« Arming Sunnis | Main | The "I Don't Know" Express »

Excuses

11 Jun 2007 11:31 am

I have to say that I'm really disappointed in this Ken Baer article. Back in March, Time ran an article about widespread criticism of Mahmoun Ahmadenijad in Iran. Ezra Klein did a blog post noting that the existence of such criticism seemed to undermine the narrative that Iran is a totalitarian society:

For all the talk of Iran's autocratic tyrants, here you have the president being burned in effigy, interrupted by firecrackers, and condemned to death, all while he's giving a speech. And he does nothing more than "smilie tightly" throughout it! In this country, if an activist exposes an anti-war t-shirt while the president is talking, she gets muscled out of the room. That's not to say Iran doesn't have all sorts of human rights violations of its own, but the attempt to make the country look like some sort of tyrannical, dictatorial regime is just another element of the war propaganda.

Here's Ken's take:

. And yet, as in 1967, too many progressives–so chastened by the Bush Administration’s deceptions over Iraq and the egregious mistakes that followed–are in danger of letting the past prevent them from focusing on the real threats looming ahead. Some even go so far as to excuse the Iranian regime, the better to deny the very existence of a threat. One prominent blogger, Ezra Klein, wrote, in a post titled "Autocratic Iran?" that the "attempt to make the country look like some sort of tyrannical, dictatorial regime is just another element of the war propaganda."

I think Ezra worded the half-sentence that Baer quotes out of context poorly, but taken as a whole I don't think any fairminded reader could reach the conclusion that Ezra is "excus[ing] the Iranian regime."

Meanwhile, it's frustrating to me personally to see yet another go-round of this with Baer who, thanks to his occasional participation on TPM Cafe, has some interactions with progressive bloggers, myself included. Every now and again he'll pop up to accuse progressives generally, and progressive bloggers in particular, of not taking the Iran issue seriously enough. Each time, I try to engage him in an actual argument about the merits of different policies vis-a-vis Iran but instead he kind of vanishes only to reappear once again, months later, with another effort to pathologize opposition to military action against Iran rather than wrestle with the many, many actual arguments that have been raised by a wide variety of knowledgeable experts as to why this would be a catastrophic course of action.

Share This

Comments (48)

The sort of frustration generated by the fact that Democratic party insiders are evasive or unresponsive to engagement on debate about alternatives to militarist policies in the Middle East is likely to be a permanent feature of your life. Get used to it.

Baer is making bad and disingenuous arguments in support of war? Shocking.

Wasn't Baer a Lieberman advisor in 2004? Who is he coattailing now - Hillary?

I'll second Matt's feeling of frustration with Kenneth Baer. I'm damned if I'm gonna waste time going on an archival witch hunt--I'll just say that several times w/ Baer on TPMCafe, I got the same icky feeling I used to get from Bill Safire's smug manipulativeness: The sense that, however sincerely the author's core convictions may be held, a disingenuous veneer of tactically calculating BS was being overlaid on an argument, which entailed less than fair characterizations, quotations, and whatever, with the intention to mislead in the service of the greater cause, whatever that was. Almost enough to make me a Straussian....

Each time, I try to engage him in an actual argument about the merits of different policies vis-a-vis Iran but instead he kind of vanishes only to reappear once again, months later, with another effort to pathologize opposition to military action against Iran

That's straight out of the right wing playbook: if you can't argue the facts, attack your opponent instead. Same old same old. Don't expect any change.

Look, Baer is clearly just a liar. Liars are a big problem in our political culture.

The right way to deal with liars is to regard them as having burned through their stock of personal trust capital, thereby resulting in credibility-bankruptcy. Basically, we should all just assume that everything they say henceforth is just another lie.

Can't see why anyone pays any more attention to Baer and his friends than they do to all the Nigerian emails they get. Actually less, since being wrong about one of the latter could lose you tens of millions of dollars in very easy money.

[snark]Don't you know that by trying to discuss the merits of various policies for dealing with the problem, you are demonstrating that you don't take the problem seriously?[/snark]

A minor point, but isn't there something wrong with Baer's remark 'too many progressives–so chastened by the Bush Administration’s deceptions over Iraq and the egregious mistakes that followed...' People who are chastened have yielded some ground or revised their views in the light of contrary evidence or in response to opposing arguments. Baer must mean something like 'appalled by' or 'obsessed with'.

