Matthew Yglesias (March 27, 2007) - If It's War You Want... (Foreign Policy)

And we see how well invading Lebanon worked for the Israelis!

Posted by Willy | March 27, 2007 1:28 PM

It's never good to be the first one to say "I love you," either.

Posted by dj moonbat | March 27, 2007 1:32 PM

They don't want to openly advocate a war that America can only win by sacrificing much more than American voters are willing to sacrifice. They want us to stumble into a war with Iran and then let it escalate until voters are angry enough to tolerate a huge draft or use of nukes.

Posted by Gary Sugar | March 27, 2007 1:48 PM

a crime scene, but please, no fingerprints

Posted by scorpio | March 27, 2007 1:56 PM

Apparently the Iranians want us to get ruthless too. Either they do not understand how cowboy up this administration is and are stupidly taunting or they understand very well and are happy to have us "bring it on."

Posted by Footloose | March 27, 2007 2:03 PM

but it is a small question to them, war is a game for these people, and that is the heart of the problem

Posted by Esteban | March 27, 2007 2:05 PM

Oh, neocon history...

So Hezbollah is an "agent of Iran"? And all of the Israeli casualties occurred in Lebanese territory, when a tank hit an Israeli mine. I mean, this wasn't even a year ago--and this was the official IDF account.

It's very telling that neocons think of "allies" as "agents"--contrapositively, in their eyes, Israel, Colombia, Shiia Iraq, and historically South Vietnam and South Korea, these states have no sovereignty. Since we give them arms, money, and defense, they're OURS. If a regime doesn't do as we say, it's our right as Empire to replace that regime.

Posted by Luke | March 27, 2007 2:09 PM

Why is this strange? The same element of euphemism existed before the invasion of Iraq. Perhaps a similar element of euphemism existed before every war that has ever begun. I remember reading a book on how the Roman historiography of the Roman empire's growth implied that all the wars had been caused by oath-breaking and deceit on the part of the Spanish/Corinthians/Carthaginians/Macedonians/Belgians/Egyptians etc etc, and, regretfully, the Romans were forced to act as 'ruthlessly' as the situation required.

Posted by otto | March 27, 2007 2:13 PM

You expect right wing pundits to have the courage of their convictions? How can they deny they ever said something so outrageous if they do actually say it out loud? You really don't know how this game is played do you?

Posted by jg | March 27, 2007 2:15 PM

This is the most aggressively pro-war article I can recall.

From the November 2006 issue of Commentary...

Essentially, everything short of massive sanctions is appeasement, but since sanctions aren't enough the only solution is military force.

The tactical risks associated with a comprehensive war strategy of this sort are numerous. But they are outweighed by its key advantages...

And because no article in Commentary is complete without a reference to Nazis,

In 1936, the French army could have halted Hitler’s reoccupation of the Rhineland with a single division of troops, but chose to do nothing. In 1938, Britain and France could have joined forces with the well-armed and highly motivated Czech army to administer a crushing defeat to the German Wehrmacht and probably topple Hitler in the bargain. Instead they handed him the Sudetenland, setting in motion the process that in 1939 led to the most destructive war in world history. Do we intend to dither until suicide bombers blow up a supertanker off the Omani coast, or a mushroom cloud appears over Tel Aviv, before we decide it is finally time to get serious about Iran?

Posted by Monty | March 27, 2007 2:20 PM

The New Republic's successive exhortations for the United States to "move ruthlessly" against Iran and "get ruthlessly serious" about Iran back in July 2006

What will they say next? "Close your hearts to pity"?

Posted by Anderson | March 27, 2007 2:25 PM

Who cares what the neocon / neoliberal Andrew “Bareback” Sullivan writes. He’s a joke.

Posted by David | March 27, 2007 2:46 PM

In 1936, the French army could have halted Hitler’s reoccupation of the Rhineland with a single division of troops [...]

Wow! Talk about missing the point.

The lesson learned, at least by the thoughtful people who crafted the strategy that ultimately won the Cold War, from WWII was not that you should be a hot-head and go off invading dictatorships that don't behave, but that you should contain them.

