it seems to be accepted wisdom that Iran is the absolute locus of terrorism in the world, but I've yet to see the proof. It seems like we are punishing a non client state for the crimes of our client states: egypt, pakistan, saudi.
Brilliant observation, Lester!
So Rodger, where do you believe the IEDs are coming from? (Surely you don't believe the news of IED explosions are hearsay!)
David,
Did you miss the Army Times report from September?
"An independent assessment, based on British military intelligence, said, 'Based on current usage, there are enough stocks of illegal explosives to continue the same level of attack for 274 years without re-supply.'"
Moreover, even if the IEDs were coming from Iran, that would not mean the Iranian government was behind the flow.
The international arms trade is vast, much of it gray- or black-market. Literally, the weapons could be coming from anywhere -- or made indigenously.
Rodger writes:
"Moreover, even if the IEDs were coming from Iran, that would not mean the Iranian government was behind the flow."
I don't think you quite answered my question (unless perhaps you meant to imply it was "don't know") but just for a moment might we consider a hypothetical situation in which black- or grey-market terrorist explosives were being smuggled across the U.S. border into Canada. Would you deem it inappropriate in such circumstances for Canada to seek to hold the U.S. government responsible for stopping the flow of those explosives?
Well, I wouldn't expect the Canadian government to start beating the drums of war without at least seeking (a) to determine with much more certainty the source of the weapons; and (b) to consult and negotiate with the US in good faith to try to determine the source of the weapons -- and a peaceful means of stopping the flow.
The situation would not be analogous in any event. The US invaded Iraq (illegally, according to Kofi Annan, numerous legal scholars and many state leaders) and seems to be upset that a third party is intervening in its intervention.
Finally, I don't recall the US standing up for Nicaragua in the 1980s when it was accusing the US of arming rebels based in neighboring Honduras.
Rodger:
"Finally, I don't recall the US standing up for Nicaragua in the 1980s when it was accusing the US of arming rebels based in neighboring Honduras."
Nor was the current regime in Tehran all that concerned with diplomatic immunity when it seized the U.S. embassy in the same era. . . .
But you still seem to be dodging the question. I get it that you're upset at the U.S. invasion of Iraq. (Well, you really see this solely as Dubya's doing, ignoring the many votes by Democrats like Kerry, Clinton, Biden, Edwards, Obama, and Dodd in support of it.) You also seem to be choosing evidence solely on the basis of whether or not it supports your position. So, intelligence is bogus when it's used to support the war but credible when it suggests Iran has no role in supporting Iraqi insurgents.
So, my simple question for you is, should you get your wish, Dubya is disgraced and the U.S. picks up its toys and goes home, what will U.S. Democrats, Kofi Annan, the "many state leaders" you mention be doing for the people left behind in Iraq?
Very Very good post!
Good work
REg Marv
My Photocompetition
IS war with Iran really the priority of working men and women in america?
lester writes:
"IS war with Iran really the priority of working men and women in america?"
Of course not, but the more poignant question is, Is walking away from and abandoning all responsibility for the utter mess the U.S. has made in Iraq in the best interests of "working men and women in America"? What does it say about democratic societies if they can invade less powerful nations with impunity and then simply walk away when it becomes inconvenient to deal with the destruction they've wrought?
Forget Dubya's quasi-religious cultural mumbo-jumbo. That sort of behavior is "why the hate us."
Rodger, have you seen this?
http://tinyurl.com/2qefov
David,
As it should be clear, my chief concern in this discussion is that the Bush administration may be ramping up for war against Iran that has not been sufficiently discussed or justified in the public sphere and not been directly considered by Congress.
I've previously blogged about the Iraq war topics you mentioned. Probably my most comprehensive summary post about the run-up to the Iraq war is here.
I am not picking and choosing evidence about intelligence. The pre-war Iraq intelligence did not support war and I've published about the most worrisome alleged threat -- the mushroom cloud. The US essentially ignored the IAEA inspectors who spent months before the war debunking all the evidence. Moreover, the NIE and other key US documents were filled with caveats that US officials ignored when making the public/congressional case for war.
