The Corner's Andy McCarthy writes that "At the Weekly Standard Kim Kagan's account demonstrates in detail that Iran's war against the U.S. in Iraq goes back some five years." Just yesterday, Jamie Kirchick scolded readers that "it's not 'warmongering' to simply state the fact that two rogue states are themselves complicit in unwarranted acts of warmongering against the United States and a nascent democracy in the Middle East."
I'm not sure if Kirchick is entirely clear on what the concept of "warmongering" means, but I'm pretty sure that this is, in fact, warmongering. But rather than quibble over semantics, the basic point is that these writers for America's top conservative publications would like to see the United States take military action against Iran (and possibly Syria) and to that end they're trying to convince the public that those countries are already at war with us. They started it, you see. I mean, arming and supporting Iraqi factions! What meddlers! Where do they get the nerve!
« Maliki Speaks | Main | Crackpot Watch »
If Not Mongering, Then What?
29 Aug 2007 09:33 am
Comments (73)
You have your ideology, Andy McCarthy has his. Both positions vis a vis Iran proceed from that.
You have your ideology, Andy McCarthy has his. Both positions vis a vis Iran proceed from that.
One thinks the world is flat; one thinks it's spherical. Each has his ideology; both positions proceed from that . . .
There's a way out of the solipsism that "Bill" describes: facts.
The world is independent of our will.
One thinks the world is flat; one thinks it's spherical. Each has his ideology; both positions proceed from that . . .
Not that I said which ideology I thought was more based in fact, but you can't think it's as simple as your caricature, can you?
There's a way out of the solipsism that "Bill" describes: facts.
Right. Largely depends on which facts you ignore, and which you emphasize.
Well, now, actually, Bill has a point in a rather chilling way. Andy has an ideology - the ideology of aggression and mass murder. There's no REAL disagreement about the facts. The fact is that Iran is a regional power who (quite reasonably) stands in the way of our interests (read: of our domination of the middle east and its, err, resources). Therefore it must be destroyed. Add to that the sick, evil, neo-con doctrine of perpetual war - Iran being the latest victim to be served up on that particular altar - and there you have it.
Interesting fact. The Nurenburg tribunal regarded the crime of aggressive warfare as more serious than the other crimes prosecuted - war crimes and genocide. Now, I don't agree with that, but it is food for thought.
But as an aside, I agree that the Nazi comparison is not exact. The US hasn't committed genocide (as bad as aiding in the ongoing ethnic cleaning in Iraq is, it doesn't nearly rise to the level of genocide). But two out of three - the crimes of aggressive warfare, and war crimes in pursuit of that agenda - is bad enough.
The world is independent of our will.
Independent of our will? I think you meant to write something else, no?
I mean, here I am, standing in my kitchen. My blender's indolence has long ago become insolence. I sure wish the world wasn't independent of my will.
Andy has an ideology - the ideology of aggression and mass murder.
Huh? I mean, I think Andy McCarthy's as big a jerkoff as the next guy, but, huh?
What meddlers! Where do they get the nerve!
Like it or not, the Hague Convention lists responsibilities for an occupying power and ALSO states that other powers that then try to come in postwar, and meddle in the affairs by committing hostile military acts or aiding in insurrection against the Occupying Power may themselves be legitimately considered belligerant powers.
The US is recognized as the Occupying Power by UN laws and a vote declaring the US such with responsibilities.
People fail to forget that the Truman Doctrine and the real start of the Cold War happened because of Greece. Britain was the occupying power that had pushed the Nazis out, and the Soviets began shipping large quantities of arms in to achieve a violent communist revolution. No one claimed the Soviets had "equal right" to being there as the British - they were meddlers, they were committing hostile acts.
As things stand, there is basis to say that Iran is now an active belligerant power against the United States and a legal casus belli exists by the Hague Treaty. Syria, less so, as their involvement is more "benign neglect" of hostiles using it as an insurgent base - than Syrian military themselves actively arming and training the killers of American soldiers.
That there is justification to attack Iran under International Law does not mean that is prudent or wise, but it would be smart of war foes not to consider such meddling as "morally equivalent" and "equal in right to be there" to those that did the fighting...And it would be doubly smart for war foes to cease "defending our Iranian brothers", and cease denying strong evidence they are now helping kill large numbers of Americans.
That blanket denial - appears to cross that line between "don't hype this up into a major regional war" into aid and comfort to the enemy.
Largely depends
Some beliefs are based upon a lack of awareness. Some beliefs are based upon willfully ignoring facts. So, in the gap between "largely" and "entirely" dishonesty breeds.
I'm more or less persuaded that Iran is actively hostile to us--in a half-assed, asymmetrical sort of way. But that doesn't suggest to me that we are or should be at war with them, given the likely consequences of such a war. At most, I would support being half-assed and asymmetrical back. So . . . am I a warmonger?
Add to that the sick, evil, neo-con doctrine of perpetual war - Iran being the latest victim to be served up on that particular altar - and there you have it.
You missed a bit of froth there at the corner of your mouth *hands you a towel*
Independent of our will? I think you meant to write something else, no?
I have no idea. It was the world that made me do it.
There's a way out of the solipsism that "Bill" describes: facts.
Right. Largely depends on which facts you ignore, and which you emphasize.
Posted by Bill | August 29, 2007 10:18 AM
Yes but there is a functional reality knowable to man. Deceptions will always exist but repeated obsevation and experiment will get us 90% of the way to the ideal, close enough to make sound decisions as long as we have the humility to test and retest and admit it when we are wrong.
What is amazing about America in the past 6 years is how non factual positions have been continually endorsed and supported by institutional authority - political, academic and journalistic. It's a disaster for America. It shows that there is now a "deluded faction" in the American political structure. Countries have been brought low when they let these factions take charge. Serbia in the late 80s under Slobos PSP. Germany in the 30s. Argentina under Peron. The path of illusion leads to death. The American voter knows this in his gut, which is why all the trends are to the Democrats, but the GOP illusion machine has a lot of tricks up its sleeve, including electoral tampering, so who knows if the public will be allowed to correct the American elite's mistake for letting this gang of fools steer the ship of State.
