Say What You Mean!

Glenn Greenwald on the war party's bizarre refusal to actually come out and say that it favors war with Iran:

For that reason, Stuttaford has been repeatedly asking the Warriors what they think we ought to do about Iran if negotiations are so misguided, and they keep refusing to answer. Finally Rubin was forced to address the question, and he began this way: "What would I suggest? When it comes to economic measures, Patrick Clawson provides some useful suggestions." He does not, of course, say that we should confine ourselves to those "economic measures," because that's not what he believes. He thus proceeds to reject various other measures (while never saying which ones he favors) and then finishes with this pronouncement:

Nor do I believe it in U.S. interests to acquiesce to the Revolutionary Guard and Office of the Supreme Leader with nuclear arms. Their ideology matters; it would be unwise to project our own values upon those circles in Iran which would control such capability. With regard to much more precise options, such things are better discussed in private, and I would be glad to do so.

So Rubin is unwilling to say publicly what he thinks the U.S. should do with regard to Iran. He is willing to unveil his great insights only in secret, closed-door meetings at the AEI at shadowy gatherings of our nation's neoconservative foreign policy geniuses, but is not willing to advocate those ideas to his fellow citizens in public forums.

Only Rubin is dumb enough to get caught up in this precise phrasing, but the basic pattern is everywhere.

Comments

Be fair; Joshua Muravchick, major AEI neocon, was pretty damn blunt in this November LA Times op-ed. First sentence: "We must bomb Iran." He's been just as forthright in Commentary magazine.

Y'know, you can think the neocons are wrong, but it's just not right to accuse them of intellectual dishonesty. I'm sick of this whole "secretive cabal steering us to war" thing. The ideas and the debate are out there in the open.

Posted by Daniel | March 1, 2007 4:17 PM

In general, states - and their intellectual frontmen - like to able to claim that they have been 'forced' into war by the actions of other states. Talking publicly and enthusiastically about military options reduces the plausibility of these claims.

Posted by otto | March 1, 2007 4:23 PM

Andy McCarthy sets it all out today in the Corner, in all of it's sickening, psychotic detail.

But you're right, most of the animals figure that laying it out in that much detail might lead to push back from sane people. They figure (probably correctly) that, once a shooting war starts, people will fall in line behind their monsterous program.

Of course, if it really does work out the way that madmen like McCarthy want it to work out, the comparisons to Nazi Germany will no longer be overwrought.

Posted by LarryM | March 1, 2007 4:30 PM

Andy says:

"Finally, to make most of the above both possible and credible during wartime, when we are stretched thin in Iraq and Afghanistan, I would follow the advice of my friend Mark Levin, among others, to increase defense spending."

How will that increase in spending lead to increasing the number of people in the military without a draft? Or does he plan to invae Iran with a bunch of $100 bills?

Posted by Paul | March 1, 2007 4:41 PM

Oops - link doesn't work above. The Muravchik article is at http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.25159/pub_detail.asp.

Posted by Daniel | March 1, 2007 4:43 PM

While I agree with Sock Puppets Greenwald that Rubin ought to say what he means, I don't see any evidence that one example makes some general trend among rightwingers.

Matthew says the "basic pattern is everywhere", but provides no evidence that's true.

Posted by Al | March 1, 2007 4:44 PM

How will that increase in spending lead to increasing the number of people in the military without a draft?

Um, you're kidding, right?

Posted by Al | March 1, 2007 4:45 PM

Corrupt idealogy aside, most of these people lack the intellectual chops to go beyond one-dimentional platitudes like: "more regime change, please." It's just easier and a whole lot less precise to drop hints and vague suggestions.

War is not a laughing matter...but if the Cornerites actually said what they mean about Iran, it would be hard to keep from snickering.

Don't get me wrong: the people at the Corner are dangerous. They are sneaky. But at bottom, they are just unbelievably stupid and wrong about nearly everything they say.

Posted by owenz | March 1, 2007 4:45 PM

Daniel, what the hell are you talking about? Are there crazy conservatives out there openly advocating war? Yes. But a large majority of them deny it at every opportunity.
From CNN:
BLITZER: Is that true? Are you getting ready for a war with Iran? SNOW: No. And furthermore, Wolf, I am at a total loss to find any place where this administration has been trying to, quote, “create a run-up with a war on Iran.” It is interesting to me that it seems that some politicians maybe are trying to protect Iran. But no. The president has made it clear. We’re not planning a full scale invasion into Iran.