It was the Bush administration that selectively used intell to support its case. In this instance, they don't even seem to have any intell that blames Iran. It's all assertion.
Thus, I'm arguing that the existence of pre-war intell that supported war was/is bogus in both cases. In the first case this led to a stupendously bad decision and I want to be sure the US avoids a similar mistake in a second instance.
I discussed the fears about withdrawal at the Duck just in the past few weeks. If the US leaves Iraq, foreign and al Qaeda forces may well follow. If the Iraqis continue to prosecute civil war (much of the analytical intell, however, suggests that the US forces are feeding the violence), then the US and the rest of the world should think above the variety of responses available to the international community to stop civil war.
They do not create a great set of options, granted, but the record of foreign involvement in civil wars is not great either. From the narrow point of view of American interests, and the wider war on terror, the war is a disaster. I think it makes sense to stop all the killing by the most heavily armed faction (the US) -- especially since it has proven virtually useless in providing Iraqi security.
david- they hate us for staying in iraq and will like us more if we leave. our federal government is a disaster at home AND abroad. to foist on 3rd world people is cruel.
Besides, if we're not there what does it matter if they hate us?
Rodger,
"As it should be clear, my chief concern in this discussion is that the Bush administration may be ramping up for war against Iran that has not been sufficiently discussed or justified in the public sphere and not been directly considered by Congress."
Given this concern, would it be fair to say then that you have no faith in the ability of the current, Democratic-controlled Congress to thwart these supposed ambitions (assuming for the moment that there is anything more than rhetorical posturing behind the aggressive stance toward Iran).
Furthermore, given the apparent ascendance of the uniformed military in U.S. warfighting policy these days, what voices within the military lead you to suspect the Bush Administration intends to wage war on Iran?
--
lester writes:
"Besides, if we're not there what does it matter if they hate us?"
It seems you've forgotten that there were no U.S. military forces in Iraq--or Afghanistan--on Sept. 10th, 2001. . . .
--
david- have you read bin ladens messages? You should. muslims in the middle east are divided on some things, but hating the US and israel isn't one of them. whether you are in some totally backward waziristan or some part of iran or UAE that is as modern as any american city, they all hate us.
the idea that we would become LESS popular if we were to pull our military off of muslim soil is counter intuitive.
and as of sept 10 we had troops in saudi arabia, though we knew the people didn't want us there. and we had sanctions on iraq, which was like a holocaust on their society. not to mention keeping every crooked dictatorship in power with be firends with israel bribe money. like we're doing with abbas in palestine now.
The congressional vote that supposedly authorized the invasion of Iraq was a set up. We know now that Bush had no intention of resolving the situation with Saddam short of war, and his explanations of what he was requesting were, as ususal, a studied lie. One can certainly argue that the Democrats, most of whom probably understood that they were being backed into a corner, should have had the integrity to take the political hit by voting no; but the notion that there was real congresional support for the war is hogwash. The war was strategically stupid and patently illegal from the get go. Those who still defend it aren't Bush supporters. They're accomplices.
Jim Harrison writes:
"One can certainly argue that the Democrats, most of whom probably understood that they were being backed into a corner, should have had the integrity to take the political hit by voting no; but the notion that there was real congresional support for the war is hogwash."
I suppose that would wash if Democrats (and Republicans) hadn't voted to fund the war every year since the Commander-in-Chief was first granted authority to wage it. Now that the Democratic-controlled Congress is going to continue to fund the war--while passing non-binding resolutions against it--it's pretty darn clear who Dubya's "accomplices" are. . . .
--
The Democrats certainly deserve blame for their political cowardice if they don't go well beyond the current non-binding resolutions. On the other hand, now that we've messed up Iraq and caused the deaths of something like half a million Iraqis, we can't just ignore our responsibilities by simply bugging out. At a minimum, we should make it unequivocally clear that we are going to leave Iraq completely, even if the process takes some time.
nor do the neo cons. it's bush cheney and rumsfelds war
Lots of issues on the board and this is delayed 24 hours because of Haloscan problems.
