Crawl to War

This Gail Collins column is a mixed bad, and readers will know that I disagree with her about Social Security, but I think she nails this point:

“Well, first of all, I am against a rush to war,” she said. That would have been disturbing even if she had not attacked the idea of “rushing to war” twice more in the next 60 seconds. Being against a rush to another war in the Middle East seems to be setting the bar a tad low. How does she feel about a measured march to war? A leisurely stroll?

Right. The Bush administration itself doesn't appear to be pursuing a "rush to war" with Iran. Given the very long period of time — over a year — during which the saber-rattling has played out, there's really no question of a "rush" at this point. But the strategy still embeds a logic of confrontation and, yes, war. The key point here in many ways is less the Kyl-Lieberman vote as such than the way Kyl-Lieberman fits into a broader package — hawkish on Iraq, attacked Obama from the right on Iran, seemed to rule out normalization of relations with Iran even in exchange for verifiable disarmament in a Foreign Affairs article — of hawkish Iran-related measures even in the midst of a primary campaign.

Comments

Was "a mixed bad" a Freudian slip, or was it just pithy?

Posted by haighterade | November 1, 2007 2:47 PM

Was "a mixed bad" a Freudian slip, or was it just pithy?

Posted by haighterade | November 1, 2007 2:48 PM

A tiger doesn't change her stripes.

Posted by bob | November 1, 2007 3:02 PM

seemed to rule out normalization of relations with Iran even in exchange for verifiable disarmament in a Foreign Affairs article

How does one verifiably disarm in a Foreign Affairs article?

Posted by Al | November 1, 2007 3:03 PM

Saying that she is opposed to rushing into war is like saying she’s opposed to rushing off to the abortion clinic. The only meaning it has is political and tactical. Pathetic.

Posted by tinisoli | November 1, 2007 3:03 PM

did anyone ever notice the rich satire to be found in mispronouncing 'Kyl'?

Posted by Ben | November 1, 2007 3:27 PM

Saying that she's opposed to rushing off to war means, given the timeline, that she's opposed to Bush starting a war, but sees no reason at this point to to limit the options available to his successor.

I think I can live with that at this point, actually, as long as one of the non-crazies is Bush's successor.

Posted by rea | November 1, 2007 7:36 PM

According to Mort Kondrake, GOP Rep Mark Kirk thought Hillary's take on Iran during the debate made sense. In "Drop War Talk, Cut Off Iran’s Gasoline, Mark Kirk Urges", Kondrake writes:

"In an interview, Kirk told me he differs from the Bush administration and most GOP candidates for president in favoring direct negotiations with Iran and in avoiding talk about military action. He also favors tougher measures than the “unconditional” diplomacy advocated by most Democrats."

[...]

"Among the Democratic candidates, he said Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) was “responsible” during Tuesday night’s TV debate in Philadelphia by advocating a policy of sanctions plus diplomacy.

As to other candidates, though, “if you say, ‘well, we’re not going to take action against terrorism and undermining the non-proliferation policy of the West,’ what are you going to do? She’s pretty good. For the rest of them, I’m not sure where they are.”"

Posted by Fred | November 1, 2007 10:49 PM

The reason there isn't a "rush to war" is obvious: they played that tactic already and look where it got us.

So this time, they're proceeding more cautiously.

Another reason is that they're getting push back from the people they need to conduct the war: the Pentagon. While the Air Force and the Navy (with the exception of Admiral Fallon) are up for it, the Army is clearly dragging its feet.

This is why Cheney got Petraeus and the other lames to spout the "Iranians are killing US troops in Iraq" crap - to counter the naysayers in the Pentagon by making the "justification" about "saving US lives in Iraq." ("We had to kill thousands more US troops to save US troops" is what that will boil down to in practice.)

Also, Cheney said some time back that he was looking for 40% of the US public to back a strike on Iran. Well, according to the latest poll, he has 52% on board. By "pure osmosis", the constant drumbeat for war with Iran has gotten the usual over fifty percent of the morons in this country on board. Actually starting such an attack would probably boost that to 75% - until it goes bad, of course, then that support will evaporate back down to the actual 30% of the country who are certified morons, the morons who STILL support Bush and Iraq.

Another reason is that the "enemy" - the Iranians - are playing a much more sophisticated diplomatic game than Saddam could, and they have more to play it with. They also have Russia and China on their side, more so than Saddam did.

As for Hillary, she will end up in the same box as Bush has - being "forced" to go to war with Iran - because her basic policy is the same. It doesn't even matter if she has the same "war criminal + war profiteer" attitude as Bush and Cheney. She still takes the same campaign contributions from the military-industrial complex, and she listens to the Israel Lobby. So she will do what they tell her to do if she wants to stay in power - and since power is her game, yes, she will do what they tell her to do. It might take her a bit longer, but the end result will be the same.

That nobody is asking her why she doesn't come down on the side of engaging Iran makes it clear that the concept isn't even being considered. The MSM and the foreign policy community already are on board with war with Iran. It's a given based on the standard notion of the US "national interests" (i.e., oil and imperial power.) Therefore nobody will ask her exactly WHY the US cannot engage Iran rather than confronting Iran.

Nobody has ever made any clear statement with factual reasons why the US cannot engage Iran, give it security guarantees, and defuse the "crisis". The reason this cannot be done is because there IS NO "crisis". It has been manufactured whole hog solely for the purpose of justifying another regime change project for the purpose of seizing more oil, destabilizing another ME country for the benefit of the US and Israel, and making more money for the war profiteers and the oil companies.

And the fact that every single Presidential candidate buys into this - with the sole exceptions of Kucinich and Paul - makes it clear that the fix is in.

Read that again. The FIX IS IN. It doesn't matter whether Bush starts the war or not. Whoever wins in 2008 will start it. It's just that Bush and Cheney want to be the ones rather than a Democrat, because they want THEIR cronies to be the ones to profit and they want Republicans to be the ones to benefit rather than Democrats.

But either way it goes, the war is a done deal.

Everything else is just a turf war between Crips and Bloods.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | November 2, 2007 12:13 AM

Hack,

Read the link above about Mark Kirk's "third way" on Iran. What do you think about his ideas?

Posted by Fred | November 2, 2007 1:34 AM

1) Not going to work:

Iran plans to expand gasoline production: oil minister
http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/060520/2006052001.html

Granted, at the moment they have gasoline rationing and it will take another four or five years to get even close to self-sufficient. And cutting off their gas would bring their economy at the moment to near collapse, if not a collapse.

And that would probably be considered an act of war against which they would probably use their oil weapon - which would drop the US economy. There is no guarantee the Saudis could offset the difference - especially given the high oil price at the moment.

It's probably the only tactic to which Iran is vulnerable at the moment, but against their energy needs for the future, the best it might produce would be a temporary suspension of enrichment while they continue to cut their dependency on gas imports. Which means all you do is delay the issue for perhaps four years tops - and maybe not that.

2) No reason to do it. It's just more aggressive efforts against Iran, when the key is more engagement with Iran.

3) Irrelevant in any event because Bush and Cheney intend to attack Iran - and that's the end of the story. There are no other options from their point of view and they're running the show.

People need to realize that there IS NO SOLUTION to this situation - because it is not intended that there be one.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | November 2, 2007 4:12 AM