The other day George II mentioned Al Qaeda 27 times in a speech about Iraq, now Lindsey Graham is calling Democratic calls for troop withdrawal, "calvary for Al Qaida." Last week their own experts called Al Qaeda 10% of the fighters or noted that there were many more important players than Al Qaeda. The Shiites and Kurds both hate Al Qaeda and some Sunnis are getting pretty perturbed with them; but these hambones keep banging away on the Qaeda drum.
Let's just suppose that the US withdraws, rather precipitously, what is it that is going to happen in the ensuing "bloodbath?" Well for sure the Sunnis are not going to fare well, the ones who've not been too active in the sectarian mess may not get hit too hard, but the activel players are going to get whacked hard. The secularists aren't going to have much of a say or hand in what comes after, if they weren't Saddamists they may not get killed but they'll be powerless. The Kurds will probably try some house cleaning in their spheres and Al Qaeda? About the time things heat up real good they're toast if they don't scram. Shiites and Kurds will hunt them without mercy or compunction and they'll be joined by the Sunnis who feel scapegoated for Qaeda's benefit. I'd rather be a chickem surrounded by hungry coyotes than an Al Qaeda in an Iraq freed of American brakes on behavior.
Surely enough Al Qaeda whacked us pretty good on September 11 and became the BushCo bogeyman to be trotted out whenever fear could generate some votes or policy backing and the perfect foil to attack the Left with - friends and allies of Al Qaeda. There were some hitches in the process, Ossama still wandering around dragging his dialysis machine, they're in Afghanistan and Pakistan and not Iraq until we opened the door to them, Bush's we'll get him dead or alive and a couple months later - he doesn't even think about him. But Qaeda, Qaeda, Qaeda, ally ally all in free...
Are we actually as stupid as they think we are?
Showing posts with label Neo-con. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Neo-con. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Saturday, May 05, 2007
Rule of Law and Sheepskinned Stupidity
Let's assume that some university granted you a diploma that somehow qualified you to be the William R Kenan Professor of Government at Harvard University, that would seem to indicate that you had some understanding of US government and its foundational document - The Constitution. Harvey C. Mansfield has those credentials and an astonishing level of stupidity backed by a lot of inapplicable references to other governments' crassness of power hunger backing The Case For the Strong Executive in the WSJ. He opens his argument with a disdain for the term "Imperial Presidency" being applied critically to the BushCo regime, 'apologizes' for what he's about to promote by stating that under other circumstances he would be "defending the rule of law." This statement alone should scare the snot out of any American.
Somehow Aristotle, Machiavelli, Locke, and Cromwell get rung into a discussion of the Republic created by our Constitution and how that underpinning law is inadequate to circumstances outside of those of peace. The argument begins and ends with the proposition that the ends justify the means. The Bill of Rights becomes optional in his scheme, in fact that there is a mistaken liberal opinion assuming "that civil liberties have the status of natural liberties; and are inalienable." An odd appellation for something written down by the Framers and referred to repeatedly in discussions regarding the BOR at the time. Under his scheme the Constitution becomes a guide subject to convenient revision at any time it is inconvenient to the exercise of an energetic executive.
You would think that a Harvard professor of government would be aware of the bad end Cromwell came to and might avoid using the very arguments that brought it about. Nope, he is a paragon of governance and what he saw as utilitarian is some brought forward from England's parliamentary form of government into out own. Locke is touted as a "wiser liberal" as he promotes the idea of "doing the public good without a rule." What part of Revolutionary War is it that Mansfield doesn't get? These yahoos were messing about quite a while previous to that little dust-up in Monarchical/Civil War England.
I don't deny any of these people their due in the understanding of the evolution of governance, but to bring in their completely alien experiences to a discussion of disregarding the further evolution of governing called the Constitution is simply academic posturing, as is the liberal sprinkling of Machiavelli's Italian. You are to ignore the simple equation he is proposing, rule of law is subordinate to rule of personality (man) in uncertain times. Now, Machiavelli was a creature of the rule of personality, Cromwell was a ruler of that philosophy, George III carried it onto America's back, and later America bled copiously to defeat: Hitler, Mussolini, et al - all examples of the rule of man in uncertain times.
