The Pod People

Norman Podhoretz joins Rudy Giuliani's campaign as a senior foreign policy advisor.

Yes, this Norm Podhoretz:

The one who wants to launch an unprovoked unilateral military attack on Iran.

Two points. One is that even though the Romney campaign keeps failing to trumpet my endorsement of Multiple Choice Mitt as the least-bad Republican contender, it's still true. The other is that you should think about what would happen if it turned out that Ahmadenijad's senior foreign policy adviser had recently published an article called "The Case for Bombing the United States of America.". People would be freaking out, no?

Comments

What I don't get about these Neo-Cons is how come they're foaming at the mouth about Iran, while refusing to say a peep about any of this:

www.asecondlookatthesaudis.com

How many Saudis, killing how many Americans, will it take before they consider this to be a national security problem?

And yes, three of those seven doctors rounded up in the wake of the recent London car bomb plots were Saudi-born.

Posted by Bill in Chicago | July 10, 2007 12:43 PM

Matt you are damn funny.

Who knows, may be you will become a non-fake celebrity in very short order.

We should start a campaign to replace Jonah Lucianne by Matt in the LATimes to get back the Tuesday mornings.

Posted by gregor | July 10, 2007 1:00 PM

People would be freaking out, no?

Apples and oranges, Matt. Ahmedinejad is one of those crazy Muslims, and we all know how prone to invading other countries they are, whereas the United States would never bomb another country unprovoked... oh, wait.

Posted by Glenn | July 10, 2007 1:12 PM

endorsement of Multiple Choice Mitt as the least-bad Republican contender, it's still true.

Sadly, yes.

Posted by Scott Lemieux | July 10, 2007 1:14 PM

Those last two sentences are key - when is anyone in the US security establishment (excepting young Matthew) start asking themselves more often how other nations perceive these kind of screeds, this kind of neocon thinking.
IOKIYAR is a stupid rule, and the people who seem to adhere to it are rightly derided as morons. So it should be with IOKIYAA (It's OK if you are American)

Posted by JohnTh | July 10, 2007 1:15 PM

One is that even though the Romney campaign keeps failing to trumpet my endorsement of Multiple Choice Mitt as the least-bad Republican contender, it's still true.

Fool you once, shame on you. Fool you twice, get a gig as a paid blogger for the Atlantic Monthly!

How many Saudis, killing how many Americans, will it take before they consider this to be a national security problem?

So you would do what, start a war with Saudi Arabia?

And yes, three of those seven doctors rounded up in the wake of the recent London car bomb plots were Saudi-born.

Saudi Arabia is a big country; lots of Muslims are from there. When the US and the UK engage in policies that piss off the Muslim world, they will also piss off lots of Saudis. Really, wingers from both the right and the left need to get off the Saudi obsession.

Posted by Christmas | July 10, 2007 1:17 PM

i can't recall now who did the writeup on the national review cruise in which buckley and podhoretz had a little dustup recently, but podhoretz insisted that iraq did have WMDs that were moved over to Syria.

i'm looking forward to that becoming part of the giuliani standard stump speech....

Posted by howard | July 10, 2007 1:46 PM

Christmas,

I don't think there is much of a "Saudi obsession." Rather, some folks are upset at what seems to be the Saudi exception. If people from any other nation (except maybe Pakistan) showed such deep involvement in terrorism, we'd be reading them the riot act with the U.S. military standing at our shoulder. Now, there are perhaps some very good reasons why we don't want to offend the Saudis (or Pakistanis, for that matter), but why this realism in this case when the rest of our Mid-East policy seems to be based on fantasies and wishful thinking?

Posted by idlemind | July 10, 2007 1:47 PM

idlemind,
it isn't about offending the Saudis or Pakistanis, the reason they get left out is because they are our close partners. Who brought together the Saudis and Pakistanis in a campaign against soviet aggression in Afghanistan, leading to the movement and training of tens of thousands of young muslims in 4th generation warfare?

The United States.

CIA, ISI (Pakistan), and Al Mukhabarat Al A'amah (Saudi Arabia) have been in bed together for years.

Posted by blknight18 | July 10, 2007 2:03 PM

My apologies all around,

I mean, just because fifteen out of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers were Saudis . . .

And the guys who bombed the Saudi National Guard headquarters in November 1995, killing 5 Americans, were all Saudis . . .

And the guys who bombed the Khobar Towers in June 1996, killing 19 Americans, were alls Saudis . . .

And the suicide bombers who blew up the US Embassy in Nairobi in August 1998, killing 12 Americans, were both Saudis . . .

And the suicide bombers who attacked the USS Cole in October 2000, killing 17 Americans, were both Saudis . . .

