The Shotgun Blog
« The New Liberal Emblem? | Main | Late comers »
Saturday, January 14, 2006
Meanwhile
On Tuesday, the U.S.A.F.'s 122nd Fighter Wing is making its largest deployment since the Berlin crisis -- headed to "southwest Asia".
What's in southwest Asia? Iran.
Some folks hope that Israel might take out the Iranian reactors, as it took out Iraq's 25 years ago. But as Victor Hanson writes:
...2006 is not 1981. We are in war with Islamic radicalism, at the moment largely near the Iranian border in Iraq and Afghanistan. The resulting furor over a “Zionist” strike on Shia Iran might galvanize Iraqi Shiites to break with us, rather than bring them relief that the Jewish state had eliminated a nearby nuclear threat and had humiliated an age-old rival nation and bitter former enemy. Thousands of Americans are in range of Iranian artillery and short-term missile salvoes, and, in theory, we could face in Iraq a conventional enemy at the front and a fifth column at the rear.
Relying on Europe is fruitless -- they're far better at issuing sneering statements than actually putting boots on the ground. Relying on the UN is worse -- neither China nor Russia wants Iran defanged.
Looks like this one will have to be handled by the grown-ups again.
h/t Michelle Malkin
Posted by Ezra Levant on January 14, 2006 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d8346b59e753ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Meanwhile:
Comments
Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition. Michelle has it nailed. The grown-ups need to take over this one.
Posted by: Artemis | 2006-01-14 7:41:55 PM
Count us out, our CF-18's can't even support our Canadian ground troops in Afghanistan because of the flight distances involved, let alone Iran. Man, this is going to be one tough go.
So much for the Liberal plan of opening up an office promoting midle east peace and harmony.
Posted by: Lemmytowner | 2006-01-14 8:35:29 PM
Grown-ups? It's more like heading back to Toys-R-Us to grab another box of fighters to play with in the sand-box.
Luckily, even *I* don't think the US Administration is idiotic enough to launch an attack on Iran. But hey, I've been proven over-optimistic (or naive) before.
Posted by: Chris Alemany | 2006-01-14 10:45:15 PM
This should be a better argument than talks.
It is better to act now before they get nuclear devices.
Let us face it. We are at war against Islam terrorists. So we need to move on. Who is menacing a nation of destruction? Not us. Who is menacing to attack us even in Canada, to blow Montréal subway or Toronto subway? This is financed by Iran. So what are we waiting for?
Who attacked and murdered innocent civilians in NYC? (5 hours from Montréal)
Islamofacists supported by Iran.
Posted by: Rémi Houle | 2006-01-14 10:54:36 PM
As much as I hate to see the U.S. get involved with something that the Europeans should be doing...(right !!! Like that would ever happen) Somebody has to deal with the psycho in charge over there. Maybe a few hundred well placed bunker busters can take out their nuclear facilities and military infrastructure...then maybe their own people can take out the lunatics in charge.
Otherwise we let the UN deal with them....ooh that would really be a good idea...maybe 12 years of posturing and broken resolutions, or worse they fire off and kill American soldiers or innocent Israelis in the meantime.
Posted by: MarkAlta | 2006-01-14 10:59:21 PM
Yup, that's what we need -- the UN on this watch. They can draw from their brilliant military tactics in the Balkans, Rwanda, and Sudan
Posted by: Stopthetrain | 2006-01-14 11:42:23 PM
Well, if we let on there's lotsa hot 10 year old girls around, the UN honchos just might be tempted to go for the photo-op. Not for the heavy lifting mind you, but the perks are mighty tempting for the Boyz in Blue.
Posted by: Slim | 2006-01-15 12:11:33 AM
I don't hope for war in Iran. The best way to avoid it is for the Iranian leaders to believe that war is possible.
Posted by: pete e | 2006-01-15 12:26:12 AM
Actually, I encourage everyone to look at a world atlas.
Iran in the middle, Iraq to the west and Afghanistan to the east.
Canada is sending in excess of 2,200 soldiers to Kandahar in Feb.
The question I would have is where is the US sending the 122.
Ed the Hun
Posted by: EdtheHun | 2006-01-15 1:56:26 AM
It's always easy to say 'Let the grown-ups manage this' - when one is, oneself, a child. So, Canadians can watch while the US people pay for, in funds and young men, a war against Iran - for the benefit of the free world.