By the way, the problems in Iraq "arise from having wished to leave too much to the Iraqis, thus from a sense of inhibition rather than imperialism."
If you do not understand my insistence that the 2nd Amendment is meaningful today, you should go read this tripe passed off as a serious discussion of the future of American law and liberties and reflect on where it came from and who ascribes to it. In shorter words - these people are scary; and frankly, treasonous.
Somehow Aristotle, Machiavelli, Locke, and Cromwell get rung into a discussion of the Republic created by our Constitution and how that underpinning law is inadequate to circumstances outside of those of peace. The argument begins and ends with the proposition that the ends justify the means. The Bill of Rights becomes optional in his scheme, in fact that there is a mistaken liberal opinion assuming "that civil liberties have the status of natural liberties; and are inalienable." An odd appellation for something written down by the Framers and referred to repeatedly in discussions regarding the BOR at the time. Under his scheme the Constitution becomes a guide subject to convenient revision at any time it is inconvenient to the exercise of an energetic executive.
You would think that a Harvard professor of government would be aware of the bad end Cromwell came to and might avoid using the very arguments that brought it about. Nope, he is a paragon of governance and what he saw as utilitarian is some brought forward from England's parliamentary form of government into out own. Locke is touted as a "wiser liberal" as he promotes the idea of "doing the public good without a rule." What part of Revolutionary War is it that Mansfield doesn't get? These yahoos were messing about quite a while previous to that little dust-up in Monarchical/Civil War England.
I don't deny any of these people their due in the understanding of the evolution of governance, but to bring in their completely alien experiences to a discussion of disregarding the further evolution of governing called the Constitution is simply academic posturing, as is the liberal sprinkling of Machiavelli's Italian. You are to ignore the simple equation he is proposing, rule of law is subordinate to rule of personality (man) in uncertain times. Now, Machiavelli was a creature of the rule of personality, Cromwell was a ruler of that philosophy, George III carried it onto America's back, and later America bled copiously to defeat: Hitler, Mussolini, et al - all examples of the rule of man in uncertain times.
By the way, the problems in Iraq "arise from having wished to leave too much to the Iraqis, thus from a sense of inhibition rather than imperialism."
If you do not understand my insistence that the 2nd Amendment is meaningful today, you should go read this tripe passed off as a serious discussion of the future of American law and liberties and reflect on where it came from and who ascribes to it. In shorter words - these people are scary; and frankly, treasonous.
Friday, April 27, 2007
Of Evil and Experts
The BushCo and its adherents / apologists have two favorite words, evil and expert. These words probably seem at first glance to be completely divorced from each other, but I think after defining them and exploring their usage we'll see a rather uncomfortable connection. I like Webster's Ninth New Collegiate, it's a little dated but gives quick and common usage definitions so I'll refer to its most relevant entries for:
evil (adj) : morally reprehensible : sinful, wicked
(2) expert (n) : one with the special skill or knowledge representing mastery of a particular subject
The administration has taken action against quite a few individuals and organizations on the basis of their "evil," without ever quite defining what that particular aspect is. George II says that people who use car bombs are evil. We certainly do not like car bombers or suicide bombers, but somehow the moralistic stance is lost on me, I have a problem differentiating between a 500 pounder dropped from a plane and an exploding Toyota, the object being the same, a big bang and people and things broken. The apparent moralistic difference seems to be a matter of budget, we can afford fancy airplanes and they can afford stolen Toyotas. As far as targeting goes, we do have a rather frequently used phrase - collateral damage. We do not like what they do, I certainly don't, but evil is an odd word in this usage, maybe applied to torture we'd have something real...
