Wednesday, January 18, 2006
Reveling in martyrdom and the threat to the West
Deterrance, however, requires that the enemy care that he may die if a conflict blossoms into war. What if your enemy wants to die?
Two very different stories this morning suggest that we may face many enemies who want to die.
"Paradise Now," the Golden Globe-winning film "that explores the lives" of two Palestinian suicide bombers from Nablus, is considered by the residents of that troubled town to have missed the point:
[R]esidents here said the clips they saw on satellite television portrayed the bombers as godless and less than heroic.
"This movie doesn't help the Palestinian cause," said an armed Palestinian militant who would not give his name because he's on the run. "People who go to carry out bombings do not hesitate so much."
Hmmm. The Western press gives its most prestigious award to a movie that portrays suicide bombers as godless, unheroic, and hesitant. One can't help but wonder whether there isn't a little projection going on there. Why does it make Western film critics feel better to think that suicide terrorists are just like them at some basic level? Perhaps because it allows them to believe that this is an enemy with which they can reason. The war will end as soon as we all start reasoning. Yeah, that's the ticket!
Meanwhile, Kevin Sites explains the reverence of Iranian society for "martyrs" who spend their lives -- literally -- attacking the enemies designated by Iran's government:
In Iranian society there are few more revered than the martyrs -- defined as anyone killed during war or violent struggle -- or their families. Most receive financial benefits from the government for their sacrifice, including housing allowances for parents and widows, free healthcare, and educational stipends for surviving children....
At the closing stages of the war, Iran was specifically criticized by the international community for its so-called Martyrs' Brigades, in which "dispensable" children would move in front of the combat troops, clearing minefields with their bodies and allowing Iranian troops to advance. [Well. I'm certainly happy that Iran was 'specifically criticized' for that. - ed.]
But because of the honor martyrs are given and the esteem in which they are held -- particularly amongst Iran's poor and more conservative religious populations -- the concept of actively seeking martyrdom has become an attractive option, especially amongst those who have little else to live for. The notions are reinforced by Iranian clergy.
"Martyrdom, for us, is our school, our ideology, our heart and our prayer," says Mullah Hassan Ali Ahangaran, a religious consultant to the Martyrs' Museum in downtown Tehran. "It allows the continuation of Islam. The blood of the martyr revitalizes our religion."
It's that kind of zeal, western observers worry, that helps to transform a natural respect for the dead into suicidal attacks on the living.
Sites seems to be worried that Iran is a rich source of suicide bombers for deployment elsewhere. I'm worried that a society that promotes suicidal fanaticism will start believing, or believing in, its own propaganda at the highest levels.
I tend to think that the government of Iran has generally acted rationally in foreign affairs (at least when compared to Iraq under Hussein, for example), and would therefore be deterrable even if it acquired atomic weapons. But, and this is a huge "but," can any Western leader afford to rely on the hope that Iran's love of suicide in the nation's service has not infected the leaders who will control the deployment of those weapons?
14 Comments:
By 
Cardinalpark, at
Wed Jan 18, 08:27:00 AM:
There is recent historical precedent for American political and military leaders to heed - that of American experience fighting Japan in WWII. When the US led an embargo of Japan which constrained their fuel supplies, Japan was forced to either attack or rollover. Not surprisingly, they eventually attacked. And they were a ferocious enemy, with their honor bound military willing to sacrifice themselves in kamikaze attacks and torture our soldiers held prisoner.
Of course, Japan was never able to launch kamikaze attacks on US soil, as internment and general bias made it difficult to find any domestic kamikazes. Iran may be able to do that given the evidence that Hezbollah has planted cells in the US. I have little doubt that we shall see.
Iran will, it seems to me, ultimately be dealt with in a couple of ways. Either the US leads an assault on their nuclear assets and a simultaneous decapitation attack; or we wait for Iran to attack somebody, suffer the consequences, and lead a much broader and much more deadly war, which may include our use of devastating weaponry, including nuclear weaponry.
I say this because once Iran goes on offense, the US will feel unconstrained by antiwar opinion; furthermore, Iran will only be pacified by a massive demonstration of American military might. Just as Japan only surrendered under the weight of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, so I think Iran is unlikely to stand down unless either massive power is brought to bear or you manage a surgical decapitation (which is unlikely if you wait for them to go on offense).