Ii disagree with the whole notion of war against Iran. Morally, I do not believe it is the duty of US citizens to, on their own, fight for the freedom of the world, while the rest of that world watches via television and sneers about how 'peaceful' they, themselves, are.
But, pragmatically, I don't think war is the answer. First - a nuclear device ought to be treated - as rhetoric. Even if any of these rogue nations developed and used such a device, they know that their existence as a nation would be finished. It's like listening to Paul Martin talk. Words are not the same as actions.
I maintain that Iran's leader would very much like Israel and the US to attack it. That's the reason for all the talk about Nuclear Device.
The reason is, that the seeds of democracy, as planted deliberately by the US (and not by Canada) are developing in the ME. Democracy, which empowers the population rather than the tribal elite, is extremely worrying to the rulers in these states - which reject empowering their people and rule by tribalism - where one tribe or group has all the power and the people have none.
Iran, Syria, Lebanon..the people are becoming interested in democracy. The rulers don't want this. Iran in particular is worried, for its people have been, for some time, interested in democracy - and have been brutally put down. The Iranian rulers would like to divert the people from this new Evil (democracy) growing right in their midst..and unite them, emotionally, against an External Evil - the US and Israel. That would solve the democratic desire.
My suggestion is - no war. War would END all possibilities of democracy in the ME. It would return these states back to the dictatorships of tribalism, to superstition, to viewing the West as Evil. It would absolutely destroy any hope of progress in that area.
I suggest - promoting democracy in the area; promoting economic development in the newly democratic areas..so the Iranian people, from the sidelines at the moment, can see for themselves the benefits of such a change in governing structure. I suggest letting the UN, Europe etc..continue their rhetoric, their talk; and letting the Iranian psychopath talk and talk.
My point is - the change in the area to democracy will come from the bottom-up; not from the top-down. The tribal leaders won't move to democracy; they are desperately trying, now, to retain a dictatorship by diverting attention from democracy and trying to instil fear in the minds of the people. They WANT the US/Israel to attack. Remember - fear, fraud and falsity - the tactics of the Liberals - are the tactics of any dictatorship that wants to retain power. The procedure to change this rule, is to talk to the people. Not the rulers. The people.
So- don't 'talk' to the people by instilling Fear of the West in them, via an attack by Israel or the US. Talk to them by democracy in that area; by economic devt in that area.
And, we Canadians, as children in this global world, must grow up.
Posted by: ET | 2006-01-15 7:48:29 AM
ET I agree, but I confess that you’ve changed my mind. I used to think we should not let undemocratic countries have nukes. I knew that was a bit unrealistic because China has them and Pakistan. But I thought we should take them out whenever we could as fast as we could.
So I agree let’s allow the democracy card that’s been played in Iraq and Afghanistan play out. But I still think we should recognize there is real risk in waiting. Because the Mullahs in Iran are nuts. They might lob nuclear missals as far as they can towards countries along the Mediterranean. Moreover they could find other means of delivery towards North America. But it’s a risk that we should take because the long-term solutions in the ME need a chance to work and as you say, they won’t work if we strike now.
Posted by: nomdenet | 2006-01-15 8:35:49 AM
Thanks nomdenet. But, I maintain that a rogue state with a nuclear device will NOT 'lob missiles anywhere' - for the simple reason that to do so, would instantly mean the end of their own country. The reactive attack from the US would be immediate. Note- for that safety-valve, we have to thank the US and its citzens. Not us, not Canada, not the UN. The US and its citizens.
Therefore, it's a rhetorical device; it's a more modern way of saying - "If you do this, then, the Devil will strike you down'.
The Iranians are fighting hard, now, against democracy; they are, along with the other ME states, behind the 'insurgents' in Iraq. They don't want to lose power - just as the Liberals and their attack ads in Canada are evidence of a desire to retain Liberal Tribal Power.
I say- let democracy work; publicize it; we are in the age of the internet, of blogs, of the power of the people on the ground..who can speak via the internet, via email..and are no longer Passive Listeners of their Leaders.
It's a different world - and I say - let the people see and talk...and let the Leaders rant. We'll see who wins, and my vote is for The People.
