Today, however, is September 1. Labor Day is September 3. Is the following day going to be the start of a new marketing push for war with Iran? George Packer thinks it might be. Of course, things things aren't written in stone. When Sam Gardiner published "The End of the Summer of Diplomacy" (PDF) in the fall of 2006, I found his arguments very convincing. And yet, despite a bunch of talk, we've gone a whole twelve months without a war with Iran. Was Gardiner wrong, or were Gardiner and those of us who agree with him that launching such a war would be a terrible mistake merely politically effective?
« The Petraeus Option | Main | Bottoms Up »
You Don't Roll Out a New Product In August
01 Sep 2007 10:52 pm
Comments (42)
The appointment of a carrier admiral as head of the Mideast war effort was the give away for me. Cheney has been assiduously building an obedient chain of command that will execute an attack on Iran.
Cheney is the living embodiment of the American Id, and we will soon see it in action. Nations do not renounce militarism voluntarity. It usually takes a bloody reverse. We may soon have occasion to re-evaluate our militaristic enthusiasm.
The cynicism of the Democratic Party in this regard is breath taking. In the unlikely event of a victorious strike against Iran, they intend to share the booty. If the attack fails, they will sweep into power and pursue the oil wars by other means.
I predicted on Aug 15 that Bush would start a war with Iran within 6 months -- to tie the hands of any Democrat who wins the Presidential election next year. I explained why. See
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/08/war_on_specificity.php#comment-425066
Plus the correction at
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/08/war_on_specificity.php#comment-425341
All right, what is the plan to prevent this?
The president is near the very lowest approval ratings he can get, and the Iraq occupation is not much more popular. Surely not every Democratic office-holder is so craven, and so timid, as to be afraid to oppose this madness.
Will Sen. Webb be speaking out against this on every news network in the world starting on Sept. 4? What else needs to happen?
Re semi-reformed's comment "I'm thinking gas aat 9 or 10 dollars a gallon is the only deterrent to the neocon dream "
--------
As I've noted before, gas is already at $38 per gallon -- $3/gallon at the pump and $35 /gallon taken out in income tax to pay for military operations in the Middle East to pump the oil.
Easy to calculate -- look at how many gallons of gasoline you get per barrel of oil, how many barrels of oil we get from the Middle East, and how much we spend on military operations over there.
The artifically low $3/gallon at the pump is to distort the market so that energy alternatives won't be developed.
Does anyone know if we still have 3 carrier groups in the Gulf?
Check out the diary at the top of the DailyKos rec list called "We Are Going To Hit Iran. Bigtime."
What are we talking about again? A missile strike, or something with that regime change odor that is always reminiscent of stinky cheese? Because, you know, we can't invade Iran. It would be a disaster, and we would experience a far bigger casualty count than anything Saddam could dish out. All the president's men may be too stupid to understand that there would be hideous geopolitical consequences for the move, but surely they see that we don't have the kind of resources to bring to bear on Iran that we'd need to succeed there. I realize there seems to be no end to the warmongering with some hawks, but some things really just can't be done.
So what if we drop some bombs and a third world country? It'll be like old times. The world won't end. And Iran isn't going to do shit about it. They've only been as cocky as they have been because we've let them fuck with us with impunity for 28 years.
Liberals have been predicting war with Iran for nearly a year now. It still hasn't happened.
Anyone wanna put a little money on this? Nothin' big; five or ten bucks. I say that, as of 11/8/08, US forces will not launch any military strikes (ground or air) on sovereign Iranian territory.
The problem with posts like Harry's is that it has - at least for me - become almost impossible to tell the real ones from the parodies.
Still, there is one way. The parodies are a little less depressing.
P.S. In the preview, I see Klug's post. I hope, and even half believe, that he is right. Certainly, I think that bombing Iran would be insane without significant further developments far beyond any we've seen - not that such considerations have stopped this crew in the past - and I have no special information that would confirm my fears.
I think however that it's perhaps distasteful to bet where war is involved.
It seems to me that perhaps focusing on a "balance of personal terror" concept might have some value...
Consider the perspective of all those neocons and their financial backers agitating for war.