I want to provoke public debate about Iran because I have more faith in political decisions made in an atmosphere of genuine public deliberation than I do in decisions made relatively secretly and disingenuously. That's at the core of much of my scholarship.
Apparently, the Bush administration is going to release a report about Iran in Iraq this week. Those who read it should keep in mind the series of bogus reports they released about Iraqi WMD activities in fall 2002.
The October 2002 congressional vote was, in many ways, a "set up," and the votes to continue the funding "for the troops" have been much the same. Remember how much John Kerry was lambasted for voting against the $87 billion? He did it as a matter of principle (related actually to paying for the war), but was charged with being "against the troops."
The "power of the purse" is a blunt instrument and Democrats have only had it for a few weeks. Until now, there were many political risks associated with voting against financing the war (see Kerry, above). Nonetheless, members like Kucinich (and about 85 other House Dems) did vote against specific funding legislation.
The blame for this war cannot be shared equally. Almost no Democrats would have gone to war on March 19, 2003, given the fluid circumstances -- the mid-February public protests, the IAEA inspections, Hans Blix, etc.
Remember, Iraq was destroying weapons on demand -- and key allies like Turkey weren't on board.
Incidentally, while no US troops were in Iraq or Afghanistan on September 10, 2001, there were thousands in Saudi Arabia that ticked off OBL. And Muslims weren't very happy about the Iraq sanctions regime either. They have been angry about aspects of US foreign policy for many years -- but Iraq is apparently the best recruitment device they've currently got. It's a foreign policy disaster, providing no real security for Iraqis, but provoking even more anti-US fever.
Iraq is mainly shia. I'm sure irans prsence is welcomed by the majority. so Iran SHOULD be in iraq.
Many Iraqi Shia have no use for the Iranians if only because the Iraqis are Arabs, the Iranians Persians. Ethnicity cuts across religious affiliation. (Pedantic Note number 47: one thinks of Iran as the homeland of Shia Islam, but that's a fairly recent development. Mesopotamia (i.e. Iraq) has a much better claim to being the center of the Shia faith.)
Rodger writes:
"The October 2002 congressional vote was, in many ways, a 'set up,' and the votes to continue the funding 'for the troops' have been much the same. Remember how much John Kerry was lambasted for voting against the $87 billion? He did it as a matter of principle (related actually to paying for the war), but was charged with being 'against the troops.'
"The 'power of the purse' is a blunt instrument and Democrats have only had it for a few weeks. Until now, there were many political risks associated with voting against financing the war (see Kerry, above)."
You're simply making excuses here for Democrats who value their own political careers over the very principles which you claim trouble you about the war. If Kerry--or whomever the Democratic nominee had been in 2004--had taken up this cause with gusto from the get-go they would have lost just the same but today they'd be so wildly popular that no one would be talking about Hillary Clinton as the Democratic front runner and the Democrats in Congress would be taking genuine strides to bring the war to an end instead of passing spineless, feel-good resolutions.
As long as folks like you continue to excuse this sort of venal behavior on the part of your partisans we all pretty much deserve whatever disaster we allow Dubya to lead us into.
--
Rodger writes:
"Incidentally, while no US troops were in Iraq or Afghanistan on September 10, 2001, there were thousands in Saudi Arabia that ticked off OBL."
What "ticked off" OBL was not simply the U.S. troops on the Arabian Penninsula but the authoritarian regimes there that had enjoyed the support of the Clinton Administration long before Dubya ever came into office.
"And Muslims weren't very happy about the Iraq sanctions regime either."
Which also was supported by the Clinton Administration for a period longer than Dubya has been in office.
Thanks for helping to remind us that the problems we face in the Arab world didn't begin with Dubya.
--
David,
Who's the partisan here? Of course I pointed out US problems in the Arab world that precede Bush. However, while I'm willing to see the foreign policy difficulties that precede Bush, you seem blind to the disasters that he's largely created.