Posted by: ET | 2006-01-15 8:52:54 AM
ET,
The bombs would be aimed at Israel and I for one do not support the idea of a reactive attack. Too late.
Before responding, as yourself this. If wherever you live was beside Tel Aviv would you feel like waiting until something happens? I suspect not.
We (the world) owes a country like Israel security and safety. They are and have been at risk for many years from all of its neighbours. The Israelis have had the nuke for decades and haven't used them. The Israelis have been country attacked and even though they have a superior military they have not conducted offensive wars. Only acted in the defense.
This is about Israel and we don't need a repeat of what happened in Germany.
No, I am not a Jew. But our responsibility is to them.
I can hear the calls already. The Jews kill Palistinian children. If the Jewish state wasn't attacked relentlessly, then I believe there wouldn't be retalitory responses.
We owe that same security to many other countries as well, but our governments back to the 70's (primarily liberal) have gutted our forces to such a low level that the 'great' nation of Canada can't get its forces across the country of Canada without the help of Greyhound. Canada can no longer, unilaterally or bilaterally (unless it teams up with the US who has enough military resources to make up for our shortfalls) participate in the international environment and do anything to prevent Rwanda, Sudan, etc.
Middle East peace centre indeed. I just wonder who in the hell Martin planned to put in there and how he would get everyone there.
Ed the Hun
Posted by: EdtheHun | 2006-01-15 10:00:53 AM
In reply to Ed the Hun - I completely disagree with you.
Your tactic - of attacking, will not only not guarantee peace but will guarantee another generation of attacks and hatred.
Our responsibility is not to Israel alone but to ALL people, even those who are brainwashed and trapped within a medieval tribal political and economic system.
I keep saying, that just because a country says it has, or wants, a nuclear bomb, is not the same as its actual use of it. And any country that DID use one, would know that its existence as that country would be measured in, not years, but minutes. Again- we have the existence of the USA to thank for that security.
Therefore, rather than your approach, which I insist would absolutely entrench the medieval tribalism and destroy any chance of enlightened democracy in that area - I support the development of democracy in the ME.
Your approach is a 'top-down' approach - and a top-down that is located external to the country, not even internally! Such an external, violent heavy-hand - would destroy democracy in the entire region - and the war that began there, would spread to the whole world and would last for generations.
The only way - is to free the people who live there, from a tribal mindset and a tribal political and economic system. That's democracy. Not war.
Posted by: ET | 2006-01-15 10:11:28 AM
ET; I agree with your theory of democracy and of true freedom coming from the ground up; for a moment there I thought I was reading a George Bush speech; that has been his premise and his theory all along and history will one day show he was the man with the vision and the fortitude to achieve it. All his plan needs is time to work but like any good plan there can be problems. And the nuclear one is a huge problem. So therein lies the huge question; appeasement or attack. History has shown what a huge mistake appeasement; negotiating; particularly with terrorists, and waiting have been. It is a failed policy. I'm sure their were many like minded theories such as yours when it came to appeasing Adolph Hitler. You state that you think Iran is all talk about nukes; what if you wrong? Then you concede that even if they have them they would never use them; again what if your wrong? You are once again talking about negotiating with people who have shown they have no regard for human life; particularly "western human life". There is a reason they are called "extremists". I disagree with you; I think they would not hesitate to launch nuclear weapons if they had them; you are right in the regard like any "leftist" society they care absolutely nothing about their own people so could care less about reprisal. Like the suicide bombers all over the world as long as they get their pound of flesh and people are killed that is all that matters. At this point in time it is the radicals that control the country; not the people. Nuclear weapons in the hands of radicals cannot be allowed to happen. I don't think Israel or the US will allow it to happen; time will tell. Interesting to see how long and how loud the "children" scream whatever the decision.
Posted by: Richard | 2006-01-15 12:29:41 PM
Richard - the primacy of the freedom of the citizen and the role of democracy is hardly new; it is an ancient theme - goes back to Aristotle at least, and liberty and the dev't of a middle class was thoroughly discussed in his 'Politics'. - Read Karl Popper's 'The Open Society and Its Enemies' for a nice account of the importance of democracy.
I've been teaching the difference between a tribal and democractic infrastructure for years - again - not new.