The Rhineland was un-occupied because there was a treaty that said it should remain un-occupied. This was a major thorn in the side of the German people -- and Hitler's reoccupation of the Rhineland really helped cement his hold on the country by his achieving such an important goal. If Hitler would have been contained (i.e. been prevented from expanding his military reach), rather than appeased, much of his base for support would have evaporated before it was too late -- and WWII could have been averted.

Yet, the argument the neo-cons are making is that such containment of first Iraq and now Iran would be tantamount to appeasement? If so, why doesn't Commentary argue we should have deposed Hitler in 1936 rather than that we should have contained him? It seems to me that they aren't even thinking of the obvious foreign policy prescriptions derived from their very own Hitler-based exemplum.

Posted by DAS | March 27, 2007 2:51 PM

Look for further key phrases... "Clear-eyed" was always my favorite, not like those hippie peaceniks with red eyes from smoking too much dope. "Force", "forceful", and "muscular" are classic euphemisms for the use of lethal violence -- I guess that people who think that talk and diplomacy have value must be weak and powerless. "Seriousness" and "moral clarity" are always marks of those favoring war -- anyone opposed must be unserious and morally obtuse.

This is all very, very, old, as other commenters have said, and very, very familiar..

Posted by Alex R | March 27, 2007 2:56 PM

Spanish/Corinthians/Carthaginians/Macedonians/Belgians/Egyptians..

What about the Visigoths? Why no Visigoths?

Look for further key phrases...

Also, "blood." This one's a big one. Our "blood," their "blood," everyone's "blood." It's a trigger word. Gets people in the right state of frenzy.

Posted by Eric Martin | March 27, 2007 3:01 PM

Also, "blood." This one's a big one. Our "blood," their "blood," everyone's "blood." It's a trigger word. Gets people in the right state of frenzy. - Eric Martin

Indeed ... that does seem to be the case. But why? Why should people get into such a frenzy from the mere mention of blood? Is our body politic dominated by sharks? By vampires?

Posted by DAS | March 27, 2007 3:05 PM

Re Willy

The IDF failed to win in Lebanon because of the incompetence of the Israeli leadership, much like the US failures in Iraq are due to the incompetence of Bush & Co.

Re DAS

The German Armed forces in 1938 were in no position to fight a war against Britain and France. According to historian Walter Goerlitz, the German General Staff was preparing a coup against Hitler in the event he was forced to back down at the Munich conference. Unfortunately, Chamberlain chose appeasement instead and the rest is history.

Posted by SLC | March 27, 2007 3:06 PM

SLC,

I've heard un-attributed comments of this sort, but it's nice to have a historian's name as an attribution. Anyway, though, the point is that containing Germany to Germany would have done the trick at that time. Arguing that appeasement was a mistake in 1938 does not argue that an invasion is necessary today or even that it was necessary in 1938. Somehow those of us pushing containment strategies get lumped in as Chamberlain-style appeasers and thus key strategies of use in dealing with dangerous situations get pushed off the table of acceptable discourse.

Posted by DAS | March 27, 2007 3:11 PM

It is a lot harder to contain states that have doomsday devices, though. Just look at the United States.

Posted by dj moonbat | March 27, 2007 3:21 PM

Indeed ... that does seem to be the case. But why? Why should people get into such a frenzy from the mere mention of blood? Is our body politic dominated by sharks? By vampires?

I don't have the answer, but I suspect some level of vampirism; )

Posted by Eric Martin | March 27, 2007 3:28 PM

The neocons are loath to write "war" given the displeasure of the public with their counsel of preemptive war against Iraq. Their fondest hope is for a "Gulf of Tonkin" style incident that will ensure retaliation. The current naval exercises in the Persian Gulf could potentially provide that trigger.

Posted by whack | March 27, 2007 3:34 PM

Real strength, manly strength consists in being too much of a pussy to say what you really mean. Everybody knows that.

Posted by Jim Henley | March 27, 2007 3:47 PM

Matt,

Just curious: Is there any circumstance under which you think it would be warranted to use force against Iran in the future? Or is anyone who suggests that force might be necessary at some point against a country that scoffs at UN diplomatic efforts, seizes foreign troops, etc., daft?