Experts are the "go to" reference for the White House and their adherents in the face of criticism or other policy ideas regarding Iraq. "The experts all say," is one of their favorites, by which they mean "their" experts. Now please pay close attention to who these experts are and who they are not, for example, in the lead up to the Iraq War the experts were primarily the authors and contributors to "The New American Century," a think tank exhortation to use "super-powerdom" energetically and for the benefit of US interests. The current term for these people is neocons (new conservatives - a misnomer if ever), and the who of them was primarily - once in power and pissed not to be, back in power. Now the odd part of it is that definition from Webster - mastery of a particular subject. This means you know it, cold, and you will be right about it. I think you can take it from there... Who they were not is just as telling, they were not agents with their feet on the ground, career analysts lost in the bowels of the building at mid-level, career diplomats from the area, in fact not political powers with something to gain, not to mention qualifying for the definition. Those people, in fact, got it mostly right, and it is just exactly what we did not do.
You will hear repeatedly from the BushCo experts that leaving Iraq will result in a bloodbath and a failed state refuge for terrorists to attack us. Keep in mind that these are the same experts who've been running the show since before we ever attacked the place and their track record of getting things right qualifies them as window washers or street sweepers or something inconsequential and harmless - not Policy.
The experts who advise this administration are so completely stupid that they mistake military tactics and logistical realities for a moral referent, they also are the morally bankrupt bunch that advocates the US engaging in actual evil - torture. Their qualification as expert is a self-referent, they are experts because somebody listens to them, it has absolutely not one single thing to do with experience, study, or especially results. They do not engage in critical thinking, they engage in ideological justification. Let's get one thing straight, al-Qeda is not going to win in Iraq if we're not there, the Shiites will slaughter them in short order. The Shiite militias don't like us - considering our results, not far fetched - and they do not want us there. Yes, they are primarily theocratic, but the whole place is theocratic with Saddam removed and it's going to go that way the second we leave, stable government or not. What they are not, is dedicated to harming the US on its home ground - that would be al-Qeda. There certainly will be some "score settling" between the Shiites and Suunis based on Saddam and al-Qeda, but the blood bath is already going on, with us in the middle. That middle is a bad place to be, we're busily trying unsuccessfully to keep them apart while attacking the ones attacking us and pissing everybody off in the process, which pretty much means adding to the ones attacking us and smashing whatever is left that wasn't already smashed.
There certainly is evil within the world population, but there is considerably less of that than what are simply policies and tactics we don't like. There is evil in terror, but primarily terror is an underdog's military tactic, and it holds much in common with military tactics we have engaged in ourselves. Mass artillery barrages and carpet bombing are tactics of terror, ask anyone who has been caught in it, Desert Storm certainly showed the utility of those tactics. Give "The New American Century" a read to find out the basis of the "experts" opinions, you might find the policy basis something you'd recognize as evil.
evil (adj) : morally reprehensible : sinful, wicked
(2) expert (n) : one with the special skill or knowledge representing mastery of a particular subject
The administration has taken action against quite a few individuals and organizations on the basis of their "evil," without ever quite defining what that particular aspect is. George II says that people who use car bombs are evil. We certainly do not like car bombers or suicide bombers, but somehow the moralistic stance is lost on me, I have a problem differentiating between a 500 pounder dropped from a plane and an exploding Toyota, the object being the same, a big bang and people and things broken. The apparent moralistic difference seems to be a matter of budget, we can afford fancy airplanes and they can afford stolen Toyotas. As far as targeting goes, we do have a rather frequently used phrase - collateral damage. We do not like what they do, I certainly don't, but evil is an odd word in this usage, maybe applied to torture we'd have something real...
Experts are the "go to" reference for the White House and their adherents in the face of criticism or other policy ideas regarding Iraq. "The experts all say," is one of their favorites, by which they mean "their" experts. Now please pay close attention to who these experts are and who they are not, for example, in the lead up to the Iraq War the experts were primarily the authors and contributors to "The New American Century," a think tank exhortation to use "super-powerdom" energetically and for the benefit of US interests. The current term for these people is neocons (new conservatives - a misnomer if ever), and the who of them was primarily - once in power and pissed not to be, back in power. Now the odd part of it is that definition from Webster - mastery of a particular subject. This means you know it, cold, and you will be right about it. I think you can take it from there... Who they were not is just as telling, they were not agents with their feet on the ground, career analysts lost in the bowels of the building at mid-level, career diplomats from the area, in fact not political powers with something to gain, not to mention qualifying for the definition. Those people, in fact, got it mostly right, and it is just exactly what we did not do.
