever you want, of course. And I don't think it's morally wrong or anything for you to be friends with Glenn Reynolds, if you are, or whatever. People with different politics become friends all the time, and it's generally a good thing. I guess it just sort of seemed to me like you have been taken for a ride, or that you are keeping score in a different way than most bloggers. I don't think most bloggers would ever have had expectatations that other bloggers would fundamentally change their minds. I think bloggers occastionally change their positions on issues, but it's mostly due to political currents and the volume of the echo chamber. In short, I don't think anyone has a chance of convincing Glenn about anything unless it is already within his target range. And anything other than military triumphalism is outside his range. You seem like a very experienced and successful person from the wilderness out here - I guess it's nice to be reminded that innocence crops up at all levels of the game. Posted by: glasnost at June 6, 2006 12:52 AM | Permalink to this comment
> It's certainly tempting to find the people who're ready to kill and give lthem guns. That worked very well for us against the russians in afghanistan. I assume, J Thomas, that this is a pointed reference to the current US troubles with the so-called al Quaeda movement, including the so-called Islamic terrorists trained and armed by the CIA?
jF Wallace, our attempts in afghanistan against the russians worked very well. We cost the russian economy a lot. It helped demoralise the russian army. It contributed a lot to the eventual fall of the USSR. And it was payback for what they did to us in vietnam. And sure, we got longterm consequences from it that we'd rather not have. But you can hardly expect people to think about the long-term. It's very hard to get the results we want in the short term. So of course if iran is the enemy we want to destabilise them. Never mind about creating countries and factions that hate each other about recent history, some of them with oil and some without, and the losers try to bomb oil facilities so their enemies won't be so rich.... We could easily get a very bad result. But if you believe the only alternative is crazy religious fanatics ready to use nukes regardless that it kills them all, that doesn't seem so bad. The simple stories are psychologically compelling because they give us the excuse to act without boundaries. When you act to prevent something utterly horrible, then any result that's better than utterly horrible looks like a success. "Been down so long it looks like up to me...."
jF Wallace, our attempts in afghanistan against the russians worked very well. We cost the russian economy a lot. It helped demoralise the russian army. It contributed a lot to the eventual fall of the USSR. And it was payback for what they did to us in vietnam. And sure, we got longterm consequences from it that we'd rather not have. But you can hardly expect people to think about the long-term. It's very hard to get the results we want in the short term. So of course if iran is the enemy we want to destabilise them. Never mind about creating countries and factions that hate each other about recent history, some of them with oil and some without, and the losers try to bomb oil facilities so their enemies won't be so rich.... We could easily get a very bad result. But if you believe the only alternative is crazy religious fanatics ready to use nukes regardless that it kills them all, that doesn't seem so bad. The simple stories are psychologically compelling because they give us the excuse to act without boundaries. When you act to prevent something utterly horrible, then any result that's better than utterly horrible looks like a success. "Been down so long it looks like up to me...."
Ouch. I got impatient and waited just 2 minutes to see if it loaded. Better to come back in an hour, and repost then if it isn't there.
|
|
About Belgravia Dispatch
Gregory Djerejian, an international lawyer and business executive, comments intermittently on global politics, finance & diplomacy at this site. The views expressed herein are solely his own and do not represent those of any organization. More About the Author Email the Author Recent Entries
Lunch w/ the FT...
Robert Strange McNamara Biden on Israel/Iran Mea Culpa (Part II) Something of A Mea Culpa Search
The News
Financial Times
New York Times Wall Street Journal The Economist The Times The Spectator Daily Telegraph The New Yorker Washington Post New Criterion New Republic National Review The Atlantic The American Conservative Harpers The Week The Guardian Weekly Standard The Nation Real Clear Politics Le Figaro Le Monde El Pais Pravda The Blogs
Across the Aisle
Marc Ambinder American Footprints The American Scene Bainbridge Jack Balkin Becker-Posner Balloon Juice Steve Clemons Juan Cole The Corner Crooked Timber Cunning Realist Democracy Arsensal Daniel Drezner Washington Monthly James Fallows Glenn Greenwald Nikolas Gvosdev Huffington Post Mark Kleiman Joshua Landis Daniel Larison Marc Lynch Josh Marshall Progressive Realist Obsidian Wings George Packer Gideon Rachman Andrew Sullivan Katrina vanden Heuvel Volokh Conspiracy Steve Walt James Wolcott Matthew Yglesias Foreign Affairs Commentariat
Law & Finance
Barron's
Bloomberg Bull and Bear Wise Calculated Risk Marketwatch Contrary Investor Corporate Counsel Blog DealBreaker Deal Lawyers Blog Financial Sense Forbes Fortune Hussman Funds Bruce MacEwen Barry Ritholz Nouriel Roubini Safe Haven SCOTUS Blog Seeking Alpha The Street 10b-5 Daily Yahoo Finance Think Tanks
Security
Books
American Scholar
LRB NYRB NYT Book Review Paris Review TLS Granta Grand Street Arts & Letters Daily TNR's The Book The City
Curbed
Eater Gothamist NY Magazine NY Post NY Press New York Observer Tribeca Trib Vanishing NY Village Voice Epicurean Corner
Archives
Syndicate this site:
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|||
|
||||