If the war goes well, they become heroes and get large book/media contracts. If the war goes badly, even extremely badly, they get smaller book contracts and are maybe are forced into retirement, subsisting on a generous sinecure at AEI or Hudson or something. Seems to me like pretty much of a no-lose proposition...
Perhaps it should be somehow strongly emphasized to them by people whom they personally know that a quite plausible outcome of a war disastrous for both America and the world would be very negative consequences for all of the instigators, very negative personal consequences.
And by "very negative" I certainly don't mean a little jail-time or even the humilation of having to stand trial at The Hague. I mean that they, together with all their friends and relatives, would be put to death in the most horrific and brutal fashion imaginable, under circumstances that would have made Saddam gasp with horror.
And to the extent that a catastrophe occurs and many Americans eventually come to believe---rightly or wrongly---that Israel had a significant hand in it...well, it would just take a few ICBMs to do a complete human scrape of a small bit of disputed land on the other side of the world. Since the potential negative consequences of a Iranian War might quickly drag the entire world into an economic depression, I suspect that Russia, China, and Europe would all be pretty cool with having Tel Aviv and Haifi glow in the dark for a thousand years.
As I said, it seems to me that the "balance of terror" MAD concept worked pretty well during the Cold War...
Keep in mind Iran may very well be dumb enough in the game of brinksmanship to start the war on their own.
The Revolutionary Guard in Iran have some some very ill-advised things over the years. They came close to triggering a shooting war with the British sailors. Only Brit PC and wussery of the Brits saved the day. The Iranians had tried the same stunt on Aussies, who scrambled back on ship and signalled the Iranians that they would be fired on if they pressed it. The US is ready to retaliate for any attack on US planes or vessels.
Besides Russia and China though, no 2 nations have been war-gamed like Iran and N Korea have been with more time and effort put into strike assignments. For all the talk about the military being stretched, that is only the ground forces. The Navy and AF are set, and ready.
Warren:
I think you're right. Nevertheless, it is how people signal earnestness in predictions. (Perhaps the proceeds to be donated to a charity of choice?)
I only have one prediction regarding Iran. If Cheney starts another war at this point, Harry Reid and the congressional Democrats will do some serious hand-wringing and sighing. They will out-sigh Al Gore in the 2000 debates. Then they will pass the "Glorious Invasion of Iran and Apple Pie" bill (but they will sigh and call it outrageous first). Then the rest of the party will be so outraged that they will nominate Hillary Clinton. (Dukakis and Mondale aren't available.)
How can they be this inept?
Eh, I already donated a few bucks to a cancer charity today. I'll just hope you're right and the bombs don't fall.
Was Gardiner wrong, or were Gardiner and those of us who agree with him that launching such a war would be a terrible mistake merely politically effective?
Perhaps the timing just wasn't right. If a massive air attack on Iran is in the works, aimed not just at hitting a few nuclear facilities but toppling the Iranian regime, I would suspect it will be combined with an Israeli strike on Hizbollah, and maybe Syrian targets as well. Following the Israel-Hizbollah war last summer, especially given the war's political outcome in Israel, Israel needed to regroup and would not have been prepared to go right back at it.
Another factor is that following that war, Hizbollah experienced a surge in regional popularity. But since late last year, the US and its chief Sunni allies in the region have spent months building up anti-Shia and anti-Iranian paranoia and hostility. The US might judge the region better prepared now.
If a massive air attack on Iran is in the works, aimed not just at hitting a few nuclear facilities but toppling the Iranian regime, I would suspect it will be combined with an Israeli strike on Hizbollah, and maybe Syrian targets as well. - Dan Kervick
An American attempt to induce an overthrow of the Iranian regime - already the one act most likely to increase the popularity of that regime - would be combined with Israeli attacks on Iranian allies? The combination would be planned, what, to make sure everyone in Iran rallies around the current regime? Does this make sense in some strange alternate-universe politics of which I'm unaware?
Warren Terra, I think the whole point is to drop as big a turd as possible into the punch bowl. The Pukes know who is going to win the presidency in 2008. What would make America more ungovernable than being neck-deep in Iran? And if US forces were driven out of Iraq as a consequence, so much the better in the eyes of the Pukes. They'd blame it on the Democratic president and use it to whip up more hysteria. Do you really think they care if any of those men and women come back alive, so long as they can get their way politically?