Posted by max | March 1, 2007 4:46 PM

What's driving this phenomenon on the Corner is that there are several facts that conservatives and liberals agree on:

1) There will never, ever be a draft in this country again, unless we're attacked by a nuclear weapon, or Helen of Troy is kidnapped, or something equally earth shattering, and

2) You can not occupy the land mass between Iraq (maybe Syria) and Afganistan with the US volunteer army. Even if you could (which you can't) the incompetance of the current adminstration is so universally agreed upon that not even conservatives think it could be pulled off.

So in light of these agreed-upon facts, some people (usually left-leaning, but not always) say "hey, let's think of a way to solve these problems without a catastrophic resort to war!"

Other people (usually right-leaning) say "no this is WWIV, a war for survival, and here is the way to win it!!!!

Step 1: Saber rattle, spend more money on the military. Above all, never ever ever talk to evil regimes.

Step 2: ?

Step 3: Victory!"

I've not yet heard an argument for what "Step 2" is, and apparently this is because no one has been able to figure it out.

Posted by Ben | March 1, 2007 4:56 PM

Nah, no secretive cabal:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,999737,00.html

Nah, cabal schmabal:

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Pentagon_confirms_Iranian_directorate_as_intelligence_0615.html

Posted by JJ | March 1, 2007 5:08 PM

Daniel and Al:

Please see, also, the statements of Ledeen, Michael.

Not only does Ledeen weave in and out of exhortations for military confrontation with Iran and contrary claims, he even tried to deny that he supported the invasion of Iraq.

I'm not kidding. He actually tried to say that he was opposed to the Iraq invasion. Still does in fact.

Posted by Eric Martin | March 1, 2007 5:11 PM

Aren't the presents under the tree enough proof of Santa Claus' existence for you?

In any case, please don't voice your doubts in front of the children.

Posted by alphie | March 1, 2007 5:15 PM

Ledeen isn't refusing to say what he favors, as Rubin is. Ledeen says flat out that he does not favor war with Iran right now. Neither do I. But I reserve the right to change my mind at any time in the future if measures I do favor (diplomacy, pressure, etc.) don't work out or if Iran does something that changes the status quo.

Posted by Al | March 1, 2007 5:20 PM

Ledeen says flat out that he does not favor war with Iran right now.

Which is true. But then, oddly enough, he also says flat out that he DOES favor military confrontation with Iran. He says both. Depending on his mood, his audience and his purpose. But he takes pains to carve out plausible deniability. Which is kind of the point of this post on dissembling.

See here for evidence:

http://highclearing.com/index.php/archives/2007/02/17/5974

Which was his approach to war with Iraq. While there are reams of his writings that contain exhortations for war with Iraq, he also wrote some things that said the opposite. That way, he could point to whichever version was more convenient.

Again, the point of this post.

Posted by Eric Martin | March 1, 2007 5:25 PM

JJ: the stories you link to are about what goes on inside the executive, which can sometimes be secretive, partially as a result of intellectual debate that takes place in the marketplace of ideas outside the government, which is not secretive. While who-knows-what may have gone on in the Pentagon in the lead-up to the war in Iraq, I don't think you can argue that the intellectual backers of the policy were shy about it. Richard Perle, as just one example, was banging the war drum since the mid-90s.

Same thing now. I'm not saying that the administration, secretly or otherwise, isn't gearing up for war (though I don't really think it's in the cards). I'm just saying that there is an open and mostly honest debate going on that influences it.

Eric: w/r/t Ledeen, he's certainly not the most savory of characters, so it's hard to get behind him in order to defend the neocons' basic integrity. But I think his position on Iran has been pretty consistently one based on trying to start a democratic revolution there, rather than invade the place.

And speaking of, can anyone point to anyone who advocates *invasion*, either explicitly or by vague hints, as opposed to an *air campaign*? There's a big difference, and I don't know of anyone opting for the former, unless that omission is all part of the sneaky machination y'all seem to think is going on.

Posted by Daniel | March 1, 2007 5:29 PM

Daniel,

Did you read the linked post? Check out the abbreviated version:

http://tianews.blogspot.com/2004/10/ledeen-in-favor-of-military.html

Try to tell me that's consistent with a non-confrontational stance.

As for invasion - no Ledeen doesn't say invade. Though he does support liberal application of air strikes, and sending troops across the border in "hot pursuit" and to destroy certain assets.