Posted by Fred | March 27, 2007 3:56 PM

Regarding the Nazi Germany references: Hasn't Iran already moved past the "occupying the Rineland" stage? The reason Iranian leaders are so confident now is that they have done more outrageous things in the past without suffering any effective military response. They paid no price for invading our embassy and taking our diplomats and Marines hostage for over a year, for using their proxies to blow up the Marine barracks in Beirut, or for using their proxies to blow up the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia. Why should they fear a military response now?

Posted by Fred | March 27, 2007 4:10 PM

Fred, do you have some clear idea of what you want to accomplish by attacking Iran? You seem to think we can shock and awe them into doing what we demand. Every credible expert has said America has no military options to slow Iran's nuclear development or provoke a regime change. I personally am getting tired of losing pointless wars.

Posted by Gary Sugar | March 27, 2007 4:21 PM

Fred: prove that they paid no price for these deeds. Also - I think everyone here would much rather know when you (and the neocons you evidently favor) think force would be warranted than when MY thinks it would be warranted. Why so coy ?

Posted by boonie | March 27, 2007 4:21 PM

MY:

You would be better to write:

Perhaps the most commonplace element of the Iran debate has been the tendency for it to prompt people to call for war without quite calling for war.

Posted by otto | March 27, 2007 4:23 PM

Fred:

Import a pro-war article from 2002 into Word. Replace all the Q's with N's. Magic! The neocons don't even have to write new articles anymore! The trouble with these arguments are that they're sourced to people who want war. For example, the recent "Sanctions will hurt you more than us" speech was pretty obviously a reference to increased oil prices... unless you rely on the headlines alone, which couch it cutely as a nuclear threat.

And again, is there any evidence whatsoever that any attacks by Lebanese Hezbollah were ordered from Tehran? Did the order come down in Prague, via Mohammed Atta? Oh, and citations from the people that were selling them arms at the time don't count.

Posted by Luke | March 27, 2007 4:26 PM

Gary,

You're right. I forgot that all the infrastructure related to nuke development in Iran (like the reactor the Russians are building for them) is bomb proof. And I also forgot that the oil refineries Iran uses to refine the sixty percent of its gas it doesn't need to import are bomb proof too.

Lots of you seem to be drawing the wrong lessons from Iraq, because you forget two things:

First, bombing did work to virtually shut down Saddam's widely-dispersed WMD programs (which included a nuke program, though far less advanced than Iran's). There's no reason to think it wouldn't set Iran's programs back years (it's true there would be some negative consequences for us, like bad PR in Iran, but good PR there hasn't helped us in the past).

Second, the credible threat of force, can dramatically increase the chances of compliance. Consider two examples from the Iraq war. The first is Bush's ultimatum to Saddam to go into exile with his sons or he would be deposed. Subsequent reports from Iraqi insiders stated that, to Saddam, this threat was not credible. He expected a limited invasion/bombing campaign that would allow him to stay in power. Because the threat wasn't credible to him, he didn't comply. The second example is the reported Iranian diplomatic advances toward the U.S. (via the Swiss, I think) shortly after Iraq's regime was toppled. The Iranians at the point apparently felt there was a credible enough threat that force would be used against them that they sought negotiations. According to the reports the Iranians were willing to put everything on the table, including their nuke program. If those reports are true, the Bush administration was foolish not to take that opportunity to negotiate then.

Of course, after the Iraq war dragged on to a grinding insurgency/civil war and became unpopular, the Iranians began to think it less likely that we would risk another war with them. That is why they have been more aggressive. The Iranians can be made to realize that, although Americas hate a drawn-out ground war, we remain somewhat fond of pummeling air campaigns.

As for the usual objection that Iran might retaliate against our troops in Iraq: aren't they already doing that by supplying IEDs, etc.? If they attempted to retaliate in a more conventional fashion they would play into our armed forces' strengths and get routed.

Posted by Fred | March 27, 2007 5:09 PM

Luke:

"And again, is there any evidence whatsoever that any attacks by Lebanese Hezbollah were ordered from Tehran?"

Will you be asking the same question when Hezbollah or a similar group detonates a nuke?

