 |
August 14, 2007Wait, I Thought Our Quota for Epic Debacles Had Been Exceeded!At a news conference Thursday, Bush said Iran had been warned of unspecified consequences if it continued its alleged support for anti-American forces in Iraq. U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker had conveyed the warning in meetings with his Iranian counterpart in Baghdad, the president said. We've known for a long time that various constituencies--ranging from amateur bloggers dishing propaganda spoon-fed by the Michael Ledeen crowd, all the way to professional bureaucrats in Cheney's circle--have been falling over themselves chronicling varied misdeeds allegedly being committed by Iran in Iraq, so as to heighten calls that something be done about the Islamic Republic of Iran. And yet I think this is the first time I've seen a significant news organization reporting what I've long suspected--that should 'evidence' mount of such supposed Iranian perfidy-- there are still delusional players in this Administration (most prominently the Vice President) who would actually counsel air strikes on Iran. Call it the Cheney-Lieberman-McCain caucus (as this last grows older, his sanity has more often been deserting him, alas). Condi Rice is reportedly opposed, but if the last six years serve as any indication, we know she'll ultimately do as she's told. Bob Gates is a more interesting question, and one hopes he'd summon the honor to resign should such a catastrophic policy be pursued. As for the Decider, Cheney's spokesperson ominously notes (per the article linked above): "(T)he vice president is right where the president is." Aside from handicaping Beltway players' views of the merits of an attack on Iran, individuals opposed to a folly-infused attack on Iran must also focus on beseeching the more respected news organizations (like the New York Times, say, and by extension its reporters like Michael Gordon) to stop acting in the main as stenographers for General Odierno and other MNF sources and instead assiduously pursue original reporting on, among other issues, the precise provenance of EFPs, to include what local Iraq-based manufacturing capabilities exist and to what degree of sophistication. As David Gardner recently wrote in the FT: ...US commanders seem to have no trouble detecting the hand of Tehran everywhere. This largely evidence-free blaming of serial setbacks on Iranian forces is a bad case of denial. First, the insurgency is overwhelmingly Iraqi and Sunni, built around a new generation of jihadis created by the US invasion. Second, to the extent foreign fighters are involved these have come mostly from US-allied and Sunni Saudi Arabia, not Shia Iran. Third, the lethal roadside bombs with shaped charges that US officials have coated with a spurious veneer of sophistication to prove Iranian provenance are mostly made by Iraqi army-trained engineers – from high explosive looted from those unsecured arms dumps. [my emphasis] We have a supremely underqualified President who has repeatedly proven his capacity for strategic blundering. We have a pugnacious Vice-President who can only be described at this juncture as a dangerous man, not least as he's likely unwilling to simply fade off-stage into ignominy in an undisclosed location near Casper, Wyoming. We have other assorted national security players (Rice, Hadley, etc) who have repeatedly proven their capacity to kow-tow to higher-ups, even when pursuing grossly misguided policies, at great expense to the national interest. Given this alarming reality, I'd suggest Democratic Presidential hopefuls stop the sophomoric pissing matches about who might attack Pakistan and under what circumstances, or whether the nuclear option is on, off, under or plastered prominently atop the table, or whether Obama has a secret hankering to give Hugo a big wet kiss over cocktails in Caracas, before racing to Havana for a spot of Cohibas in Fidel's hospital room. Instead they might deign to focus on the chance that another catastrophe might occur, this time in Iran, because of this Administration's recklessness. But I digress. Let's for a second assume Iranians have assisted on occasion with the manafacture of more sophisticated EFPs, and let's further assume some U.S. personnel have died as a result. Well, I suppose you could argue this constitutes some casus belli, but let's stop kidding ourselves. There's an intricate game of cat and mouse underway. Amidst all the clamor for regime change emitting from points Washington, the Iranians aren't just going to sit back in prone position to see what the coming months might portend (it would be far different, of