I continue to maintain that nuclear weapons are irrelevant. If Iran were to use them, then the next day, Iran would simply cease to exist. Therefore, how would Iran gain anything if, from one day to the next, it ceased to exist?
But, Iran has a great deal to gain from its current tactic of taunting the US/Israel to attack it. That's exactly what it wants - and needs - is an external attack.
Such an attack would solidify the Iranian population to bond to, and accept its rulers, fascist as they are, and against democracy, against change, against freedom. It would be a disaster for the ME.
Iran is now saying they plan to hold a conference to 'deny the Holocaust'. That's a taunt to Israel. Iran wants, wants, needs, Israel and/or the US to attack it. That's the ONLY way, at the moment, that it can stave off democracy and prevent its fascist tribal leaders from losing power.
I am not talking about negotiating with Iran. And remember, nuclear weapons are very different from conventional weapons. Iran is not talking about using conventional weapons!!! No! It is talking about developing a nuclear 'capacity'..and my point is that Iran would never dare use this 'capacity' as a weapon.
BUT, BUT, if we, the West, fall into their verbal trap - and attack them - not merely before they develop this 'weapon', but before they use it - then - any chance of democracy emerging in the ME - will be destroyed for a full generation.
The ME would explode; all current emerging democracies in the Arab States would dissolve, and the whole ME would turn, using conventional weapons, against the West - and against democracy.
It would plunge the whole area back into a tribalism that would last - as I said - for a generation.
I'm not talking negotiation; I'm talking 'Don't get stuck on Stupid'..which means..just because the Bully wants you to attack him, so that he can show his weak followers how strong he is - it doesn't mean that you have to obey the Bully.
Ignore Iran the Bully. Ignore their taunts of 'we'll develop a nuclear weapon'; ignore their 'we deny the holocaust'. So what? But, if you fall for their simplistic tactics, that will mean a terrible, terrible war for the ME, and the rest of the world.
Posted by: ET | 2006-01-15 1:07:26 PM
I think where it’s easy to get stuck on stupid, because I’ve certainly been stuck there, is around the concept of MAD or mutually assured destruction. That concept seemed to work with the USSR because the Soviets where wrong but they were rational. If the Mullahs are irrational then a MAD-like concept to wait them out for democracy to take hold is very high risk. But if they are rational then similarly to MAD there is low risk that the Mullahs will use a nuke.
I think the Mullahs/Islamofascists are desperate (to find ways to prevent democracy in the ME) but they are fairly rational (the Mullahs aren’t suicidal, they get others to do that).
No matter what the West does, the world is a dangerous place and becoming more fragile as appeasement takes hold in Europe. But I do think that in an Internet world there is a communications role that even Canada could play that would defuse the Mullahs by simply having our Foreign Affairs Minister make a very open press release about the concept of what is being argued here. The US can’t make that press release; it has to pretend it will attack. Canada could make the argument, we could be the wild card that figuratively defuses the Mullahs and gives hope to the Iranian citizens who desire democracy. It’s déjà vu Regan calling the USSR the Evil Empire and giving hope to political prisoners, which led to glasnost reforms. Similarly Diplomacy needs to find a new way to cope with these contemporary problems. Ottawa and Paris etc have their heads in the sand. Regime change is first needed here in the West in order to get regime changes in trouble spots like Iran.
Posted by: nomdenet | 2006-01-15 2:31:23 PM
Something else- this argument of 'let's attack Iran because it says its developing WMD' - is similar to the Bush argument - which so many of you disapproved of!
It too, didn't wait until Hussein actually used those WMD; it went in early, because he was assumed to be developing them. Equally, Iran is saying it is only developing 'peaceful nuclear energy'.
Now- I happen to think that Bush/US and the coalition - were right to go into Iraq, for the reason that the ME area had to move out of tribalism. It couldn't do so, as long as this tribalism was a military tribalism, against which the people could not rebel.
But once this movement away from tribalism is established with the dev't of democracy - my view is that we simply encourage this dev't.
Posted by: ET | 2006-01-15 4:18:11 PM
The fear of Iran getting the bomb is not the fear of it's use but its proliferation. If Iran gets a nuke, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and a littany of other Arab states will want to nuclear. And if SA gets the bomb then ultimately Iraq will want the bomb. The irony is obvious. The US invades Iraq to destroy its nuclear weapons, and then faces the ultimate potential of arming Iraq to offset the Saudis etc.
