The Trouble About Tehran
UK Guardian: Cheney wants to whack Iran. Apparently there is concern that Iran, as a partner for peace, is full of it, and Bush doesn’t want to leave the mullahs and their efforts to dominate the region with nuclear weapons and terrorism unaddressed.
The article suggests no action until 2008.
Problem: If you want to reap the benefits of an Iran that has been shown boundaries, chastened and restricted in its ability to transgress, waiting until the last minute lets Iran know they won’t have to deal with the administration that attacked. The election year politics come more prominently into play, and the American electorate will be reacting to attacks with less of an opportunity to see results. So Iran may get to the gift of an administration that will bend over backwards to undo whatever has been accomplished.
The program that should have been in play already, as Iran and its proxies launched attacks in Lebanon, Gaza and Iraq, as Iran thumbed its nose repeatedly at the international community on its nuclear weapons program, as Iran yet again seized American and British citizens and military personnel as pawns to humiliate and influence the West, is a program of demonstrating consequences for those kinds of actions.
Because we are civilized people, targets in any operations on Iran should be limited to military infrastructure and assets that support military and terrorist activities. Phased air and missile attacks on nuclear facilities and terrorist training camps. Oil production and port facilities that provide the income to support those activities. Key bridges and highways that provide access to those facilities. Make a list and start working on it. Couple it with strong action against any Shiite militia in Iraq that looks at us cross-eyed.
This will prevent us from having to threaten the destruction of Tehran and all the good people there if and when Iran develops nukes and a means of delivering them. It would also give the people of Iraq the breathing space they need, limiting support to Shiite militias and encouraging an accommodation with minority Sunnis, who are turning against their own co-sectarian extremists in Anbar, Diyala and Baghdad. It will allow us to put more pressure on Saudi Arabia to act against Saudi support for Sunni insurgents, as it tries to prevent Iran from establishing a presence on its border.
A limited attack that simply takes out nuclear facilities without being prepared to deal with Iran’s capacity to respond will solve the problem, but may create the potential for new ones.
If anyone is concerned this kind of action would prompt Iran to move against us, they haven’t been paying attention. It might in fact prompt some terrorist action, but Iran has a 28-year history of seizing and killing Americans, in Iran, in Lebanon, in Iraq, and possibly also in the skies over Lockerbie. Hundreds of Americans. As for the prospect of a conventional Iranian military reaction against Iraq and U.S. forces there, for example, that would be a gift. The U.S. Air Force is always eager for an opportunity to show how it can win wars from the air.
One of the big arguments against acting is that the United States dosn’t have the resources to invade Iran. That is not necessary and in fact counterproductive. We don’t want to invade Iran and don’t need to.
It has been argued that we should support Iranian democratic movements. Those are being actively suppressed by the mullahs, who fix elections to undermine reform efforts and keep themselves in power. So when those facilities are attacked, it needs to be stated very clearly to the Iranian people that we are attacking the mullahs and their military capacity, and have no intention of invading. It is up to the Iranian people to resolve their internal problems, and we will assist them if they want us to. It should be explained to the Iranian people that Ahmadinejad and the mullahs have brought this upon them. Reports suggest that many Iranians, upset about the price of tomatoes and gasoline, already believe this. That we are looking forward to helping Iran with its recovery, economic development and re-integration into the community of civilized nations when it is ready to be one.
If an aggressive program of suppressing Iran’s imperialist adventurism had been put into play a year ago, six months ago, three months ago, this morning, it might have had time to work, with results that 2008 candidates who recognize the legitimate U.S. interests in the region could point to. Waiting until 2008 will only provide more seemingly pointless Bush war that 2008’s more myopic, isolationist candidates can use as a springboard into office.