Posted by Fred | March 27, 2007 5:13 PM

"What pool, what rivers, are unconscious of our deplorable war? What sea have not the Daunian slaughters discolored? What shore is unstained by our blood?" --Horace.

Posted by Ron | March 27, 2007 5:44 PM

The first is Bush's ultimatum to Saddam to go into exile with his sons or he would be deposed. Subsequent reports from Iraqi insiders stated that, to Saddam, this threat was not credible.

If you change the word "threat" to "offer," you might start to see the problem with this example. Saddam would have had to be mad to think he was going to be able to walk away from the US and Iraq.

Posted by Jackmormon | March 27, 2007 6:10 PM

Yes, if someone detonates a nuke, it will be worth asking for evidence pointing to which groups or states which are alleged to have organised it. Or do we enter an evidence-free zone at that point?

Posted by otto | March 27, 2007 6:15 PM

Re Fred

"You're right. I forgot that all the infrastructure related to nuke development in Iran (like the reactor the Russians are building for them) is bomb proof. And I also forgot that the oil refineries Iran uses to refine the sixty percent of its gas it doesn't need to import are bomb proof too"

Bomb proof against a 15 megaton thermonuclear bomb dropped from a B52?

Posted by SLC | March 27, 2007 6:32 PM

Good PR in Iran hasn't helped us in the past? Just for your information, Freddy boy, they were our allies in the war five years ago, before that idiot decided to put them into the Axis of Evil.

Posted by ajay | March 27, 2007 6:43 PM

Otto:

"Yes, if someone detonates a nuke, it will be worth asking for evidence pointing to which groups or states which are alleged to have organised it. Or do we enter an evidence-free zone at that point?"

Your comment alludes to the reason why we can't let Iran get nukes: with more than one potential nuclear proliferating state (the other now being North Korea), it will become increasingly difficult to track the source of a detonated nuke with certainty. Then when good folks such as yourself are demanding evidence of who supplied the nuke, and we don't have such evidence, there's a chance that we won't retaliate against the nuke-supplying state.

Knowing this state of confusing is likely in the aftermath of a nuke strike reduces the deterrent to a country like Iran delivering a nuke in the first place. So the MAD framework that has kept the nuclear peace for the better part of six decades will have deteriorated.

Posted by Fred | March 27, 2007 6:49 PM

Iran hasn't moved past the Rhineland stage? In the last 5 years America has invaded the countries on either side of Iran, overthrown their governments and occupied them, proclaimed an agenda of revolutionary transformation of the region, and supported its Israeli proxy in the destruction of the infrastructure of Lebanon. We have then proclaimed our right to dictate Iran's internal decisions about nuclear development. The idea that Iran is Hitler and we're Britain and France is laughably idiotic. Right now the country that has to make a choice between appeasement and confronting a hostile aggressor is Iran. Let's hope Iran is run by Neville Chamberlains and not Churchills.

Posted by William Burns | March 27, 2007 7:10 PM

Bonnie:

"Fred: prove that they paid no price for these deeds."

You want me to prove a negative to you? Wouldn't it be easier for you to show me some instances of Iran paying a price for its role in invading our embassy and killing our troops in Lebanon and Saudi Arabia?

"Also - I think everyone here would much rather know when you (and the neocons you evidently favor) think force would be warranted than when MY thinks it would be warranted. Why so coy?"

I count as part of the "everyone" here, and I am interested in when MY thinks it might be appropriate or necessary to use force against Iran. As for when I think it would be appropriate, I would say as soon as it's clear diplomacy has run its course and has proven unsuccessful. Painstakingly slow diplomacy has just resulted in the second series of sanctions against Iran. Iran continues its defiance. There is room for another round of mild sanctions without risking a veto by Russia or China, but I suspect after that, any stronger sanctions would be vetoed. Thus, I think that if Iran hasn't complied shortly after that third round of sanctions it would be clear that diplomacy had run its course and the explicit threat of force (behind closed doors) would be warranted. Failing that, the use of force would be warranted.

You have my answer; what's yours? What's Matt's? At least one inquiring mind wants to know.

Posted by Fred | March 27, 2007 7:10 PM

The basic policy question is: when Iran eventually gets a nuclear weapon, do you want us to have bombed them recently or not?