Democracy will not sprout in the ME, first and foremost because of Islam. In addition, the populations are not homogeneous, as Prof. Ferguson points out, and consanguinous marriage is abundant.
Posted by: DJ | 2006-01-15 6:20:08 PM
ET, I agree with your theory that is war begins, ME democracy suffers. Maybe it even dies, and with it all the hard work of planting the seeds of freedom in the region, as well as all the deaths of US soldiers go to waste. I lament that possibility.
However, to dismiss a nuclear-armed Ahmadinejad as ‘rhetoric’ is a mistake. Remember, Islamic fatwas were for the most part dismissed as rhetoric, until the first world trade center. It was still rhetoric after that. Until Kenya, and the USS Cole. And the rhetoric continued. Then 9/11. That wasn’t rhetoric.
As Mark Steyn asks, ‘when is a good time to start taking these people at their own word.
Someone here made the link between Iran and Pakistan -China. They argued that while not exactly civil, democratic countries, China and Pakistan are not a threat to use nukes. True, to some extent. But as far as I know, neither has specifically pledged to wipe a neighbouring state off the map. Pakistan and India have done some breast-beating, yes, but neither as gone as far as Iran has in relation to Israel.
Ahmadinejad’s “rhetoric’ is chilling. Do I believe he will act on his threat to nuke Israel toady? No, not as things stand now. He seems to be planning to do what his buddy Kim in North Korea did to Clinton and the EU – blackmail them. And maybe for the sake of democracy in the ME, it’s best we pay up for a while. But there will come a time when the curtains close on this man, when the wave of democracy reaches Persian borders. Young Iranians are boiling with democratic, pro-American ideals. What happens if they open the gates to democracy? If it becomes so infectious that they one day attempt to overthrow their dictator? What will this man, who has pledged to wipe out nations, do with his last hours with his finger on the switch? We need to ask our selves that as well.
Posted by: Stopthetrain | 2006-01-15 10:00:10 PM
ET, your nonchalance about Iran's potential nuclear capabilities is a bit disturbing. In reference to the potential use of nuclear weapons, you shrug "if Iran were to use them, then the next day, Iran would simply cease to exist."
Er, is there a place in your considerations for those the bombs would have been "used" on? Perhaps there should be, no?
It also seems to me that by anthropomorphising and then psychoanalyzing entire nations, you are giving one man who doesn't deserve it the benefit of the doubt. "Even if any of these rogue nations developed and used such a device, they know that their existence as a nation would be finished." Well, a suicide bomber knows that when he detonates, his existence will be finished as well. Agreed? He does detonate, though, because in doing so he can kill as many Jews as possible. So why do you casually dismiss the possibility that a fundamentalist Islamist, who has repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel and for the death of all Jews, might eagerly take such action if he had the capability?
You said that if the West attacks Iran, any chance of democracy in the middle east will be destroyed for a generation. Well, apart from the fact that inaction by the west could lead to more than just the voting habits of Israelis being destroyed, a sortie to take out enrichment facilities, such as the Israeli airforce did in Iraq in 1981, is not the same as an "invasion", although should action be taken we are certain to hear such terms used by democrats, lefties, etc.
They'll be wrong, though. A few well-placed missiles delivered air-mail to a uranium enrichment site in Iran is not "an attack on Iran" any more than an RCMP raid on a crackhouse in Regina is an "attack on Regina".
I doubt too that such an action would hinder democracy in Iran for a generation, as you suggested. It seems likely that in the long run it would instead facilitate the inevitable movement of that part of the world toward greater freedom and modernity. Persians have been a civilized people for a very long time, and they are not stupid, to put it mildly.
Posted by: EBD | 2006-01-16 1:59:09 AM
I guess, ebd, that we'll just have to continue to disagree. I disagree with all your points.
With regard to StoptheTrain - I don't think that Ahmad..'s rhetoric is 'blackmail' in the same sense as N. Korea's, for he doesn't want money or goods etc. What he wants is political; he wants an emotive bond to turn Iranians against democracy and back towards tribal power - fundamentalist Islamic tribal power. This emotive bond is FEAR; he wants the West to attack Iran, so that he can bond Iranians in a deadly hatred of the West and a hatred of democracy. That will enable the survival of Islamic fundamentalism. That is his goal.