How can they be this inept?
I'm long past the point where I can think that Democrats are ineptly defending principles I share. They don't share them.
were Gardiner and those of us who agree with him that launching such a war would be a terrible mistake merely politically effective?
My personal guess is that the war with Iran can't be launched until the number of people in the military command who would fight the order is reduced. Or Dan Kervick could have it. In any case, I have seen absolutely nothing politically effective to slow down a war with Iran--and it's probably too late to do anything now. Any delay has been for internal reasons.
Matt,
The war fever that you and I fought against in August 2006 was driven in large part by Israel being at war, and, in particular, at war with an ally of Iran. When Israel returned to peace, the worst of the Bomb Iran mania in America died down.
What would be the optimal political timing for an attack on Iran regarding the 2008 election?
The administration is so completely built around short term Republican political interests and managing the media, that I imagine that the timing for an attack on Iran reflects our election cycle more than diplomatic progress or changes in events in the Middle East.
I think attacks on Iran, if they were to occur, would happen after the Democrats had already chosen their nominees and in the middle of the general election debates. This would be on the hope that the short term boost in patriotism and the wartime environment that could stifle criticism would push the election result to a Republican win.
Looking at the graphs, the Iraq war boost to Bush's popularity lasted about 4-5 months. 15 months is way too long a time to obtain poilitical advantages, I'm thinking summer 2008.
This is interesting: Mohamed El Baradei essentially says that if Iran hasn't straightened up by December, diplomacy has run it's course (" Nuclear watchdog chief warns of 'last chance' for Iran"). If December passes without Iran complying with the UN demands, it would be difficult for Dems to obstruct a bombing campaign against Iraq in the first quarter of '08. Think about it:
Congress has to approve the promotion of all U.S. military officers.
The Dems could let it be known that any officer who participted in an attack on Iran has ended their military career.
Cheney believes that if he goes to war again, the country will rally 'round BushCo one last weary time.
And the resulting National Security Emergency would be just the right excuse to postpone the 2008 elections ... just for the duration, you understand, until the War on Terror is over.
I have a $20 bet with Ed Brayton that some sort of national emergency declaration will be in effect and will affect next year's elections. I hope I lose.
But it sure is starting to smell like police state and fascism around here. Any of you read the TSA "freeze" thread at Boing Boing today? They're succeeding at conditioning us to obey out of fear. It's working.
All propaganda outlets say yes. I turned on Fox and Friends yesterday and the segment caption was "War with Iran: The Next Conflict" or something.
Reminds me of August 2002 when they would show aerial photos of nondescript buildings in Iraq with the question "Should Saddam's Death Factories Be Allowed To Stand?"
There will be no war with Iran for three reasons:
1) We do not have the troops
2) The Big Money powers-that-be do not want it (it would be very bad for the economy)
3) It would doom the GOP's electioral chances next year
There will be some saber-rattling, enough to keep the bloodthirsty wingnuts happy but no actual hostilities as meanwhile quiet, unadvertised eals are cut behind the scenes.
You're really not too bright sometimes, Matthew.
"Was Gardiner wrong"
No. He didn't say or imply that airstrikes were imminent in that paper.
"or were Gardiner and those of us who agree with him that launching such a war would be a terrible mistake merely politically effective?"
No. Do you really over-inflate your role so grandly in your mind?
And you'd have to be politically minimally aware in order to be politically effective.
-----
What we have now, which we didn't have in September 2006, is a coming public rollout of the case for airstrikes.
This could mean one of three things.
1) A distraction to further their goals in Iraq.
2) Carrot and stick diplomacy to achieve a negotiated outcome with Iran.
3) Airstrikes.
All three options are plausible, though #1 and #3 are more so.
But if you really can't suss out the differences between the current moment and September 2006, you really need to find another line of work.
Liberals have been predicting war with Iran for nearly a year now. It still hasn't happened.
The liberals predicting war with Iran are the very same liberals who have been predicting for years that George Bush will start removing troops from Iraq just before the election, so as to help Republican electoral chances. And we all know how good those predictions have been.