Indeed, I wasn't trying to make excuses for Dems -- merely to place the lion's share of blame where it belongs. While I have been disappointed that more Dems have not more vehemently opposed the war, many have -- and some paid the political price in 2004.
The responsibility for Iraq may not be 100% to 0%, but it is certainly not 50-50 either. Perhaps it is on the order of 75-25.
In any case, to return this conversation to where it started, I guarantee that if the US makes war on Iran in the next 18 months, it won't be because of a Democratic initiative.
Likewise, I argued that few Dems would have gone to war on March 19, 2003. The so-called "war resolution" in October 2002 stupidly granted Bush great discretion, but he's the fool who used it.
Rodger,
"The so-called "war resolution" in October 2002 stupidly granted Bush great discretion, but he's the fool who used it."
Who's the bigger fool? The fool, or he who follows--and enables--the fool? The sad truth is that without Democratic support there would have been no invasion of Iraq.
(And please don't assume just because I'm critical of your Democratic partisanship that I'm a fan of Dubya. I know this can be a difficult concept for many Americans but politics can be a bit more complex than that.)
As far as Iran, I'd asked earlier what voices in the military now lead you to suspect an invasion is imminent. Dubya has fired Rummy and brought in Gates who sees his role as dealing with Iraq. He's been following the lead of those in the uniformed military who believe they can "fix" Iraq but none of them are anxious to fight Iran. So don't worry, there won't be any invasion of Iraq. Perhaps just a few Clinton-esque air raids. . . .
--
jim- I know alot of shias and there is little question that iraqi shias are loyal to their other shia bretheren more than the sunnis, despite intermarraige and nationalism and race. I think iran is building an airport in iraq or something. they are tight.
David- all of your arguments seem to be geared towards democrats. i 'm a libertarian. I hate clinton and his foreign policy as much as you do. I'd say desert storm was the thing that got that whole US army as hand of empire thing going, but Clinton out did himself invading countries. I think he had a whine-o-meter and whenever christine amonpour would whine loud enough he would then invade.
lester writes:
"all of your arguments seem to be geared towards democrats."
That's because there's no need for yet another anti-Dubya voice here in the chorus at the Duck. My criticisms are really of Americans. The debacle in Iraq is an American problem created by Americans on a staunchly bipartisan basis. I agree that in his role as Commander-in-Chief Dubya is largely responsible for leading a way out of this mess. But it seems to me there is a troubling group in America--largely made up of those on what passes for the "left" here--who are more interested in hanging this American albatross around Dubya's neck than in doing the heavy lifting required to make amends for America's tragic folly in Iraq.
--
David, the complexities have complexities. As I see it, the Democrats responded to the Iraq crisis in four different ways:
1. Some of them responded in line with traditional American anti-war rhetoric. Typically, these folks also opposed our intervention in Afghanistan.
2. Some of them opposed the war overtly, not because they thought that war was always wrong but because they thought this war was wrong. Typically, these folks supported the Afghanistan intervention.
3. A considerable number of democrats thought the war was a terrible idea but shrunk from the political cost of opposing it overtly. They comforted themselves by noting, not without some justification, that the original authorization vote was a cynical move on Bush's part. This sort of trimming is hard to admire.
4. Many democrats did support the war, even if some of these liberal imperialists had misgivings about how the administration was likely to wage it. A great many people, many of them supposedly in the center or even left of center, buy into the rather sociopathic notion that it's perfectly OK to run foreign policy like a game of Risk. Obviously a lot of these folks have had second thoughts about the war, but I don't find much evidence that they have really come to terms with what's problematic about their point of view: they don't recognize their own hubris and they continue to operate on a set of false assumptions about American economic and military power.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/ind...&
articleId=4690
There's quite a bit of alarming information re: deployments on this site.
Anyone who wonders about the threat of Iran should consider the "mushroom cloud" scenario was exactly what Saddam supposedly would have developed. ( What delivery systems were available ? )
Put that up against PNAC proposals to destroy midEast countries and secure their oil supplies for the U.S. by force. That may be quite insane but it is more consistent with observable facts.
Commenting by HaloScan.com