EBD - no, there isn't any consideration in my analysis for 'where Iran's nuclear bombs would fall' for that is an emotive argumentative fallacy and is exactly like Ahmadinejad's argument. Your argument just switches the population from Iranians to Israelis - but, it's the same argument. Argument ad metum,' appeal to fear'.
I certainly agree with Mark Steyn - we have to believe what they say - and the tactic to use, is not a war against Iran, but, a relentless input of democracy.
By the way, a suicide bomber is not out to 'kill only Jews'; I'm sure you are aware that people of other religions, including Muslims, are attacked, with intent, by suicide bombers. The intent - is to stop democracy.
I also disagree with your reduction of any attack by the West against Iran as a 'sortie'. Even if it were a small attack, it would play into the hands of Iran, enable them to mass their people against the West, against democracy, against Iraq, against everyone - and enable them to justify a relentless attack against any and all in the ME - and further west.
Your example of an RCMP raid on a crack house in Regina is completely fallacious. The RCMP are an internal police force in a country; they are preserving law and order and protecting the citizens. An external attack by the West against Iran, a sovereign nation, is NOT the same as an internal act by the Iranian police force against their own citizens who are disobeying their laws. What a silly example!
I repeat. For the West to obey the wishes of Iran, and attack Iran, ...would thereby enable Iran to solidify its citizens in an emotive glue against the West and against democracy - and also, enable Iran to justify its attacks against any and all countries in the ME - and would destroy the ME and all roads to democracy for at least a generation. It would enable Iran to move further into Islamic fundamentalism, and, by force and example, ensure that the rest of the ME falls back into that mould. Take them at their word; they want a ME that is fundamentalist. The tactic of Iran, at the moment, is to ensnare the West, by using all sorts of emotive arguments (which you are falling for)..into attacking them. That will merge the whole ME into one fundamentalist horde. Is that what you want?
Posted by: ET | 2006-01-16 7:25:59 AM
"The tactic of Iran, at the moment, is to ensnare the West, by using all sorts of emotive arguments (which you are falling for)..into attacking them. That will merge the whole ME into one fundamentalist horde. Is that what you want?"
People warned that an attack on Iraq would unite the ME into a horde too. Instead, Iraq is free, Lebanon kicked out the Syrians and Libya dismantled its WMD program. I'm afraid you fail as a Hari Seldon, ET.
Posted by: surly | 2006-01-16 7:46:42 AM
Sorry, Surly - the two scenarios, Iran and Iraq, are completely different.
Iraq had Hussein, a military dictator, who was preventing his people from democracy and economic well-being by ruthless mass killings. Iran has a theocratic dictatorship, with a veneer of democracy, preventing their people from democracy by relentless propaganda. Please note the different tactics - the former is military, the latter is theocratic propaganda.
Now - the change. Democracy has appeared as a viable option in the region. Israel's democracy didn't work; it was readily encased and seen to be irrelevant by being defined as 'Jewish' and as relentlessly hostile. Therefore, tribalism continued..until it began to reach a critical threshold in the 90's.
By 'criticial threshold' I mean that tribalism as a method of social organization is viable only for small, no-growth populations, operating within peasant agricultural economies. It is deeply dysfunctional for large, growing populations operating within industrial economies. The two systems are as unalike as parameciums and chimpanzees; the one is simple, the other is complex. To attempt to organize a large population, growth economy within the hereditary power-closures of tribal fiefdoms - as madness.
In most of the ME, because of the military power of the tribe-in-power (enabled by oil revenues) - it was essentially impossible for an internal revolution. So- the 'explosion' was outward - against the West (US and Israel).
Again, a critical threshold was reached (9/11) and the West attacked the 'soft spot' in the region - Iraq, with the intent to take out the dictatorship and free the people to develop democracy. Democracy, by the way, is the only political system possible in a large population, complex industrial society. It's got nothing to do with The West; it is simply an infrastructure of organization.
Now that this process of democratization has started in the ME - and it didn't exist before - to disable it by doing EXACTLY what Iran wants, which is to attack Iran, would also have the exact result that Iran wants - which is to Stop Democracy Dead in its tracks, and enable Iran to set up a fundamentalist Islamic regime in the WHOLE ME. Madness.