You will hear repeatedly from the BushCo experts that leaving Iraq will result in a bloodbath and a failed state refuge for terrorists to attack us. Keep in mind that these are the same experts who've been running the show since before we ever attacked the place and their track record of getting things right qualifies them as window washers or street sweepers or something inconsequential and harmless - not Policy.
The experts who advise this administration are so completely stupid that they mistake military tactics and logistical realities for a moral referent, they also are the morally bankrupt bunch that advocates the US engaging in actual evil - torture. Their qualification as expert is a self-referent, they are experts because somebody listens to them, it has absolutely not one single thing to do with experience, study, or especially results. They do not engage in critical thinking, they engage in ideological justification. Let's get one thing straight, al-Qeda is not going to win in Iraq if we're not there, the Shiites will slaughter them in short order. The Shiite militias don't like us - considering our results, not far fetched - and they do not want us there. Yes, they are primarily theocratic, but the whole place is theocratic with Saddam removed and it's going to go that way the second we leave, stable government or not. What they are not, is dedicated to harming the US on its home ground - that would be al-Qeda. There certainly will be some "score settling" between the Shiites and Suunis based on Saddam and al-Qeda, but the blood bath is already going on, with us in the middle. That middle is a bad place to be, we're busily trying unsuccessfully to keep them apart while attacking the ones attacking us and pissing everybody off in the process, which pretty much means adding to the ones attacking us and smashing whatever is left that wasn't already smashed.
There certainly is evil within the world population, but there is considerably less of that than what are simply policies and tactics we don't like. There is evil in terror, but primarily terror is an underdog's military tactic, and it holds much in common with military tactics we have engaged in ourselves. Mass artillery barrages and carpet bombing are tactics of terror, ask anyone who has been caught in it, Desert Storm certainly showed the utility of those tactics. Give "The New American Century" a read to find out the basis of the "experts" opinions, you might find the policy basis something you'd recognize as evil.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Dr Rice - Quack PoliSci
Finally someone has had the nerve to call-out Condi. Now there are things that require either stupidity or lying if you have a PhD in PoliSci. You see, recent history is a part of the curriculum because you cannot understand politics if you do not understand the events of the time. (I typed this last very slowly in case she's reading it) Strangely enough it was Keith Olberman who called BS.
Just to back up in time, shortly after Bhagdad fell and insurgents started killing people and the bodies were piling up pretty fast, the good Doctor likened them to the Wolfenstein in post-war Germany. These dead enders are officially credited with 32 killings, maybe more, maybe less since gangland killings were also going on - black market gangs. At that time there were several hundred dead in Iraq and no sign of a slow down. I don't have a PhD and I knew about it, but she said it. I bring this up because these folk like to bring up Hitler and WWII and say stuff that putting its best face on it is wrong. There's been talk of appeasers, of Churchillian Bush, of just about any appeal to that war imaginable in the face of the Iraq debacle. And they're back at it again in the most ignorant fashion possible.
Olberman:
'If Congress were now to revise the Iraq authorization, she said, out loud, with an adult present, "…It would be like saying that after Adolf Hitler was overthrown, we needed to change then, the resolution that allowed the United States to do that, so that we could deal with creating a stable environment in Europe after he was overthrown." '
***
'Invoking the German dictator who subjugated Europe; who tried to exterminate the Jews; who sought to overtake the world — is not just in the poorest of taste but in its hyperbole, it insults not merely the victims of the Third Reich, but those in this country who fought it. And defeated it.
Saddam Hussein was not Adolf Hitler.
And George W. Bush is not Franklin D. Roosevelt — nor Dwight D. Eisenhower.
He isn't even George H.W. Bush, who fought in that war.'
***
' "The resolution that allowed the United States to" overthrow Hitler?