course, and more actionable in my view, if they were up to such trouble-making with good faith foreign minister level meetings between the two countries underway, though that would also necessitate having a capable Secretary of State in office, alas). And we all know they could be playing a far nastier game, don't we? After all, didn't they smuggle anti-tank guided missiles to Hezbollah for use against the IDF (you can be assured it would be a lot easier to get them to Iraq)? Nor, as Tony Cordesman has recently pointed out, have the Iranians smuggled in advanced MANPADS and SHORADS to JAM and other Shi'a militias, which would put our airforce pilots active over Iraq at much greater risk. Regardless, I don't recall us attacking Iran when Hezbollah bombed our Marine barracks in Beirut, say, and I'd suggest it's quite possible more Americans died in that single attack than have due to firmly proven Iranian assistance to rogue elements in Iraq, which in turn, have verifiably led directly to U.S. loss of life. To stress, aren't we constantly reminded that Hezbollah is but an arm of the dastardly Mullah's ensconced in Teheran? If true now, and so back in '82, was Reagan then a Chamberlain-like appeaser for, not only refusing to attack Iran, but also vacating Beirut whole-sale, after the attack on the Marines? Or did he perhaps instead display some realism, statecraft, sobriety and a sense of proportion (something sorely lacking in today's cretinized Washington), that the associated risks and continuing costs weren't worth the potential benefits of the deployment? (ed. note: cue assaults on my 'pre-9/11' thinking). So let us not, as proud Americans who care about the future of our country (or other concerned individuals besides), let us dare not allow again a growing drum-beat of vague allegations to gather momentum, with the attendant formation of a new consensus among group-thinking Beltway agitators whose strategic lens have proven disasterously faulty, but nonetheless still have the President's ear (mostly via Cheney), so that launching of attacks on Iran gains traction as a plausible policy option. And even if you were to be tempted by some of these gung-ho chest-beaters on the Potomac, do you genuinely believe this grossly incompetent national security team would be able to handle the potential fall-out of such an operation, given the very real possibility that Iran, in response, would (source) : • Retaliate against US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan overtly using Shahab-3 missiles armed with CBR warheads The real danger we face as this criminally incompetent Administration winds through its final days is compounding the Iraq imbroglio by a catastrophic intervention in Iran. Any American concerned about this possibility needs to remind their representatives of the possible ramifications thereto and suggest to the Democratic Presidential candidates (on the Republican side, all but Ron Paul and Chuck Hagel on the side-lines have evinced a smidgen of sanity on foreign policy matters of late) that they cease their petty internecine skirmishing (at least occasionally, if possible) and focus on the danger of the Iraq conflict spreading to Iran (it is quite clear Shi'a-U.S. relations are set to deteriorate significantly in Iraq in the coming months, adding more fuel to the fire, and margin for error leading to a wider conflagration). Meantime, all of us must demand unimpeachable evidence about Iranian activity in Iraq rather than relatively thin gruel, to include summoning journalists to, if they are capable of it at least, digging into this story as genuine truth-seekers who skeptically monitor MNF claims rather than report them as undisputed fact. We're tired of lackadaisical hoodwinking, aren't we? UPDATE: Breaking...the armed forces of countries we don't like can simply be designated foreign terrorist organizations (sorry, "specially designated global terrorist(s)"). Just like that, with some EFPs thrown in. Oh, and it might buy Condi six more months vis-a-vis mean Uncle Dick, who's clamoring for air strikes, but may be temporarily mollified by this (mostly) empty display of semiotic cojones. Regardless, #43 will look rather odd on this list.... But, B.D. tsk, tsk, you party-pooper you. 'Transformation' is in the air. Armies of sovereign states become foreign terrorist organizations, with the stroke of a pen, and reading Rudy Guiliani's sweeping Foreign Affairs manifesto (Walt Rostow meets The Sopranos, to a fashion, of which more soon), NATO should be opened to all comers, the UN more or less relegated to the ash-heap save the odd humanitarian mission, and so on. Heady times!