Personally, I would prefer to preempt, simply because I am so convinced that the mad mullahs and the US are fundamentally incompatible, and have been at war since 1979. I have already concluded that there will be a war, and I would prefer a small one that we start versus a large one that they start. In movies, in a street fight, I always chuckle when some guys threatens another as if to draw a punch. The truth is, if you're serious about the fight, you want to throw the first punch, the second punch, get the guy on the ground and maul him. Surprise the enemy. Absorbing the first blow is terrible, for the obvious physical reasons, but also for morale and the risk it imposes on your own fighting capability. I have no doubt the US would win in either encounter, but why absorb the first blow? Deliver it.
By Charlottesvillain, at
Wed Jan 18, 09:05:00 AM:
Honestly, I couldn't agree with you more. And yet, doesn't it seem inconceivable that the US would engage in such a preemptive attack now? It is hard to imagine us actually carrying it out.
By cakreiz, at
Wed Jan 18, 09:19:00 AM:
Martyrdom is a virus that's infected Iran at its highest levels. The West is simply incapable of grasping the concept. Today, I read at leanleft.com that 9/11 "probably represents their high water mark" and "the terrorists simply do not represent a threat to destroy this country." Not exactly the sober and stern assessment of the military (nuclear) and economic (oil) risks that Iran represents. It's much easier to turn aside rather than stare a Holocaust-denying leader straight in the eye.
The US won't preemptively attack-too much political capital has been spent in Iraq. Israel might; we won't.
By Cardinalpark, at
Wed Jan 18, 09:52:00 AM:
I don't think it's inconceivable at all. After Nov 2006, Bush has no more elections to worry about. My guess is 70-75% of the country understands the threat Iran poses and finds their mullahcracy reprehensible. The poll question should ask a very simple question; 1) Should the US allow Iran under its currrent regime to acquire nuclear weaponry and the capability to deliver it?
I think Iran worries alot of people besides just the US and Israel. There will ultimately be broad support for US action -- though some of it will be tacit not public. Most people understand that the US isn't the first target, but that Israel maybe -- and so might Sunni Arab countries. For instance, it would be far more strategically interesting for Iran to bomb the piss out of Saudi Arabia. If they want sky high oil prices and dead sunnis, Saudi is a better strategic target than Israel.
For the moment, the US prefers to solidify Iraqi defenses and batten down the hatches there in the event Iran elects to break out of its encirclement.
Better to deny Iran's leadeership these options.
No i don't think its iconceivable at all. Maybe only to the NYT editorial board. With IAEA referral to UNSC, I think the likelihood grows.
By cakreiz, at
Wed Jan 18, 09:58:00 AM:
There are many Democrats, I believe, who appreciate the risks of a nuclear Iran- Biden, Clinton and others. But there's much Middle East fatigue out here. And there'll be the usual chorus of voices saying, "they lied about Iraq's WMDs, why should we believe them now?" I just don't see it happening.
By TigerHawk, at
Wed Jan 18, 10:01:00 AM:
I agree that it isn't inconceivable. The question is how and when it might happen. A couple of disjointed thoughts:
1. The biggest constraint is probably our need to keep Iraq's Shia from going berzerk before the political situation there is truly stabilized. If we launched an overt attack on Iran today, especially if from Iraq or over its airspace, the Shiites would go bananas and it would mess up the Iraq project. It still might be worth it, but you need to take that into account.
2. The Sunnis of the region might be helpful, but that only compounds my point with regard to Iraq's Shia.
3. It becomes much easier if the UNSC comes around. It seems a lot more worried about Iran than it did about Iraq, so that's a possibility. Obviously, it would be especially useful if the Russians participated in the attack, which they might be willing to do for domestic political consumption.
4. There are attacks, and then there are attacks. I continue to like the idea of a sustained campaign of subversion against the regime, including assassination of scientists, sabotage, etc. The Iraqi Kurds can be extremely helpful in this regard.
5. I think the Chinese will be the big obstacle to Security Council approval, because they are trying to get a foothold in the Western Indian ocean and will see Iran as a potential ally. They may not have the stones to veto a resolution supported by the other permanent members, though.
By Gordon Smith, at
Wed Jan 18, 10:33:00 AM:
Question 1: How far is Iran from a deployable nuclear weapon?
