War on Specificity

In case you were wondering if it's really true that "war on terror" is a pernicious concept, here comes the Bush administration's decision to relabel Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps as a "specially designated global terrorist" organization. It's taken a few years, but we've managed to move now from a situation in the winter 2001-2002 where the US and Iran were cooperating against our mutual deadly foe -- al-Qaeda -- to one where Iran is officially one of the enemies in an open-ended struggle against God knows whom.

Comments

SMERSH, bitches.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | August 15, 2007 9:14 AM

Dammit, I think we really missed an opportunity to label Hurricane Katrina a specially designated global terrorist! You know, since apparently now "terrorist" means "thing that is in some way bad."

Posted by Jake H. | August 15, 2007 9:18 AM

AP--WASHINGTON - The Army’s top general said Tuesday that lengthening U.S. tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan beyond the current 15 months would be too stressful and risky for troops.

Gen. George Casey also said he didn’t know when officials would be able to cut the length of soldiers’ tours back to 12 months.

“I don’t see going beyond the 15 months,” Casey said. “I’ve been there in Iraq, I’ve watched the nature of the combat and the stresses and strains that it puts on these soldiers.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Of course this speech Casey gave at the Nat'l Press Club means we'll see deployments of 18 months in the near future.

Posted by steve duncan | August 15, 2007 9:19 AM

Why not call the Guard "an evil organization bent on world conquest"?

Posted by laborlibert | August 15, 2007 9:26 AM

laborlibert -

Or maybe "a ruthless terrorist organization determined to rule the world?"

Then we can call out GI Joe to fight them for us with their cool vehicles and laser cannons. And is Ahmadinijad Cobra Commander, Destro, or Serpentor?

Posted by NonyNony | August 15, 2007 9:44 AM

an open-ended struggle against God knows whom

Pardon me, Matt, but as President of 9/11 Giuliani informed the nation yesterday, the correct terminology is now "the Terrorists' War on Us." Please update your vocabulary and worldview accordingly.

Posted by Will | August 15, 2007 9:46 AM

It'll be interesting when you people finally figure out who did 9/11 and why. It's taking you long enough.

Posted by Nobody | August 15, 2007 10:06 AM

Nony:

As to Ahmadinejad, given how well he has played his hand so far in regards to Iraq, he appears to be a Destro (as much as I hate bestowing such a compliment on such a detestable person). But I think an open conflict would reveal him to be more a Cobra Commander.

Posted by laborlibert | August 15, 2007 10:11 AM

I'm so much stupider for having read that article.

Wow, these "Revolutionary Guard" people... they go right up to the top! They're inextricably linked to Iranian oil, shipping, manufacturing, and services... it's almost like everything that's taxed by the government goes to pay these guys!

Posted by Luke | August 15, 2007 10:48 AM

"...in an open-ended struggle against God knows whom."

Democrats.

Whether to fight it, where to fight it (Iraq, not Afghanistan) when to fight it, how to fight it (no draft) -- all political.

The major war aim of this administration was to reduce the Democratic opposition to the status of Mulroney's Conservatives, and then get on with the business of looting the country without let or hindrance. It is a civil war-by-proxy.

Iraq's not a war, it's a campaign commerical. Worked for a while, but eventually they screwed that up too.

"It'll be interesting when you people finally figure out who did 9/11 and why. It's taking you long enough."

I assume you're pressing your Congressman for a declaration of war against Saudi Arabia...

Posted by Davis X. Machina | August 15, 2007 10:51 AM

And imagine, for argument's sake, that a country designated the CIA a global terrorist organisation...

Bush wants a 'reverse 1980': he wants to head out of office with the shit going down in Iran. Damn, the transition period between November and January is probably enough to shit the bed and set it on fire if a Democrat wins.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | August 15, 2007 11:05 AM

1. The only reason Iran cooperated with us on whacking Taliban was they hated the jerks as much as us because the Taliban was liquidating whole villages full of ethnic Persian Hazaris inside Afghanistan. They were Shiites and heretics by Taliban/AQ thinking, and had to be butchered. For Iran, us killing Sunni fanatics and wiping out their Haziri death squads was a great deal. Of course they supported us in 2001-02!

2. But this was the same Iran that killed 19 servicemen and family members in the Khobar Towers bombing in 1998, armed Hez with modern weapons, and were intercepted with the Karin-A trying to bring a whole shipload of explosives into the Palestinians. All before the evil Bush-Hitler invaded "peaceful Iraq."