Posted by otto | March 27, 2007 7:19 PM

Wouldn't it be easier for you to show me some instances of Iran paying a price for its role in invading our embassy and killing our troops in Lebanon and Saudi Arabia?

Other than minor matters like their being cut off from our economy and denied access to various international economic institutions we control, our support for their enemy Iraq in the bloodiest war of the second half of the century, and their diplomatic isolation as a result of our refusal to recognize their quite legitimate government, no, they've paid no price.

Incidentally, grow up.

Posted by guy | March 27, 2007 7:38 PM

Otto,

If you assume that Iran will get a nuke no matter what we do, and that they will not do anything stupid with it once they get it, then why don't we just give them a few nukes now? That way, they'd like us and be responsible about it.

Posted by Fred | March 27, 2007 7:40 PM

There's no reason to hurry on the day, but yes, Iran will sooner or later get a nuke no matter what we do. They may or may not do something stupid once they get it, but I'd say chances of that happening are much higher if we've been bombing them first.

Posted by otto | March 27, 2007 8:03 PM

As for the usual objection that Iran might retaliate against our troops in Iraq: aren't they already doing that by supplying IEDs, etc.? If they attempted to retaliate in a more conventional fashion they would play into our armed forces' strengths and get routed.

First of all Fred, the evidence that Iran is supplying any party in Iraq with IEDs is pretty thin at the moment. Second, the strongest evidence that Iran is supplying IEDs to Iraqi factions suggests that they have helped to arm Shiite groups with said devices. As of today, Shiite factions account for a very small fraction of overall attacks on US troops.

So, no, Iran isn't doing too much at the moment.

The problem arises if and when Iran mobilizes its proxies in Iraq to attack US forces. Remember, the Badr Corp. were formed, trained and indoctrinated in Iran itself during the period between the Iraqi Shiite uprising of the early 90's to the US invasion in 2003. Many members of Dawa also spent time in exile in Iran. Literally hundreds of thousands of Iraqi expats and ethnic Iraqis from Iran crossed the border post invasion. Many of these cadres would happily attack the US if the US struck Iran. In fact, it's not entirely clear which factions of the current Iraqi government would support us, or Iran, and to what ends.

Even Sadr's group, though lacking the same recent historical ties to Iran, has been courted heavily by Iran post-invasion. And they certainly have no love for the occupation forces, so...

As Pat Lang ably demonstrated, Iran (with the help of these proxy forces) could effectively sever or severely hamper our long, vulnerable supply lines that weave and wind from Kuwait through Shiite southern Iraq.

Posted by Eric Martin | March 27, 2007 8:37 PM

If only we had nuked them pesky Ruskies before they got the bomb . . .

Life is so simple when you've got a gun. You shot the bad guy, ride off into the sunset and live happiliy ever after. Maybe that's the reason they all want the bomb. Funny how when you get one people treat you a little different. No preemptive war threats anymore, just sign the check.

We are the only ones who can be trusted with it you know. Cause we would only use it to kill bad guys. And having the bomb means collaeral damage, the walrus said: "Ain't no war crime."

Posted by Footloose | March 27, 2007 8:37 PM

In addition, Iran could retaliate in several other ways throughout the region, as told by Richard Sale.

Posted by Eric Martin | March 27, 2007 8:37 PM

Is SLC the new pseudonym for Al?

Posted by MQ | March 28, 2007 2:01 AM

Anyway, though, the point is that containing Germany to Germany would have done the trick at that time. Arguing that appeasement was a mistake in 1938 does not argue that an invasion is necessary today or even that it was necessary in 1938.

Except that the only way France and Britain had to "contain" Germany in '38 was to go to war against her, and the only way to do that was invade. Unless they were supposed to parachute a few divisions into the Sudetenland?

As for the supposed coup, there were definitely some generals leaning that way, but one may pardonably doubt their nerve. The "good" German generals were always on their way to ultimately doing something about Hitler sooner or later. Apparently just drawing a Luger and shooting him was out of the question.