Unfortunately, the Bush administration’s sense of timing and proportion has not been good. Failed to build an army in 2001 and 2002 when it became apparent we were going to be using it. Went to war in Iraq with half an army, and expected a politically and psychologically traumatized people to solve their own security and economic problems, while putting hundreds of thousands of them out of work. Kept the secretary of defense who pushed these bad ideas too long, leaving off a serious reassessment and a serious counterinsurgency too long.
A last-minute attack on Iran? They’re going to need to do a much better job of selling this than they have selling their foreign policy projects lately, and they had better think long and hard about what happens in November of 2008, January of 2009, and after.
Captain’s Quarters mulls same, deems it a perilous course for other reasons.
Prior:
Welcome, Punditeers, CQ, Jawas, etal! Come on in. Yeah, that’s Bill Kristol up in that tree, out on that limb about the Bush legacy. Everybody’s favorite jihadis are thinking deep thoughts of Mice, Bees and Men and considering a career change. Not a moment too soon. It’s getting wild out there.
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 8:02 am on Monday, July 16, 2007
51 Responses to “The Trouble About Tehran”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
July 16th, 2007 at 9:47 am
given the abysmal track record of the current administration they should have the keys to the military taken away from them. the very idea that they would pursue further military action, considering where they have gotten us to date, is beyond ridiculous. how they can even think they have a clue about foreign policy befuddles me. i mean really…how does cheney sit in a meeting and pretend to have any credibilty on anything? they have put us in a position where we have no good options. not one. and now they want to attack iran? i thought they were just arrogant and stupid. but they are out and out delusional aren’t they?
July 16th, 2007 at 9:50 am
I agree with the above. The Bush record of being well-meaning but utterly incompetent is now so established the jury not only came back but is home watching television.
July 16th, 2007 at 9:55 am
We enable Iran every time we fail to smack them down. Or fail to drop some PGMs on Iranian military & industrial targets. War with the mullahs is inevitable, and I’d prefer to have the initiative…..as of now, Iran has the initiative. Changing that is long overdue.
July 16th, 2007 at 9:56 am
As for the Bush incompetency……that has largely been due to not listening to the military. If Bush merely supports his commanders to the hilt, we can at least set Iran back a good number of years. Iran needs time, and we can deny that.
July 16th, 2007 at 10:03 am
i’m sorry…the incompetency of cheney and his sock puppet goes much deeper than not listening to the military.
July 16th, 2007 at 11:26 am
J-Kay and Banjo would have been screaming for FDR’s head in WWII.
They should really get some historical perspective before thinking this is the most error prone war ever, which it’s not, or to blame Bush and Cheney for everything.
Do youself a favor a read a classical historians take on 1944 vs. 2004. He doesn’t make partisan judgments.
History’s Verdict
The summer of 1944 and 2004
http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson071604.htm
And yes the military are the most qualified people to make these decisions. The career politicians with Ivy league degrees are the weakest strategic thinkers. They take what information the military has given them and water it down and filter it until it is useless.
July 16th, 2007 at 11:29 am
Jules, this most well thought out target list I’ve read. We don’t want to destroy their economy or harm civilians, just any element that facilitates terrorism or is terrorism.
I’ve been watching our sharply increased action against Shi’ite militias and hoping it was in prelude to some military action against Iran—because they would obviously be turned loose in the event of any such action so the more of them that are killed or detained now the better.
One does wonder how Maliki’s government would react to such an attack on Iran. Could the Shi’ite members make things move any slower? Of course we can’t let that stop us from doing what is right.
Gates and Rice are thoroughly disappointing, both realists convinced we can contain Iran through talk, sanctions, and sacrificing our American soldiers to their cross border treachery. Gates in particular seems very reluctant to confront Iran. Gates better not be the new Cap Weinberger.
If only a future president would pick writer and ex military intelligence Col. Ralph Peters to be his secretary of defense:
“The most effective action we ever launched against Sunni terror was the destruction of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. We took away the terrorists’ safe-haven state, still the greatest loss suffered by Qaeda and Sunni fanaticism. Even if no Democratic presidential aspirant will admit it, al Qaeda has never recaptured the authority it lost.