And the suicide bombers who died attacking three residential compounds in Riyadh in May 2003, killing 9 Americans, were all Saudis . . .

And the suicide bomber who attacked the US Army base in Mosul in December 2004, killing 18 Americans, was a Saudi . . .

Is no reason to jump to conclusions!

Posted by Bill in Chicago | July 10, 2007 2:14 PM

Again, Bill, you're not telling anyone anything they don't already know. So what's your point? If your point is that the United States should be engaging in idiotic saber-rattling with Saudi Arabia, in addition to all the idiotic saber-rattling it already engages in with Iran, Syria, Hamas, etc., then your point is stupid - war with Saudi Arabia would be far more disastrous than war with Iraq already has been. If you're making some reductio ad absurdum argument regarding America's ludicrous overreliance on military might as a means of dealing with terror, then you're preaching to the choir.

Posted by Christmas | July 10, 2007 2:23 PM

First of all, I totally disagree that this is something that everyone already knows. Remember that Newsweek poll, just a few weeks back, that showed over 40% of Americans still could not identify Saudi Arabia as the country from which most of the 9/11 hijackers came from? How many people do you think really understand that this pattern holds for practically every other major terrorist attack against the US in the past twelve years?

I think most people understand that the Saudis are funding a lot of this crap. But I don't think most people understand at all that, again and again, they are the ones actually pulling the trigger.

Second, my point is that if we went to war with Saudi Arabia, then we would finally be fighting the people who are actually attacking us, instead of invading yet another country which had nothing to do with 9/11. And until we confront that threat (militarily or otherwise), we're kidding ourselves about the possibility of making progress in the "War on Terror".

My sense is you're a pacifist and may not find any of this compelling, but there it is.

Posted by Bill in Chicago | July 10, 2007 2:35 PM

It seems to me that Christmas is falling into the either-or trap usually demonstrated by right-wingers - the notion that either we go to war with a country or we do nothing. Surely there's a lot we could do in the political and diplomatic arena to be tougher on the Saudis, if we wanted to.

Posted by Steve | July 10, 2007 2:36 PM

Damn this centenarian affirmative action!

Posted by norbizness | July 10, 2007 2:38 PM

Here's the article, howard. It was by Johann Hari.

I don't know if Bill is necessarily advocating war with the Saudis. If so, that seems like a bad idea to me. Still, the Saudis' misdeeds are worth noting because they demonstrate that the neocons aren't only bloodthirsty and crazy, but also dishonest and not even really motivated at all by national security.

Posted by JP | July 10, 2007 2:45 PM

Re "And the suicide bombers who died attacking three residential compounds in Riyadh in May 2003, killing 9 Americans, were all Saudis . ."
---------
Gee, was that the headquarters for Vinnell Inc -- the mercanary outfit that has helped the Saudi Gestapo keep the Saudi people enslaved since the 1970s while a small kleptocracy --in alliance with their buddies in Houston -- stole the only treasure the Saudi people have --the oil?

See "Vinnell and the House of Saud" at
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=7850

Bill in Chicago might reflect upon why some SAUDI CITIZENS --vice the Saudi royal family -- have supported Al Qaeda attacks against the US government.

Start by checking the World Bank database for statistics on the distribution of income within Saudi Arabia. Next, ask how much of the oil wealthy trickles down to the casinos and whores of Europe versus how flows to the Saudi people.

Finally, cite the last time Dick Cheney/George W argued for the spread of Democracy in Saudi Arabia.

Posted by Don Williams | July 10, 2007 2:49 PM

Isn't it more to the point to observe how this administration and its defenders react when Ahmadenijad actually does say crazy things like Israel must be erased from the map?

Posted by Jack | July 10, 2007 3:00 PM

Was that a genuine Don Williams post? There were no numbered points.

Posted by Steve | July 10, 2007 3:15 PM

I am coming to agree with Matt that Giuliani as president is the worst plausible outcome, and it would be really great if he were knocked out in the primaries. What can we all do to help?

Posted by ed | July 10, 2007 3:21 PM

I was wondering, is anyone going to refute (or even discuss) what Podhoretz actually wrote about?

a) Parallels between Iran/Ahmadinejad and Nazi Germany/Hitler

b) Apocalyptic suicidal statements of Khomeini, related distinction between USSR and Islamists re: MAD effectiveness, ability to "do business," etc.

c) Finlandization and the liklihood of Europe's capitulation to nuclear blackmail in the event that Iran gets nukes (response of most belligerant European ally to recent sailor kidnapping being case in point)

Anything besides self-congratulatory tut-tutting and eye-rolling moral equivilence? I mean, are you guys all agreeing that Podhoretz's article didn't contain any food for thought at all?