Interesting times we live in.
A clear analogy is the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. The were the occupying power, and we were interfering with that occupation on a much larger scale than anything Iran might be doing. Does Chris Ford or Bill think that the Soviets would have been justified (in either a legal or moral sense) in attacking us for providing aid to the Afghani insurgents?
A clear analogy is the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. The were the occupying power, and we were interfering with that occupation on a much larger scale than anything Iran might be doing. Does Chris Ford or Bill think that the Soviets would have been justified (in either a legal or moral sense) in attacking us for providing aid to the Afghani insurgents?
Which is why I think it's just a mistake to try and cast these dilemmas in absolute moral terms. Whether or not we were morally justified in helping the mujihadeen all depends on when you start keeping score. How far back to you want to walk cause and effect? My own feeling is you either become a pacifist and declare all aggression wrong or else you're probably better off considering things in the ways Machiavelli laid out.
Bill,
God, the "sensible middle" is so deluded. God knows I would love to be proven wrong, but I have a feeling that ten years from now people like you are going to be saying, "you know, those 'frothing' anti-interventionist types were right after all" as you ponder 80,000,000 or more corpses in the middle east.
"Does Chris Ford or Bill think that the Soviets would have been justified (in either a legal or moral sense) in attacking us for providing aid to the Afghani insurgents?"
I don't know if it would have been "justified" for the Soviets to attack us, but it would have been stupid of them to risk escalating a proxy war into a full-blown world war with us. I would venture that had Iran been the primary supporter of the Afghan insurgents instead of us, the Soviets would have dealt with them harshly (they certainly wouldn't have let the Iranians get away with invading the Soviet embassy as we did).
Bill,
And that (your post of 10:37) is, in a nutshell, why I'm right. This nation has become convinced (wrongly, as anyone with even a glancing knowledge of history knows) that there are only two extreme options - pacifism or all out, no restraint, pursuit of national interest by any means including violence. That is the ideology of this nation, and ideology that the neo-cons have taken to a horrifying extreme. And what's worse is that most of us just accept it without question, and the few people who point out that that the king, indeed, has no clothes (or, more aptly, that the king's hands are drenched in the blood of innocents) are regarded as extremists and cranks.
The Prime Minister of Iraq has met - several times, I think - with Ahmadinejad. Iran supports the current Iraqi government. How can we claim that Iran is simultaneously supporting the regime we installed and at war with us while we support that same regime?
That blanket denial - appears to cross that line between "don't hype this up into a major regional war" into aid and comfort to the enemy.
Posted by Chris Ford | August 29, 2007 10:26 AM
Yes yes we just love giving aid and comfort to Shia extremists. Man you got us nailed. Put me on the black list as a 5th columist. Save me from myself I can't stop my traitoring.
Given the amound of fraud that went into providing a casus belli for Bush's excellent Iraqi adventure, excuse us if we remain damn skeptical of any evidence presented.
The larger point is does it make stratedgic sense from where we stand today for the United States to launch a war with Iran?
God, the "sensible middle" is so deluded. God knows I would love to be proven wrong, but I have a feeling that ten years from now people like you are going to be saying, "you know, those 'frothing' anti-interventionist types were right after all" as you ponder 80,000,000 or more corpses in the middle east.
Okay Chicken Little.
That blanket denial - appears to cross that line between "don't hype this up into a major regional war" into aid and comfort to the enemy.
Posted by Chris Ford | August 29, 2007 10:26 AM
Yes yes we just love giving aid and comfort to Shia extremists. Man you got us nailed. Put me on the black list as a 5th columist. Save me from myself I can't stop my traitoring.
Given the amount of fraud that went into providing a casus belli for Bush's excellent Iraqi adventure, excuse us if we remain damn skeptical of any evidence presented.
The larger point is does it make strategic sense from where we stand today for the United States to launch a war with Iran?
"As things stand, there is basis to say that Iran is now an active belligerant power against the United States and a legal casus belli exists by the Hague Treaty"
True, but what bothers me is that this was all predictable from the start - before the war started I knew that Iranian meddling would be an issue as soon as we entered the country. Why did "Iranian involvement" only become an issue ~1yr ago?
Right now the most likely explanation, to me, is that it is a PR campaign to gin up support for a strike on their nuclear facilities rather than an "honest" reaction to their meddling in Iraq.
This point seems too childish to mention, but hey, it's a post in a comment thread on a blog. What would someone like McCarthy be saying if he were an Iranian? It seems to me that the nationalism and aggression for defense that he favors would, if widely believed in most countries, lead to wars happening everywhere all the time.
What does he think he would do if he were Iran, and what does he think Iran should do? It always seems like arch-conservatives forget that there are arch-conservatives on the other side. And George Bush's popularity went up, not down, after 9/11. Why would Iran react any differently?
Surely he has a response to this; what is it?
Ok, if you want to make an amoral argument in favor of attacking Iran, that's fine with me. I think using any kind of common sense cost/benefit analysis, the conclusion would be that it makes no sense. Whatever.
But the morally indignant self-righteousness with which some people howl about possible Iranian interference in Iraq is enough to make anyone gag.
But I will say that posting on these threads is very illuminating, because the reactions that I get often prove my case. They force honest people to at least acknowledge what we are, but fail to take the next step of condemning it. So they end up defending atrocities.
The sad thing is this – despite what I said in my initial post, the ideological divide isn’t all that stark. 99% of politicians and 90% of the public have no problem with the basic proposition that the United States has the right to go to war to protect its “vital interests,” broadly defined, which include its economic interests. The neocons differ mainly in degree. It’s significant that most of the arguments against attacking Iran that you read in mainstream blogs are prudential rather than moral.
Larry,
Iran aside, I'd be surprised to learn you'd given any serious thought to what not protecting America's vital interests would lead to.
It's 2007, and you come across like you're the first person in history to have digested the horrifying implications of Thucydides. Try getting over yourself is my advice.