Shia extremists have a safe-haven state, too: Iran. But the Bush administration ran out of steam when Iraq didn’t turn into Iowa. Aware that Tehran’s commandos were active in Iraq, supplying weapons, training and direct supervision of attacks that targeted Americans, we did nothing. An Iranian diplomatic passport turned out to be a better form of body armor than anything our troops wear.
Patience isn’t a virtue when a hostile government’s killing your soldiers. Our timidity only encouraged Iran, which has paid no serious penalties. Tehran has been given free rein not only in Iraq, but also in Lebanon and Gaza.
An invasion of Iran isn’t the answer. But selective strikes against the infrastructure of the Revolutionary Guards (and the Quds Force in particular), as well as against Tehran’s security services, are the minimum needed to get the regime’s attention. Our Air Force’s combat capabilities are distinctly under-utilized: It’s time for 30 seconds over Tehran. Let’s see if those F-22s really work.
Sanctions? Diplomacy? Tell it to the troops in Walter Reed. Or in Arlington.”
TWO WARS - AND NO LEADERSHIP
By RALPH PETERS
July 16th, 2007 at 11:37 am
“Invasion” is a straw man.
What we need to do to Iran is what Clinton tried to do to Iraq at the height of the Monica Lewinsky sex and perjury scandal and his impeachment. (Which no one called “invasion”.)
Only for better reasons, accurate targets, and with real threats to go further to back it up.
July 16th, 2007 at 11:57 am
4iraqisfuture…
to say hanson doesn’t make partisan judgements eliminates any credibility in your argument. he is a neocon, who has been a staunch supporter of this so-called war, bush, and for that matter rumsfeld. hardly an open minded commentator. the dart he throws at clinton in the last graph of the essay establishes that beyond argument.
the policies pursued by this administration have left us with no good options. that is a failure in any sort of endeavor, not just military, and is not a partisan judgement.
in addition, analogy between iraq and ww2, while certainly aggrandizing to this mis-adventure, is wrong for too many reasons to bother with.
July 16th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
Web Reconnaissance for 07/16/2007
A short recon of whats out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.
July 16th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
-Kay and Banjo would have been screaming for FDR’s head in WWII.
The situations are in not similar. Today the U.S. is the most potent military force in the world, lacking only effective civilian leadership. When WWII began, the U.S. was woefully weak and desperately trying to play catch-up in a two-ocean war with the other side seemingly holding all the cards.
July 16th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
“Invasion” is a straw man.
Indeed — that will never happen. We need to look into the past.
There is one thing JFK got absolutely right in his short tenure as president - the naval blockade of Cuba. It was a brilliant straddle between wimping and a hot war.
July 16th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
Jay K–
It appears any supporter of the war is a “neocon” to you. Define “neocon” for me. Look it up, the definition may surprise you. It has economic aspects tied to it that would exclude Joe Lieberman which I’ll bet you call a “neocon” of some sort.
And Hanson is not a “neocon”. Sorry to disappoint you. Hanson is a lifelong democrat. He happens to vote with an eye towards shaping history. He wasn’t about to vote for Kerry—“the Ugly American” at Davos. Have you heard of Paul Berman? He is a liberal editor for the New Rebuplic who staunchly supports unilateral action, if necessary, against regimes like Saddam’s and depises “realist” foreign policy. Is he a “neocon” too? No. I suggest you read “Terror and Liberalism” by him. Or at least look at the reviews. Both left and right were floored by it. It is a sprawling masterwork on the history of terror and totalitarianism. His contention is that this war has been going on for 80 years.
People like Berman and Hanson have read, comprehended, and made connections between a mountain of books to get where they are–the top of their fields. I suggest you give Hanson more credit.
