Anatol Lieven's departure from our fair shores to return to England was a huge blow for the DC think tank universe, but I'm glad to see he hasn't completely given up writing on our issues. Thus, I've been distracted from my efforts to write a long piece about how absolutely terrifying John McCain is on foreign policy by Lieven's brief piece on how terrifying McCain is. If we're lucky, McCain will only start wars with North Korea and Iran. If we're unlucky, we may need to add China or (more likely) Russia to that list.
« Ending the War | Main | Up Is Down »
Lieven on McCain
25 Mar 2008 04:27 pm
Comments (24)
Perhaps not in Iraq, but there's probably a better chance that one of the two Democrats would blunder into something stupid with Pakistan.
Please to be reading the article at the handy link provided.
Thank you.
Bring it on!
Fred,
You are too fucking stupid to live. The chances of an air strike against Iran NOT escalating into a ground war is about 1/10th of 1%.
But if he runs against Clinton, I'll vote for him, as his warmongering will almost certainly lead tot he complete destruction of American power in the world. That's a feature, not a bug.
We are BUSY, we can't even do shit very easily in Iraq right now as it is. No candidate has the abilty to start a war of choice, that load was shot by GWB, and damned if he didnt miss (well we are "in the process of" missing). So I dont see anyone of these trying that move. I'm more afraid of what they wont do to help the people who have been sacrificing for our wonderful shiny new global economy.
LarryM,
Are you "too fucking stupid" to explain your reasoning? Why would dropping bombs on Iran inexorably lead to a ground war with Iran (beyond the sort of proxy fighting with Shiite militias in Iraq that we've had intermittently)?
Because Iran would then invade our 51st state, Iraq, flat out?
"Because Iran would then invade our 51st state, Iraq, flat out?"
Never gonna happen. Iran's conventional army couldn't defeat Saddam's ground forces in eight years of fighting. Against U.S. armor and air power, it would be another "Highway of Death". Iran's theocracy knows this.
"Never gonna happen. Iran's conventional army couldn't defeat Saddam's ground forces in eight years of fighting. Against U.S. armor and air power, it would be another "Highway of Death". Iran's theocracy knows this.
Posted by Fred | March 25, 2008 8:04 PM"
Iraq's military under Saddam was Sunni-led. Iran wouldn't be invading to attack the Shi'ite government, after all, but our troops there. During the Indian Peace-Keeping Force's time in Sri Lanka, the Sri Lankan government that invited the IPKF to Sri Lanka started arming their enemy, the Tamil Tigers, to fight the IPKF to kick them out. More likely the Iraqi state would fake supporting us while instead supporting Iran. Besides, the invasion would be to get at our troops, not at the Shi'ites. It's more likely that they would use guerrilla tactics against our troops via Shi'ite militias and people who are Iraqi soldiers by day and supporters of an Ayatollah by night.
Ugh, stop it. John McCain is not going to start a war with China, North Korea, or Russia. And as long as we have troops tied down in Iraq, which presumably we will under McCain, he won't attack Iran.
He may be a rabid militarist but he is not irrational. He knows our military cannot handle a full fledged conflict with Iran. Everyone knows that. As much as McCain might LIKE to attack Iran, he won't do it.
As much as McCain might LIKE to attack Iran, he won't do it.
You might be willing to bet on that (Fred apparently is), but I'm not.
I just read the Lieven piece in the dead-tree edition of the FT. There's no evidence in his column that McCain plans on invading any other countries. The most "damning" quote he had was from 2000, when McCain talked about arming and training local proxies to depose rogue regimes -- and that's only "damning" if you prefer Iraq-style invasions to the sort of low-cost proxy battles we waged in countries like El Salvador in the 80s and are waging in The Philippines today.
"You might be willing to bet on that (Fred apparently is), but I'm not"
Listen, as long as you telegraph to Iran that you have no intention of ever using any sort of military force against them, you have no chance of getting them to comply with UN resolutions by non-military force. Fortunately, McCain would be willing to bomb (not invade) Iran, if necessary. But may not even be necessary. The Treasury Dept under Bush has been tightening the screws against Iran with some unique methods, successfully jawboning foreign companies into de facto sanctions against the Iranian banking and other sectors.
