Defending Bill Kristol

Andrew writes:

So what to do? Remember that Kristol's loyalty to the Republicans often trumps national security. How else to explain his support for the GOP last November, even though a Republican victory would have prevented the surge in the first place and kept Rumsfeld in the Pentagon? One option: Change the subject by launching wars against Syria and Iran, and so polarize the country that the choice is framed as: MoveOn or America? That's much better than having, you know, an actual debate about the merits of the war in Iraq and the war against Islamist terror. On that, Republicans lose. If the war is far wider and more terrifying, if the enemies can be multiplied and amplified, then the dynamic plays to the advantage of the GOP. It's for us or against us again.

I really think that's wrong. Kristol wants military action against Syria and Iran because Syria and Iran are both countries in the news and Kristol's only idea about foreign policy is that the United States should deploy more military force. He's also, clearly, a committed partisan Republican, but I think any fair reading of the record shows that his commitment to maximum military action all the time trumps petty considerations of partisanship. Recall that back in April 2001 Bush disappointed Kristol by not launching a war with China and got this treatment:

The profound national humiliation that President Bush has brought upon the United States may be forgotten temporarily when the American aircrew, held captive in China as this magazine goes to press, return home. But when we finish celebrating, it will be time to assess the damage done, and the dangers invited, by the administration's behavior.

Now, that was idiotic. Our temporary forgetting of this "profound" humiliation will extend until the end of time because Bush, listening to Colin Powell and other sensible members of his administration, handled a sticky situation rather well and advanced our key interests at basically no cost. Kristol, by contrast, wanted to engage in a risky game of brinksmanship over nothing because, basically, he thinks war is great. Which, again, is profoundly dumb, but not in a partisan way. He's just a one-trick pony.

Comments

Regarding Kristol, the only question that makes any sense to ask is: why does anyone pay any attention whatsoever to anything he says?

Posted by ProfD | September 23, 2007 11:28 AM

I wonder what Kristol and company would have done during the Cuban Missile Crisis?

Posted by Pritesh | September 23, 2007 11:32 AM

Republican foriegn policy, since Eisenhower, has always been charactorized by an irrational belligerance. Kristol and other right wing pundits, like Limbaugh etc, feed off of this lust for battle among their conservative audiences. It really is nothing more sophisticated than that.

Posted by ken | September 23, 2007 11:35 AM

I really think that's wrong. Kristol wants military action against Syria and Iran because Syria and Iran are both countries in the news and Kristol's only idea about foreign policy is that the United States should deploy more military force.

Indeed, Kristol, Robert Kagan and the PNACers also broke with the congressional GOP on Kosovo. I'm only surprised that he doesn't recommend a nice big colonial war to deal with sub-prime lending.

And ProfD hints at the more general point: what, precisely, does a 'tenured' pundit of Kristol's standing need to say or do in order to lose the meal ticket and open invitation to pontificate in print and on television?

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | September 23, 2007 11:39 AM

Kristol is perhaps the most immoral man in the Republican-media-elite. Here is a man who wrote a memo that Republicans must attack universal health care because it is what the country wants by a clear majority. However, since it would result in the Democrats would look good, be opposed what the majority wants. This man is malevolent. Why the Democrats do not attack him and what he stands for I don't know. All his foreign policy ravings center around putting others at risk (mostly minority and less well off members of the "volunteer" army) for his delusions. If a Democrat would literally, and simply, bitch slap him on air while engage in a "debate" of foreign policy issues on he would go whining and file a lawsuit but he would be exposed as the coward and immoral hack that he is. It would make for great television and would raise the level of farce that which is this campaign to its proper standing.

Posted by Cal | September 23, 2007 11:51 AM

Regarding Kristol, the only question that makes any sense to ask is: why does anyone pay any attention whatsoever to anything he says?

This is a question that ought to be raised frequently within the liberal blogosphere. Kristol is a Figure of Importance within punditry circles, so he can't simply be dismissed if, say, one winds up on a TV panel next to him. However, he is also a terrifically stupid individual, and there is nothing to be gained by trying to engage his viewpoints, such as they are, intellectually. The things Kristol says are a) stupid, and b) nonsensical. Attempting to debate him simply helps to legitimize the babble that comes out of his mouth. Fewer but better conservative talking heads, please!

Posted by Aaron S. Veenstra | September 23, 2007 12:18 PM

Due respect, I think you drastically overestimate the usefulness of the blogosphere for purposes of shunning. It would not spell doom for Bill Kristol if every blogger with a leftward tilt ignored him until the end of time.

He is a rather influential conservative commentator with widely distributed platforms in print and television. If Kristol is wrong, it seems to me that the most sensible thing is to say so.