The evidence of Clinton’s appeasement of Iran and Fatah is well documented; it is no “dart thown”. For example: after the bombing of the Kobhar Towers in ’96 our FBI linked it back to the highest levels of the Iranian government. Director Freeh suggested we pursue it but Clinton ignored that and sent Madeline Halfbright to Iran to issue an apology for all the wrongs we’ve ever done. Khameini was only emboldened by our pathetic kowtowing.
And what I meant by Hanson was “nonpartisan” was in regards to his descriptions of WWII and the “whom to blame?” with which he ends each paragraph describing mass casualties brought on by mistakes of leadership. Hanson swipes both ways plenty; he is objective. He is a PhD historian, who has earned the right to be impatient with fools who attempt to cover their misdeeds and failures. If his comments appear partisan it is only because it is still happening. He speaks as a historian would.
Should the “keys to the military have been taken away” from Lincoln during the Civil War? I’m sure you would have been out there with other “copperheads” demanding just that before Lincoln found his ‘Petreaus’ and the right strategy. The “copperheads” wanted to make peace with the south just as the dem cong what to make peace with Iran and Syria. If we followed their advice we would be two countries now.
And Banjo–as Hanson calmly states, their are many parallels to draw. Better tanks could have been built but were not. They knew the Germans had superior armor and high velocity guns but choose to build high profile lightly armored tanks that cost the lives of thousands of US serviceman. Where was the public outrage back then?
July 16th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
lieberman is an idiot. unfortunately he is also my senator. i say impeach joe first.
i am certainly not the first to call hanson a neocon…but a liberal becoming conservative certainly fits the mold, if not the strict definition of the movement. as for being a life-long democrat…even o’reilly claims not to be a republican…if it walks like a duck. you seem to have a great deal of faith in what this man writes, but i reject the very notion of analogy between ww2 and iraq. and certainly i reject your analogy to the civil war. sure you can find similarities…but at the very basic the episodes are very different, both in cause, stakes, scale, and approach. fyi…it’s also not the phillipines, or korea. baghdad is not philadelphia in the 1700’s. and george w. is no george washington, or harry truman, or fdr.
July 16th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
There were many tactical and stragetic disasters at the beginning of WWII, but the public never learned of them until much later. That is because about the third decision FDR made at the urging of Harry Hopkins after word was flashed from Pearl Harbor was to impose a tight military censorship. So there were no media jackals lurking on the left to inflate a minor incident like Abu Ghraib into a blame-America-first international incident. As for tanks, the American military opted for smaller, lighter tanks and more of them — many more — than trying to match the superior German and Russian behemoths. This was a disadvantage from time to time, but more infantry on our side had tank support than the enemy.
July 16th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
A MINOR INCIDENT LIKE ABU GAHRIB? Abu Gahrib, like Gitmo and extraordinary renditions, is a symptom of our flaunting of the Geneva conventions…and the scarifice of the moral values of our nation…hardly a minor incident.
July 16th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Gitmo is completely in line with the Geneva Convention in terms of who is incarcerated there. It is not flaunting it. Your statement shows your ignorance of the Geneva Convention, but more to the point, shows you know about as much about the US military as you do US history. The US Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) lays out the responsibilities for conduct of all US servicemen while in service and the penalties for transgression. It is in every particular more encompassing than anything laid out in the Geneva Conventions.
Abu Gahrib is anything but a symptom of our flaunting of the Geneva Conventions. Quite the contrary. The fact that the incident was thoroughly investigated and punitive actions taken against those culpable up to the general staff level makes you a liar by convenient omission.
July 16th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
“…but Iran has a 28-year history of seizing and killing Americans, in Iran, in Lebanon, in Iraq, and possibly also in the skies over Lockerbie. Hundreds of Americans.”
Yup. And that ought to mean war.
Mad mullahs delenda est…one of these days.
July 16th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
“Abu Gahrib, like Gitmo and extraordinary renditions, is a symptom of our flaunting of the Geneva conventions…”
Well, it would be, except the perpetrators were arrested and put in prison…by us.