Another point that no panicky liberal seems to have digested yet: the compensation precedents set in Afghanistan and Iraq -- six-figure death gratuities, tax-free five-figure reenlistment bonuses, etc. -- have significantly raised the financial cost of future ground wars using our volunteer military. That's a good thing, because it will force us to be judicious in invading countries going forward, but the obvious reality is that we aren't going to be invading any other countries as long as we have 100k+ troops in Iraq. We don't have enough ground forces for another invasion. We still have plenty of surplus Naval and Air Force power though to bomb the crap out of another country, if necessary.
McCain is an old man, and rumor has it he has cancer. If he gets elected he may not even survive long enough to declare war. McCain's VP selection is something everyone needs to watch extremely carefully - that will be whom you're really voting for if you're voting for McCain.
Vanya,
What's this "rumor has it" nonsense. McCain had skin cancer. He doesn't have it now. The NY Times's physician/reporter wrote about McCain's health a couple of weeks ago, and said he's in good health. And McCain's mother is still alive and joins him on the campaign trail occasionally -- and she's 96.
The reality is that both McCain and Clinton will undoubtedly attack Iran, because they are both stooges of AIPAC, the neocons (in McCain's case) and the military-industrial complex (in both cases).
Obama will start a war with Iran out of stupidity, since he thinks more sanctions and "aggressive diplomacy" are going to be useful to get Iran to stop enrichment - something they cannot and thus will not do. Not unless he has some sort of "grand bargain" to assist them in their nuclear energy program while at the same time insuring closer inspection. He has made NO statements indicating that is his plan. So we're left with the obvious option that he will screw up the diplomacy until he either gives up or has to start a war.
McCain on the other hand has clearly telegraphed on numerous occasions his intent to start a war with Iran.
I might doubt North Korea, since the Pentagon is quite familiar with the war games which show the US losing fifty thousand casualties in the first ninety days of a war with North Korea. Iran will definitely not be that bad - initially anyway. Iran will, however, be worse over time - because they will not fight a conventional war - they will fight an asymmetrical war.
Iran will be bad. This is because the goal of attacking Iran is to seize the Khuzestan oil province right across the border from Iraq - by sheer coincidence, I'm sure. This will inevitably result in a ground war - not simply an air war.
Any air attack on Iran will result in Iran bombarding US troops in Iraq, and in Qatar and elsewhere with missiles. It will also immediately result in a massive spike of US casualties in Iraq as both Iranian infiltrators and their supporters in the various Shia militias support Iran against the US.
William Lind believes that it is inevitable that US supply lines from Kuwait will be completely cut by such insurgencies. This means within three months, US troops in Iraq will be out of food, water, ammo, and fuel.
He also says it is just possible - if not likely - that Iran, using convenient bad weather for cover from US air power, could roll in a few conventional divisions and actually roll up much of the US force in Iraq, which is scattered all over hell and not adequately concentrated to repel a conventional invasion. I personally view this as unlikely - but not impossible. I suspect Iran would take far too much punishment for what in the end would be a failed undertaking.
Far more likely is that Iran will conduct hit-and-run raids across the border. Naturally, under the excuse of stopping these raids - the US military has already been bitching about Iranian "smugglers" for the last year or more - and the pretext of removing the financing for Iran's military moves, Khuzestan will be invaded.
This, of course, will play directly into Iran's hands, as they conduct a guerrilla war against the US which will be four to ten times the size of the Iraq insurgency - for the next ten years. It will cost the US two or three times the TWELVE BILLION DOLLARS A MONTH it's currently costing the US to fight in Irag and Afghanistan. Want to try supporting a war in Iran costing ANOTHER TWELVE TO TWENTY BILLION DOLLARS A MONTH?
The US will be bled dry by Iran economically, militarily, and geopolitically. It's the North Vietnam strategy. It's Fourth Gen War. And it cannot fail.
McCain has no interest in any of that, because, hey, it's war - and for him, war is good. It's also good for the military-industrial complex, and the oil companies, and those financiers and banks who invest in them. And those are the people who run this country, if you haven't noticed - not you anti-war types.
So, yes, McCain - or Clinton - will start a war with Iran. McCain will start it within six months of taking office. Clinton will futz around with diplomacy for a year until the Israelis call in their markers for the election. Obama will futz around for a year or two before finally boxing his ass into the corner where he has no other option but to give up or attack Iran.