Kenny Baer's favorite professor at Penn was Frank Luntz, so it should come as no surprise to anyone that Baer doesn't care much or interact much with facts and arguments. Instead, Baer was then and is now interested in "framing" issues which for him means excluding non-centrists from the "discourse."

My experience is that most of the "foreign policy professionals" who appear on TPMCafe refuse to debate anyone except each other. They like TPMCafe because it provides a semi-prominent forum for them to voice their opinions, but they blatantly refuse to address any of the issues brought up in comments. Which kind of defeats the whole purpose, if you ask me.

Kenny Baer is one of those guys. He rolls in, writes a piece, then leaves without answering or addressing a single concern of the community.

Lame.

Can't see why anyone pays any more attention to Baer and his friends than they do to all the Nigerian emails they get. Actually less, since being wrong about one of the latter could lose you tens of millions of dollars in very easy money.

The sad part is that guys like Kenny Baer will staff the next Democratic president's foreign policy team. I suspect a big part of his obsessions with sounding "serious" involves him securing future employment in the liberal hawk wing of the next Administration.

Liberal hawks are one of the more virulent diseases of our diseased political culture.

Ken Baer is just another DLC-style tool who makes bad and disingenuous arguments as a matter of course. Just ignore them.

1) From Ken Baer's bio at TPMCafe:
"During the 2004 election, he was a senior advisor to the Joe Lieberman for President campaign "

2) For an example of Kenny in full cry, see his Nov 2006 article bashing Nancy Pelosi and advocating that Jane Harman be appointed Chairman of the House Permanent and Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI).

3) Notice how Kenny used some utterly vicious ad hominems on Nancy Pelosi "Message: settling of scores is more important than your security. ".

Note also how Kenny referred to Hastings' (Harman's rival) prior impeachment but failed to tell his readers that that involved matters occurring back in 1981 -- matters for which a jury acquitted Hastings.

4) Finally, note how Kenny failed to mention a few things to his readers re Jane Harman --even after I rubbed his nose in the droppings down in the comments section.

One matter was the Oct TIME article entitled
"Feds Probe a Top Democrat's Relationship with AIPAC"

See
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1549069- 3,00.html

A few extracts:
------------
"Did a Democratic member of Congress improperly enlist the support of a major pro-Israel lobbying group to try to win a top committee assignment? That's the question at the heart of an ongoing investigation by the FBI and Justice Department prosecutors, who are examining whether Rep. Jane Harman of California and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) may have violated the law in a scheme to get Harman reappointed as the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee, according to knowledgeable sources in and out of the U.S. government. "
--------
"But congressional sources say Pelosi has been infuriated by pressure from some major donors lobbying on behalf of Harman ...
...A congressional source tells TIME that the lobbbying for Harman has included a phone call several months ago from entertainment industry billionaire and major Democratic party contributor Haim Saban. A Saban spokeswoman said he could not be reached for comment."

ATTENTION MATTHEW YGLESIAS READERS:

Don Williams has posted a rational comment with citations and links.

Ad hominems against Don Williams in place of actual argumentation will begin in 5, 4, 3, 2...

1967 again.

This is an old, old, fight. The people wanting to fight about it are OLD. All of this supposedly left infighting are still pissed about how the new left didn't swallow the garbage that Johnson should have backed colonialism in the Levant and not in Indochina. At least these folks are gonna die soon.

1) Something else Kenny Baer failed to mention in his advocacy for Jane Harman: When Israeli Billionaire Haim Saban's "Director of Research" Kenneth Pollack was telling us in 2002 that Saddam was on the verge of building nuclear bombs, Pollack had no fear of being contradicted by HPSCI member Jane Harman.

Even though Bob Graham on the Senate Intelligence COmmittee said that he had seen no evidence that Saddam was an imminent threat -- an assessment echoed by Nancy Pelosi (who also had access to intelligence based on her position.)