Chris Ford,
By the logic of your argument then, if Iran is guilty of committing a hostile act against the United States by arming the Shite militias in Iraq, then Saudi Arabia is just as guilty, if not more so. Remember that most of the insurgency that we have fought with is Sunni, not Shiite, in nature, and the outside power that has armed the Sunnis is not Iran, but Saudi Arabia. Add in the fact that most of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis, and that much of the financing that Al Qaeda received over the yours come from prominent & wealthy Saudis with ties to the Saudi royal family, and the case for war with Saudi Arabia is actually much greater than the case for war against Iran. Why then do you Dubya dead-enders push so hard to go to war with Iran on the basis of arming the Shiite insurgency, but are absolutely quiet on the subject of Saudi Arabia's complicity in arming the Sunni insurgency?
Moreover, I don't know if you have been keeping up with the news lately, but we are not an occupying power anymore in Iraq. An occupying power has sovereignity over the territory it occupies. Iraq, remember, had elections that created a sovereign government. Once that sovereign government was in place, we officially ceased to be an occupying power. Officially, our troops are there not to protect the sovereignity of the United States in Iraq, but to protect the sovereignity of the government in Bagdhad. Therefore, the Hague Treaty's provisions no longer apply.
Furhermore, that sovereign government has allied itself with Iran, so technically Iran is also our ally in regards to the Shiite-dominated government in Bagdhad. In addition, the Shiite militias that the Iranians have armed are militias which support the Bagdhad government, so we can't really argue that the Iranians are meddling in Iraq, when their actions are supported by the sovereign government of that country.
eltoro-
Referring to the "sovereign government of Iraq" is pedantic. Iraq is a limbo of competing factions; it isn't helpful to consider anything "sovereign." Iraq isn't a real country at this point. Treating it so leads you to the kind of nonsensical conclusions you brought up, like "Iran is technically our ally."
Bill,
As for serious thought to "not protecting our interests," I have indeed given it serious thought. While many of the "interests" being protected are not, IMO, the interests of the nation at large, and while I suspect that the results would be less dire than most people think, I have no doubt that we would suffer some real economic costs if we shifted to a more limited role in the world (Though parenthetically, the costs of continuing our current role in the world in terms of civil liberties are quite high, and it's quite possible that in the long run our attempt at sustaining our position in the world will bankrupt us. But that's an argument for another day.)
But, quite simply, unlike the majority of people in this country, I'm just not willing to continue to enjoy those benefits if it means murdering innocents (and it does).
And I'm far from the first to see the truth that is staring me in the face. If you got out of your cocoon and started reading the right blogs, you would see that there are a lot of people (not enough, sadly), left, right and libertarian, who see the truth.
And, again, I find it interesting that even the so-called anti-war left, when the argument is stripped to its essentials, is ready and willing to defend the use of aggressive war to maintain our economic interests.
I still don't understand how Iran can be making war on us in Iraq when they support exactly the same faction we do. This whole thing is completely insane.
While many of the "interests" being protected are not, IMO, the interests of the nation at large, and while I suspect that the results would be less dire than most people think, I have no doubt that we would suffer some real economic costs if we shifted to a more limited role in the world
End of discussion. So you haven't in fact thought about it all that seriously.
(Though parenthetically, the costs of continuing our current role in the world in terms of civil liberties are quite high, and it's quite possible that in the long run our attempt at sustaining our position in the world will bankrupt us. But that's an argument for another day.)
And how high do you think the cost to civil liberties would be if our economy went into long term reverse?
But, quite simply, unlike the majority of people in this country, I'm just not willing to continue to enjoy those benefits if it means murdering innocents (and it does).
And how many innocents do you think would suffer in your perfect world of the world's largest economy consenting to going into long-term reverse? Discussion for another time it may be, but suffice to say the world, and America with it, either grows itself out of its current dilemmas, or America drags the rest of the world down with it. You can't just declare Hands Across America and we'll all take a pay cut. (Which leaders do you think will get start getting elected once that transpires?)
And I'm far from the first to see the truth that is staring me in the face. If you got out of your cocoon and started reading the right blogs, you would see that there are a lot of people (not enough, sadly), left, right and libertarian, who see the truth.
*hands you a candle*
And, again, I find it interesting that even the so-called anti-war left, when the argument is stripped to its essentials, is ready and willing to defend the use of aggressive war to maintain our economic interests.
I don't know which anti-war left you're referring to, but I'm not currently defending any particular aggressive war. If you want to think me crazy for not ruling out, go right ahead. I think the Iraq war was a stupid idea for all the predictable reasons, and attacking Iran would be stupider still. I guess I'll keep trying to peer into your inner sanctum of people who truly get it, though.
Bill,
I must say that seeing the blood of innocents dripping from your hands, while of course proving me right on every particular, also kind of makes me sad.
But I encourage you, as you enjoy the economic fruits of the United State's warped policies, that you at least take a moment to silently thank the dead Iraqi children that made it all possible.
History will not judge this nation at all kindly.
I must say that seeing the blood of innocents dripping from your hands,
You're a moron.
Bill,
Okay, deep breath. I'm getting bored with this, so let's focus on one particular thing and then I have shit to do. You say that you are "not ruling out" aggressive warfare. Now, war inevitably involves the killing of innocents. Now, we recognize that in some cases we have no choice but to go to war. But, when we CHOOSE to go to war, AGGRESSIVE WAR, and, even worse, do so for ECONOMIC reasons, we are CHOOSING, voluntarily, to kill innocents in order to advance our economic interests. It seems to me that stating that people who support such actions have, metaphorically, the blood of innocents dripping from their hands, is not a stretch at all.
I suppose you COULD claim as a defense that you did not, in fact, support the Iraqi war. But given (a) that your objections to that war were apparently prudential rather than moral, (b) that you support the general thrust of U.S. foreign policy, and (c) that you have no objection IN PRINCIPLE to aggressive warfare (a crime for which people were hanged by the neck until dead after WW II), that that isn't much of a defense.