IOW, the quoted passage is typical leftist drivel.
July 16th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
oldman…
stay away from personal attacks.
i haven’t been there so i can only judge based on events i can see. if prisoners at gitmo were treated according to the geneva conventions why did cheney have bush fight it for so long? the administration said that those held there didn’t fall under the geneva conventions…the supreme court said in a 5-3 decision they did. so policy was changed. why in the world would policy have to be changed if they were in line?
the geneva convention bans torture, use of violence, or cruel degrading and humiliating treatment. all of these banned abuses has been documented at abu gahrib. i would refer you to statements of major general taguba who has made it very clear that abu gahrib was not thouroughly investigated.
July 16th, 2007 at 5:30 pm
dave surls…
the fall guys were put in jail…not those that made policy and issued orders. as i said above - maj. gen. taguba has made that clear.
July 16th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
[...] The Trouble About Tehran - Jules Crittenden [...]
July 16th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
This is like a grade b movie. Invasion of the Scatter Brained Leftists
People you are never going to change their minds. Their minds will be changed only if the vile bastards ‘they’ support, aid and collaborate with, lop their god damn heads off and even then it may not happen.
.
July 16th, 2007 at 5:55 pm
“the fall guys were put in jail”
That’s what usually happens to people convicted of a crime, except we call them criminals, not fall guys.
“not those that made policy and issued orders.”
What orders? Show me a copy of the order.
Like I said…leftist drivel.
July 16th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
“-Kay and Banjo would have been screaming for FDR’s head in WWII.”
“The situations are in not similar.”
Well, that’s true. We haven’t lost half our fleet in one day, nor have we had a small army cut off and forced to surrender in the Philippines .
Not yet, anyway.
July 16th, 2007 at 6:04 pm
“People you are never going to change their minds.”
Yeah, but you can derive some amusement by making fun of them.
July 16th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
How do we know that the Guardian is not making this up?
I have no idea if the Bush administration is really going to try something like this, and I have my doubts that they will, but I am getting tired of listening to socalled experts babble on about how incompetent Bush is when half these people probably can not match their socks. After all, if they are such experts why aren’t they at West Point teaching military strategy instead of making up weird names for themselves and blowing off on the internet.
BTW, we have taken and held more territory with fewer casualties in this war than in any war we have ever fought.
July 16th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
This is true Dave Surls, in fact I feel a huge guffaw coming on.
July 16th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
‘if prisoners at gitmo were treated according to the geneva conventions…’
I’ll repeat what I said - ‘Gitmo is completely in line with the Geneva Convention in terms of who is incarcerated there. It is not flaunting it.’
It is your contention that the terrorists incarcerated at Gitmo fall under Geneva Convention rules, not mine, nor Bush’s.
‘…the supreme court said in a 5-3 decision they did…’
No they did not. The decision stated simply was that they did not fall under the jurisdiction of US courts. The decision does not say they are legal combatants that fall under Geneva Convention rules nor does it imply it .
I’ll repeat what I said again - ‘Gitmo is completely in line with the Geneva Convention in terms of who is incarcerated there. It is not flaunting it.’
You have no rebuttal to that that is not a lie. Therefore,, you are lying and/or propagating a lie.
If you do not want to be called a liar, stop lying.
‘i would refer you to statements of major general taguba who has made it very clear that abu gahrib was not thouroughly investigated.’
I will refer you to the realm of other reports that say the investigation was indeed thorough. You and I are each free to believe what we wish, but the weight of evidence is on my side.
Which begs the point anyway. You contended that abu gahrib was a sympton of US flaunting the Geneva Conventions. A violation once uncovered that is handled correctly under the UCMJ, which is again more stringent that the Geneva Convention, does not indicate flaunting the Convention, but the exact opposite.
You were lying by omission or too stupid to understand the situation in toto. Which was it?.