The answer to this question gives us a timetable for diplomatic options including Security Council resolutions. Without a strong, unified international voice (not just everyone going along with Bush's opinion, but a consensus) in opposition to Iran's ambitions, there is little chance of diplomatic/sanction options working.
2. If diplomatic options, honestly sought, aren't effective, then how can Iran's nuclear capability be eliminated without destabilizing the nation?
An unstable Iran is more dangerous than a mullahcracy headed by an anti-semite. This is how we got the Taliban in Afghanistan, and those guys aren't going away depsite our invasion. Their ability to recruit hordes of new martyrs increases as stability decreases. We don't need to bomb our way from one problem to another.
Limited airstrikes, preferably led by those with the biggest stake in the situation (those within reach of Iran's medium range ballistic missiles), may be enough to stave off the realization of nukes without doing any lasting damage to the nation's broader infrastructure. Russia's sales of anti-aircraft and other defensive arms to Iran will make this option more difficult.
4. War against Iran is an untenable option. Our military, 150,000 strong in Iraq can't just shift into a new theater without the rear guard being at too great a risk - not to mention the chaos into which Iraq could descend without U.S. military structure.
With Brazil and other U.S. friendly nations (for now) also securing nuclear capabilities, it seems that an international push to stop nuclear proliferation could be led by a resolute U.S. The tide needs to turn against the thought that nuclear weapons are making anyone safer in the post-Cold War world. We've got to do what we can to lead by example while utilizing international criminal justice interests and international peacekeeping bodies to ferret out those who would use nukes.
If we can work out the logistics of war we can surely work out the logistics of nuclear disarmament. It will take a long time, but without a move in this direction, we'll just be playing whack-a-mole forever.
By Cardinalpark, at
Wed Jan 18, 11:11:00 AM:
SH -I kinda like your post. Maybe you're not a pacifist after all.
Answer to question one - close enough. I don't think anybody doubts their ambition. You won't know for sure until they use one. Prudence would argue for assuming they are within 5 years for sure, maybe within 18 months.
Question 2 - I don't think anybody can argue that diplomacy hasn't been honestly pursued. The EU 3 is trying with US support. It seems to have been met by Iranian intransigence. And the UN process is unfolding. This is the important next diplo phase.
As to instability, you cannot pursue "limited airstrikes" without preparing for "war". SH distinguishes between the two - I would not. They are the same from the standpoint of the Iranian leadership. If we try to bomb their facilities, you must be prepared for them to initiate a significant military response and escalation - which is likely to include attempting to close the Straits of Hormuz, attack Iraq or Saudi, and create an oil crisis.
TH - don't assume the Chinese won't play ball. North Korea is a lunatic they control. It's not a serious distraction for us. Diplomacy can work bu getting the Japanese and Koreans to work itout with China. Our axe in that is to prevent NK from becoming a nuclear merchant. Iran is a lunatic they don't control. As long as they are cut in on the spoils (same with the Russians), they may play ball too. I don't think they have much love for the mullahs. For them, it's all about oil and gas. If they get cheaper oil and gas after and Iran is a stable place (i.e. not threatening to launch an oil crisis), China can be convinced. If China knows they are the odd man out, i doubt they will pick Iran as their friend -- it really makes them the odd man out.
Diplomacy can work on the Iranian situation -- but not with the Mullahcrats. It can work on the Security Council. In preparation for eliminating the mullahcrats with preemptive military action.
By Gordon Smith, at
Wed Jan 18, 12:00:00 PM:
Limited airstrikes is what kept Saddam contained and without WMD for years following his invasion of Kuwait. Containment worked.
If the Iranians choose to close the strait or stop the flow of oil exports, those are their prerogatives. They do not signal an escalation, only a response.
An attack on Saudi Arabia, Israel, or anyone else would be a different story, but it's unlikely that the "sane" Iranians will invite a Bushian rain of destructo.
The use of the term "preemptive" is a rhetorical contortion I would prefer to skip. The correct term is "offensive". I know it's more palatable to say we've used our crystal ball to predict a certain future that we must intervene in else the certain future will certainly arrive. But the fact is that we can't know the future and any attacks are simply that, attacks.
By TigerHawk, at
Wed Jan 18, 12:15:00 PM:
Interesting. I never viewed the word "preemptive" as anything more than explanatory. You seem to think that it is freighted with some moral value.
