Okay, we're all already accustomed to hawks' blaming the opponents of their war in Iraq for the fact that their war in Iraq is failing. Now Brendan Nyhan catches Joshua Muravchik taking this in an innovative new direction -- apparently doves are going to be responsible for the outbreak of the war with Iran that hawks have been agitating for. If only we would just give Muravchik's demented pals in the administration a free hand to conduct policy according to their whims, then everything would be fine.
« War for War's Sake | Main | A New Kind of Politics »
The Flight From Responsibility
25 Jun 2007 10:52 am
Comments (12)
we have given them a free hand, for 6 years now. we're just running out of poor Americans to feed the war machine.
Hey, if we can't trust the former national chair of the Young People's Socialist League to make the case that the dirty fucking hippies are responsible for our upcoming attack on another democracy then who can we trust?
it's not surprising, but it's surprising that it's not surprising anymore
It is undeniable that Iran thinks that America is weak and part of that is because of the continued proclamations of how weak we are coming from the Left.
I don't see why anyone would be so defensive about it, it's not your fault that some foreign leader is taking your words and twisting them or using them in a way you didn't intend.
Maybe, though, it would make just a little sense to, while still criticizing Bush all you want, not criticize him in such a way that makes it appear that America as a whole is weak? Because that's the way Iran is interpreting our political war at home. If Iran thought we would unite together and smash their military if they crossed the line, chances are they'd be a lot less confrontational. Right now they think we're divided politically (true), emaciated militarily (untrue), and basically unable to do anything to stop them. This is the usual fundamental mistake of tyrannies; in a tyranny, political disunity means purges or civil war or other calamities that leave the nation much less able to defend itself against foreign foes. In a democracy, that doesn't really happen. The mullahs in Iran, like the Politburo before them, don't understand that.
While the Bush Administration's inability to militarily pacify Iraq is clearly the main reason Iran has been stepping up arms shipments to insurgents in Iraq, the Taliban, Hezbollah, etc., it is also clear that one of the reasons their rhetoric has become more inflammatory is because they see us saying much the same things to each other at home and that makes the Iranians think they can say it to us too.
Iran and the US probably will fight a war pretty soon, not while Bush is in office - I'd be very surprised if that happened - but it does seem unavoidable if both countries continue in their current mutually antagonistic policies. Ground combat certainly wouldn't come into play, and I doubt there'd be a massive air campaign against Iran proper, but a repeat of Operation Praying Mantis in 1988 seems very likely. Iran's threats of shutting down the Strait of Hormuz don't impress me. We could more or less annihilate their navy, including their vaunted 1000-ship speedboat flotilla, in a few days. At that point they'd be hurting themselves more than us by not shipping oil.
But at the same time, any war would also hurt the US more than it would help right now.
So basically what you have is two mutually antagonistic sides, both of which want a conflict at the least if not a full-blown war, SOMETHING where they can go toe-to-toe and have a clear winner. At the moment though, such a conflict would hurt both sides more than it would help either one and both sides know it. As soon as one side thinks it can fight the other and achieve a favorable outcome, there will sadly be a war I think =/
Unilateral withdrawal certainly emboldened Iran to order it's client armies, Hezbollah and Hamas, to renew attacks against Israel even though, for example, Israel was completely conforming to a UN border resolution with Lebanon. So it is not too much of a leap of logic to say that immediate withdrawal from Iraq would embolden Iran.
Iran and the US probably will fight a war pretty soon, not while Bush is in office - I'd be very surprised if that happened - but it does seem unavoidable if both countries continue in their current mutually antagonistic policies.
But if we would JOIN THE RIGHT-WING in taking an antagonistic position, then Iran would realize we're unified and back down! Yeah, right. This is pure fantasy, the classic right-wing argument that says all we have to do is show enough steely resolve and everyone will back down and respect our authority.
In reality - as your quoted statement even appeared to recognize, for one fleeting moment - hardliners beget other hardliners. The reason a kook like Ahmadinejad is in power is because given the US's current posture, everyone goes looking for a leader who will stand up to the US.
The cold, hard facts utterly demolish your argument. We have invaded not one but TWO of Iran's neighbors, and the US military is ideally positioned for all sorts of potential action against Iran. They have absolutely no reason not to take us seriously. Yet you expect us to believe that Iran isn't worried in the least about US military action, even after seeing what happened to the Taliban and to Saddam's regime, because of the political dissent in this country. Somehow the long arm of Michael Moore will restrain Bush from giving the order to bomb.
Of course, we were hearing this sort of crap from conservatives even before the Democrats had a majority in Congress. No matter what happens in the world, they feel the need to blame it all on some utterly powerless liberal somewhere.
Steve,
Are you able to tie your own shoelaces without assistance?
I somehow doubt it.
Because I didn't say anywhere there that, ah, joining the right wing in taking an antagonistic position is the solution.
All I did was lay out my observations of the situation. I made no recommendations as to what America should do.
I also never said that Iran wasn't scared of our military - their generals clearly are. They've made numerous public statements saying that a war with America would not be as rosy as Ahmadinejad implies it would be.
What I said was that Iran thinks we are incapable of acting, not that we are incapable of winning if we did act. And part of that is because of our political acrimony at home, acrimony you give a perfect example of. Instead of suggesting anything, you just attack attack attack with the emotional maturity of a 14 year old girl.
Try not stumbling out of the gate whenever you're trying to charge in with a belly full of fire there buddy.
chaos, if you want to be taken seriously, you might try not to make the arguments of an 8-year-old of either sex while accusing those who criticize you of having the emotional maturity of a 14-year-old girl.
8-year-olds, you see, like you, believe in the green lantern theory of global politics....
Maybe, though, it would make just a little sense to, while still criticizing Bush all you want, not criticize him in such a way that makes it appear that America as a whole is weak?
Maybe, though, you and your ilk ought to be a little more careful about embarking on policies that weaken us, like an unnecessary, futile, and unwinnable war in Iraq, or the proposal for bombing Iran. Then, you wouldn't need to worry so much about presenting a false front on unity and strength to the world.
forget it, to these guys it's all about appearances, posturing and 'sending messages' - as far as real actions are concerned they seem to have endless patience with the people in power fucking up things, if only they are on 'their side'
"Maybe, though, it would make just a little sense to, while still criticizing Bush all you want, not criticize him in such a way that makes it appear that America as a whole is weak?"
Iran thinks Bush and his government are incompetent, feckless, and stupid.
This is because the Bush administration has consistently been incompetent, feckless, and stupid.
And that's not even getting into the possibility that Ahmed Chalabi was an Iranian agent and, through him, Iran was able to manipulate the fools in the White House into removing Iran's greatest obstacle to regional power.
If you were Iran, and you had been able to lead Bush around by the nose, resulting in America committing a historic military blunder at vast cost in treasure and military capability, and in the process achieving my own strategic goals for me...
In other words, Bush was used like Joe Francis uses the 'girls gone wild'.
Well, if you were Iran, I reckon you wouldn't have much respect for Mr. Bush after that.
I can see it now. We attack Iran, Shiite Iraqi troops turn on our troops, resulting in massacres, our troops in Iran get pinned down, our military gets even more overstretched, and people like you will be saying we need to invade Syria lest Syria think we're weak.
Comments closed July 09, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Muravchik is an AIPAC/WINEP associate, so the Iran-warmongering is not so surprising.
Posted by otto | June 25, 2007 11:31 AM