I told you in another thread that you cannot be taken seriously and why. In this thread you reinforce that that several times on the same theme. To whit, this asinine example of a deranged wordview:
‘why did cheney have bush fight it for so long?’
You do not have a grip on reality.
July 16th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
sorry, should have been ‘deranged worldview’. One must be precise.
July 16th, 2007 at 7:15 pm
Regular readers of the comments know that jay k is “arrogant and stupid.” Oh, yeah, and “out and out delusional,” too. Poor dope. Keeps taking a knife to a gunfight with OldManTyme.
Jules, your scenario sounds like it could work, but Lord knows how such a thing would really turn out. I do believe that some sort of confrontation with Iran is inevitable. I fear that our media–and sadly, hence, the majority of our public who get their worldview from the media–don’t have the stomach to see it through.
July 16th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
Well said, OldManTyme! Well said!
July 16th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
Jules, I agree with everything you said in this little essay–in spades.
I am sick to death of the “neo-con” meme thrown about by the ignorant. Do any of them have the first clue of what Neo-Conservatism actually consists? They might be surprised to learn that the philosophy of Neo-Conservatism accepts every premise of social-liberalism and merely gives lip-service to so-called “supply-side” economics. They fully advocate government intervention into all areas of public life. They have taken reason out of the legislative equation and replaced it with “compassion”–which is nothing but rank emotionalism that ends up playing dueces-wild with individual rights and throws justice out the window. They have overthrown traditional conservatism (including Goldwater conservatism), with its proclaimed attachment to Jeffersonian principles of individual rights, limited government, and economic freedom, claiming (as Kristol did) that such is outside the American grain or even un-American. Read David Brooks articles in the pages of The Weekly Standard and The New York Times where he called for “creative destruction,” which is his blueprint to purge the GOP of its attachment to what he mockingly dubs the “Leave Us Alone” philosophy of small-government conservatives. (If the GOP wonders why they are having a problem with their base, I suggest they go back and read Kristol, Brooks, and the other mouth-pieces for Neo-Conservatism.) And if we wonder why we’ve attempted to fight a “sensitive,” over-lawyered war with rules of engagement that endanger every man in the field, one need only look to the Neo’s “compassionate” military cousin–Just War Theory. The mistakes that everyone points to have been the result of this philosophy and I, for one, do not now, nor have I ever, been a proponent of it. Just because I am for fighting an enemy that has been attacking us for over 30 years, who has murdered thousands of our fellow Americans, who has explicitly stated over and over again that they mean to bring us down, and who has expressly, openly and repeatedly declared war on us, it doesn’t mean that I am a Neo-Conservative. What it does mean is that I take self-defense against those who would kill me as a given. It also means that I am able to see that those who advocate the death of thousands, the destruction of a life-giving civilization and proponents of slavery are objectively evil, inimical to human life on earth and are to be fought with everything we have if we are to survive. That isn’t Neo-Conservative fear-mongering. It is common-sense.
July 16th, 2007 at 7:48 pm
Oh, and OldManTyme, well-done–again. I always find your contributions serious, thoughtful, insightful and well worth read. Thank you for that.
July 16th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
Hey Dave Surls—
this first comment is off topic but I thought you’d like to know they may be hauling that traitor Plame back before a commitee. New evidence, an email she sent recommending her traitor husband, shows she perjured herself. I called it; she is a bad liar and showed all the traits of one at the last senate hearing. Field operative, my butt.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/07/valerie_plames_testimony.html
Back to the topic at hand, Bush just pushed through several executive orders.
One declared the Qods force a terrorist organization. That enables all sorts of actions.
The other executive order is a sweeping set of sanctions against the Qods and Revolutionary guards financial networks.
These two groups having been giving control of much of Iran’s oil and gas development as well the nuclear program—rewards for their wet work. Mahmoud’s populism is lie. Iran is corrupt to the hilt and this will hurt.
July 16th, 2007 at 8:48 pm
lieberman is an idiot.