In any case, I'm not sure that "offensive" -- apart from its double meaning -- is a useful word, either. It fails as a substitute for preemptive. For example, the ejection of Saddam from Kuwait was an offensive war -- we might have left him there and contained him at the Saudi border, for example. But it was not "preemptive," except in the strained sense that it preempted a subsequent attack on Saudi Arabia.
By Cardinalpark, at
Wed Jan 18, 02:04:00 PM:
SH - I think one can debate at length any notion that containment "worked" with Saddam. After repelling him from Kuwait, we chose to leave him empowered; this fostered the creation of an "oil for food" program which literally corrupted the entire UN, from the top on down. At a minimum, that is a shame. By leaving Saddam in power, we fostered the conditions which led to the massacre of the Shiites in Iraq. He did instigate a rearmament program. He shot daily at our fighters flying over the Kurdish and Shiite regions. Perhaps the worst element of all - we allowed him to position himself regionally as the winner over the US - after all, he was still there, and after 1992 George Bush was not.
Now you could say that he didn't subsequently attack his neighbors. Small comfort. He attacked his own. And rearmed, he would have attacked his neighbors. He gave sanctuary to Abu Nidal, Abu Musab al Zarqawi and a host other of other terrorists of any stripe. As Steven Hayes has throughly documented, he trained thousands of terrorist dispersed throughout the region. He financed suicide bombings in Israel in particular.
So I don't think containment was such a great strategic or moral victory for us against Saddam. In fact, it was proof positive (as we have dozens of others) that sanctions don't work.
George Kennan's idea of containment was predicated on the notion that the Soviet Union was an equal, in pure power, of the United States. And therefore an all out war with the USSR would ultimately be catastrophic. Instead, we fought low intensity wars -- which cost us 100,000+ brave men.
Containment wasn't meant for dinky, third rate little countries like Iraq, or even larger countries like Iran. Containment means victory to these guys, and sanctions merely incite them. And it gives them the outside enemy they need to give them legitimacy, which they otherwise lack.
As for preempt, schmeempt, offense..whatever. Use whatever word you like.
On this point I am simple. I think if we decapitate and change the Iranian regime, before they have nuclear arms, then we can fight a "small" war which will be far less costly in lives and treasure. I think if we wait, we will fight a much larger, far more deadly and costly war. We will win both. But the destruction associated with the latter will be far more extreme.
That is what Chamberlain and Blum and FDR faced in the mid 30s. They made the decision to deter, and wait, and see if they might point Hitler at Russia. Sadly, hindsight now makes it clear -- extraordinarily, perfectly -- clear that we should have assaulted Hitler early. 1935. Long before Poland.
Now our opinions may differ on this inevitable notion I have about the Iranian mullahs. I view their belief system as fundamentally incompatible with that of the west. They are fueled, and provide fuel for, an anti Western fervor that is difficult for many in the west to appreciate. I love tolerance, but my tolerance stops for those who won't tolerate me. If somebody wants me dead, I'd prefer to kill them first.
By 
, at
Thu Jan 19, 08:51:00 AM:
Cardinalpark:
Where is the evidence that Chamberlain, Blum, and FDR tried to point Hitler at Russia. There is enough history out there to stick to facts, not fairy tales.
By , at
Thu Jan 19, 09:00:00 AM:
PS:
The argument has been made that the reason it appears that a majority in the USA oppose abortions is because the abortion rights movement killed off its prospective consituents by having abortions.
Has anyone looked into who the children were that the Iranian religeous zealots sent in ahead of the troops during the Iraq Iran war. Maybe that is the reason 70 percent of the Iranian population is supposed to want change.
By Cardinalpark, at
Fri Jan 20, 09:32:00 AM:
Davod - The Munich agreement which Chamberlain made with Hitler was intended to pacify Hitler's intentions with respect to moving west, and instead motivate him elsewhere. Hitler subsequently attacked Poland -- except he did so by agreement with Stalin, and they subsequently made peace and split Poland. It's no fairy tale r fantasy. The Munich Agreement is there for everyone to see. There was a sizeable quasi fascist right wing in the west who viewed Stalin as a far greater danger than Hitler -- and who were delighted to have Hitler as a spear tip against Stalin. That strain still exists today in the former of people like Pat Buchanon, who recently argued that we should have been fighting Stalin, not Hitler during WWII.
Grab a book and start reading Davod.