Comments
Cheney, who's long been skeptical of diplomacy with Iran, argued for military action if hard new evidence emerges of Iran's complicity in supporting anti-American forces in Iraq.How could this dangerous lunatic even be contemplating military action, given the degraded and overstretched state of our armed forces? We have neither the will nor the resources for sustained combat in Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran. Hell, we're having trouble fighting the two wars we now have, thanks to the hopeless incompetence, if not downright criminality of this administration. Posted by: Redhand at August 14, 2007 04:35 AM | Permalink to this comment 
Excuse me...."lackadaisical hoodwinking"? Is this a phrase with some meaning? Perhaps it loses something when translated from the French. In any event, it's probably not a good idea for us to kid ourselves about the extent of Iranian involvement with Shiite factions in Iraq. This isn't something that's generated out of the Vice President's office, unless we accept that OVP's influence is felt down at the level of, for example, the soldiers quoted here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/09/AR2007080902412.html This is a situation of puzzles within puzzles. It is not clear how much of the Iranian government is involved in support for Iraqi Shiite factions, or if different parts of the Iranian government have affiliated themselves with different factions in Iraq. It is logical to assume that Iranian thinking about involvement in Iraqi affairs is strongly influenced by factors other than the coalition presence, at least if one believes the Iranians think the coalition will leave within the next couple of years. But does that assumption require belief in a coordinated Iranian strategy? Or has Tehran, or individual agencies within the Iranian government, allowed its policy in Iraq to become reactive and client-driven, responding to importunate Shiite factions and sub-factions whose use of Iranian-supplied arms and training Tehran cannot control? The frequency with which Shiite factions are said to battle one another in the south and even in Diyala would be evidence for the latter possibility. All the same, and much as we may have cause to distrust the judgment of senior officials in the Bush administration, it is asking a lot to expect the American military in Iraq to simply ignore evidence of Iranian support for Shiite militias attacking American troops and carrying out ethnic cleansing. I am not any more anxious than Greg is to see military operations extended beyond the borders of Iraq, but I recognize as he may not that Iran bears some responsibility to prevent this from happening as well. Posted by: Zathras at August 14, 2007 04:59 AM | Permalink to this comment
Zathras:
Well, yeah, we're tired of it, but that doesn't mean we're actually going to DO anything about it -- see the Dems' FISA fiasco. As Bush pointed out the morning after his hairbreadth reelection: under the bizarre American political system, the President has virtually unlimited power to do anything he damn well pleases in military and foreign policy for 4 straight years, even if everyone but Laura, Barney and God (or His opposite number) disagrees with him.
Greg, you bought Iraq - for copious well-wrought reasons. Why not Iran? Is it the incompetence, the impracticability, the counterproductivity, the ulteriority, the illegality, or the just plain wrongness that bothers you now? (speaking as one bothered by all six - especially the last - back in 2002) Have any canonical assumptions - about the world or the place of the US within it - changed? Posted by: AlanDownunder at August 14, 2007 11:26 AM | Permalink to this comment
Meantime, all of us must demand unimpeachable evidence about Iranian activity in Iraq rather than relatively thin gruel, to include summoning journalists to, if they are capable of it at least, digging into this story as genuine truth-seekers who skeptically monitor MNF claims rather than report them as undisputed fact. We can demand all we want. Whether we get what we ask for is another question. But to even address this question, I think we need to know: 1. What, precisely, is the charge lodged by the US? (Gardner's linked article is unhelpful) 2. What are the questions that should be asked? I am also wondering whether this is a time to call for a blogswarm of the types the TPM folks have been using, to get at the question -- is Iran really at war with us in Iraq using proxies. I will help out, with two links. The first is to a powerpoint presentation the military gave, showing the evidence they had for Iranian involvement. The second is a leftist critique of the evidence, which come with a series of very good questions: http://www.iraqslogger.com/downloads/Iran_in_Iraq__English_.pdf http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=67&ItemID=12139 I imagine more has hapened since Feb 2007, but this is enough to get 'y'all started... Posted by: Appalled Moderate at August 14, 2007 03:26 PM | Permalink to this comment
One would hope that the powers-that-be realize the possibility of a closure of the Straits of Hormuz on the supply of oil to the US. Unfortunately, I doubt that Bush cares. He's perfectly willing to bring the US economy crashing down around our ears because "he's the Deciderer" and "gotta fight those terrists." I decided long time ago that if the US attacks Iran, I'm emigrating. There are certain levels of stupidity that I don't want to be anywhere near. Posted by: grumpy realist at August 14, 2007 05:54 PM | Permalink to this comment
I decided long time ago that if the US attacks Iran, I'm emigrating. There are certain levels of stupidity that I don't want to be anywhere near. Yes, but I don't think it will be so easy to do, in that event. Posted by: sglover at August 14, 2007 10:25 PM | Permalink to this comment
Greg, Do you really have hope that the Dems candidates are going to head this off? AIPAC.......that simple. AIPAC. Criticize it if does not work? (and it won't work...it will make things stunningly worse) Yes, they will knock themselves over to be the first and loudest. But come out in front it? No. And that they won't speaks volumes. You want hope to stop this? Look to the military. Though I don't put much stock in them either. But you are right...we have to try and stop this regardless of our chances for success. Posted by: jonst at August 15, 2007 12:11 AM | Permalink to this comment
The US isn't going to start a war with Iran on AIPAC's say-so. Cheney's the one who'll start the war, if there is to be one, and Cheney doesn't dance to AIPAC's piping, but to the voices in his head. And Bush, when he's not listening to his own imaginary friends, is listening to Cheney. National security concerns won't drive the war, nor events in Iraq, nor Iran's alleged nuclear weapons development program. The only thing(s) driving the Bush-Cheney Axis are their bottomless appetites for power and money. If there is going to be a war with Iran, I figure it'll start somewhere between Election Day 2008 and January 21, 2009.