3. Since 2003, Iran has trained Iraqi Shiite terrorists and death squads, trained snipers and bombmakers, given them advanced weaponry. And accounted for over 300 American deaths by their proxies, rockets, mortars and bombs, according to Central Command.

4. Iranian exiles have documented extensive terror conducted by Revolutionary Guard inside Iran. 300 criminals & political prisoners have been executed this year. (Hangings for men&women, and stoning to death women only for moral crimes) With another 178 condemned.

Over 17,000 have been arrested for un-Islamic behavior like couples caught holding hands or kissing in public. Many couples spend over 6 months in jail and suffer intense beatings and rape for those public displays of affection.

5. The US has retaliated covertly, but in restrained fashion. Not tit for tat with the numbers of dead American troops Iran is responsible for (Those troops the Lefties love and support soooo much!) - but was signalling Iran strongly with more economic sanctions, disappeared Pasadran agents, and a whole convoy of some 60 Pasadran troops maimed & blown to smithereens deep inside Iran...
Now designating the Revolutionary Guard as the terrorists they are inside and outside Iran will punish the Guard by blacklisting all the businesses, bank accounts, and procurement agencies for the China arms transactions the Guard are engaged in - and make travel of any Guard squads to train other terrorists or do their own ops more difficult.

6. And inside the US, allow us to arrest and throw in the (hopefully Gitmo) slammer Revolutionary Guard sleeper cells. And give cover for Euros and Canadians to do their own busts of Iranian agents cells.

The enemy is not Al Qaeda. It is radical Islam and it's 60 or so terrorist groups, with the Guard/Pasadran among the worst.

Posted by Chris Ford | August 15, 2007 11:10 AM

reduce the Democratic opposition to the status of Mulroney's Conservatives

Whoah! That's some impressively obscure analogizing there, Davis. (Obscure if you're a Yank, anyway.) I salute you.

Posted by Ryan | August 15, 2007 11:35 AM

Up heah in Maine, we do keep an eye cocked on Canadian politics. Montreal's closer than New York, and the biggest bank in town is owned out of Toronto. In a logical world, we'd be the southernmost, largest, richest Maritime province, and not the poorest, northern-most, and near-smallest New England state.

Posted by Davis X. Machina | August 15, 2007 11:51 AM

Re Chris Ford's comment "Now designating the Revolutionary Guard as the terrorists they are inside and outside Iran will punish the Guard by blacklisting all the businesses, bank accounts, and procurement agencies for the China arms transactions the Guard are engaged in - and make travel of any Guard squads to train other terrorists or do their own ops more difficult."
--------
Actually, I think this is bullshit. The Government of Iran can simply set up a bunch of front companies -- which are NOT on any US list -- and have them act on behalf of the Revolutionary Guards. Similarly, I see no problem with a Guards officer traveling under a false name if Iran gives him an official passport.

So if this action is bullshit, then what's it purpose? To provoke a casus belli.

I predicted a few weeks ago that Kenneth Pollack's public endorsement of Bush's surge meant that Haim Saban and the Israel Lobby had cut a deal with Big Oil.

Haim Saban's Haa'retz interview back in Dec 2006 noted why he is strongly supporting Hillary: A nuclear-armed Iran is unacceptable to Israel but Bush --or any other Republican -- does not have the political capital to confront Iran. And action is urgently needed.

However, I suspect Dick Cheney and Karl Rove pointed out a few things to Haim:

a) As a lame-duck commander-in-chief, Bush has enormous freedom of action over the next 18 months. He can do anything so long as 40 Republicans --including Joe Lieberman -- vote against impeachment.

b) Hillary may not win the Democratic primaries.

c) Even if Hillary wins, she may turn wobbly once she no longer needs Haim.

d) So what Bush can do -- in exchange for the Israel Lobby supporting creation of a Big Oil puppet government in IRaq -- is to tie the hands of ANY Democrat who's elected President. By giving them a fait accompli. An existing war in IRaq which the Democrat must pursue and win under threat of being tagged as "losing Iraq". The same dilemna that was dumped on London Johnson.

e) So my estimate is that Bush invades Iraq within 6 months --using the "surge" as cover for the buildup.

f) That's what Haim Saban == via Pollack --is signaling to Democratic Members of Congress and to Democratic Presidents.

Go with the flow.

Don't buck the program. Because if you do, several hundred $Million of our money will make Giulani President, the DSCC, DNC and DSCC pots of money will dry up , and you guys can go back to being county supervisors.