2) The TIME article I cited above has a closing paragraph that might explain why Harman didn't tell US voters that Pollack's claims were bullshit:
------------------------
"Saban has donated at least $3,000 to Harman's campaign, according to Federal Election Commission records, and the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, which he sponsors at the prestigious Brookings Institution, boasts Harman among its biggest fans. "When the Saban Center talks, I listen," Harman said at a Saban Center briefing in February on U.S. strategy in Iraq. Harman quipped that, in order to attend the session at Brookings, she had to "blow off" a senior intelligence official's appearance before a House committee. "

People like Baer are why I'm ambivalent at best about TPM Cafe, even though I'm a huge TPM fan. TPM Cafe gives far too much attention to liberal hawks, so-called "moderates," Liebermanesque types and DLCers. In other words, all the people that have been losing elections for Democrats, and emasculating the Dems' ability to be an effective counterweight to the GOP's warmongering and kleptocracy. And yes, I have communicated my dissatisfaction to Josh Marshall.

It's an odd thing about Marshall: his own stuff is great, but for some reason he's far more interested in engaging with people to his right than to his left.

Kenny Baer's TPMCafe article pushing for Jane Harman to be HPSCI Chairwomen is here:
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/nov/14/intelligent_design

Re beckya57's comment "all the people that have been losing elections for Democrats, and emasculating the Dems' ability to be an effective counterweight to the GOP's warmongering and kleptocracy"
--------
Actually, some billionaire financiers of the Democratic Party feel that they own the Party-- that they've bought it. Some of those billionaires are strong supporters of Israel and apparently feel their campaign donations buy the lives of US soldiers spent in unnecessary wars.

The NY Times sweetly explained it to us back in October 1, 2006 in an article about Howard Dean's quarrel with Rahm Emanuel. Here's the money quote:

"The D.N.C. quit doing much of anything in conservative rural states, and the party’s presidential candidates didn’t bother stopping by on their way to more promising terrain. Every four years, the [Democratic] national party became obsessed with “targeting” — that is, focusing all its efforts on 15 or 20 winnable urban states and pounding them with expensive TV ads. The D.N.C.’s defining purpose was to raise the money for those ads. The national party became, essentially, a service organization for a few hundred wealthy donors, who treated it like their private political club. "

What the Times didn't explain , of course, is that some of those wealthy owners ..er.. donors are also patrons of the Israel Lobby.

It's not always clear why. In his Haaretz interview, Haim Saban noted his strong emotional attachment to Israel.

But some of us who saw the Marc Rich episode are cynical enough to smirk. If you are engaged in ..er..complex financial deals that might come "under review" by the IRS, then having an automatic citizenship and passport in another country is of great value. Of course, having the Government of Israel then lobby a US President for a pardon on your behalf would be ..uh.. "priceless".

Iran seems like almost the prototype of what Jeanne Kirkpatrick called an "authoritarian" regime as opposed to a facist one -- it is not fully democratic, some human rights violations, but strong civil society and many countervailing internal pressures to the authoritarian regime. However, it lacks the single most important element for neocons to recognize it as excusably "authoritarian": it's not a U.S. ally.

But the sad thing is that the U.S. and Iran perhaps could be allies if we tried to establish a better relationship...we have a number of common strategic interests. But types like Baer will work like hell to try and prevent mutually beneficial and peaceful compromises between the U.S. and Iran.

Also: criticism from the Ken Baers of the world makes me respect Ezra more.

Baer's analogy to the 1967 war is just bizarre. As he himself acknowledges, it was clear in the spring of 1967 that war was "imminent," whereas in the present, it is merely "not implausible in the foreseeable future." Kind of a big difference, no? Just because something is "not implausible in the foreseeable future," we're suposed to ... well, he doesn't say, does he.

If the '67 war tells us anything relevant, it is that Israel is capable of defending itself when it has to, and that U.S. assistance with Israel's defense requires only the expenditure of treasure and not of blood.

...it is not fully democratic...

Who is? Seems to me it's about as democratic as the US: has a constitution, all the same branches of government, certainly more viable political parties. Their supreme court is a bit more powerful, that's all.

Kenny Baer is one of those guys. He rolls in, writes a piece, then leaves without answering or addressing a single concern ...

Indeed. His reluctance to engage even the whippersnappers indicates he may have contracted the dread Delicate Flower Syndrome. Knowing he has the disorder, Ken Baer may merely be taking preventative measures. Commenters can be so mean.

abb1:

"Seems to me it's about as democratic as the US: has a constitution, all the same branches of government, certainly more viable political parties. Their supreme court is a bit more powerful, that's all."