But maybe I missed something. Is there any other argument that you would make to absolve yourself from your share of responsibility for the innocents that are being killed by us on a daily basis?
Exactly what vital national interests require U.S. meddling in the Middle East? It can't be oil, because that is a fungible commodity and no matter what regimes are in charge over there, the oil will be pumped and it will be sold at market price. What else are they going to do - drink it? Without oil money, most of the Arab states couldn't feed their populations, much less provide palaces and Rolls-Royces for the elites. In fact, the only thing that has the potential to stop the flow of oil from the Middle East would be massive destabilization or a large-scale regional war. And we've caused the first in Iraq by our meddling, and by our policies over the years we have made the second far more likely.
On a basis of pure realpolitik, there is no reason we should care whether Middle Eastern governments are run by democracies, corrupt feudal dictatorships, or Islamic states.
When people talk about vital interests in the Middle East, I suspect they are really talking about the "vital interest" of our politicians in continuing to rake in campaign contributions from oil companies and the Israel Lobby, and to feel more manly and virile by bombing people half a world away. The American consumer and worker does not benefit in any way from any of this.
"I still don't understand how Iran can be making war on us in Iraq when they support exactly the same faction we do. This whole thing is completely insane.
Posted by John | August 29, 2007 11:19 AM"
This is the number 1 point on Iraq that neocons can never admit. Its like kryptonite to them. You bring it up and they ignore it and pretend you didn't say anything.
"Exactly what vital national interests require U.S. meddling in the Middle East? It can't be oil, because that is a fungible commodity and no matter what regimes are in charge over there, the oil will be pumped and it will be sold at market price. What else are they going to do - drink it? Without oil money, most of the Arab states couldn't feed their populations, much less provide palaces and Rolls-Royces for the elites. In fact, the only thing that has the potential to stop the flow of oil from the Middle East would be massive destabilization or a large-scale regional war. And we've caused the first in Iraq by our meddling, and by our policies over the years we have made the second far more likely."
I guess we have interests in not seeing Al-Qaida or an Arab version of the Taliban taking power in Riyadh and Cairo. However, we seem to be following the path of a self-fulfilling prophecy in this regard. As an interesting side-note, one of bin Laden's long-standing complaints about the House of Saud is that he claims they sell oil to the West at below-market rates to appease DC rather than obeying the dictates of supply-and-demand.
It can't be oil,
OTOH, maybe analysis of the situation requires more than just knowing what the word "fungible" means. Not saying I have that knowledge, but U.S. relations with the oil-rich nations has occupied a great deal of time and energy from American politicians and presidents of both parties. Maybe it's a at this point some vestige of Cold War macroeconomics, but not being an energy expert I don't know.
I am still extremely skeptical that the U.S. will go to war with Iran, no matter what Bush wants. The money for that is not there, and a war with Iran would demand immediate and painful sacrifice in a spike in oil prices. Although there are some unpredictables to the habitual criminality of the Bush junta, I think you can rely on one characteristic, which is that the redstate warmongers never be jerked into reality by something hard and cold and that they have to pay for. The wet dream of killing is most safely dreamt in the safety of your car - after masturbating to Rush - or in front of the tv - where O'Reilly can give you a stiffie.
However, the odd thing about the Iran war push is that it is the U.S. who is in violation of any law one can think of. This is from an April Christian Science Monitor story:
"The US government has been secretly supporting a Pakistani militant group that has staged a series of deadly attacks against Iran, ABC News reported, citing unnamed US and Pakistani intelligence sources.
The group, known as Jundallah, or "God's Brigade," is made up of members of the predominantly Sunni Muslim Baluchi tribe which inhabits Pakistan's gas-rich province of Baluchestan, as well as neighboring regions in Iran and Afghanistan. In their exclusive report, which aired on Tuesday evening and was posted online on Wednesday morning, ABC News reporters Brian Ross and Christopher Isham said that while the US provides no direct funding, the group has been "secretly encouraged and advised" by the American government since 2005.
U.S. officials say the U.S. relationship with Jundullah is arranged so that the U.S. provides no funding to the group, which would require an official presidential order or "finding" as well as congressional oversight.
Tribal sources tell ABC News that money for Jundullah is funneled to its youthful leader, Abd el Malik Regi, through Iranian exiles who have connections with European and Gulf states."
This is typical cheney-ite stupidity. But so it goes with the terrorist deadenders - I'm speaking, of course, of the Bush administration - as it goes down. It is trying to take the U.S. with it, as much as it can. There comes a point in the history of any republic when the maximally stupid sector of the elite has risen to its maximally optimum position, due to inherent corruptions and inside trading in the system, and does its best to perpetuate the scummy behavior by which it rose to the top in the broader arena of foreign affairs. We are, of course, at one of those moments: the critical stupid point. It will be fun to watch the fallout. Well, less fun if you are among the thousands of American casualties or hundreds of thousand Iraqi ones.
Bill,
Iraq is in a state of limbo, but we can't treat the government in Bagdhad as a minor detail, especially when we are the ones who facilitated its creation. Like it or not, the government in Bagdhad is the officially recognized sovereign government of Iraq, just as the government in Kabul is the officially recognized sovereign government of Afghanistan. Moreover, ensuring the survival of that government is one of the main justifications given for our military presence in Iraq. So, like it or not, Bill, the sovereign government in Bagdhad is not a minor detail.
It is not nonsense to say that in regards to supporting the Iraqi government that you so blithely dismiss, the Iranians are our ally. We (at least officially) are supporting the Bagdhad government, and so are the Iranians. I'm not arguing that the Iranians are our allies in everything, but in regards to the Iraqi government they certainly are.
We (at least officially) are supporting the Bagdhad government, and so are the Iranians.
Right. A pedantic observation. As if we and the Iranians want the same government in Baghdad.
I'm not arguing that the Iranians are our allies in everything, but in regards to the Iraqi government they certainly are.
Only according to your pedantic characterization. Allies have common goals as well as common interests. Iran may want a stable Iraq as much as we do, but that says very little.