Posted by Extraneus | July 10, 2007 3:42 PM

First, Iran has not provoked the United States? Training, financing, and arming terrorists that kill US service personnel in Iraq and elsewhere does not constitute provocation?

Second, it's doubtful that Matthew would support war against Iran even if it was provoked. It seems that Matthew is unwilling to acknowledge that Iran has not only provoked the United States, but also committed acts of war against the United States.

And who is tryint to fool who here? While Pod considers war against Iran to be warranted, some of you retort, "well, what about Suadi Arabia?" Well, what about them? It's not as though any of you would support let alone advocate war against the kingdom. So it's an absolutely hollow point.

Posted by JonM. | July 10, 2007 3:50 PM

JonM - I take it you'll be signing up to fight the Islamic menace any day now. That, or you're just another chickenshit war pornographer.

Posted by MIke | July 10, 2007 4:04 PM

There are two potential kinds of "cases" for military action against Iran. One is the abstract moral case: if there were a military intervention that would be highly effective against Iran's nuclear program and/or Iran's (very evil!) regime, at sufficiently low cost in human life (ours AND theirs) and "blowback" and so on, would it be a good idea? To my mind the answer is obviously yes. The other is is the practical case: given the effects that any feasible such action would actually have, could it be a good idea? I'm much less clear on that one as a general proposition, though I am totally clear that the Bush administration is filled top to bottom with people who are so dispicable and hate-filled and incompetent that it would probably be best to just take it off the table.

Posted by David J. Balan | July 10, 2007 4:12 PM

There are two potential kinds of "cases" for military action against Iran. One is the abstract moral case: if there were a military intervention that would be highly effective against Iran's nuclear program and/or Iran's (very evil!) regime, at sufficiently low cost in human life (ours AND theirs) and "blowback" and so on, would it be a good idea? To my mind the answer is obviously yes. The other is is the practical case: given the effects that any feasible such action would actually have, could it be a good idea? I'm much less clear on that one as a general proposition, though I am totally clear that the Bush administration is filled top to bottom with people who are so despicable and hate-filled and incompetent that it would probably be best to just take it off the table.

Posted by David J. Balan | July 10, 2007 4:12 PM

Hi

Very interesting information! Thanks!


G'night

Posted by tredinertok | July 10, 2007 5:33 PM

Pod refers to W as "this president, battered more mercilessly and with less justification than any other in living memory."

He seems to have forgotten the predecessor of "this president," who was actually IMPEACHED (battered mercilessly, indeed!) despite presiding over an unparalled period of peace and prosperity. If I were an unkind man, I'd make a comment about the effect of old age on memory.

Posted by Led | July 10, 2007 6:07 PM

I'll take this one:

Parallels between Iran/Ahmadinejad and Nazi Germany/Hitler.

This parallel is so idiotic that if you seriously try to refute it you look like simple-minded. Nazi Germany was a great power in every respect, located in the heart of Europe, and Iran is a weak, poor, third-rank power out in the Middle East.

Posted by John Emerson | July 10, 2007 8:09 PM

Re Norman Podhoretz

In slamming Mr. Podhoretz, we should also point out his support of pseudoscience in his magazine Commentary. He happily publishes the ravings of whackjob David Berlinski against the theory of evolution and the big bang in order to endear himself to the religious right. When it comes to science, Mr. Porhoretz doesn't know his nether regions from a hole in the ground.

Posted by SLC | July 10, 2007 8:28 PM

And I, this one:

Finlandization and the liklihood of Europe's capitulation to nuclear blackmail

"Europe" has enough of a nuclear arsenal among it's various member states to deter any blackmail that a second-rate power like Iran might try to make. Even if it didn't, there is at least one member state with a historical penchant for extraterritorial invasions and a kinda-sorta anti-Muslim public sentiment that could whip up a batch of deterrent in about three days.

So no, NPod is wrong on this point too. Iran is not a threat.

Posted by josephdietrich | July 11, 2007 5:58 AM

Nazi Germany was a great power in every respect, located in the heart of Europe, and Iran is a weak, poor, third-rank power out in the Middle East.

This is the refutation of Podhoretz's argument? Wasn't his point that this is exactly what most people thought about Germany at the time, and why they discounted Hitler's documented intentions and therefore postponed the inevitable at catastrophic cost?

"Europe" has enough of a nuclear arsenal among it's various member states to deter any blackmail that a second-rate power like Iran might try to make.

How does this address Podhoretz's related point that such deterrence is only effective with non-suicidal adversaries?

Anyway, thanks for responding.

Posted by Extraneus | July 11, 2007 8:52 AM