The two scenarios are entirely different.
Posted by: ET | 2006-01-16 8:02:09 AM
EBD, “ a few well placed missiles on Iran is not an attack on Iran”
You can’t take that argument to the UN; you can’t even take that to the American people. That doesn’t mean you’re completely wrong about a pre-emptive strike, that’s a legitimate argument, I held that view, now I see the risk in blowing the whole ME democracy strategy with pre-emptiveness. War is politics and needs to have consensus somewhere and there isn’t any consensus anywhere on pre-emptiveness in the Iran situation.
But this thread has healthy debate on it. Debate is needed because this is one of those lesser of evil questions. There is no right answer or risk free answer; all answers are messy or maybe even horrible. But Canadians, Europeans and the Democrats in America don’t want to confront anything that doesn’t have the prospect of a happy ending in our Hollywood-instant-gratification societies. This situation now requires some patience. I realize, that’s what the UN said about Iraq, which would have been time wasted. But with democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan and progress in Pakistan, Lebanon, Egypt and even Saudi Arabia, we can now adopt the strategy of patience with some hope of progress.
Hopefully with Merkel in Germany and Harper in Ottawa we can start to build on the Anglosphere (Bush/Blair/Howard) approach to world affairs with strategies more like what Churchill advocated in the 1930’s versus Chamberlain’s.
In the case of Iran, it’s my view that just the dialogue of sensible world consensus of staring the Mullahs down changes the negotiating equation in our favour, which is that we want to suppress the Theocracy and allow the people to rise up and let democracy take hold. Again, I realize staring them down is a bit wimpy and it’s not a risk free strategy, nothing is risk free, because these SOB’s are dangerous.
Posted by: nomdenet | 2006-01-16 8:42:59 AM
Right, nomdenet. This scenario is very different from the Iraq phase and I think it's important not to confuse the two but to see them as distinct steps. EBD is merging the two and that's, I suggest, a serious error.
As I said, the basic reality was a completely dysfunctional politico-economic-social infrastructure: tribalism: operating in a phase that required a democratic mode of government.
Tribalism..blah, blah..I've said it umpteen times..functions, very well, in small population, no-growth, peasant economies. It's perfect for that. Its dysfunctional for large population, growth, industrial economies.
So-given that reality, of a system that is exploding in population but repressed in political and economic structure - it has to be changed. BUT, it couldn't change itself, because the oil revenues enabled the tribal elite to maintain power. That's like heating up a pot of water, filled to the brim with water..and continuing to fill...and trying to retain that water in that pot..and prevent it from bubbling over. Or even, if you put a tight lid on it - exploding.
So- you have to go in from the outside, and take out tribalism and enable democracy. As I said, the example of Israel in its midst was readily isolated as an example. So- the West did nothing, until the implosion against repression, which was transfered to the Straw Man of 'rejection of democracy'...attacked the democratic West beyond its ability to 'do nothing'.
The West moved; attacked the Soft Spot, Iraq, and now, democracy is taking root. In Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Syria, Lebanon..
You don't change an infrastructure in a day; it's not a new set of clothes; it's a new bone structure. It takes time..but..once that structure begins, it spreads.
The tribal elite are fighting back; they want their powers. So they are behind the insurgents in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and elsewhere. Iran is very worried. Its agenda has been - retain tribalism. And, to retain it, it feels it must establish an Islamic fundamentalism over the whole ME. One democratic state in the ME..weakens tribalism! So, Iran wants tribalism.
It would be utterly insane for the West to do what Iran wants, and assist it to both retain and develop tribalism, in its most dangerous form, of a religious tribal fundamentalism. And that's exactly what the West would be doing, if it attacked Iran.
Instead, it has to not allow itself to be a puppet of Iran's regime, and not allow itself to be used to install fear and hatred of democracy in the Iranian people. The West has to put all its efforts in enabling democracy to spread in the ME..