Posted by Anderson | March 28, 2007 9:13 AM

Has anybody actually thought about the "Iran is supplying IEDs" claim seriously? Does anyone even know what an IED is? Bueller? Anyone?

IED = Improvised Explosive Device. Unless Iran is being fiendishly clever in trying to cover its tracks, wouldn't it be supplying insurgents/militias or what have you with regular explosive devices rather than jerry-rigged, improvised ones?

Anyway, we had to have gone into Iraq knowing that Iran had an interest there (and we had to have know that we were doing both Iran and Al Qaeda a favor by deposing their mutual enemy, Saddam Hussein). Isn't this appeasement? And yet people express po'-faced shock that Iran might try to interfere in the internal workings of Iraq (um, didn't we do just that with our invasion?) and that there are terrorists in Iraq (wasn't that part of that mean-spirited -- that's a way to make people welcome your invasion with flowers and gratitude, make it know that you expect their country to serve as fly-paper for a bunch of terrorists -- "fly-paper" strategy of why/how Iraq was part of the war on terror?) ...

Either the people making our strategies are incredibly stupid or incredibly dishonest and disingenuous. I vote for all three with a dose of "strategic incompetence" (there's money to be made in all of these blunders, nu? c.f. Ike on the subject ...) thrown in for good measure.

Posted by DAS | March 28, 2007 10:19 AM

Re MQ

Just to set Mr. MQs' mind at rest, it appears that Al is a conservative Rethuglican while I am a liberal Democrat. The problem is that all too many Israel bashers on this blog think that Israel bashing and Israel hating is a litmus test for being a liberal Democrat. Not so!

Posted by SLC | March 28, 2007 10:20 AM

Then when good folks such as yourself are demanding evidence of who supplied the nuke, and we don't have such evidence, there's a chance that we won't retaliate against the nuke-supplying state. - Fred

OTOH, suppose we retaliate against the wrong state 'cause we didn't have the evidence to know the right one? If a country is suicidal enough to launch a first strike, why wouldn't they launch one hoping maybe we'll take out the wrong country (and an enemy of theirs) instead.

Heck -- Al Qaeda attacked us on 9/11, and in addition to taking out their protectors, the Taliban (who have since come back), we got rid of an enemy of theirs (Saddam Hussein) as well. If a suicidal terrorist gets hold of a nuke, they might hope our retaliations might be similarly beneficial to their cause.

Posted by DAS | March 28, 2007 10:22 AM

Re Anderson

"As for the supposed coup, there were definitely some generals leaning that way, but one may pardonably doubt their nerve. The "good" German generals were always on their way to ultimately doing something about Hitler sooner or later. Apparently just drawing a Luger and shooting him was out of the question."

We are, of course, unable at this remoteness in time to discern what the innermost thoughts of the German General Staff officers were at the time. However, this we do know. After the capitulation of Chamberlain at the Munich conference, there was no chance whatever of such a coup taking place as Hitler was seen as a winner.

Posted by SLC | March 28, 2007 10:26 AM

IED = Improvised Explosive Device. Unless Iran is being fiendishly clever in trying to cover its tracks, wouldn't it be supplying insurgents/militias or what have you with regular explosive devices rather than jerry-rigged, improvised ones?

Well, I think people use the "IED" shorthand somewhat erroneously in this context, because the charge against Iran is that they are supplying EFP's (or Explosively Formed Projectiles) - which are more deadly. They are either Iranian pre-fabs, or the technology was shared with certain Iraqi factions. Or so the argument goes.

Truth be told, though, this technology and know-how has been around for a long time, and there really was no need to rely on the Iranians to supply it. Heck, even the IRA was on this tip years ago.

Posted by Eric Martin | March 28, 2007 10:42 AM

DAS:

"OTOH, suppose we retaliate against the wrong state 'cause we didn't have the evidence to know the right one?"

That's exactly why it's crucial to keep Iran from getting nukes. MAD wouldn't work against Iran, because -- as long as it wasn't the only rogue with nukes (e.g., there's also North Korea) -- it could retain some plausible deniability.

Posted by Fred | March 29, 2007 1:11 AM

If It's War You Want...

Comments (53)

Search

Books by Matthew Yglesias

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Weekly Archives

Categories