Now, with some nut on the sidewalk, you want to be careful not to amplify and legitimize a marginal view. But with a magazine editor and television commentator, I think you have to accept the fact that his view is already amplified. You're not doing the cause any favors by letting him preen unchallenged.

Posted by southpaw | September 23, 2007 12:43 PM

Kristol is loyal to the War Party, not the Republican Party. True, there wasn't much of a difference between the two from 9/12/01 until the 2006 Congressional elections when rats started fleeing the ship. But historically speaking, deceitful warmongering bastards have always been a bipartisan interest group.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | September 23, 2007 12:47 PM

I think both Matt and Sully are right in their own way.

Yes, Mr. Kristol hasn't met a country he didn't want to attack. Give him and his pals time--the list will get longer.

However, regardless of how much he may criticize Bush or any other Republican, you will NEVER see him endorse a Democrat over a Republican (Joe Lieberman, as always being the exception. But of course Lieberman hardly counts as a Democrat).

Regardless of which cretin the Grand Ol Perverts put up next year, Bill will be firmly in their corner and firmly attack whoever the Democrats put up.

The fact that Kristol was an enthusiastic backer of McCain in 2000 tells you ALL you need to know about McCain and what his foreign policy would be like.

Posted by twit | September 23, 2007 1:08 PM

Due respect, I think you drastically overestimate the usefulness of the blogosphere for purposes of shunning. It would not spell doom for Bill Kristol if every blogger with a leftward tilt ignored him until the end of time.

I appreciate the point you're making, but I didn't mean to suggest he be ignored or that doing so would make an impact. I'm only suggesting that it is now legitimate to ask why he holds the position he does. It is useful to point out to the right that someone like Kristol has widely distributed platforms in print and television.

Surely there can't be that many smart people on the right who view Kristol as an intellectual ally. His drum-beating is approaching the stuff of camp. Good for a laugh, albeit a nervous one.

Posted by ProfD | September 23, 2007 1:50 PM

"Kristol wants military action against Syria and Iran because Syria and Iran are both countries in the news and Kristol's only idea about foreign policy is that the United States should deploy more military force... Kristol, by contrast, wanted to engage in a risky game of brinksmanship over nothing because, basically, he thinks war is great."-M. Y.

It's always easiest to defeat your opponents (or at least appear to) when you caricature their arguments. One could say "well Plato just exalted dictatorship" or "Nietzsche thought war was grand" and dismiss two great thinkers and their ideas with a couple of gross oversimplifications.

Certainly Bill Kristol is not at the same level as those two, but neither is he the simpleton that many here wish to portray him as. I too think that he has tended to be overaggressive in the foreign policy he espouses, but it is far from obvious that he is wrong about Iran. John McCain might have been correct when he argued that "The only thing worse than declaring war on Iran is permitting Iran to have nuclear weapons." The Iranian leader has openly mocked the holocaust, suggested wiping Israel off of the map, aided terrorist groups in Iraq and elsewhere against the U. S. and its allies, and generally advocated an atavistic and apocalyptic view of the world that is anathema to Western civilization. Indeed, by participating in the killing of American soldiers, Iran has already engaged in acts of war against the United States.

I imagie I will get some insults hurled at me for daring to question left-wing orthodoxy, but hopefully there will be some rational arguments amidst the vituperation.

Posted by Isocrates | September 23, 2007 2:08 PM

"Republican foriegn policy, since Eisenhower, has always been charactorized by an irrational belligerance."-Ken

Hmm... you mean like when Nixon went to China to negotiate with Mao? Or when Ford signed the Helsinki accords? Or when Reagan met Gorachev at Reykjavík? Or when Bush Sr. presided over the end of the Cold War? Yes, I guess you're right. Republicans are always warmongers.

After all it was a Republican who started the war in Korea. And another Republican who got us into Viet Nam. And still a third who bombed the former Ugoslavia. Right?

Posted by Isocrates | September 23, 2007 2:25 PM

Republican foreign policy, since Eisenhower, has always been characterized by an irrational belligerence.

Only in terms of rhetoric. All of Eisenhower's talk of "rollback" was bluster, as were Reagan's macho one-liners. The two Bushes are the only ones who have been as fond of saber-rattling in office as they were on the campaign trail, if not more so.

Even the Bushes, though, knew they'd be held responsible for their little adventures if they went badly. Kristol has no responsibility, and will never be held accountable for his foolishness, so he can indulge in crowd-pleasing chest-thumping all the time.