On the 11th of December, 1941, at 8 o'clock in the morning, two of Hitler's diplomats walked up to the State Department — your office, Secretary Rice — and ninety minutes later they were handing a declaration of war to the Chief of the Department's European Division. The Japanese had bombed Pearl Harbor four days earlier and the Germans simply piled on.'
***
'If you want to compare what we did to Hitler and in Germany, to what we did to Saddam and in Iraq, I'm afraid you're going to have to buy the whole analogy.
We were an occupying force in Germany, Dr. Rice, and by your logic, we're now an occupying force in Iraq.'
***
'But then there's this part about changing "the resolution" about Iraq, that it would be as ridiculous in the Secretary's eyes, as saying that after Hitler was defeated, we needed to go back to Congress to "deal with creating a stable environment in Europe after he was overthrown."
Oh, good grief, Secretary Rice, that's exactly what we did do!
We went back to Congress to deal with creating a stable environment in Europe after Hitler was overthrown!
It was called the Marshall Plan.'
***
'Twelve billion, 400 thousand dollars to stabilize all of Europe economically — to keep the next enemies of freedom, the Russians, out, and democracy, in!
And how do you suppose that happened? The President of the United States went back to Congress, and asked it for a new authorization, and for the money.
And do you have any idea, Madame Secretary, who opposed him when he did that?
The Republicans!'
I've cut Keith's admirable prose to pieces for this little exercise, the logic is still there but the elegance is gone. If you'd like the whole thing go over to MSNBC and get it.
The level of intellectual dishonesty needed to say this crap is astonishing. If it were coming from one of the right wing nutblogs it would just be pathetic, but this is the Secretary of State of the USA and supposedly one with a doctorate in political science. It must have specialized in Orwellian politics. So far in this country, history is not in the hands of the government, knowledge will take them down, knowledge and nerve.
According to KOS, the history they do have in their hands is disappearing, Cheney's interviews from 2004 forward are going away - you know "last throws," that kind of stuff is g o n e... These people have been given so much leash with their framing, spinning, lying, defaming, ... that they have lost all sense of proportion, all recognition that they can be caught and kicked in the teeth for it. They only get away with what we tolerate, don't.
Just to back up in time, shortly after Bhagdad fell and insurgents started killing people and the bodies were piling up pretty fast, the good Doctor likened them to the Wolfenstein in post-war Germany. These dead enders are officially credited with 32 killings, maybe more, maybe less since gangland killings were also going on - black market gangs. At that time there were several hundred dead in Iraq and no sign of a slow down. I don't have a PhD and I knew about it, but she said it. I bring this up because these folk like to bring up Hitler and WWII and say stuff that putting its best face on it is wrong. There's been talk of appeasers, of Churchillian Bush, of just about any appeal to that war imaginable in the face of the Iraq debacle. And they're back at it again in the most ignorant fashion possible.
Olberman:
'If Congress were now to revise the Iraq authorization, she said, out loud, with an adult present, "…It would be like saying that after Adolf Hitler was overthrown, we needed to change then, the resolution that allowed the United States to do that, so that we could deal with creating a stable environment in Europe after he was overthrown." '
***
'Invoking the German dictator who subjugated Europe; who tried to exterminate the Jews; who sought to overtake the world — is not just in the poorest of taste but in its hyperbole, it insults not merely the victims of the Third Reich, but those in this country who fought it. And defeated it.
Saddam Hussein was not Adolf Hitler.
And George W. Bush is not Franklin D. Roosevelt — nor Dwight D. Eisenhower.
He isn't even George H.W. Bush, who fought in that war.'
***
' "The resolution that allowed the United States to" overthrow Hitler?
On the 11th of December, 1941, at 8 o'clock in the morning, two of Hitler's diplomats walked up to the State Department — your office, Secretary Rice — and ninety minutes later they were handing a declaration of war to the Chief of the Department's European Division. The Japanese had bombed Pearl Harbor four days earlier and the Germans simply piled on.'
***
'If you want to compare what we did to Hitler and in Germany, to what we did to Saddam and in Iraq, I'm afraid you're going to have to buy the whole analogy.
We were an occupying force in Germany, Dr. Rice, and by your logic, we're now an occupying force in Iraq.'