So do what national Democratic leaders do best. Posture. Make ineffectual squeals and gestures to cover your hypocrisy. Criticize Bush if you want --but don't interfere.

Guys like Pollack are insignificant in and of themselves. No one gives a hairy rodent's posterior what he thinks. It is only by being a sock puppet of Haim Saban's that Pollack's words are widely covered.

Posted by Don Williams | August 15, 2007 11:51 AM

If you believe that Iran was ever cooperating with us on anything, I think you need to change your meds. The Iranian government hates Sunnis (as the Sunnis tend to hate the Shia) - but as with wars in the past, has been more than willing to put aside their intra-religious strife to team up against the West in general, and the US in particular.

Posted by Cooperating? | August 15, 2007 11:59 AM

In a logical world, we'd be the southernmost, largest, richest Maritime province,

Some of us (former) merrytimers view you this way already. But don't spread it around because Bush is liable to treat it as a casus belli.

Posted by Ryan | August 15, 2007 12:05 PM

3. Since 2003, Iran has trained Iraqi Shiite terrorists and death squads, trained snipers and bombmakers, given them advanced weaponry.

Does that mean the US military/government could be labeled a terrorist organization for supplying Sunni Extremists with weapons used by death squads? Even if you ignore the reports that they've done that specifically, I think they could also be implicated because of their supplies of arms to the Iraqi Army/government that have ended up in the hands of Shiite or other extremists.

Posted by Rambuncle | August 15, 2007 12:10 PM

Re "Does that mean the US military/government could be labeled a terrorist organization for supplying Sunni Extremists with weapons used by death squads?"
--------
yep. That's why we're keeping an eye on ..er..ourselves.

1) From http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB118714764716998275.html?mod=blog
"The U.S.'s top intelligence official has greatly expanded the range of federal and local authorities who can get access to information from the nation's vast network of spy satellites in the U.S.

The decision, made three months ago by Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell, places for the first time some of the U.S.'s most powerful intelligence-gathering tools at the disposal of domestic security officials. The move was authorized in a May 25 memo sent to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff asking his department to facilitate access to the spy network on behalf of civilian agencies and law enforcement."

2) And this just in from Il Duce.. uh.. I mean --Rudi Giulani's -- police department via ABC News:

"In a report to be made public today, New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly concludes the 9/ll attacks were an "anomaly" and the most serious terror threat to the country comes from clusters of "unremarkable" individuals who are on a path that could lead to homegrown terror.

The report by the NYPD intelligence division, "Radicalization in the West and the Homegrown Threat," plots "the trajectory of radicalization" and tracks the path of a non-radicalized individual to an individual with the willingness to commit an act of terror, multiple sources say."
REf: http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/08/exclusive-us-st.html

They have a point. Whenever I hear Rudi on the news, I feel a sudden urge to flog the living shit out of him with a rolledup New York Times.
Judith Miller's newspaper.

3) "unremarkable" individuals. Hmmmm. I wonder if they could be talking about youse guys.

Posted by Don Williams | August 15, 2007 12:36 PM

"The enemy is not Al Qaeda. It is radical Islam and it's 60 or so terrorist groups, with the Guard/Pasadran among the worst."

This might be the stupidest thing I've read all year. If you were a top adviser to Nixon, today we would be mortal enemies with China instead of trading partners. This isn't analysis, this is just the lovechild of fear and laziness. Of course Iran didn't give us intelligence on Afghanistan out of the goodness of their hearts. Of course it grew out of realpolitick and hating the Sunni Taliban. That, however, does not change the fact that Iran was on our side in Afghanistan. Iran has not invaded for no reason a country on America's border and unleashed a powder keg of anarchy, refugees and violent ethnic confrontations. The US however, has done that to Iran. People like you want more war to make up for the fact that you need to take pills to help out your pathetic penis.

Posted by Reality Man | August 15, 2007 1:09 PM

Re Reality Man's comment about Chris Ford
"People like you want more war to make up for the fact that you need to take pills to help out your pathetic penis."
---------
I don't know about Chris but I suspect Neocons like William Kristol are so bellicose because they still brood over that time in childhood when the other kids beat them up and took their lunch money.

Plus having other men go off and fight your battles on battlefields 5000 miles away from your safe, secure office -- well, that's just priceless.

Posted by Don Williams | August 15, 2007 2:25 PM

Ah , dammit. I'm catching the Matthew Yglesias disease.