Which is why he’s the US senator and you’re just a deadender BDS zombie trolling blogs right?
July 16th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
‘One declared the Qods force a terrorist organization. That enables all sorts of actions.’
Think about this. Bush didn’t just end catch and release for Iranian agents in Iraq, he also just put Syria on notice - there are both Qods and Revolutionary Guard units openly operating in Syria.
July 16th, 2007 at 9:18 pm
Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events.
Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, and still yet if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you, and only a precarious chance for survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.
- Winston Churchill
July 16th, 2007 at 9:18 pm
[...] then Jules Crittenden comes aboard the ship with these [...]
July 16th, 2007 at 9:20 pm
“Just because I am for fighting an enemy that has been attacking us for over 30 years, who has murdered thousands of our fellow Americans, who has explicitly stated over and over again that they mean to bring us down, and who has expressly, openly and repeatedly declared war on us, it doesn’t mean that I am a Neo-Conservative.”
Likewise. Also, in addition to what you said in your excellent short essay, when it comes to foreign policy, the neo-conservatives, as embodied by the people at PNAC, want to continue the (liberal Democrat) interventionist policies of Wilson/Roosevelt/Truman/Kennedy et al. I’d like to see us abandon all that crap and go back to where we were pre-20th century. No foreign alliances, no overseas intervention in endless European/Asian wars.
But, first we need to kill a lot more terrorists and destroy the remaining state sponsors of terrorism.
July 16th, 2007 at 9:27 pm
“Hey Dave Surls—
“this first comment is off topic but I thought you’d like to know they may be hauling that traitor Plame back before a commitee. New evidence, an email she sent recommending her traitor husband, shows she perjured herself.”
Well, don’t be surprised if this doesn’t get pursued any further. It looks to me like the Bush administration just wanted to get the Wilsons out of a position where they could use the CIA as a tool to try and damage the government for their own personal reasons. They set things up so Joe and Val are totally out of the loop, and they’re probably going to be satisfied with that.
Personally, I think the country would be better served by trying them on treason charges and making an example out of them, but I don’t think Bush and his guys are interested.
July 17th, 2007 at 12:21 am
Why put our military leaders in the position of having to choose between following a lame duck’s orders or upholding their oath to support the Constitution?
I bet Congress passes a law against attacking Iran to save them the choice.
July 17th, 2007 at 1:45 am
See. The ant has a perfect understanding of the constitution and the way our government operates.
July 17th, 2007 at 2:24 am
“See. The ant has a perfect understanding of the constitution and the way our government operates.”
LOL. Funniest thing I’ve heard all day.
Somebody ought to tell lefty-boy about executive orders, states of national emergency and the War Powers Act.
July 17th, 2007 at 2:31 am
Haha, Dave,
If Congress says we’re not at war with Iran…it’s treason charges for any American who attacks them.
Pretty simple.
July 17th, 2007 at 3:16 am
The United States has been in a state of National Emergency ever since the Iranians attacked our embassy in 1979 (per executive order 12170, renewed by President Bush on 11/09/06), the Iranians have subsequently assisted terror groups in attacks against the United States, and are supporting various factions who are attacking our armed forces in Iraq now.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/11/20061109-9.html
Under the terms of the War Powers Act the POTUS can order our armed forces into action without a Declaration of War under the following conditions…
(c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution
Also, President Clinton went so far as to order American forces to attack the FRY a few years back when NO attack against the United States had taken place, without so much as a by-your-leave from Congress, and needless to say, he wasn’t charged with treason, or anything else. That’s called precedent.
Now, be a good little ‘tard and piss off.
July 17th, 2007 at 5:12 am
Frankly, I didn’t see much reason to read past the Julian Borger byline.
July 17th, 2007 at 7:58 am
New additions, people…
Moron
Imbecile
Idiot
Pretty simple (alphies, contribution)
Invertebrate
Nematode
Amoeba
Pond Scum
alphie
Keep ‘em coming….people.