Insert obligatory "1984" reference here.
Chris Ford citing International Law - that's somewhat ironic and predictably he has no clue what he's talking about.
Look, who isn't meddling in Iraq to protect their own interests? How about Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Jordan, nevermind the U.S., Iran and Syria. This is all beside the point, which is really about what people complaining about Iranian interference want to do in the face of profound superpower impotence. What are you going to do? Bomb Iran? What happens to Iraq, terrorism, gas prices and the Middle East?
If you want facts, the fact is that Iran is in a stronger position now than they were before the Bushies made the brilliant decision to start a war of choice with a country they knew nothing about. So yes, in some way the U.S. is a very strong ally of Iran.
Exactly what vital national interests require U.S. meddling in the Middle East? It can't be oil, because that is a fungible commodity and no matter what regimes are in charge over there, the oil will be pumped and it will be sold at market price.
I have heard this argument many times, and it just seems incredibly naive to me. For one thing, it is based on the notion that ordinary peacetime, globalized, free trading oil markets will continue operation no matter what global contingencies occur, happily selling to one and all at a globally determined market price. For another, even assuming that this kind of uninterrupted access to oil markets will continue for all willing buyers, it ignores all of the interests in who will profit from and control oil resources, and probably the global economy by extension, not just who will be able to buy and access oil.
US strategists, looking at the long term, and not just the next month, next year or the next five years, consider questions like this:
How can we maximize the ability of the US to control the price we and other countries pay for oil and oil products? Who is going to own these oil resources? Who is going to derive the profit from the production and supply chain for oil? Which companies will have the concessions that enable them to develop fields, reap profits, supply revenues to their national treasuries, and plow profits into the search for additional resources? Who will rake in the transit fees? How will the United States best be able to continue to afford and sustain the oil-dependent military machine that underpins US economic dominance? Will US dollars spent on oil and oil products be recycled back into our own economy, or into other economies - including the economies of rival nations? Will petrodollars go to countries who buy US weaponry and buy into the US security system, or will they go into rival weapons and security systems? Who will be in the best position to exert political influence or control over other nations in the event of a crisis, such as a world war? Who will be in a position to prevent seizures of oil resources and production assets by rival countries in the event of such a crisis, or to seize these vital resources themselves?
Bill wrote,
"Right. A pedantic observation. As if we and the Iranians want the same government in Baghdad."
Bill, last time I looked, we are supporting the government in Bagdhad, and they are supporting the same government in Bagdhad. (There isn't more than 1 national government in Bagdhad.) This is not pedantic; this is a relevant & pertinent major fact, albeit an inconvenient one for you. The implication of your argument, after all, is that the Iranians want to undermine the current government and mold it to their liking. However, the truth is that the Iranians are even more enamored of the current Shiite-dominated Bagdhad government than we are. The problem for the US is not the Iranians are trying to undermine the Shiite-dominated government; the problem for the US is that a Shiite-dominated government in Iraq is exactly what the Iranians have always wanted. Since it is anathema to us for the Iranians to benefit from our actions in Iraq, it is we who want to change the character of the current government, and take the dominance of the Shiites away somehow.
You are right that the US and Iran have differing goals in regards to the Baghad government. However, since both the US and Iran have committed themselves to supporting the current government, and since the US has no real means of making the current government less Shiite-dominated and less Iranian friendly while supporting that same government, you are the one being pedantic when you insist that there is no defacto alliance between the US and Iran over the survival of the Bagdhad government.
The only way for this defacto alliance to end is for us to throw our lot in with the Sunnis at the expense of the Shia. Of course, that amounts to a betrayal of the people who were our allies against Saddam Hussein, but I guess you would considered that to be pedantic.
Iraq is a limbo of competing factions; it isn't helpful to consider anything "sovereign." Iraq isn't a real country at this point.
So even though our leadership says that Iraq has a sovereign government, and Iraq's leadership says that it has a sovereign government, you know better? That doesn't seem like much of an analysis.
since the US has no real means of making the current government less Shiite-dominated and less Iranian friendly while supporting that same government, you are the one being pedantic when you insist that there is no defacto alliance between the US and Iran over the survival of the Bagdhad government.
I'm sorry, this makes no sense. It most certainly is not a "de facto alliance." If I may be pedantic in turn, you don't appear to be clear on what the term alliance means. We "support" the Maliki government because we have little choice at this point. That doesn't make a "de facto" "alliance" with a nation who, while they may be pleased about the Shiite component of the Iraqi government, would certainly not prefer the constitution which the Iraqis purport to uphold.
"Iraq is a limbo of competing factions; it isn't helpful to consider anything "sovereign." Iraq isn't a real country at this point.
So even though our leadership says that Iraq has a sovereign government, and Iraq's leadership says that it has a sovereign government, you know better? That doesn't seem like much of an analysis.
Posted by Steve | August 29, 2007 2:17 PM "
Good point Steve. By the first commenter's logic, we're in Iraq still fighting for the illusion of a government in power in Baghdad. "Not fighting wars to maintain a fantasy" has to be even more obvious than "don't get into a land war in Asia."
So even though our leadership says that Iraq has a sovereign government, and Iraq's leadership says that it has a sovereign government, you know better? That doesn't seem like much of an analysis.
Gee, I dunno Steve, maybe calling something "sovereign" doesn't make it so. How much sovereignty do you think the Iraqi government enjoys outside of the Green Zone? "Knowing better" in this case is something I think I share with the majority of people observing Iraq.
Good point Steve. By the first commenter's logic, we're in Iraq still fighting for the illusion of a government in power in Baghdad. "Not fighting wars to maintain a fantasy" has to be even more obvious than "don't get into a land war in Asia."
I think you're confused about my position on the Iraq invasion. Maybe you missed it but I've said it was a stupid idea. I'm also in favor of withdrawal.
Gee, I dunno Steve, maybe calling something "sovereign" doesn't make it so.
But there are benchmarks for sovereignty, one of which, as far as I know, is not "Bill's opinion of what's sovereign and what isn't."