Posted by Matt Stevens | September 23, 2007 2:32 PM

Isocrates,

John McCain might have been correct when he argued that "The only thing worse than declaring war on Iran is permitting Iran to have nuclear weapons." The Iranian leader has openly mocked the holocaust, suggested wiping Israel off of the map, aided terrorist groups in Iraq and elsewhere against the U. S. and its allies, and generally advocated an atavistic and apocalyptic view of the world that is anathema to Western civilization. Indeed, by participating in the killing of American soldiers, Iran has already engaged in acts of war against the United States.

I believe McCain is quite incorrect in his assessment. General Abizaid said as much quite recently, when he suggested that the US could live with a nuclear Iran.

Certainly Ahmadenijad's comments attitude are cause for concern. They would be even more so if he were the one to set Iranian foreign and nuclear policy. He is not. Moreover, he has been losing influence of late within Iran, the latest blow being the appointment of Rafsanjani to the Assembly of Experts.

Finally, regarding Iran's meddling in Iraq, it's not realistic to expect them to remain idle while their neighbor falls apart. You really consider the arming and training of Shiite militias an act of war?

Posted by ProfD | September 23, 2007 2:38 PM

As Isocrates spills his philosophy, I detect a bit of fresh air wafting through the mausoleum.

Billy Kristol is, to me, the epitome of neoconism. He definitely believes in the security of the USA, but, like others here, it is only within the paradigm underwhich he operates. He has been a favorite of war in Iraq (and a few other places), but I really don't expect him to advocate sending dozens of tomahawk missiles to bomb the infrastructure of Slovenia, or Albania, or even Switzerland, at least for now. He gets his position by being articulate, well-versed in many of the political nuances currently extant in the world, and he doesn't automatically toady to all Republican views (just the neocon ones).

As for the EP-3 aircraft that was forced down into China, a few things to put it into perspective. I was a member of that same squadron, but long before there was a change in the rules of engagement concerning an attempted interception, or other situation that might result in the people or equipment ending up in the hands of a hostile nation (changed during the mid-1990's). These were highly-classified aircraft that, were they to end up in the hands of those aforementioned badies, would provide levels of intelligence to them that would have very, very serious affects on the security of the USA. Our orders were to ditch the plane instead of allowing it to fall into their hands, and, during the minutes before ditching, do certain things to the hardware and software that renedered it much less usable - kind of like what the Pueblo's crew should have done, but didn't, because of the laxness in the chain-of-command. It has always been considered an act of war to attack a reconnaisance platform when operating in international spaces, like this plane was. Previous, more hardy aviators would've allowed themselves to be shot down or voluntarily ditched the aircraft before meekly going to the bad guys' base. It was intellectually interesting to note that the Chinese did exactly what they thought they'd do, if they ever got their hands on one (took it apart piece by piece, then handed it back to us in pieces).

I imagine, like Iso, there'll be some vehement attacks on what I've said, probably personally, too, but so be it.

Posted by beneficial | September 23, 2007 2:40 PM

Isocrates--

Valid point on your second post. Bogus on the first.

NO ONE has proven Iran has had anything at all to do with what is going on in Iraq, despite the neocon shreiking constantly to the contrary. Let's see some evidence, rather than innuendo. So far there is none.

Even so--if they are involved in Iraq, why shouldn't they be? It is on their doorstep, not ours, and the Shia shrines are their holy shrines. They have a vested interest to make sure a Shia governement stays in place, and would be stupid not to.

Should the Soviet Union have declared war on us for providing weapons and intelligence to the fedayeen in Afghanistan? After all, Russians were dying as a result! And, Afghanistan was NOT on our doorstep. all this hand-wringing about Iran 'meddling' wrings a little hollow when WE have 168,000 troops in country.

Iran is ANTI al Qaeda. Why don't we play on that fact, instead of trying to drive them TO al Qaeada?

Most of your other horrorific Iranian Dastardly deeds have no releveance to us. Who in the Islamic world hasn't called for the destruction of Israel? Big Deal. We are going to make war on somebody because they deny the Holocaust? Hardly a casus belli.

In the age where We Dare Not Criticize Generals, remember General Abizaid this week said that 'we could live with an Iranian Nuke'.

You need to read fewer Joe Leiberman and Marty Peretz diatribes. And fer Gawd's sake, avoid NRO.

Posted by twit | September 23, 2007 2:40 PM

"Hey, you, twit!" A couple of quickies - Iran isn't anti-alQaeda. Even the media has reported (in the last 12 months) the Iranians allowing alQaeda fighters access through Iran when they go in-country and take their Iranian-manufactured IEDs with them.