Let's just say that these people's power of prediction ain't too hot.
"The liberals predicting war with Iran are the very same liberals who have been predicting for years that George Bush will start removing troops from Iraq just before the election, so as to help Republican electoral chances ... Let's just say that these people's power of prediction ain't too hot."
Al gets one right for a change.
It's true that by "war with Iran" I'm personally assuming massive airstrikes, not a ground invasion of any kind.
"Reminds me of August 2002 when they would show aerial photos of nondescript buildings in Iraq with the question "Should Saddam's Death Factories Be Allowed To Stand?"
I watched plenty of Fox News then and don't remember that. Are you sure you're not just making it up?
1) My understanding is that there is currently only ONE carrier group deployed in the Persian Gulf -- our two carriers were reduced to one when the USS Enterprise relieved the USS Nimitz and USS Stennis.
A lot of carriers are in dock. It looks like only USS Harry Truman and USS George Washington are available to reinforce the Enterprise. This would leave Atlantic unguarded so probably one would be kept back unless the Eisenhower's deployment is extended.
2) My understanding of the current status of the 11 carriers is as follows:
a)In Persian Gulf: USS Enterprise
b) In Atlantic:
USS Harry Truman
c)In Western Pacific:
USS Kitty Hawk
d)Docked at Home Port:
USS Carl Vinson (Norfolk --multiyear refuel)
USS Roosevelt (Norfolk , PIA till Dec 2007)
USS Abraham Lincoln ( Everett, Wash)
USS Stennis (Bremerton, Wash -- maintenance/training till Aug 2008)
USS Ronald Reagan (San Diego, PIA , TBD)
e)In Transit to Home Port:
USS Nimitz (Pac)
USS Eisenhower? (Atl)
f)Underway from Home Port/testing:
USS George Washington (Left Norfolk Aug 27, In Atlantic off Virginia)
(Note: All are nuclear Nimitz-class carriers except for Enterprise and Kitty Hawk )
3) Details:
a) USS Nimitz -- Has left Middle East. Engaged in Recent exercise near Guam --headed for Hong Kong for Liberty then Home to San Diego via Hawaii( due in San Diego around Oct --but could be quickly diverted to Persian Gulf in about 6-10 days?)
b) USS Dwight D. Eisenhower-- In Atlantic
(But could be diverted to Persian Gulf in about 6 days? if ordered)
c) USS Carl Vinson --being overhauled at Norfolk (multi-year refuel)
d) USS Theodore Roosevelt -- Being upgraded (PIA) at Norfolk --scheduled to be in dock thru Dec 2007 but could possibly be cut to Nov 1?
e) USS Abraham Lincoln -- Just returned to Home Port (Everett, Washington). Scheduled maintenance unknown
f) USS George Washington -- Aug 27, 2007: Began sea trials off Virginia after PIA overhaul -- due to take over station in Japan from Kitty Hawk in
2008 -- might be available for Persian Gulf soon
g) USS John C. Stennis -- Just Returned to Bremerton Wash (Home Port) Aug 31
--scheduled for 6 months of refit and 6 months of training on new systems before redeployment
h) USS Harry S. Truman -- In Atlantic off Virginia, could reach Persian Gulf in
a few days if ordered
i) USS Ronald Reagan -- Currently undergoing PIA upgrade in San Diego (Aug 15)
j) USS Enterprise -- Stationed in the Persian Gulf (return to single US carrier
group in Gulf -- relieved the USS Stennis and USS Nimitz ) Commissioned circa
1961, nuclear, predecessor to Nimitz-class carriers
k) USS Kitty Hawk -- Stationed in Western Pacific. Note: Non-Nuclear carrier,
commissioned around 1960. Will probably be decommissioned in 2008 when new George H Bush is put into service. Will be replaced in Japan in 2008 by USS George Washington
l) Ships under construction/fitting out: USS George H. W. Bush (2008)
May I ask where that information is from?
PS Forgot to mention -- the Enterprise relieved the Nimitz and the Stennis in early August.