In the above post, where I said
----------
"An existing war in IRaq which the Democrat must pursue and win under threat of being tagged as "losing Iraq". The same dilemna that was dumped on London Johnson.

e) So my estimate is that Bush invades Iraq within 6 months --using the "surge" as cover for the buildup."
------------

Replace "Iraq" with "Iran".

Posted by Don Williams | August 15, 2007 2:31 PM

OR should that be "catching the Matthew Ylgesisa
disease"??

Would make a nice slogan for a blog T-shirt, come to think of it.

Except that a group of DC women might confuse it with ..er.. something else.

So maybe the T-shirt should just read "Matthew Ylgesisa Blog"

Posted by Don Williams | August 15, 2007 2:40 PM

The Bush administration is just relabeling the Revolutionary Guard "terrorist" to gin up support for a war with Iran.

Posted by Bengt Larsson | August 15, 2007 6:06 PM

"It's taken a few years, but we've managed to move now from a situation in the winter 2001-2002 where the US and Iran were cooperating against our mutual deadly foe"

I rarely read Matt's blog, but I have to remember to never be eating or drinking anything when I do. You come across such mind-bogglingly delusive statements on here there's a real danger of choking-- or spewing your drink all over your computer screen.

Do you, or could anyone else with even a shred of objective reason, honestly believe Iran has been anything even close to an honest partner with the US, especially after everything Iran has done? It is very likely that during the very time frame Matt mentions, senior al-Waeda leaders were sitting comfortably in Iran.

Posted by Beauceron | August 15, 2007 6:10 PM

"Do you, or could anyone else with even a shred of objective reason, honestly believe Iran has been anything even close to an honest partner with the US, especially after everything Iran has done? It is very likely that during the very time frame Matt mentions, senior al-Waeda leaders were sitting comfortably in Iran."

Evidence? Why would Iran want AQ or the Taliban around? AQ's patrons, the Taliban, had declared a fatwa on the Iranian government. You could just as easily assume that during the Cuban Missile Crisis, Mao would be sitting comfortably in Moscow, but you would be wrong.

Posted by Reality Man | August 15, 2007 6:44 PM

Also, nobody here is arguing that the Iranian government is great. However, Iranian state interest is served by not having the Taliban in power in Afghanistan, not having a robust AQ that can easily attack what they see as Shi'ite infidels, having a strong Shi'ite-dominated government in Iraq, etc. It would have been stupid to tell Stalin to go Cheney himself during WWII. Government reform in Iran happens most when American pressure is least, such as in the late 1990's. Iran bashing from neocons, as opposed to critiques of Iranian policy that are made to aid civil society in Iran instead of an American invasion, is based in fear of the Muslim Other and out of a fear of appearing weak and thus gay and feminine.

Posted by Reality Man | August 15, 2007 6:53 PM

But, but Reality Man and Don Williams!!!!!

What about the Troops you support soooooooo much????

The ones Iranians are helping kill?

You seem to think the Iranians are right to do that, that they have moral superiority or at least moral equivalency, and we should do the decent thing and not retaliate but flee....

And just as you support the troops against their killers, no doubt you believe no greater patriot exists than one who "dissents" by hating their country.

Nice!

Unlike you 2 "patriotic dissenters" I served and have combat time and medals for the Gulf War. Another occasion where you two likely were pissing your panties in fear and in "patriotic dissent".

Posted by Chris Ford | August 15, 2007 7:26 PM

Re Chris Ford's comment "But, but Reality Man and Don Williams!!!!!

What about the Troops you support soooooooo much????

The ones Iranians are helping kill?

You seem to think the Iranians are right to do that, that they have moral superiority or at least moral equivalency, and we should do the decent thing and not retaliate but flee...."
-----------
Go fuck yourself, Chris.

I have never said US troops shouldn't defend themselves.

But if you have a crazy uncle who sits on the front porch and fires at people passing by, you should not be surprised if some bullets come flying in through the front window in reply.

The REAL enemy of the troops are the corrupt whores of rich men -- e.g., George Bush and Dick CHeney plus most of the Neocon -- who start needless wars and send those troops to die in order to serve private interests : To grab oil deposits and to attack enemies of Israel.

And of course the people who REALLY betray the troops are dumbshits like yourself who vote for war without asking if it's in the national interest. Who support the functional equivalent of treason while waving the flag.

I repeat the challenge I have given you on multiple occasions: Define what's in the national interest and provide evidence for your claims, as I do.

Posted by Don Williams | August 15, 2007 8:00 PM

Start by providing evidence for your claims that Iranians are killing US troops.

If that is true, why are we spending our troops lives to support a government which is closely allied with IRan -- I.e., Malliki??