I would never say don't disagree with a General, because they're every bit as bad in some of their decisions and statements as politicians (you've gotta be pretty political to get to flag rank, in about 99% of the cases). Excellent examples would be Wesley Clark, or Alexander Haig, both known to be major politicos and very wrong in their military judgments.

Posted by beneficial | September 23, 2007 2:47 PM

Even the media has reported (in the last 12 months) the Iranians allowing alQaeda fighters access through Iran when they go in-country and take their Iranian-manufactured IEDs with them.

Gee, they would never plant misleading information in the media to advance their foreign policy goals would they? How those aluminum tubes treating you these days? Perhaps you'd like some stories of yellow cake?

Posted by Col Bat Guano | September 23, 2007 3:12 PM

Well, I'm glad to some reasoned criticism. So to respond:

I. "Certainly Ahmadenijad's comments attitude are cause for concern. They would be even more so if he were the one to set Iranian foreign and nuclear policy. He is not. Moreover, he has been losing influence of late within Iran, the latest blow being the appointment of Rafsanjani to the Assembly of Experts."-ProfD

I'm not as confident as you about internal Iranian politics. The fact that Ahmadenijad is the man they wish to be their representative to the rest of the world makes me doubt the "pragmatism" and "moderation" that is sometimes ascribed to the Ayatollahs by the Western press. As for Rafsanjani, maybe he is on the rise again, and maybe he is more reasonable, but quotes like this make me wonder:

"If one day the Islamic world is also equipped with weapons like those that Israel possesses now [i.e. nuclear weapons], then the imperialist strategy will reach a standstill because the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything. However, it will only harm the Islamic world. It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality.”-Hashemi Rafsanjani

II. "NO ONE has proven Iran has had anything at all to do with what is going on in Iraq...Even so--if they are involved in Iraq, why shouldn't they be?"-twit

Well, I'm not sure what sort of evidence you would accept. There is this from the New York Times:

The most lethal weapon directed against American troops in Iraq is an explosive-packed cylinder that United States intelligence asserts is being supplied by Iran.

The assertion of an Iranian role in supplying the device to Shiite militias reflects broad agreement among American intelligence agencies, although officials acknowledge that the picture is not entirely complete.-Deadliest Bomb in Iraq is made by Iran

If you demand absoulte proof, you will never get it. But public officials don't have the luxury of waiting for absolute certainty.

Posted by Isocrates | September 23, 2007 3:16 PM

beneficial:

Even the media

Wait—you're saying that even the media is repeating dubiously sourced claims from the US government that support right-wing foreign policy objectives!?! Next thing you'll be telling us that even the sky is blue!

Posted by Jon | September 23, 2007 3:21 PM

Isocrates:

Well, I'm not sure what sort of evidence you would accept. There is this from the New York Times...If you demand absoulte proof, you will never get it. But public officials don't have the luxury of waiting for absolute certainty.

I wouldn't have thought it possible for anyone to live through the past five years and learn absolutely nothing, but clearly it is. It really tells you something about the tenacity with which human can cling to their various fantasy worlds.

Posted by Jon | September 23, 2007 3:25 PM

So we can't trust media and we can't trust the government and we can't trust Bill Kristol and we can't trust the Iranians.

Sounds about right.

Posted by southpaw | September 23, 2007 3:42 PM

I wouldn't have thought it possible for anyone to live through the past five years and learn absolutely nothing, but clearly it is.-Jon

Jon, you shouldn't look exclusively at the last few years and ignore the rest of history. It seems clear now that we would have been better off dealing with the threat from Hitler's Germany before it metastacized (yes, preemptively even). In the '30's many considered Churchill's warnings about German rearmament and the rumors swirling about the concentration camps overblown. "Where's the proof?" they demanded, just as you do now. "Yes, he wrote these crazy things in his book, but he didn't really mean it. It's just talk."

I'm not advocating an invasion of Iran. I just don't think that contemplating a strike on Iranian nuclear facilities is irrational. Iran will always try to hide its nefarious activities, so it will generally be difficult for us to obtain the incontravertible evidence you demand. That means statesmen will have to make their decisions in a world of uncertainty. They must try to estimate the costs and benefits of various actions and the probabilities associted with various threats. But if they act only upon perfect certitude, they will be forever paralysed.

Posted by Isocrates | September 23, 2007 3:51 PM

you shouldn't look exclusively at the last few years and ignore the rest of history. It seems clear now that we would have been better off dealing with the threat from Hitler's Germany before it metastacized (yes, preemptively even).

Before you start recommending that humanity learn from history, it would be useful for you yourself to learn some history. In particular, learn more about the 1930s than just what you read in your copy of History for Right-Wing Six Year-Olds. Just knowing basic facts, like when the holocaust actually happened, would be helpful.