***
'But then there's this part about changing "the resolution" about Iraq, that it would be as ridiculous in the Secretary's eyes, as saying that after Hitler was defeated, we needed to go back to Congress to "deal with creating a stable environment in Europe after he was overthrown."
Oh, good grief, Secretary Rice, that's exactly what we did do!
We went back to Congress to deal with creating a stable environment in Europe after Hitler was overthrown!
It was called the Marshall Plan.'
***
'Twelve billion, 400 thousand dollars to stabilize all of Europe economically — to keep the next enemies of freedom, the Russians, out, and democracy, in!
And how do you suppose that happened? The President of the United States went back to Congress, and asked it for a new authorization, and for the money.
And do you have any idea, Madame Secretary, who opposed him when he did that?
The Republicans!'
I've cut Keith's admirable prose to pieces for this little exercise, the logic is still there but the elegance is gone. If you'd like the whole thing go over to MSNBC and get it.
The level of intellectual dishonesty needed to say this crap is astonishing. If it were coming from one of the right wing nutblogs it would just be pathetic, but this is the Secretary of State of the USA and supposedly one with a doctorate in political science. It must have specialized in Orwellian politics. So far in this country, history is not in the hands of the government, knowledge will take them down, knowledge and nerve.
According to KOS, the history they do have in their hands is disappearing, Cheney's interviews from 2004 forward are going away - you know "last throws," that kind of stuff is g o n e... These people have been given so much leash with their framing, spinning, lying, defaming, ... that they have lost all sense of proportion, all recognition that they can be caught and kicked in the teeth for it. They only get away with what we tolerate, don't.
Friday, August 25, 2006
Iranian Stupidity
Every once in awhile I lose my mind and get the idea that somebody in George II's administration has brains and the ability to reason from facts. I know it's silliness and wishful thinking, but I just can't help having some faith in human beings. For pete's sake, some facts about Iran actually exist and are available to just about anyone with a 3rd grade education.
Iran has lots and lots of oil.
Iran has lots and lots of money.
Iran is a pretty big place.
Iran has quite a few people.
Iran has a strong military.
Iran has a strong government.
Iran has fought a bloody war against an implacable foe, to stalemate.
Iran has a populous willing to sacrifice for its country.
Iran is Muslim.
Iran shows no liking for the US government.
Iran has influence in the Middle East.
The US has no diplomatic relations with Iran and has some of its assets frozen.
There are a lot more facts around, but this isn't an encyclopedia.
Now the prevailing neo-con view seems to be that the US (and maybe UN) ought to make Iran act the way we want it to, and to do it while the US talks about possibly bombing the place or at least getting rid of its government. That would seem to fly in the face of the above facts, all of them. Since you're reading his I can assume you graduated 3rd grade and I don't need to point out the problems posed by those facts and those objectives. I could point out that those facts might lead to a different policy.
The above facts ought to indicate a stable powerful nation, however reprehensible its rhetoric. This is a simple reality, they may not be a likeable bunch, but it exists as is, not how we might wish. The simple act of establishing diplomatic relations is a recognition of fact, it does, also, carry the risk of a repeat of the Embassy taking, which might preclude a physical presence. Diplomatic relations might open the door to some talk about threats to Iranian security that might dispose Iran to feel nuclear arms are important. I find it intellectually challenging to propose that a country threatened by another high powered nuclear armed country should forego possessing the most powerful armaments possible. I find it even more challenging to imagine what sanctioning could accomplish in the case of a well financed resource backed economy. I do find some reason to think that recognition of a State and its right to exist unmolested could actually have a defusing effect. It is a fact that it exists, it is a fact that trying to molest it would be extremely risky and surely explosive for the region. There is no cost in reality to recognizing and reassuring Iran, we cannot do anything about it, anyhow.