Were you talking about Iran there?

Don Williams:

"Of course, having the Government of Israel then lobby a US President for a pardon on your behalf would be ..uh.. "priceless"."

Did the government of Israel really lobby for Marc Rich's pardon? If I remember correctly, it was Rich's ex-wife Denise and Scooter Libby doing the lobbying. BTW, has anyone asked the Clinton's to return Rich's $400k donation to the Clinton library?

I'd say that Josh Marshall is more concerned with keeping himself 'viable' within the MSM system than Matt is.

See, right here's your problem - "Each time, I try to engage him in an actual argument about the merits of different policies vis-a-vis Iran but instead he kind of vanishes" - this is not someone to take seriously. Ignore him, ignore Ken Pollack, ignore Henry Kissinger, ignore Fraces Fukuyama, ignore Fareed Zakaria, IGNORE THIS WHOLE CLASS OF PEOPLE. They are continuously thrown up by the media as "experts" in middle east affairs, military affairs, etc. and the are not at all knowledgeable about the subjects in the first place! Please, could anyone in American history be more discredited than Henry Kissinger? Somehow he's been helping craft the Iraq policy behind the scenes for years now. On the question of Iraq, could anyone (besides Colin Powell, Dick Cheney et al) be more discredited than Ken Pollack? Yet we hear him in the media all the time, agitating for yet more war. Has Ken Baer ever, ever authored a useful, insightful piece of any kind of writing in all his life? Wanker isn't nearly a sufficient term to use to describe people like this. But what the exact term should be doesn't matter. Stop reading these people and taking them seriously! They don't know what they're talking about. They know nothing about Iraq. They know nothing about Iran. And they don't know anything about the surrounding countries, the entire area, its history, its culture, or its current political, social climate. They don't know what they're talking about. AT ALL! That's why their policy prescriptions are always so thoroughly and completely wrong. Ken Baer, Ken Pollack and the like can't survive in a vacuum. The Left has plenty of people who do know about these things, can we start listening to those people, and just outright ignoring the neocon warmongerers?

Democratic Party insiders are just as wired in to the military industrial complex as Publicans. As junior partners, they get a smaller share of the loot, of course, but one look at Bill Clinton palling around with new best friend George HW Bush makes the reality of the situation crystal clear: For people with the right contacts, war is very, very profitable.

Fred, I probably shouldn't respond to you, but what does 'democracy' have to do with 'civil liberties'? Incidentally, civil liberties in the US continued to deteriorate in 2005 as well; pretty much everything your website has to say about Iran has an analogy in the US, just replace 'clerical' with 'corporate'.

what does 'democracy' have to do with 'civil liberties'?

DING! WE HAVE A WINNAH!

Democracy has absolutely nada to do with civil liberties. Zilch. Not a sausage. Which is why the whole idea of "spreading democracy" by force is stupid. If you get a democracy in Iraq without having a respect for the inalienable rights of man, you end up with ... Iran, or something very much like it. Governed by the majority, for the majority, Iran IS a democracy, they're just not very free.

Even in the US the bastion of protection for civil liberties is ... the court system. The single most undemocratic piece of the government that our Founders put into place. A branch of government that answers to "the people" only when appointed or impeached. Turn the Constitution into a document declaring "Mosaic Law" the ultimate law of the land and the Supreme Court into a bunch of appointed clergymen trained to interpret Mosaic Law and you have a Christian version of Iran.

This whole idea of "democracy" being this magical ideal government that solves all problems boggles my mind. I blame too much Schoolhouse Rock and not enough teaching about the Enlightenment in History class. There's nothing inherent about democracy that keeps us free - it is the underlying respect for human rights and the understanding that these rights don't come from the government but are inherent in every human being that keeps us free.

abb1:

You obviously didn't read beyond the first sentence for you to ask such an ignorant question. Try again and scroll down, or click where it says "print version". Freedom House gives several reasons why Iran isn't a democracy. For starters, the people (the "demos" root of democracy) don't decide who gets to run for the legislature or for president: the unelected, theocratic, Council of Guardians does.