There are many sites with public information about US Carrier operations. Such as:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/where.htm
Carriers can also be tracked by stories in the mainstream media.
All of these are subject to manipulation, but only for short periods of time -- such as directly preceeding an attack. Such efforts could mislead the American people, but not any substantial military organization. Super-carriers are too big to hide.
Trivial correction: The USS Kitty Hawk is the only remaining active duty conventional carrier. The USS Enterprise is a nuke. For more info, see:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/navy/batgru-65-med07.htm
I watched plenty of Fox News then and don't remember that. Are you sure you're not just making it up?
Yeah Fred, I'm sure of it. The phrasing may not be precise but that was the gist, and they used the term "death factories" or "factories of death" or something of the sort. Fox was referring to a previously bombed Iraqi building that Saddam rebuilt.
Amazing though that you remember every caption used by Fox News in August 2002. I just remember that one, because it was then I realized war was inevitable and the WMD's were just the pretext.
"Amazing though that you remember every caption used by Fox News in August 2002."
I never said I remembered "every caption used by Fox News in August of 2002"; I just said I didn't remember that one. Are you being as sloppy with facts in your recollection of that particular Fox caption as you just were in paraphrasing my previous comment?
I see the deniers are in full force, both those who deny that any war with Iran is possible, and those who think that no matter what Iran does in retaliation, there will NEVER be an "invasion".
Good luck, guys. Because you're all wrong.
I'd say we have certainly less than a year before we're at war with Iran, probably less than six to nine months before we're at war with Iran, possibly less than six months before we're at war with Iran - and a dead certainty that we will be at war with Iran in less than ninety days if there is another "terrorist incident" in the US any time soon.
For Matt's benefit, the reason we didn't go to war with Iran last year before the elections is because a) the Republicans thought Rove could pull the elections out without it, and b) everybody else was seriously skeptical about the "nuclear weapons program" horseshit.
There's also some reason to believe that the scale of the attack was changed from "nuclear sites only" to "regime change" level which required some recalculation of targets and tasking. All the recent reports indicate that the US intends a full-scale attack intended to destroy the Iranian military and political infrastructure. Estimates of the number of targets vary from 1,200 to 10,000.
This year and next year are completely different than last year for another reason - we have a new excuse for attacking Iran - they're "killing US soldiers in Iraq" and - if there is another "terrorist incident" in the US - that they "support terrorism."
And those excuses mean Bush doesn't need to go to Congress to start a war - he can claim the existing terrorism legislation authorizes it.
Here's the bottom line: the war is inevitable. Everybody is in denial, which always happens when everybody's complete inability to do anything about Bush becomes clear to them.
So fine, everybody just shut up and wait.
But I expect every single individual in denial out there to email me with apologies when it happens.
I already have a deal with a fellow at TPM who will apologize publicly if the war happens before January 2009. And I will publicly apologize if it doesn't.
Will Matt publicly apologize for being skeptical when it happens?
start of a new marketing push for war with Iran
The leak campaigns seem to be as regular as rain. They also always seem to have a kind of perverse play on Friedman units:
For example, Larry Johnson, April 2006:
'I would expect an attack in the next six months,' says Larry Johnson, a former deputy director in the State Department's counter-terrorism office. 'This is not just planning for possible military contingencies. There is real planning under way for carrying out a military strike against Iran.'
Seymour Hersh interestingly has not had any little birds whispering in his ear lately that it's only a Friedman unit away from an attack on Iran. Or did I miss it? Maybe we can expect one from him as well soon or maybe he has tired of falling for it.
I would think some of the savvier, those with bookie experience, say, should be betting by now that if it's going to happen, it's going to happen when there is not one of these marketing pushes going on, a complete surprise.
Are you being as sloppy with facts in your recollection of that particular Fox caption as you just were in paraphrasing my previous comment?
Well, let's see Fred, it was actually a Fox Feedback poll, but the exact wording was "Is the photo of the Iraq death factories proof enough for the U.S. to attack?"
Tim 1, Fred 0.
Comments closed September 15, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I'm thinking gas aat 9 or 10 dollars a gallon is the only deterrent to the neocon dream.
Posted by semi-reformed redneck | September 1, 2007 11:02 PM