Isolated nations tend to turn inward and amplify the very defects that caused their isolation. North Korea is an example, in its isolation it has become increasingly dangerous and extreme. During China's isolation it became increasingly dangerous and extreme, today, after RM Nixon's outreach China is less extreme, though more powerful. Iran can afford to politically and economically ignore the US, it cannot afford to ignore the US military in only one sense, nuclear capability. Iran, demonstrably need have no over-riding fear of the US conventional military capability; Iraq and Lebanon are military and political lessons. Its life could be made very difficult; but its survival is not threatened.
The real threat to Iran as extant is cultural. Their culture can only thrive in isolation from successful cultures. The stifling effect of the authority of a theocracy is not tolerable to a society that is not under open attack or threat. Such a government begins to lose its justifications in the citizenry's eyes without fear as a propaganda tool and the insidious forces of rationality and personal choice begin to gnaw away at the obeisance to authority. It is important to remember that the theocratic revolt against the Shah was against an imposed, authoritarian, secular government that without external pressure created a closed and isolated culture.
I do not suggest that in the near term the US and Iran will become "friends," I do propose that behavior change can better be accomplished with carrots than sticks and that in the long term actual change in Iran is more likely by cultural intercourse than isolation.
Iran has lots and lots of oil.
Iran has lots and lots of money.
Iran is a pretty big place.
Iran has quite a few people.
Iran has a strong military.
Iran has a strong government.
Iran has fought a bloody war against an implacable foe, to stalemate.
Iran has a populous willing to sacrifice for its country.
Iran is Muslim.
Iran shows no liking for the US government.
Iran has influence in the Middle East.
The US has no diplomatic relations with Iran and has some of its assets frozen.
There are a lot more facts around, but this isn't an encyclopedia.
Now the prevailing neo-con view seems to be that the US (and maybe UN) ought to make Iran act the way we want it to, and to do it while the US talks about possibly bombing the place or at least getting rid of its government. That would seem to fly in the face of the above facts, all of them. Since you're reading his I can assume you graduated 3rd grade and I don't need to point out the problems posed by those facts and those objectives. I could point out that those facts might lead to a different policy.
The above facts ought to indicate a stable powerful nation, however reprehensible its rhetoric. This is a simple reality, they may not be a likeable bunch, but it exists as is, not how we might wish. The simple act of establishing diplomatic relations is a recognition of fact, it does, also, carry the risk of a repeat of the Embassy taking, which might preclude a physical presence. Diplomatic relations might open the door to some talk about threats to Iranian security that might dispose Iran to feel nuclear arms are important. I find it intellectually challenging to propose that a country threatened by another high powered nuclear armed country should forego possessing the most powerful armaments possible. I find it even more challenging to imagine what sanctioning could accomplish in the case of a well financed resource backed economy. I do find some reason to think that recognition of a State and its right to exist unmolested could actually have a defusing effect. It is a fact that it exists, it is a fact that trying to molest it would be extremely risky and surely explosive for the region. There is no cost in reality to recognizing and reassuring Iran, we cannot do anything about it, anyhow.
Isolated nations tend to turn inward and amplify the very defects that caused their isolation. North Korea is an example, in its isolation it has become increasingly dangerous and extreme. During China's isolation it became increasingly dangerous and extreme, today, after RM Nixon's outreach China is less extreme, though more powerful. Iran can afford to politically and economically ignore the US, it cannot afford to ignore the US military in only one sense, nuclear capability. Iran, demonstrably need have no over-riding fear of the US conventional military capability; Iraq and Lebanon are military and political lessons. Its life could be made very difficult; but its survival is not threatened.
The real threat to Iran as extant is cultural. Their culture can only thrive in isolation from successful cultures. The stifling effect of the authority of a theocracy is not tolerable to a society that is not under open attack or threat. Such a government begins to lose its justifications in the citizenry's eyes without fear as a propaganda tool and the insidious forces of rationality and personal choice begin to gnaw away at the obeisance to authority. It is important to remember that the theocratic revolt against the Shah was against an imposed, authoritarian, secular government that without external pressure created a closed and isolated culture.
I do not suggest that in the near term the US and Iran will become "friends," I do propose that behavior change can better be accomplished with carrots than sticks and that in the long term actual change in Iran is more likely by cultural intercourse than isolation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)