It would be as if every candidate for Congress, The Senate, and the Presidency in the United States had to be approved by a 12 man council designated by leader of the Mormon church, and if that same church leader was commander-in-chief of our armed forces, appointed all of our federal judges, and he also appointed the heads of our major broadcast networks.

People like Fred are capable of being honest about the structure of the Iranian government, but once you take their eye off them, they go right back to pretending like crazy Ahmadinejad, who has little real power, is a dictator with his finger on the proto-nuclear trigger. Kind of sad, really.

The thing is, in terms of political freedom & governance, Iran is hardly worse than our Arab allies, and in some respects, better. For example, Ahmadinejad actually won a competitive election, which is far more than one can say about Hosni Mburak or the 2 King Abdullahs.

The thing is, in terms of political freedom & governance, Iran is hardly worse than our Arab allies, and in some respects, better.

That's certainly true. But the case against Iran isn't based on the notion that they're more repressive than their neighbors. (Iran is also more hospitable to Jews than pretty much all of our Arab allies; it still wouldn't be my first choice to retire there!)

It doesn't seem to me that either the "Iran has democratic elections" or "Ahmadinejad is a crazed dictator" folks are being particularly accurate.

Re Fred's question "Did the government of Israel really lobby for Marc Rich's pardon?"
--------
Salon published a rather hilarious serious of emails that were unearthed by a House subcommittee investigating the Marc Rich pardon.
(Although Rudi Giulani could give you an additional view--he was the US Attorney who got rolled)

See http://dir.salon.com/story/politics/feature/2001/02/13/email/?pn=1

A few excerpts:
--------------------
"E-mails and documents turned up by the House Subcommittee on Government Reform in its investigation of the controversial Marc Rich pardon shed a fascinating spotlight on the intersections of money, power and influence in Washington, New York, Israel and the up-for-sale wing of the Democratic Party."
-----------
"Beth

I am told that Barak also discussed the Marc Rich matter with the POTUS.

JQ "
------------
"From: Avner Azulay Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2000 4:44 PM To: Kathleen Behan Cc: Robert Fink Subject: teloecon to potus

Would it still be useful to have another VIP place an additional call to Potus to support the petition. I could try asking the Speaker of the Knesset(Parlement) Avraham Burg who was the guest speaker at the "Marc Rich Annual Seminar" which opened tonight ... Burg is on very friendly terms with Hilary and knows potus from previous contacts. Pse advise/comments. Thanks & regards-Avner"
-----------
"From: Rich Foundation 12/25/2000 04:54:25 AM To: Jack Quinn Cc: Kathleen Behan, Robert Fink

Shimon Peres confirms that he talked to potus on Monday Dec 11th who "took note" of his intervention. FYI.

From: Jack Quinn 12/25/2000 04:33:01 PM To: Marc Rich CC: Robert Fink, Kathleen Behan Subject Elie Wiesel

I talked to him today. He says that he brought up the topic at the WH on Mondat Dec 12th, he refused to disclose who he met. He was told of the difficulties lying ahead in dealing with it (he would explain it only in a face to face meeting) and hopes that they can be surmounted (end quote).
----------
"From: Fink, Robert NY Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2000 5:25 PM To: Jack Quinn Cc: Marc Rich, Avner Azulay, Gershon Kekst, Kitty Behan, Mike Green

Of all the options we discussed, the only one that seems to have real potential for making a difference is the HRC [note: HRC = Hillary Rodnam Clinton ] option and even that has peril if not handled correctly ... As for contacting Rudy, that seems to be too fraught with peril, and I am against it unless someone has some inside information which would strongly suggest he is willing to stay on the side lines and we only want confirmation ... Frankly, I think we benefit from not having the existence of the petition known ...

- - - - - - - - - - - -

From: Avner Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2000 8:26 AM To: Quinn, Jack; Fink, Robert NY Cc: Rich, Marc; behan kathleen Subject: Chuck Schumer

I have been advised that HRC shall feel more at ease if she is joined by her elder senator of NY who also represents the jewish population. The private request from DR shall not be sufficient. It seems that this shall be a pre requisite from her formal position."
---------
"From: gkekst Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2000 5:20 PM To: Fink, Robert NY Subject: Chuck Schumer

Good point. Can quinn tell us who is close enough to lean on schumer?? I am certainly willing to call him but have no real clout. Jack might be able to tell us quickly who the top contributors are ... maybe Bernard Schwartz ??