If there is going to be a war with Iran, I figure it'll start somewhere between Election Day 2008 and January 21, 2009. I see that, too. Might be kinda nice if our Congressional geniuses put in some effort to head off that scenario. Jeez, the nuclear trigger got yanked out of Nixon's reach toward the end, didn't it? Another Bush era first -- nostalgia for Al Haig! Posted by: sglover at August 15, 2007 05:45 AM | Permalink to this comment
Had it occurred to any of you that Petraeus and Odierno wouldn't have actually let these charges surface with any specifity if they knew they were going to get hammered about them in front of a Congressional Committee in September? The Iranians, smart and clever rug merchants that they are, understand the overwhelming skepticism of Greg and others in the intellectual and opinionmaking classes in the West. In fact, they are counting on it, I suspect, to allow them to complete their atomic bomb program. The Quds Force could set off EFP's in the Mall of America and claim responsibility, and I suspect Greg would find a way to blame Dick Cheney. Such is the operational advantage enjoyed by the Revolutionary Guards. The EFP project, which I believe is more widespread than Greg is prepared to admit, is merely an adjunct, designed to cause us more pain and drive us from the region. As a result, the Bomb program is still protected. The Iranians do these things because they act in what they perceive to be the regime's interests, which they conflate with Iran's state interest. This appears to be hard for everyone around here to understand, so convinced are they of Bush and Cheney's wickedness. In all his criticisms of Bush, Cheney, and Rice, allow me to suggest that it is they who have not lost sight of what the Iranians are up to, while Greg appears lost in a wilderness of mirrors of Iran's devising. The American people haven't forgotten that the Iranian state has been at war with us since shortly after its founding. While many of you may find that hard to believe, they don't. Expect Iran to be a huge issue in the campaign next year, but not because we're going to attack them. It will be good to be Rudy. Posted by: section9 at August 15, 2007 05:58 AM | Permalink to this comment
section9:
I miss the days when Greg was less emotionally invested and more intellectually invested in the discussion. Gardner's piece seems to qualify him as at least an amateur polemicist, but it doesn't inspire much confidence in his expertise as a strategist, explosives expert or psychologist. Similarly, I'm not sure attaching oneself like glue to the opinions of other J-School (or, in other cases, unschooled) "experts" is the best analytical strategy. One lesson relearned on 9/11, but operative far longer is that when a state or sub-state group loudly proclaims it's at war with you, it's prudent to at least suspect they might not be lying. Posted by: Jem at August 15, 2007 09:24 AM | Permalink to this comment
Section 9 It wound no more occur to me that our Generals in the region were uttering anything other than self serving sound bits divorced from reality, than it would occur to me to fly to Venus on my own power. Iran is not at war with us. Iran is a regional power attempting to do what all regional powers have done...they are trying to dominate their region and shape it so it works best for them from a national security perspective. When the Shah was in charge (read US) we were all for Iran being an aggressive regional power. And we helped make them one. Suddenly, oh, around 1979 we were NOT for Iran being a regional power. We are in their region. On both sides of them. And above them. With our military. And that is what world powers do. They attempt to dominate regions. All regions, especially the one's with oil. Inevitably, those conflicting goals run up against one and another and something has to give. In this case I suspect, given how the hand has been played the past 4 years, it will be us that will give. As to their A bomb program....they have a right to an A bomb and if they have a wit of, short term, common sense, they will create one as fast as they can. Though I suspect in the long term it will be a massive strategic blunder. (one they may never get to make again as a nation) You are correct about one thing..... some people (many) are convinced of Bush and Cheney's wickedness. But that's not your problem. Your problem is ALL, friend and foe, are convinced of their gross incompetence and 'cluelessness'. Jem, Yes, its tough how 4 years of fruitless, counter-productive war, and numerous meaningless deaths, tend to make one emotional. Posted by: jon stanley at August 15, 2007 11:39 AM | Permalink to this comment
Greg- I love juxtapositions, don't you? They often smell like victory in the morning.