Of course, it was my once my dream that the events of the past six years would already have led people like yourself to learn more about that particular time, but that certainly hasn't worked out. So I won't get my hopes up.

Posted by Jon | September 23, 2007 4:21 PM

I'm reminded of those early 1990s Time and NY Times reference to Bin Laden, when claims of
insurgent attacks in Egypt & Algeria tied to
Bin Laden, could not be verified. We know how
solid those denials were.

Posted by narciso | September 23, 2007 4:58 PM

"Even the media has reported (in the last 12 months) the Iranians allowing alQaeda fighters access through Iran when they go in-country and take their Iranian-manufactured IEDs with them."

IEDs mean IMPROVISED explosive devices. You don't manufacture IEDs. You put them together on or near the spot on a quasi-ad hoc basis. The Taliban has issued fatwas against Iran. Bin Laden considers them apostates. Al-Zarqawi used to attack Shi'ites. Al-Qaida in Iraq is a minor nuisance and is mostly locals. Under 10% of the Sunni insurgency have been foreigners. You would be on stronger ground if you accused Iran of backing al-Sadr's militias, which are connected to the Iraqi military that we're training. Ahmedinijad has power over things like whether or not women can go to soccer games and he is unlikely to win re-election unless he can depend on American belligerence for creating a rally-around-the-flag effect. The mullahs also recently approved the making and showing of a documentary on the Holocaust on Iran state TV that said that the Holocaust actually took place, that it was a bad thing and that one should sympathize with its Jewish victims.

Kristol is first of all loyal to 1) his ego then 2) fellow neocons and 3) the Republicans. According to Fukuyama, in the 1990's the Weekly Standard editorial board decided that the US needed a new foreign threat because that would take the focus off domestic policy, where Republicans were weak. They eventually chose China over Islamic radicalism as their threat de jure. However, when Bush followed the neocon line less than 100% on the spy plane incident, it looked like we were going to avoid war with China and thus wreck the neocons plans for the US always being in conflict with China. Lynne (sp?) Cheney kept on telling Bush that we should go to war with China first before they were prepared for it. The neocons, especially Kristol, are a bunch of violent revolutionary Trotskyite wines poured into conservative capitalist bottles.

Posted by Reality Man | September 23, 2007 5:05 PM

"Before you start recommending that humanity learn from history, it would be useful for you yourself to learn some history. In particular, learn more about the 1930s than just what you read in your copy of History for Right-Wing Six Year-Olds. Just knowing basic facts, like when the holocaust actually happened, would be helpful."-Jon

Jon, my friend, it pains me to make you look foolish, but you have really done it to yourself. Look at what I actually wrote:

In the '30's many considered Churchill's warnings about German rearmament and the rumors swirling about the concentration camps overblown.

And then look at this:

Almost immediately following his rise to power, Hitler began the creation of concentration camps. Initially these were designed to incarcerate political prisoners (enemies of the regime), criminals and security risks. While conditions were, predictably, horrible in these camps, and while the death rates were high, there is no evidence that they were used for extermination purposes. By the late 1930s there were literally hundreds of camps scattered throughout Germany and with the Nazi takeover of Czechoslovakia, Austria, Poland, Holland and France, camps were established throughout the Reich. The death rates were so high, from malnutrition, typhus and exhaustion that the disposal of corpses became a serious problem.

Or this:

Established in March 1933, the Dachau concentration camp was the first regular concentration camp established by the Nazis... The number of Jewish prisoners at Dachau rose with the increased persecution of Jews and on November 10-11, 1938, in the aftermath of Kristallnacht, more than 10,000 Jewish men were interned there.

There were indeed concentration camp in the 1930's and many deaths in them though it's true that "the final solution" came later. But I was talking about the concentration camps and I was right. It's okay, though. You're evidently out of your league here, so I'm willing to let the whole thing drop to save you further embarassment.

Posted by Isocrates | September 23, 2007 5:21 PM

Tell me: what exactly were the "rumors swirling about the concentration camps" during the 1930s? Since you have such strong views about this, I'm sure you're basing them on some serious works of history.

Posted by Jon | September 23, 2007 6:10 PM

"I think any fair reading of the record shows that his commitment to maximum military action all the time trumps petty considerations of partisanship."

My, my.

Matt understand that about Kristol, but apparently not about the rest of the neocons or Bush or Cheney.

In other words, when we're talking about the upcoming war in Iran, Matt is all about how it's all politics and it's all about the Democrats and therefore we don't have to worry about there, you know, ACTUALLY being a war started. It's just all talk.