Another common benchmark is whether the UN recognizes the government as sovereign. I believe the Iraqi government was recognized by the Security Council way back in 2004.
You're trying to have it both ways. You're trying to use the Hague Convention as a legalistic justification for why we have special rights in Iraq, but then when it's inconvenient for you to apply legal definitions, you fall back to saying "well, things are chaotic in Iraq so I still say we have special rights." Either we're going by the Hague Convention or we're going by Bill's Intuition, but it can't be both.
Yo Steve. If you're gonna argue with someone at least take a minute to get straight what they actually said. I haven't said a thing about the Hague, or special rights in Iraq. That was someone else. And, it's not my "opinion" that the Iraqi government doesn't have sovereign control over its territory. It's a fact. The rest is just labeling.
I think I'm through arguing with chuckleheads today.
Bill,
The Iranians may want the Iraqis to emulate their theocracy, but they are not in a position to make that happen. The Sunnis & Kurds have enough numbers to block an attempt by the Shia to create a theocracy, assuming that the Shia as a whole want that. It is more likely that, after years of religious repression by the Sunnis, a critical mass of the Shia would oppose the formation of a theocratic state, even one run by Shiite mullahs.
Therefore, Bill, since neither we nor the Iranians are in a position to advance our goals in Iraq beyond promoting the survival of the Shiite-dominated government, we and the Iranians have a defacto alliance in regards to the Bagdhad government, just as we and the Soviets did over the destruction of Nazi Germany.
Sorry to burst your bubble, Bill, but the facts on the ground have it. We and the Iranians are currently pursuing the same goal in regards to the Iraqi government. Neither we nor the Iranians are currently in a position to pursue the goal of making the Bagdhad government more in our image. Therefore, whether we like or not, we are currently in a defacto alliance with the Iranians in defense of the Bagdhad government. Of course, when the survival of that government is assured, then this defacto alliance will fall apart, but then I'm not arguing that this defacto alliance is a permanent one.
"And, it's not my "opinion" that the Iraqi government doesn't have sovereign control over its territory. It's a fact. The rest is just labeling"
More pedantic observations from Bill. Of course, the sovereign government in Iraq doesn't exercise control over its country. Sovereignity, however, is not about who actually controls territory, but who has THE RIGHT to control said territory. Which government is currently recognized by the international community (including the US) as having the right to control Iraq? The government in Bagdhad. Case closed, Bill loses.
a nation who, while they may be pleased about the Shiite component of the Iraqi government, would certainly not prefer the constitution which the Iraqis purport to uphold.
Where is this thinking coming from that Iran wants to turn all of its neighbours or the whole world even into a theocracy? I don't see much evidence that Iran is actively trying to establish a certain ideology outside its borders. Instead I see a lot of evidence that they are playing classical geopolitical power politics. It seems people are mixing up the Iranians with the Saudis.
Eltoro - Moreover, I don't know if you have been keeping up with the news lately, but we are not an occupying power anymore in Iraq. An occupying power has sovereignity over the territory it occupies. Iraq, remember, had elections that created a sovereign government. Once that sovereign government was in place, we officially ceased to be an occupying power.
Wrong. You ignore the UN agreed with us that we remain a Formal Occupying Power subject to consent by the Iraqi Gov't regarding our continued military role.
eltoro - Therefore, the Hague Treaty's provisions no longer apply.
If you had a clue, you would understand why they DO apply.
eltoro - Furhermore, that sovereign government has allied itself with Iran, so technically Iran is also our ally in regards to the Shiite-dominated government in Bagdhad
If one uses your faulty logic and ignorance of the facts, there is no end to the insipid things one could say.
"Iran is technically our ally" is the remark of a dumb, pedantic twit willfully ignoring the realities.
Eltoro - if Iran is guilty of committing a hostile act against the United States by arming the Shite militias in Iraq, then Saudi Arabia is just as guilty, if not more so.
No, because KSA is a problem from indirect activities of its citizens and Mullahs, not state policy. It is Iran's state policy that makes them belligerant parties we could legallyjustify hitting tomorrow.
Eltoro - Add in the fact that most of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis.
It was known by November in a video from bin Laden that Saudis had nothing to do with 9/11 and that bin Laden ordered Kahlid Sheikh Mohammed, the "Mastermind" to swap out the Malaysians and indonesians he had recruited as "muscle" for the 4 pilots who knew - with Saudis who were told it was to be a conventional hijacking with some killing, with the planes landing to negotiate for Palestinian and Saudi prisoner release.
Bin Laden called them the "unknowing martyrs" and said he had selected Saudis as the clueless muscle to embarass the Saudi ruling family.
Again, this is well known to everyone who followed how 9/11 happened. Lefties disingenuously use the "15 Saudi Hijackers!!!" as a fake argument that it was "wrong" to attack Iraq when we should have attacked KSA and triggered GLobal Jihad, or now the Obama camp that urges attack on the "real threat" over in Pakistan's lands...
We all know Lefties and pacifists have no balls and are dishonest and not seriously calling for actual attack on KSA or Pakistan...It's just a rhetorical tool to argue that the US "lacks legitimacy" to take on one enemy or attack their favorite new nation, Iran - while those awful, evil Saudis and Pakis are unattacked.
And how of course "we" should send or military to save the Darfurans....even if no Lefties have any intent on risking their asses fighting in the Sudan...Or are out at the local Marine office claiming they would quit their campus graphic arts job if they could be a Marine invading KSA...
*************************
Speaking of realities, Don Kervick - nice post!
Anyone blithely assuming that we could just all go home and put the "children in uniform" safe with their mommies and the world would continue just as it is now with oil freely flowing out the spigot to whoever wants to buy it on an open market, freedom of the Seas, and all sorts of other things we take for granted only have to look at the: (1)Global Oil and Food embargo we placed on the Nazis; (2)Oil and strategic minerals embargo we slapped on the Japs for their China depredations;(3)OPEC's strategically successful oil embargo on Israel, then on us for siding with Israel that hammered us for a decade before we regained leverage over the OPEC countries...