Others, though, have supported invasion. Kristol has, Podhoretz, Gerecht, etc. Due to the constraints on troop strength caused by the Iraq commitment, many have changed their position. Or at least the public version thereof.

Recall, it's pretty naive to think that we can start a limited military confrontation with Iran, and that Iran will play along nicely without retaliating in a way that will require an escalated response from us involving ground forces.

You know, just sit back and acquiesce to our "air only" confrontation like good little boys and girls.

Not. Gonna. Happen.

So advocating for air strikes is the equivalent of advocating for a much largere military confrontation. Or at least the likely result should be acknowledged.

Posted by Eric Martin | March 1, 2007 5:35 PM

Stormin Norman Podhoretz on how he believes Bush will stay true to his principles, and what this will mean for the second term:

"From this, as I see it, four things follow. The first is that Bush will do everything in his power to abide by his vow and to keep its ancillary promise by moving in due course and with all deliberate speed from Iraq to North Korea and Iran (with, it is to be hoped, a pit stop in Syria, which has been dispatching jihadi terrorists and weapons across the border into Iraq and which presents many fewer obstacles to military action). The second is that, with Iran as with Iraq before it, the issue of WMD is only the proximate or immediate casus belli. The strategic objective, as defined and mandated by the Bush Doctrine's prescription for the greater Middle East, is to drain yet another of the swamps in which Islamist terrorists are bred and nourished."

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/cm/main/mainHome.aip

Sounds like invasion to me, no?

Posted by Eric Martin | March 1, 2007 5:39 PM

Well, yesterday in two separate posts on the subject previous to the one LarryM mentions above, Andy McCarthy said in no uncertain terms that he considered Iran an existential threat to the United States, and that he has concluded from their actions they clearly plan and expect to destroy the United States in the "short term."

You simply can't argue with that. Stuttaford can try, but it's quite pointless. We're dealing with a paranoiac delusional groupthink at the Corner, and it's ludicrous to suggest otherwise.

Posted by BruceR | March 1, 2007 5:51 PM

But then, oddly enough, he also says flat out that he DOES favor military confrontation with Iran. He says both. Depending on his mood, his audience and his purpose. But he takes pains to carve out plausible deniability. Which is kind of the point of this post on dissembling.

See here for evidence:

http://highclearing.com/index.php/archives/2007/02/17/5974

Odd post you point to. Why is it that some lefties think they can read rightwingers' minds, and thus know what a winger really thinks, even while the winger says precisely the opposite?

It is perfectly consistent to say that you favor regime change in Iran, and that our military can be helpful in this regard, without favoring war. I favored regime change in the Svoeit Union, and our military was helpful in that, and yet I never favored war with the USSR.

Posted by Al | March 1, 2007 6:06 PM

The strategic objective, as defined and mandated by the Bush Doctrine's prescription for the greater Middle East, is to drain yet another of the swamps in which Islamist terrorists are bred and nourished

This says absolutely nothing about war.

Posted by Al | March 1, 2007 6:07 PM

Read minds?

Ledeen says specifically that he favors authorizing our troops to cross the Syrian and Iranian borders in hot pursuit and to use our military to attack terrorist camps there. He also favors air strikes and attacks against Pakistan. That's what Ledeen WRITES. No need to read his mind:

"But one thing I do know: I would insist that my soldiers have the right of "hot pursuit" into Iran and Syria, and I would order my armed forces to attack the terrorist training camps in those countries. And I'm quite sure I'd go after the terrorist training camps in Pakistan, too."

What on earth is that if not a call for military confrontation with those nations?

More Ledeen:

"But we have not heard anything about "seizing the moment." We hear lawyer talk and diplotalk, surrender talk and appeasement talk, and there is no action whatsoever. Is this not the time to go after the terrorist training camps in Syria and Iran? What in the world are we waiting for?

And finally, if we dither through this one, the next one will be worse. Maybe much worse. It's not going away. Stability is a mirage. Chamberlain had a choice between dishonor and war. He chose dishonor and got war anyway. You too, Mr. President. It's the way it works.""

Dishonor or war? Which does Ledeen favor?

Posted by Eric Martin | March 1, 2007 6:13 PM

Ledeen says specifically that he favors authorizing our troops to cross the Syrian and Iranian borders in hot pursuit and to use our military to attack terrorist camps there. He also favors air strikes and attacks against Pakistan.