But when he talks about Kristol, well, Kristol is all about war.

Nice blinders there, Matt. Cost much?

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 23, 2007 7:25 PM

"The Iranian leader has openly mocked the holocaust, suggested wiping Israel off of the map, aided terrorist groups in Iraq and elsewhere against the U. S. and its allies, and generally advocated an atavistic and apocalyptic view of the world that is anathema to Western civilization. Indeed, by participating in the killing of American soldiers, Iran has already engaged in acts of war against the United States."

Basically none of which is either true or AS true as "isocrates" seems to think it is.

Ahmadinejad has not "mocked the Holocaust" - he has questioned its extensiveness, perhaps, and he has certainly questioned the attention paid to it and the deference given it as opposed to realistic appraisals of Israeli actions in the ensuing fifty years. As I recall, however, he has not denied the fact of the Holocaust - merely its importance to the current geopolitical scene.

In other words, he advocates that people stop accepting the Holocaust as justification for every ethnic cleansing action of Palestinians by Israelis. And on that he is correct.

He has never advocated "wiping Israel off the map" That was a mistranslation as anybody who keeps up with the Iran news should well know by now. The official Iranian position is that the state of Israel is illegitimate - which, to anyone who knows the legal history of how it was created by the UN, is correct.

More importantly, Iran in 2003 was even willing to discuss recognition of Israel as part of a broad diplomatic rapprochement with the US - which the US refused.

Iran does not aid "terrorist groups" in Iraq, or Lebanon. They aid RESISTANCE groups such as the Shia militias and Hizballah. Iran has actively prosecuted "terrorist groups" such as Al Qaeda and even offered Al Qaeda captives to the US - which refused the offer.

I'm not sure that Ahmadinejad has ever offered any "apocalyptic" views of the world - most of the interviews I've seen with him, he appears to mouth the same diplomatic platitudes most national leaders do - but even if he did, it is irrelevant since he doesn't control the Iranian military. And the Iranian military is in no position to do "apocalyptic" anything anywhere outside of its borders.

As for "Iranians killing US soldiers", nothing of that has been established by anyone in the US military. There has been a lot of talk, but zero evidence has been produced that the Iranian government is directly supporting operations against US forces in Iraq in any way, shape or form.

And even if they were, this is indistinguishable from the fact that the US and Israel are DIRECTLY supporting Kurdish dissident groups in Iraq and Iranian dissident groups in Iran with US Special Forces teams to conduct military operations against Iranian targets. This has been revealed by Sy Hersh and Colonel Sam Gardiner. Captured Iranian dissidents have admitted as much to the Iranians.

Certainly the Iranians have agents in Iraq - probably thousands of them. Certainly these agents are supporting the Iranian militias who are part of the current Iraqi government. Certainly these Iranian agents are pinpointing US military targets for retaliation in the event of a US attack on Iran. Certainly these agents are supplying the militias with equipment, if that is needed - which is not certain since Iraq is awash in weapons and not much external supply of those is needed.

There is zero evidence that the Iranians are supplying IEDs of any kind to the Iraqis, who are quite capable of manufacturing such devices - even including EFP's - on their own. A number of Iraqi resistance hideouts with such manufacturing facilities have been found. "isocrates" cherry picks a NY Times article that most people have blown off already.

So, as usual, "isocrates" is full of shit.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 23, 2007 7:45 PM

Isocrates writes: "I'm not advocating an invasion of Iran. I just don't think that contemplating a strike on Iranian nuclear facilities is irrational. Iran will always try to hide its nefarious activities, so it will generally be difficult for us to obtain the incontravertible evidence you demand. That means statesmen will have to make their decisions in a world of uncertainty. They must try to estimate the costs and benefits of various actions and the probabilities associted with various threats. But if they act only upon perfect certitude, they will be forever paralysed."

Warmongering cretins told us Iraq was a threat. It wasn't a threat - until we invaded it. Warmongering cretins now tell us we have to take action against Iran because it may someday become a threat. This notion that another preemptive strike against another Middle Eastern country - even though our own military is dubious about the efficacy of such a strike - is easy to promote if you're a warmongering cretin.

You really don't need to know much more about Isocrates than that it uses a phrase like "nefarious activities" seriously. That's a phrase suited only for parody or satire.

But I guess warmongering cretins think it sounds cool.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 23, 2007 8:31 PM

If you demand absoulte proof, you will never get it. But public officials don't have the luxury of waiting for absolute certainty.

Uh-huh. Yeah, cuz they know so much more than we mere plebians do. How many times have we heard that one before? (Hint: ALWAYS before our more forlorn idiotic military adventures.)