July 17th, 2007 at 8:42 am
old man says…‘Gitmo is completely in line with the Geneva Convention in terms of who is incarcerated there. It is not flaunting it.’…which by the way is a twisting of what i said… a typical ploy, along with personal attacks. when you are on the wrong side of a debate.
the supreme court says… “the military commision at issue lacks the power to proceed because it’s structure and procedures violate both the ucmj and the four geneva conventions signed in 1949. pp 49-72.”
i realize this is a partisan site, and y’all are intent on supporting the policies you have always supported without question…and i honestly admire that loyalty. but not as much as independent critical thought. i will leave you to it.
July 17th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
‘the supreme court says… “the military commision at issue lacks the power to proceed because it’s structure and procedures violate both the ucmj and the four geneva conventions signed in 1949. pp 49-72.”’
Yeah, and the government said it would abide by the SCOTUS’ (bullshit) majority opinion. So what’s your point?
July 17th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
‘old man says…‘Gitmo is completely in line with the Geneva Convention in terms of who is incarcerated there. It is not flaunting it.’…which by the way is a twisting of what i said…’
No it wasn’t. You were very specific saying Gitmo is a symptom of our flaunting of the Geneva conventions. I was very precise in my answer.
Know why? I’ve seen your argument before. I knew that the attempt to establish that open ended incarceration of terrorists at Gitmo is a violation of the Geneva Conventions had failed and everyone is satisfied but people who just can’t let go of that fact love to point at the complaint taken before the SCOTUS against Rumsfield EVEN though the ruling found no issues with the legality of having the terrorists incarcerated there nor that the terrorists cases should fall under US courts and not military tribunals.
It’s right out of the moonbat playbook and that playbook is very much common knowledge so I knew what was coming next.
Saying that SCOTUS found issues with the military commission as a strawman to accuse the US of Geneva violations without noting that the issues SCOTUS found were immediately addressed.
‘…the supreme court says… “the military commision at issue lacks the power to proceed because it’s structure and procedures violate both the ucmj and the four geneva conventions signed in 1949. pp 49-72.”’
Do you know what this means? I suspect not. Read the whole ruling, not just the wikipedia excerpt.
But lets deal with just your excerpt in light of your original comment which was:
‘Abu Gahrib, like Gitmo and extraordinary renditions, is a symptom of our flaunting of the Geneva conventions…and the scarifice of the moral values of our nation…hardly a minor incident.’
What your excerpt means is that the SCOTUS ruled that the military commission needed authorization from congress and not just from the commander in chief in order to conduct military tribunals. It did not say that Gitmo is in violation of the Geneva Conventions, nor does it imply that the US is flaunting the Geneva Conventions. It said the military commission needed to be properly authorized. So congress passed a bill to fill in the gap and the correction is now codified by law so it won’t happen again.
Not the symptoms of a nation or administration flaunting the Geneva Convention but the symptoms of a nation and administration concerned with abiding by the letter of the conventions.
I’ve already pointed out to you that the rebuttal to your accusations concerning Abu Gahrib is essentially the same. Military personnel were violating both the Geneva Conventions and the UCMJ. The violators were tried, found guilty, and were incarcerated. People who should have been on top of things in line of command were dismissed, demoted, or retired. Once again, not the symptoms of a nation flaunting the Geneva Conventions. Not even close. They are the actions of a nation that adheres to the letter of the Geneva Conventions and acts accordingly when military personnel violate it.
What you need to do is take up citizenship in a country that doesn’t just flaunt but entirely ignores the Geneva Conventions so that you can appreciate the moral values of the one you’d be leaving.
And you really really do not want to flaunt your use of independent critical thought based on your demonstrated interpretations of reality.
On the personal attack issue, once again, if you do not want to be called a liar, stop lying. If you do not want to be called asinine, stop being asinine.