Posted by Don Williams | August 15, 2007 8:04 PM

There's precious little evidence that Iranians are doing anything against US troops.

But even if they were - and I don't doubt that they've at least considered it - why bother? The Sunnis and Al Qaeda have done great against the US in Iraq so far. Iran certainly isn't going to help them, but they're happy to stand on the sidelines and cheer.

Iran probably hasn't helped al-Sadr much either since he's an Iraqi nationalist and not a huge Iran supporter. All this nonsense about him "being in Iran" may or may not be true, but it's irrelevant to his basic stance. And besides Al Qaeda and the Sunnis, his group is pretty much the only Shia group that's officially been doing any fighting with the US (on and off over the last four years).

Iran does have scores of thousands of agents in Iraq, if Colonel Pat Lang is correct. And they are undoubtedly working in favor of the Shia parties and against US interests.

That's not the same as doing anything to actually attack US troops.

If Bush attacks Iran, however, that WILL change.

And finally, if Iranians WERE killing US troops, I couldn't care less. If it's smart for us to "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here", then the same logic applies to Iran, who would be smart to fight us in Iraq before having to fight us in Iran.

Unfortunately, Iran is right next to Iraq, so the end result of that would be us attacking Iran. Which is exactly what Bush and the lying scumbags in the military are trying to start.

Which is precisely why it's highly unlikely Iran is doing any such thing. The Iranians aren't stupid, and they know that if they give any hint of directly attacking the US, they'll get bombed.

Here's the bottom line: Bush is a liar. So is everybody even remotely connected to his Administrations, including ALL of the officer corps in Iraq and in the Pentagon. I might exclude some of the retired officers who have been speaking out against the Bush strategy in Iraq.

Therefore, anything you hear coming out of the White House or the Pentagon on Iran is an utter and complete lie. No need to even consider any other option.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | August 15, 2007 11:50 PM

Matthew Yglesias wrote,

"... we've managed to move now from... where the US and Iran were cooperating... to one where Iran is officially one of the enemies in an open-ended struggle against God knows whom."

Any idea, Mr. Yglesias, what prompted that move? Do you think Iranian-trained fighters and Iranian weapons flowing into Iraq to kill US soldiers -- and Iraqi Sunni civilians -- might have anything to do with it? And what did our former cooperation with Iran produce by the way?

Posted by ERF | August 16, 2007 6:55 PM

Hello Richard Steven Hack,

What a neat trick: anyone who says anything disagreeable to you is nothing but a liar.

How has that approach worked for you so far?

Posted by ERF | August 16, 2007 7:02 PM

Hello,

After Commenter Don Williams tells a Gulf War combat soldier to "Go #@%! yourself, Chris", Mr. Williams compares US soldiers to "a crazy uncle who sits on the front porch and fires at people passing by".

Commenter Richard Steven Hack jumps in to add, "if Iranians WERE killing US troops, I couldn't care less".

Commenter Reality Man writes that the Bush administration's policy toward Iran "is based in fear of the Muslim Other and out of a fear of appearing weak and thus gay and feminine."

These commenters appear to be fully normal for this blog. Thank you Mr. Yglesias for an eye-opening visit to your world.

Posted by ERF | August 17, 2007 1:03 AM

Re ERF's comment "Mr. Williams compares US soldiers to "a crazy uncle who sits on the front porch and fires at people passing by".
-----------
Actually, I was comparing Bush/Cheney's behavior to "a crazy uncle who sits on the front porch and fires at people passing by".

To twist that into saying I was criticizing the troops is , in my opinion, the type of two-faced deceit so characteristic of Bush supporters.

Posted by Don Williams | August 20, 2007 1:30 AM

Okay Don Williams; the entire relevant part of your quote shows your meaning.

Here are your words:

"Go f#@% yourself, Chris. (I changed the foul word you used here)

I have never said US troops shouldn't defend themselves.

But if you have a crazy uncle who sits on the front porch and fires at people passing by, you should not be surprised if some bullets come flying in through the front window in reply.

The REAL enemy of the troops are the corrupt whores of rich men -- e.g., George Bush and Dick CHeney plus most of the Neocon ..."

-- end of quote.

So Mr. Williams, did I have to "twist that into saying (you were) criticizing the troops"?

My comments were directed to Matthew Yglesias (I know he will probably never read them), who uses his reasonable intelligence and soft-spoken tact in support and service of some very poor ideas -- and some repellent individuals.

Posted by ERF | August 20, 2007 8:28 AM