*******************
Roger - I am still extremely skeptical that the U.S. will go to war with Iran, no matter what Bush wants. The money for that is not there, and a war with Iran would demand immediate and painful sacrifice in a spike in oil prices.
Pretty much agree. Iran is a hostile power that is capitalizing well in the Bush bungling to to their best to bleed American and kill hundreds of US soldiers because they know Bush stupidly did not "grow" the US Army and Marines and burned out his reservists time - and bungled so much with Congress and the public they don't trust him or his Sharanskyite/Wilsonian/Straussian Neocons at all.
So Iran is as safe now killing our guys as we were bleeding the Russians in Afghanistan, or the Russians were manning N Vietnam's most advanced AA missile batteries and radars.
(At the end of the Cold War, they admitted it, and the US was pleased to learn that while we lost quite a few planes to the Soviet crews, they killed a ton more of the Russians with HARM missiles and cluster bombs when we surprised them in Operation Linebacker with an all-out attack on the Sites..)
The difference is that the Soviets and us were evenly matched with fairly well understood ROE. The Iranians are not, and the more rational know that America will save the troops death and maiming from Iranian weaponry and training and meddling in payback down the road - just as they know, but few Americans do, that the Americans helped Saddam kill an extra 100,000 Iranians and hold off what should have been Iranian victory as payback for the Embassy humiliation. Americans think we never evened accounts for the Embassy takeover and the Hostage jerk-around.
But we did. In spades.
Re: "Americans do, that the Americans helped Saddam kill an extra 100,000 Iranians and hold off what should have been Iranian victory as payback for the Embassy humiliation. Americans think we never evened accounts for the Embassy takeover and the Hostage jerk-around."
That's a good trade. 100,000 murdered Iranians in return for 0 murdered embassy hostages. I guess that's why we're not supposed to think about "absolute moral terms".
Who is this Chris Ford person and why are his comments so full of crazy?
More pedantic observations from Bill. Of course, the sovereign government in Iraq doesn't exercise control over its country. Sovereignity, however, is not about who actually controls territory, but who has THE RIGHT to control said territory. Which government is currently recognized by the international community (including the US) as having the right to control Iraq? The government in Bagdhad. Case closed, Bill loses.
So let's get this straight. You're calling ME pedantic, when you insist on making a distinction between actually controlling, and the right to control? Which do you think is more salient? Since you insist on dragging me along in your pedantry, sovereign means "supreme and independent power or authority in government as possessed or claimed by a state or community." So go on and win your little, frivolous point, that the Iraqi government "claims" power and is "recognized" for that right. It doesn't change anything!
"If one uses your faulty logic and ignorance of the facts, there is no end to the insipid things one could say.
"Iran is technically our ally" is the remark of a dumb, pedantic twit willfully ignoring the realities."
Actually Chris, you are the one with the faulty logic and ignorance of the facts, and who is a dumb, pedantic twit willfully ignoring reality.
If our occupation is subject to the consent
of the sovereign government in Bagdhad, then we are no longer an occupying power, period. We cannot claim that the Iraqi government is sovereign, and simultaneously claim we are a formal occupying power. That's just simple doublespeak on the part of Dubya and of dead-enders like you. Sorry, Chris, but the one without a clue as usual is you.
Moreover, how do you know that Saudi Arabia's arming of the Sunnis is not part of its foreign policy? It may not be part of its OFFICIAL foreign policy, but that doesn't mean that it isn't part of its actual foreign policy. Do you really think that a despotic state like Saudi Arabia would allow arms & money to be sent to the Sunnis in Iraq without its consent, especially when these actions are in Saudi Arabia's foreign policy interests? Moreover, you are willfully ignoring the reality that AQ's leadership, money, and ideological/religious support over the years have come mostly from Saudi Arabia. Talk about being naive, stupid, clueless, and twitish.
Furthermore, you are disingenous as well. You cannot argue that is foolish to go after Saudi Arabia because it will trigger global jihad, when that is the very thing you want to happen. Your continual harping on the need to wage war against the amorphous specter of radical Islam is a call for global jihad against the whole of the Muslim world, especially since you paint the various security threats posed by Sunni Hamas, Shiite Hezbollah, Shiite Persian Iran, Sunni Arabic Al Qaeda, and Baathist but Sunni-leaning Syria as part of that same monolithic block.
Moreover, it is the state policy of Iraq that Iran is their ally. Therefore, unless Iraq's governments is opposed to the arming of Shiite militias by Iran (which is unlikely since these Shiite militias are allied with the government against the Baathists and other Sunnnis), Iran's arming of the Shiite militias are not a legal causus belli to attack Iran. You cannot willfully ignore the reality of an official Iraq-Iran alliance and the fact that there is a sovereign government in Iraq, and use your insipid & faulty logic to invoke the Hague treaty. Talk about being a dumb, pedantic twit.
Finally, the facts on the ground speak for themselves. Both Iran and the US are committed to propping up the Iraqi government in Bagdhad, the very same government. How you can be cognizant of that fact and yet avoid the logical conclusion that a defacto alliance exists between the US and Iran in regards to the defense of the government in Bagdhad? The only way you can avoid that conclusion is by being illogical, idiotic, insipid, and clueless like you, Chris Brown.
Where is this thinking coming from that Iran wants to turn all of its neighbours or the whole world even into a theocracy? I don't see much evidence that Iran is actively trying to establish a certain ideology outside its borders. Instead I see a lot of evidence that they are playing classical geopolitical power politics. It seems people are mixing up the Iranians with the Saudis.
Indeed, I seem to recall that Iran was quite happy with the Iraqi constitution when it was ratified. Also, Iranian government is a mixed bag. The Iranian revolution drew support from different political factions, and the constitution represents a fusion of modern republicanism and the Khomeinist doctrine of the guardianship of the jurisprudent. It is neither purely republican nor purely theocratic.