Attacking terrorist camps in those countries is no more "war" against those countries as it was "war" against Afghanistan and Sudan when Clinton struck alleged terrorist targets there in the '90s.

Posted by Al | March 1, 2007 6:16 PM

This says absolutely nothing about war.

Sure, that truncated portion doesn't.

But this does:

...moving in due course and with all deliberate speed from Iraq to North Korea and Iran (with, it is to be hoped, a pit stop in Syria, which has been dispatching jihadi terrorists and weapons across the border into Iraq and which presents many fewer obstacles to military action). The second is that, with Iran as with Iraq before it, the issue of WMD is only the proximate or immediate casus belli.

You don't have casus belli without the belli. You don't highlight the fact that Syria poses fewer military obstacles unless you intend to...use your military.

Your reading requires a reading of Norm's mind, as well as a deliberate disregarding of his contrary writings.

Nah.

Posted by Eric Martin | March 1, 2007 6:17 PM

Attacking terrorist camps in those countries is no more "war" against those countries as it was "war" against Afghanistan and Sudan when Clinton struck alleged terrorist targets there in the '90s.

Er, Al, he wants to send in troops. That's different than air strikes. Also, Iran can fight back in a way that Sudan and Afghanistan could not. Hence the ground incursion and airstrikes would escalate.

Posted by Eric Martin | March 1, 2007 6:19 PM

Bwahahaha! Quote the sentence AFTER the one that says "casus belli" and act all shocked that that particular sentence says nothing about war. Al, you're the best.

Posted by Steve | March 1, 2007 6:21 PM

Er, Al, he wants to send in troops. That's different than air strikes. Also, Iran can fight back in a way that Sudan and Afghanistan could not. Hence the ground incursion and airstrikes would escalate.

"Would"? OK.

What Ledeen is talking about is certainly much less "war" than what Jimmy Carter did in 1979.

Posted by Al | March 1, 2007 6:23 PM

No it's not. Carter didn't even initiate airstrikes. And Ledeen advocates a massive application - nuke sites, military sites and infrastructure.

And Carter's actions are rather beside the point regardless.

Posted by Eric Martin | March 1, 2007 6:25 PM

Eric - can you back that up re: Podhoretz, Kristol, and Gerecht advocating invasion? That last one is a surprise to me. Gerecht has been a very consistent air-strike guy; I can't find any invasion-urging, unless this is something new I haven't seen? (Hope this doesn't embarrass me.)

Posted by Daniel | March 1, 2007 6:25 PM

Well, Daniel, did you read the quote of Podhoretz that I provided alreadyu? Is that backing it up in your book, because I'm getting tired of all the free research I'm doing here for people that are not discussing in good faith.

Posted by Eric Martin | March 1, 2007 6:27 PM

What if Rubin's favored policy is to bluff?

To convince Iran that we'd go to war with them, without actually doing it?

In that case, it would be wise not to say this policy in public.

Posted by Mr. Noah | March 1, 2007 6:30 PM

No it's not. Carter didn't even initiate airstrikes.

But he sent troops in! Which just a minute ago you were saying was much, much worse than airstrikes. Please try to keep your story straight.

Moreover, Carter sent the troops in against people supported by the Iranian government; Ledeen wants to send them in against terrorists who (ostensibly) have nothing to do with official government.

Posted by Al | March 1, 2007 6:32 PM

Eric - no need to get snarky; it was an honest question. I don't know if I'm convinced that Podhoretz was talking about invasion there, but I certainly can understand reading it that way. But as to Gerecht, I think you might be attributing a position he doesn't hold.

Posted by Daniel | March 1, 2007 6:34 PM

But he sent troops in! Which just a minute ago you were saying was much, much worse than airstrikes. Please try to keep your story straight.

Never said it was much much worse. What I said was, sending in troops is more than just airstrikes. Ledeen is in favor of BOTH. Both are worse than just one. That's the type of thing I'd have to point out to my five year old nephew. Actually, not any more. He's past that level already. But keep trying Al - you too can get there someday.

Moreover, Carter sent the troops in against people supported by the Iranian government; Ledeen wants to send them in against terrorists who (ostensibly) have nothing to do with official government.

No. Ledeen thinks they are organs of the regimes in both Iran and Syria. That is simply wrong. Further, Ledeen favors bombing the nuke sites which are...sort of run by the Iranian government.

Posted by Eric Martin | March 1, 2007 6:37 PM

Sorry about the snark Daniel, it's just the Al factor.