Gershon"
------------
"Roughly two weeks before the end of Clinton's presidency, more big guns are being recruited.

From: Avner Azulay Sent: January 02, 2001, 12:42 PM To: Robert Fink, Jack Quinn, Kathleen Brehan

... I met with A. Burg (The Speaker of the House). He shall see if he can recruit Israel Singer, Edgar Bronfman and Elie Wiesel ... Has anyone an idea how to reach VernonJ?

You should know that MR spoke with DR. Her impression-from Beth is that HRC shall try to be protective of her husband and stay out of potential trrouble."
------------
"From: Fink, Robert NY Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 4:40 PM To: Avner Cc: Marc Rich, Jack Quinn

I just got off the phone with Jack who had just gotten off the phone with the WH counsel. He will send an email update, but I can tell you that it does not sound too late for these calls. JQ specifically dwelled on the high level and deep support MR was getting from Israel as a ground for consideration. So do not let up. Bob."
---------
"Speaker of the Knesset Abraham Burg sends a letter on Rich's behalf to Clinton on Jan. 9, 2001. On Friday, Jan. 12, Rich meets with Israeli Prime Minister Barak.

From: Avner Azulay Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 5:16 pm To: Jack Quinn, Marc Rich, Robert Fink, Kathleen Behan Subject: telecons to potus

Following mr's mtg with the pm the latter called potus this week. Potus said he is very much aware of the case, "that he is looking into it and that he saw 2 fat books which were prepared by these people." Potus sounded positive but maede no concrete promise.

Rabin has a telecon date with potus on Monday"
---------

Steve:

I never said that Iran was a dictatorship or that Ahmadinejad was that dictator. Nevertheless, there is reason to be concerned about Ahmadinejad's ravings -- not because he has the power to implement them, but because he wouldn't be president of Iran if those who have (or will have) the power didn't pick him to run for the office. To ignore what Ahmadinejad says because he isn't the real boss would be a little like ignoring what an American Secretary of State says. If Condi Rice starting talking about nuking my town, I wouldn't dismiss it by saying she isn't the commander-in-chief; I'd worry that the C-in-C who picked her might share her loony views.

Don Williams:

Interesting. All hands on deck for that one. I can't think of anyone less deserving of a pardon.

Fred
Oh, it gets better. I should have mentioned that my comment re the warm feeling an Israeli passport gives you when the IRS is sniffing around is not exactly a hypothetical.

From a September 2006 report in http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117950655.html?categoryid=18&cs=1
-----------
BERLIN -- Faced with an IRS bill of some $300 million in unpaid taxes, Haim Saban reportedly is close to selling his ProSiebenSat 1 TV group.
Speculation of an imminent sale has heated up in the past month in the wake of a U.S. Senate investigation into illicit offshore tax shelters that implicated Saban and a number of other U.S. billionaires.

....
Last month the Senate's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations grilled Saban on an offshore shelter created to avoid more than $300 million in taxes from his half-interest in the Fox Family Channel -- purchased by Disney in 2001 for $3 billion in cash plus the assumption of $2.3 billion in debt -- and related properties.
------------
ha ha ha ha. Hillary really knows how to pick them, doesn't she?

Basic Proposition: North Korea, a horrible mess of a dictatorship, is safe from having its rudimentary state shattered, and hundreds of thousands of its people killed or starved Iraq-style, because its nasty government has the probable ability to take out an American aircraft carrier.

Some nukes are good nukes.

The world will be a more stable, safer, and more peaceful place if Iran gets the ability to tell Cheney, Bush, and any future little Rumsfelds, that any USAF planes killing Iranians will find themselves without a ship to go back and land on.

America has shown itself capable of being, for eight or twelve years at a time, a mad-dog nation, a vicious random killer, a shatterer of societies. Nuclear weapons which keep the US at bay are a Good Thing.

One sub-text of this is that the American debate which frames the Iraq war in terms of American deaths is sick, sick, sick. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld's crime is not killing American soldiers; it is wrecking a crude but emerging society, at the expense of tens or hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Shee-yit, the American invaders had it coming to them; their deaths are justice. America will be a mature society when Americans can debate Iraq on the real merits, the comparative evil -- Bush/Cheney being far worse than Saddam.