"So let's get this straight. You're calling ME pedantic, when you insist on making a distinction between actually controlling, and the right to control? Which do you think is more salient? Since you insist on dragging me along in your pedantry, sovereign means "supreme and independent power or authority in government as possessed or claimed by a state or community." So go on and win your little, frivolous point, that the Iraqi government "claims" power and is "recognized" for that right. It doesn't change anything!"
It makes all the difference in the world, Bill. Otherwise, you cannot charge people like Hitler or even Saddam Hussein with violating sovereignity, if sovereignity is simply about who has the guns. If sovereignity were not a matter of rights, then it disappears the instant a Hitler seizes control of Poland or a Saddam seizes control of Kuwait. Of course, I'm assuming that you value things like international law. If you don't, then I can see why sovereignity is something you consider pendatic.
Moreover, if our goal in both Afghanistan and Iraq is to create viable, permanent alternatives to the autocracies and feudal tribalisms that have existed there, establishing without a doubt that the constitutional republics we have established in Kabul and Bagdhad have sovereignity is crucial. If we accede to the notion that sovereignity belongs to whoever has the guns, we will have ratified a perpetual destabilization of both of those countries.
Wow, great work Bill! That's the most effective hijack of a comment thread I've ever seen.
Chris Ford seemed to have missed this bit:
Reaffirming the independence, sovereignty, unity, and territorial integrity of
Iraq,
Reaffirming also the right of the Iraqi people freely to determine their own
political future and control their own natural resources,
eltoro, is wrong too though, but in a sense that actually strengthens his argumnent: according to international law, occupation does not transfer sovereignty, so that an occupying power never possesses sovereignty over the occupied territory; occupation is intended as a purely transitional stage to reestablish sovereignty which can only be done by the formation of an indigenous government; during this period the occupying power is granted certain rights, but also burdened with a ton of obligations, designed to establish the security, health and well-being of the population, which is the focus of occupation law - needless to say the US failed miserably to live up to these standards, even when it was occupying power
"Of course, I'm assuming that [Bill} value[s] things like international law."
Well there is your mistake. Bill stated explicitly up thread that he wouldn't rule out aggressive warmaking on the part of the United States. You know, one of the crimes that got people hanged after WW II.
Bill has made it crystal clear that he doesn't find anything morally or legally problematic about our attack on Iraq or the pending attack on Iran. He is against them merely because they aren't prudent.
Novakant - during this period the occupying power is granted certain rights, but also burdened with a ton of obligations, designed to establish the security, health and well-being of the population, which is the focus of occupation law - needless to say the US failed miserably to live up to these standards, even when it was occupying power.
The fact remains that the UN has agreed we are STILL a Formal Occupying Power. That we have failed to make Iraq into Switzerland in the face of a murderous insurgency and are thusly "failing" to provide as we would without an insurgent war going on HAS caused Lefty and Euroweenie carping that we are not living up to "obligations of law".
Of course when we agree and suggest that NATO take over to "do all the Occupier's duties better than us Americans are" the Euroweenies shut up in a millisecond.
Same with the Lefties - who- "Support the Troops Soooo Much!" when they deliver their daily "Patriotic Dissent" suggesting war crimes trials for Americans not delivering enough electricity, etc - when it is suggested a Draft would solve our manpower problems.
The basic fact remains that the US is, by international agreement, the Occupying Power. Iran is a hostile meddler under law that
meets the requirements to be considered a belligerant nation engaged in war with the USA.
Eltoro obviously hates the idea of thinking of anyone who is helping kill American soldiers as other than an ally of his and his Lefty circle..
The fact remains that the UN has agreed we are STILL a Formal Occupying Power.
The members of the Security Council welcome the handover of full responsibility and authority for governing Iraq to the fully sovereign and independent Interim Government of Iraq, thus ending the occupation of the country.
The legal status of US forces in Iraq is that they are present solely at the invitation of the sovereign Iraqi government. Not, I'm afraid, as a "formal occupying power."
Chris,
The fact remains that our occupation is subject to the consent of the sovereign government there. That means that the situation that the Hague Treaty applies, the transition between the takeover of a country by an occupier and the establishment of a sovereign government, no longer exists in Iraq. Therefore, you cannot invoke the Hague Treaty. Case closed, Chris loses on the facts as usual.
Funny how the word "occupying power" or "occupation" is nowhere to be found in the relevant documents; not surprising actually, since the occupation ended June 30 2004 and full sovereignty was restored to the Iraqi people. Formally the "multinational force" is in Iraq at the invitation of the Iraqi Prime Minister to contribute to the security of the Iraqi nation and if the Iraqis decided not to extend that invitation, they would have to leave within the given time-frame, at least as far as international law is concerned. The above is called de jure.
And even de facto it is doubtful if the US can be called the "occupying power", since the meaning of the word is inextricably linked to the notion of actually controlling the occupied territory, which can hardly be said of the US forces.
International Law is not a Tapas menu from which you can pick what you like - if you want to rely on it, you first have to understand and then adhere to it.
"The basic fact remains that the US is, by international agreement, the Occupying Power. Iran is a hostile meddler under law that
meets the requirements to be considered a belligerant nation engaged in war with the USA.
Eltoro obviously hates the idea of thinking of anyone who is helping kill American soldiers as other than an ally of his and his Lefty circle.."
First, Chris, if Iran meets those requirements, so does Saudi Arabia, something you have dilligently avoided saying. Moreover, the Sunni insurgents are responsible for the deaths of most of our servicemen in Iraq, and the Saudis have helped kill those soldiers.
Why the conspicious silence on that? Could it be that you and your wingnut circle hate the idea that anyone who is helping kill American soldiers is other than an ally of yours and your fellow Rightys?
Bomb Iran = Lose Iraq (officially, that is)
Comments closed September 12, 2007.
| 
It does Kagan no credit to use reports from MEK, which itself designated by DoS as a terrorist organization, as a major source for this report, as well as items like the Austrian sniper rifle story from the Telegraph - rifles supposedly seized but never produced by the U.S.
Posted by tequila | August 29, 2007 9:53 AM