Seems to me that, when the stakes are quite possibly an epoch-changing strategic disaster, the "standard of proof" about the supposed Iranian threat ought to be -- mighty fucking high, damn near absolute.

Nothing, to date, comes within a light-year of that standard. Particularly when, as other commenters have noted, it is very, very difficult to demonstrate that a nuclear-armed Iran is any worse than an existing nuclear-armed Pakistan. And as far as I know, not even smiling Billy Kristol is so far gone that he's advocating a war on Pakistan.

Posted by sglover | September 23, 2007 9:22 PM

Before you start recommending that humanity learn from history, it would be useful for you yourself to learn some history. In particular, learn more about the 1930s than just what you read in your copy of History for Right-Wing Six Year-Olds. Just knowing basic facts, like when the holocaust actually happened, would be helpful.

Precisely. At this point, anyone who's still earnestly yammering "Munich/Appeasement/Chamberlain" is essentially signalling his own deep historical ignorance. Here's another hint: Europe 1938 is NOTHING LIKE early 21st Century Southwest Asia.

Posted by sglover | September 23, 2007 9:26 PM

Re: In the '30's many considered Churchill's warnings about German rearmament and the rumors swirling about the concentration camps overblown.

There were no concentration camps in the 1930s. They came into existrence during the war, and the death camps like Auschwitz rather late in the war. To be sure, the Nuremburg Laws, Kristalnacht and other such doings made it obvious that the Jews would not propser under the Nazis, but the worst was yet to come.

Re: Almost immediately following his rise to power, Hitler began the creation of concentration camps.

This is, well, bullshit. The camps for the Jews began with the War. Yes. there were prisons for the Nazis political foes (like the Socialists) and no, they were not nice places, but the term "Concentration camp" does not apply to them--unless you'd care to also call Attica, Sing-Sing- Fulsome, Leavenworth, etc, etc. "concentration camps".

Posted by JonF | September 23, 2007 9:31 PM

The radicals have taken over the debate here again. That's fine. Richard Hack makes the case that Ahmadinejad is no worse than other national leaders who calmly "mouth platitudes," sglover says that Iranian fundmentalism has nothing in common with Naziism (I guess a hatred of Jews and liberal democracy don't count) and JonF says there's no difference between Dachau and Fulsome prison.

Its just laughable. Well, you fellow travelers can rage against capitalism, the U. S. military and the Bush administration all you like. I've had enough of you for now.

Posted by Isocrates | September 23, 2007 9:53 PM

I too think that he has tended to be overaggressive in the foreign policy he espouses, but it is far from obvious that he is wrong about Iran.

Is this not an example of either, (a) "Ok, Kristol is a nut, but this time he's right," and/or (b) "Even a stopped clock is right twice a day" ?

Whatever the merits of attacking Iran, we should pretty much ignore/mock anything kristol has to say on the matter. And given that Kristol thinks it's a good idea, anyone who previously thought that attacking Iran is good policy should probably reconsider his position.

Posted by Tyro | September 23, 2007 10:01 PM

Its just laughable. Well, you fellow travelers can rage against capitalism, the U. S. military and the Bush administration all you like. I've had enough of you for now.

Gee, don't go away mad because everyone has called you on your simplistic war mongering.

Posted by Col Bat Guano | September 24, 2007 12:22 AM

Isocrates, you aren't going to draw anyone to your side by attacking strawman arguments.

Posted by Reality Man | September 24, 2007 12:45 AM

Its just laughable. Well, you fellow travelers can rage against capitalism, the U. S. military and the Bush administration all you like. I've had enough of you for now.

"Fellow travelers"?!?! Who let Alger Hiss in the thread?

Next time, "Isocrates", at least try to shovel horseshit that hasn't been shoveled a few tens of thousands of times already, 'kay?

Posted by sglover | September 24, 2007 12:46 AM

"IEDs mean IMPROVISED explosive devices. You don't manufacture IEDs. You put them together on or near the spot on a quasi-ad hoc basis."

There are many different types of bombs being made and used. Admittedly, the military has a way with jargon that creates an acronym at the drop of a hat (or an exploding donkey corpse). Instead of having to go through the litany of all the devices that are designed and used in Iraq (to say nothing of Sri Lanka, Ireland, Spain, Indonesia, Thailand, Philippines, et.al.) I used the shorthand term IED that is used by the media. I admit to this simplificaiton, but only because I didn't realize there would be a military expert who absolutely insists on specific language.