Here's a long-ish piece by Gerecht from back in the day.

http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.13613,filter.all/pub_detail.asp

Since then, he has changed to a position of massive aerial bombardment only. But before the reality of Iraq set in, he was much more...ambitious.

Incidentally, how else would you read Podhoretz's piece? I don't get it. How and why do you need a casus belli unless you want a belli?

Posted by Eric Martin | March 1, 2007 6:45 PM

than what Jimmy Carter did in 1979.

ok - I'll byte - exactly what did Jimmy Carter do in 1979?

Posted by Ethel-to-Tilly | March 1, 2007 8:53 PM

ok - I'll byte - exactly what did Jimmy Carter do in 1979?

He invaded Iran, er, I mean, he sent troops to rescue the hostages. Unfortunately, it was a debacle because the mission failed and a bunch of US troops died in the Iranian desert.

Posted by Al | March 1, 2007 10:22 PM

The Michael Rubin policy wonk neocons know full well that they're lucky to have escaped the noose for what they've done to America's place in the world vis a vis the Iraqi debacle and are afraid to go on the record again. Their real agendas can be found in the ravings of louche neocons Michael Freund, Caroline Glick, and Zev Orenstein. In short- they want to drop thermonuclear bombs on Iran, Syria, and Mecca. This is their hot and sticky dream scenario.

Posted by Trevor | March 1, 2007 10:24 PM

Al's posts on this matter have really been an example of his hackdom at its best. Almost completely nonsensical; when not nonsensical, irrelevant; and when not nonsensical or irrelevant, utterly dishonest.

It's also quite a fine thing that he doesn't even know the year Operation Eagle Claw occurred. Well done, hack!

Posted by grh | March 1, 2007 11:29 PM

Really, debating with Al is like hitting yourself in the head with a hammer. It only makes you dizzy.

Posted by Col Bat Guano | March 2, 2007 12:12 AM

The problem with trying to pin down what plan Rubin & The All-Stars have in mind for Iran is that there's an assumption that these are people of good faith. They're not. They're scrofulous poltroons who would sell out their mother, their country, and their fellow AEI bugs for a nickel's worth of bromo seltzer. What- they should be treated with seriousness and dignity? They all should be hung by their feet and set ablaze.

Posted by Trevor | March 2, 2007 12:25 AM

He invaded Iran, er, I mean, he sent troops to rescue the hostages.

Really, Al? And that happened in 1979. Are you sure?

And you really want to pretend, er, equate, that sending 2 choppers full of commandos on an extremely limited-objecive rescue mission consitutes an "invasion" or any other type of offensive combat operation? Sure Al. Whatever you say, buddy...

Posted by Ethel-to-Tilly | March 2, 2007 12:33 AM

Are we to believe a few guys carrying boxcutters constitutes an "invasion" or any other type of offensive combat operation EtT?

One that justifies a response of invading two other countries?

Posted by alphie | March 2, 2007 3:38 AM

The neocons and the administration and Al's of the world lied consistently and brazenly in the run up to Iraq and since and consequently they have lost all claim to a generous reading of their words. Fuck em.

Further, Al is just a total idiot if he thinks his 'precisely what do they say' bullshit has any value. They have advertised that they will tell you what they 'really believe' only in private. And even so it doesn't matter 'precisely what they say' because if their lips are moving they are lying.

Al seems not to get this. I imagine him with the sort of pained and constipated look Bush has begun to take on when he realizes that people no longer believe him, no longer trust his "we know" how ever often he repeats it, and living out the death of Elvis, straining against his own turds while posed upon a porcelain throne.

Posted by BooBooBear | March 2, 2007 6:32 AM

Every well-trained neocon is aware of the exoteric vs. esoteric knowledge distinction--the former being fit for mass consumption, the latter for those who can "handle the truth". If they feel that anyone is listening, they are loath to come right out and say what they mean, since they know there is no tactical advantage to it: given their considerable insider clout, mainstreaming their ideas is all down-side.

That being said, Daniel at the top of the thread is right: what they think is there in the public record. As a group, they're too arrogant to be truly secretive--it's just too important to them to occasionally show off just how clever they are. So they publish their position papers and give their think-tank presentations, but they won't repeat their theories explicitly when the camera's rolling.

Posted by mondo dentro | March 2, 2007 8:53 AM

Really, Al? And that happened in 1979. Are you sure?

Yes, if by "1979" I really meant 1980.

Posted by Al | March 2, 2007 11:47 AM