Not to forget: there actually were Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq: five Hughes helicopters and the associated "agricultural chemicals, supplied to Saddam by Rumsfeld for use against Iran. Saddam did use them against Iran, a Nuremberg-type war crime, in the war which America supported out of pique at the Ayatollah. He also used them against the Kurds, and genocide is another Nuremberg biggie. Rumsfeld, and then Secretary of Defensse Cheney, are entitled to a free flight to The Hague for that one.

The parallel to be lived up to is the English debate over the Boer War, where the argument was not that English soldiers were dying, but that English soldiers were committing large scale atrocities.

"The world will be a more stable, safer, and more peaceful place if Iran gets the ability to tell Cheney, Bush, and any future little Rumsfelds, that any USAF planes killing Iranians will find themselves without a ship to go back and land on."

I stopped reading after this part. Denying USAF planes ships to land on isn't going to deter them, since USAF planes don't land on ships.

Anywho, America is probably about to cycle back into isolation for a decade or two, after wrapping up things in Iraq and Afghanistan over the next few years. Folks like the author of the post above will miss us.

Fred,
For starters, the people (the "demos" root of democracy) don't decide who gets to run for the legislature or for president: the unelected, theocratic, Council of Guardians does.

Well, Fred, first of all, Council of Guardians only approves presidential candidates and candidates to their equivalent of the US Senate. My understanding is that you can run for for the legislature (their equivalent of the House of Representatives) without approval. So your website is incorrect.

Second, the Council of Guardians is unelected, but so is the US Supreme Court, which is its US equivalent. Like I said, a very similar structure.

Finally, like I said before, replace 'clerics, theocracy' with 'the super-rich, the big corporations' and you'll get something virtually indistinguishable from the US political system. You obviously won't achieve anything the US political system without support of rich people and/or big corporations. Would you agree?

Add to those who "excuse the Iranian regime" conservative Peter Hitchens in the right-wing UK paper Mail on Sunday. "A nation of nose-jobs, not nuclear war".

It would in fact make the world a safer place if the U.S. was somehow deterred from doing stupid things in the Middle East like invading Iran. Sad, but true.

abb1:

I was about to point out more obvious differences between the theocratic government of Iraq and our government, and then I thought of this line of yours from a latter comment thread:

"what's this 'good people', 'bad people', 'evil people'? That doesn't mean anything."

If you have difficulty making normative distinctions between mobsters and non-criminals, how can I expect you to distinguish between a theocracy and a democracy?

Well, Fred, there's no distinguishing between theocracy and democracy because these are not mutually exclusive categories. Iran is a theocratic democracy, US is a capitalist democracy (can you distinguish between capitalism and democracy?).

A democracy can be anything the demos wants it to be. Americans pray to the golden calf and make laws to protect its awesome powers, Iranian do the same with their Allah.

I think that the Council of Guardians vets all political candidates, and that after some years of relative broadmindedness they became very stringent.

Thus Iran is an oligarchy with democratic elements, as compared with autocracies with democratic elements in Pakistan and Egypt. Egypt has precious few of those elements, Pakistan -- is a bit hard to judge. A handpicked Chief Justice stopped being a lapdog, and some time afterwards he stopped being a Chief Justice.

My personal view is that a semi-free country like Iran may have much more dedicated military and security apparatus, because people who do not support the regime have alternative avenues for making a living, perhaps even good living, without participating in pro-regime political activities. Moreover, such a regime is not severely out of touch. It is rather conservative to estimate that Iranian regime has loyal 30% of the population, including vast majority of those armed and organized -- it was true when Khatami was a "non-conformist" presidential candidate, and in the meantime, the support of the opposition waned to a degree.

Regimes like Iran or Russia do not simply intimidate and exterminate political opposition to oblivion, but apply a modicum of force plus, and a heavy dose of manipulation to render the opposition alive but impotent. Overall, they have a lighter touch than Egypt and Pakistan.

I don't mind if we call it "oligarchy with democratic elements", I think it's probably a fair characterization. My only point is that it isn't less democratic (or if it is, then not by much anyway) than the US. The US is just the same, an oligarchy with democratic elements.


Comments closed June 25, 2007.

Copyright © 2007 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.