Try this article, though, to see just how freely the different world media use the various explosives term.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4312516.stm
"The neocons, especially Kristol, are a bunch of violent revolutionary Trotskyite wines poured into conservative capitalist bottles." OMG Reality, that did elicit a belly laugh from me. However, why did you deviate from that pristine requirement of the use of language, from earlier in that post?

Are the Chinese going to be a problem? No, not really. We're going to buy everything from them that will turn our young into imbeciles by eating lead paint off of their toys, eat their food delicacies that contain many substances that generally produce a less healthy life, and besides, the Clintonistas like their money laundered through China, so they won't be OUR problem. They'll own us, due to the inept handling of our economy in the last 20 years.

Posted by Barney the Bat | September 24, 2007 12:57 AM

"There are many different types of bombs being made and used. Admittedly, the military has a way with jargon that creates an acronym at the drop of a hat (or an exploding donkey corpse). Instead of having to go through the litany of all the devices that are designed and used in Iraq (to say nothing of Sri Lanka, Ireland, Spain, Indonesia, Thailand, Philippines, et.al.) I used the shorthand term IED that is used by the media. I admit to this simplificaiton, but only because I didn't realize there would be a military expert who absolutely insists on specific language."

Don't blame me for your lazy use of language. If you're going to try to lay our problems in Iraq at the feet of Iran instead of our own incompetence, Iraqi ethnic politics and Saudi Arabia, the source of the majority of foreign fighters in Iraq, the burden of proof is on you. Have you switched your name here or something? You say you said that you used the term IED earlier in this thread, but I don't see your name here before this post, which is odd.

Posted by Reality Man | September 24, 2007 1:10 AM

I think he posted under the name "beneficial".

That was the only IED reference I see here in this thread.

Technically, while an IED is "improvised", I think the US military is claiming that COMPONENTS of some Iraqi IEDs are manufactured in Iran. Of course, they can't prove any of that since any such component is likely to be turned into hot gas when it goes off - and thus doesn't leave any manufacturer's part numbers - not that anybody manufacturing IEDs is going to leave part numbers on anyway - which is obvious to everybody but a US military officer, apparently. Not to mention that these components aren't THAT hard to manufacture, and could certainly be manufactured in Iraq - and apparently have been, according to media reports.

He also apparently is ignorant of how many well-known neocons used to be Trotskyites in the old days. It's not like it's a deep dark secret.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 24, 2007 2:37 AM

Reading through these comments is interesting. It gives us a clearer picture of the irrational belligerace at the core of the conservative charactor. War is always the solution. Well, war and lower taxes.

Posted by ken | September 24, 2007 1:17 PM

All right, Isocrates, let's take a look at this:

One country is a midsized developing nation with a pathetic industrial base, a conscript army backed by a cadre of desert fanatics (ie. the Revolutionary Guards), the potential to achieve widely understood, at least in the scientific community, plans from the 1940s in the form of a large, radiation-emitting explosive, engages in occasional attacks on civilians and hates Jews with a fiery passion.

Another country is one of the top industrial and scientific nations on the planet, possessed of, perhaps, the best collection of military minds and formations the world has ever seen, controlling the better part of the world's most developed continent and able to draw on the resources of millions of slave laborers, and hates Jews with a fiery passion.

Which country is an existential threat to the US? If you seriously lump the Islamic Republic into the same category as the Drittes Reich, you are absolutely insane.

In fact, there is only *one* nation that faces anything approaching a major threat from Iran. And let us be perfectly frank.

That nation is Israel.

If you, like I do, believe the West owes it to the Jews to prevent a replay of the Holocaust, then we can make comments about the evilness of Iran. But please don't ever, ever engage in the ridiculous conflation of a pisspoor bunch of religious crazies into a military machine that required the combined resources of the three most powerful nations on the planet and tens of millions of deaths to defeat.

Finally, it would be a stupid mistake to underestimate the power of the Israelis. Martin van Creveld said it best. The People of David have around 200-300 nuclear warheads, including at least some thermonuclear (as opposed to the pathetically few atomic bombs Iran struggles to produce) weapons. They have the most professional air force in the world, and they even have missile capability. If you really think these fellows can't take care of themselves, then you've been reading a different Old Testament than me. If Iran is ever a *real* threat, as opposed to a bullshit threat trumpeted by crazed warmongers like Bill Kristol, I like to think the Jews know what to do.

Posted by Greg | September 24, 2007 7:49 PM

Upon reflection, I have to object to this characterization of Kristol: "He's just a one-trick pony."

What have ponies ever done to deserve this sort of comparison? Compare Kristol to a vulture or a hyena or a maggot or any other corpse-hungry animal that craves the by-products of death and destruction. But leave the poor ponies out of it.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 24, 2007 11:23 PM