"Or did he perhaps instead display some realism, statecraft, sobriety and a sense of proportion (something sorely lacking in today's cretinized Washington), that the associated risks and continuing costs weren't worth the potential benefits of the deployment? (ed. note: cue assaults on my 'pre-9/11' thinking). -GD 8/07 On the importance of playing hardball with Teheran (maybe the situation shifts if you spell it differently.)
-GD 3/03
Post a comment
|
|
Reviews of Belgravia Dispatch
"Awake"
--New York Times
Recent Entries
Wait, I Thought Our Quota for Epic Debacles Had Been Exceeded!
Back Home The Adult Trip Report Quotable In-House News O'Hanlon & Pollack: Guilty of Rose Colored Glasses? The Bush 43 Years: An "I Do Not Recall" Chorus Jaw Jaw, Mossad Edition Le Plus Ca Change Bergman Dies
Search
English Language Media
New York Times
Financial Times The Economist The Times The Spectator Daily Telegraph The New Yorker Washington Post New Criterion New Republic National Review The Atlantic Harpers The Week The Guardian Weekly Standard The Nation WSJ Opinion Matt Drudge Real Clear Politics
Foreign Affairs Commentariat
Non-English Language Press
The Blogs
Across the Aisle
America Abroad American Footprints The American Scene Armavirumque Bainbridge Jack Balkin Becker-Posner Balloon Juice &C (TNR) Phil Carter Chequer-Board Steve Clemons Juan Cole The Corner Crooked Timber Cunning Realist Clive Davis Brad DeLong Democracy Arsensal Daniel Drezner Kevin Drum Glenn Greenwald Nikolas Gvosdev Huffington Post Innocents Abroad Mickey Kaus Mark Kleiman Josh Marshall Eric Martin Obsidian Wings Oxblog Foreign Policy's Passport The Plank Post Global Gideon Rachman Red State Romenesko Laura Rozen Andrew Sullivan James Taranto Katrina vanden Heuvel Volokh Conspiracy James Wolcott Matthew Yglesias
Columnists
Anne Applebaum
Tony Blankley David Broder David Brooks Roger Cohen Jackson Diehl Maureen Dowd Thomas Friedman Bob Herbert Fred Hiatt Jim Hoagland Richard Holbrooke David Ignatius Robert Kagan Michael Kinsley Charles Krauthammer Nicholas Kristof Paul Krugman Howard Kurtz Sebastian Mallaby Robert Novak The Reliable Source Frank Rich Mark Steyn John Tierney John Vinocur Washington Whispers George Will
Think Tanks
Law & Finance
Barron's
Bloomberg Bruce MacEwen Bull and Bear Wise CBS Marketwatch Contrary Investor Corporate Counsel Blog Corp Law Blog D.C. Toedt DealBreaker Deal Lawyers Blog Financial Sense Forbes Fortune Hussman Funds Gretchen Morgenson Floyd Norris Safe Haven SCOTUS Blog The Street 10b-5 Daily Yahoo Finance
Security
Books
The City
Curbed
Gawker Lockhart Steele NY Magazine Nick Denton NY Post NY Press New York Observer On The Inside Tribeca Trib Walk Through Village Voice
Archives
August 2007
July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 Syndicate this site:
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|||
|
||||