Posted by: ET | 2006-01-16 9:12:44 AM
ET, my comparison between an RCMP raid on a crackhouse and a military action on a specific target in Iran was inapt, perhaps. A sortie on Iran would indeed be an attack on Iran, in any technical or legal sense of the word. The point I was trying to make, regarding any potential actions which might be taken to hobble Ahmadinejad's nuclear ambitions, is that there is a world of difference between an in-and-out sortie and the movement of troops into, and subsequent occupation of, a nation. I'm sure you're aware of that, though.
For my own part I am aware that not every suicide bomber is out to "kill only Jews", only the bomber -- a Palestinian one -- in my example. I mentioned him, in response to your assertion that Ahmadinejad would never use a nuclear device against Israel because the next day his country would cease to exist, in order to point out that inasmuch as such reasoning has never once stopped a suicide bomber, there's no reason to think it will stop the next one.
You suggest that the intent of suicide bombers in other regions is to stop democracy. Well, okay, in some cases. But Palestinians vote for local officials, and I have yet to witness the dancing, ululating celebrating of wrecked ballots, if you catch my drift.
Your admission that there isn't any consideration in your analysis for what would happen to Israelis if Ahmadinejad launched a nuclear assault on them is helpful here. I find it disturbing, mind you, but it mercifully obviates the need to discuss here any fine points about either of our farsighted plans for democracy in the Middle East. IMHO even the best-laid itinerary must occassionally take non-volitional detours based on, oh, say, the knife point arguments of a mugger.
Ahmadinejad, not you, if that wasn't clear.
For what it's worth, I have been in broad agreement with you on a wide range of issues ranging from the unelected nature of power in Canada -- I have learned quite a bit from you when you have posted eloquently here on that subject -- to the appropriateness of American actions in Iraq. But when an Islamist who has repeatedly called for Israel to be wiped off the face of the earth appears to be in the process of devloping nuclear weapons, I admit that I am puzzled by (what appears to be) your nonchalance towards the fate of Israel.
You are welcome to the last word on this subject. I won't respond to further posts, due to the sheer unlikelihood of any agreement. Plus, I am printing up "Zip-a-dee Doo-dah" songsheets in preparation for the evening of January 23.
Posted by: EBD | 2006-01-16 1:48:48 PM
"Plus, I am printing up "Zip-a-dee Doo-dah" songsheets in preparation for the evening of January 23."
Nice. I think I'll just get drunk and stick to naah-naah-naah-naah-hey hey hey...
Posted by: Stopthetrain | 2006-01-16 2:38:48 PM
EBD- you probably know the blog The Fourth Rail, written by Bill Roggio. A very insightful and knowledgeable blog.
He points out the agenda of Al Qaeda, now, probably, run by Al Zawahiri..(I'm accepting Mark Steyn's view that Bin Laden is long dead)..to develop a caliphate in the whole ME by 2020. And..how this agenda seems to be failing in Iraq. And - that they might be moving back to Afghanistan..out of Iraq.
If this is the case, the failure of Al Qaeda in Iraq is due to the promotion of democracy. No man wants to be a slave - and fundamentalist tribalism enslaves people. The problem is, if it's the only political/social infrastructure you've known for generations, then, it's very hard to let go of the emotional family and kinship bonds of tribalism. But, if your neighbours are moving into democracy, and still remain OK and haven't sprouted four heads and a tail...then.
Whether Iran's psychopathic leader can maintain tribalism in his country, with democracy 'licking at the door' - is still up for grabs. So- we'll see.
Careful of the delirious preparations; don't anger the gods. And note that Jack Layton's tactic of 'Lend me Your Ears..sorry, VOTE' is working. He's saying..You don't have to BE an NDP-er; just VOTE, this once, for NDP..It won't count against you!" Hah..but it will be a vote (and money and power) for the NDP. And will reduce the CP vote.
Posted by: ET | 2006-01-16 2:44:10 PM
Where does Ms. T dream this shit up. The insurgents, the Sunnis, the dreaded tribalists in Iraq, are opposed to federalism, which in turn ensures Iraq is divided into, wait for it, ethnically homogeneous states. Only the invincibly ignorant can view the facts, ignore them, and drone on and on and on...ala Baghdad Bob.
Even Prof. Ferguson, a multi-culti neocon supremo, like ET, acknowledges the strong correlation, in democracies, between homogeneity and freedom.
Open the door ET and let some light into that dark, dark room.
Posted by: DJ | 2006-01-16 3:20:20 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.