War with Iran may even start this year. It's still highly likely that Bush and Cheney intend to start it in order to tie the hands of the incoming administration and insure that the oil companies and the military-industrial complex and the Israelis get their Iran war regardless of who wins the elections.
Once started, it will be almost impossible to stop it.
Every argument against the war in Iran is the same argument against starting a war with Iraq. They did it anyway. They'll do it again in Iran.
What a disappointing article. Why even bother writing a provocative piece like that when you are going to make it incredibly brief and devoid of much substance? I hope he tries again.
Iran couldn't defeat Iraq in 8 years because we were helping them, fred you stupid ass.
"He may be a rabid militarist but he is not irrational. He knows our military cannot handle a full fledged conflict with Iran. Everyone knows that. As much as McCain might LIKE to attack Iran, he won't do it.
Posted by Nick | March 25, 2008 8:49 PM"
The Iraq War was dumfucking irrational in the first place. Stupid is as stupid does.
"Iran couldn't defeat Iraq in 8 years because we were helping them, fred you stupid ass.
Posted by merlallen | March 26, 2008 3:45 AM"
Not only that, but Israel was also playing both sides to drag out the war so neither could focus that much on Israel.
For someone who has spent 28 years in high office, and run two presidential campaigns, McCain seems surprisingly devoid of sophisticated ideas and about much of anything. I'm beginning to see him as just another ignorant rube from the American Southwest.
The DC Think Tank Universe? Is that somehow related to Crisis on Infinite Earths?
"The DC Think Tank Universe? Is that somehow related to Crisis on Infinite Earths?"
McCain's plan for Iraq: have Superboy-Prime punch through the fabric of reality, creating ripples that create a vibrant, peaceful democracy.
"Iran couldn't defeat Iraq in 8 years because we were helping them, fred you stupid ass."
You mean that because we gave Iran TOW anti-tank missiles during Iran-Contra the Iranians couldn't defeat Iraq?
There's no escaping the fact that JohnMcCain is a romantic nationalist and feels that the ethical ideal is embodied in the military. My Dad was a graduate of a military academy and my childhood acclimatization (compare and contrast with the reality I experienced as an enlisted guy in VietNam) makes me really sensitive to his vibe.
But why does the FT article play this tune about "Scotch-Irish" militarism once again? Like the AngloSaxons or Russians or French have no history of cultural attachment to the warrior virtues?! Hell--ask the Norwegians what they think of the Swedes!! Or almost any east-Asian person of a certain age about the Japanese and militarism.
It happens that my family name is almost exactly the same as Our John's--so maybe I'm paranoid. But it's a tiresome meme.
Listen, as long as you telegraph to Iran that you have no intention of ever using any sort of military force against them, you have no chance of getting them to comply with UN resolutions by non-military force
Actually, it works the other way: the more the US talks about attacking Iran, the more the US gives it an incentive to develop nuclear weapons to deter an attack. It's not in Iran's interest to develop nuclear weapons (as opposed to developing the capability to develop nuclear weapons), because (1) right now, Iran has convential military superiority relative to its neighbors in the Persian Gulf (2) if it were to weaponize, its neighbors would respond by developing nuclear weapons, (3) in which case, Iran's military advantadges would be eroded. On the other hand, a real threat of a US attack gives Iran an incentive to develop nuclear weapons to deter such an attack.
For more on this, I highly recommend this piece by Trita Parsi on influencing Iran's nuclear options,.
Comments closed April 08, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
By "wars" are you referring to the sort of air raids we used to launch periodically (e.g., against countries like Iraq and Libya)? Because I can certainly see a President McCain ordering those, if he thought they were necessary. But I don't see him starting ground wars we don't have the troops for.
Somehow, the meme that the candidate who has experienced the horrors of war firsthand, and whose own sons are on active duty, is going to start launching invasions willy-nilly doesn't sound convincing. It seems more possible that Obama or Clinton would act more bellicose in office, to prove their Commander-in-Chief bona fides. Perhaps not in Iraq, but there's probably a better chance that one of the two Democrats would blunder into something stupid with Pakistan.
Posted by Fred | March 25, 2008 4:51 PM