TigerHawk

Wednesday, January 31, 2007

Notes on Iran: Those helpful American doves

By TigerHawk at 1/31/2007 12:01:00 AM

Wittingly or not, the United States government continues to pressure Iran and strengthen its own hand. There are two bits to chew on buried in today's news, neither of which will delight most TigerHawk readers at first blush. On a closer inspection, however, they are interesting.

First, several Senators have "warned" against war with Iran.

Republican and Democratic senators warned Tuesday against a drift toward war with an emboldened Iran and suggested the Bush administration was missing a chance to engage its longtime adversary in potentially helpful talks over next-door Iraq.

"What I think many of us are concerned about is that we stumble into active hostilities with Iran without having aggressively pursued diplomatic approaches, without the American people understanding exactly what's taking place," Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., told John Negroponte, who is in line to become the nation's No. 2 diplomat as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's deputy.

Obama, a candidate for president in 2008, warned during the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing that senators of both parties will demand "clarity and transparency in terms of U.S. policy so that we don't repeat some of the mistakes that have been made in the past," a reference to the faulty intelligence underlying the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Most of you will agree that in the playing of poker with Persians the last thing one needs is "transparency," so normally a story like this would spin me up. Why would we ever want Iran to know what our next move would be? How could that possibly help us in any negotiation? But then I realized that the first part of the story is potentially quite helpful to American signal-senders. If the anti-war Senators weren't accusing the Bush administration of risking or intentionally plotting military action against Iran, the mullahs would conclude that American or Israeli threats pumped through the "back channel" were mere bluffs. The silence of the left would betray the weakness of our hand, and any negotiation with Iran would be much more difficult. Instead, the mullahs must be wondering whether the flapping of the Senate's doves is a sign that the administration might be preparing an attack. Much as it vexes me to think it, the doves have probably improved the chances for avoiding war not by intimidating the Bush administration but by increasing the uncertainty in Iran's calculation and thereby decreasing the chance that the mullahs will call the bluff.

Chew on that one and get back to me in the comments.

Second, the Bush administration is showing some new subtlety in its dealings with Iran. Yes, it has been rolling up Iranian operatives in Iraq and loading up the Persian Gulf with carrier groups. At the same time, we seem to be inching our way toward overt direct talks. Today, John Negroponte said that "[t]he US is 'reluctant' to hold direct talks with Iran until there is progress in the dispute over Tehran's nuclear program...." I believe it is the case that up until today we have said explicitly that we would not hold direct talks with Iran unless it froze its nuclear fuel program. No we're only "reluctant" to do so. Well, even George W. Bush can overcome "reluctance."

If I am correct that Negroponte's statement signals a shift, the Bush administration -- with the unwitting complicity of the Senate doves -- has contrived (1) to threaten Iran both implicitly and explicitly, (2) to boost the credibility of that threat by persuading a large number of dovish Senators to complain about the threat on television, and (3) to offer the Iranians a new carrot, direct negotiations without the condition that they suspend their nuclear program in advance. That's either lucky or subtle. Since the Bush administration has been neither for at least four years, I don't really care which it is.

Permalink - - Main

62 Comments:

By Peter, at Wed Jan 31, 12:12:00 AM:

We should tell Maliki that we are going to announce publicly that the murder warrant is going into the active state.
If he is true to his word he will not object, on the other hand if he objects that will tell you all you need to know.

By Anonymous, at Wed Jan 31, 05:36:00 AM:

TH:

"That's either lucky or subtle. Since the Bush administration has been neither for at least four years, I don't really care which it is."

I would suggest that your comments reflect the words of the uninformed. You really have no idea, none of us have, what the Administation has been doing under the table. That's the way it should be.

What you do have is every leaker in the book telling you what has or should have been done. Not that the leakers would have an agenda.

By TigerHawk, at Wed Jan 31, 05:40:00 AM:

davod -

Surely you agree that the Bush administration has not bee lucky. On the question of subtlety, your point is well-taken. There are numerous examples to which I could point to sustain my case, but in the end you would be right: history will be the only real judge of this and (as I often say) history will not deliver an unappealable verdict for 50 years or more.

By Dan Trabue, at Wed Jan 31, 07:22:00 AM:

"Why would we ever want Iran to know what our next move would be? How could that possibly help us in any negotiation?"

There is great power in American ideals. A nation that knows we will not invade unprovoked has less cause to want nuclear weaponry, for instance.

Right now, our current policy - this pre-emptive invasion policy established by Bush - tells every nation that you are likely to be invaded on a whim with no real provocation. This tells them further that their best bet is to GET nukes, because, after all, we didn't invade N. Korea or China, where they have nukes.

That's just for starters. No time to go on and on why American ideals are powerful, but they are. We are a nation of rules and Congress is absolutely right to demand that those rules stay in place. Presidents CAN'T declare wars nor invade nations without following our rules.

To do so undermines US security.

By skipsailing, at Wed Jan 31, 07:29:00 AM:

Please note Dan's priorities. He has no time to tell us why he thinks America is great but lots of time to tell us why he thinks Bush is wrong.

Please Dan, must you be so obvious?

By Dan Trabue, at Wed Jan 31, 09:24:00 AM:

Brother Skip, I assumed you would know why America was great. If you'd like, though, here's a short list of our ideals:

1. Our constitution is a great outline for a gov't
2. We are a nation of laws, which we follow - not a nation of rogue leaders doing what they please
3. We are a nation opposed to terrorism, one whose ideals would forbid us from engaging in acts of terrorism ourselves
4. We are a nation that cares for the Other - especially for the down and out and marginalized
5. We are a nation that is generous and believes in personal responsibility

Dig it? The more we live up to those ideals, the greater our security. The more we ignore them, the closer to undoing ourselves we come. We will not be overcome by terrorism ever UNLESS we first fall from within by ignoring our ideals.

By Anonymous, at Wed Jan 31, 10:51:00 AM:

TH,

Tangent: your faith in the "verdicts of history" is sweet, but misguided. No such thing as an "unappealable verdict", even after hundreds of years. Everything will remain debatable.

By lugh lampfhota, at Wed Jan 31, 11:52:00 AM:

Dan,

"likely to be invaded on a whim with no real provocation"?

That was idiotic Dan. Go back to watching Sesame Street because you are WAY out of you element here.

Tiger,

At this stage of the game, Senators claiming that the American people don't understand what's at stake vis-a-vis Iran is blather. We know Osama Obama. All the cards are on the table. Who's gonna call first?

By Escort81, at Wed Jan 31, 12:25:00 PM:

Wouldn't it be truly remarkable if the Senators were in on the deal -- that is, they were sounding off right now as part of a cooperative plan with the Bush White House to make the the Iranians think that actual military strike plans are "spinning up" as the Pentagon would put it?

The question is, how effective will any diplomacy or subtle or direct pressure be with the current Iranian regime? Are they rational actors or not? Furthermore, while the current regime may be unpopular with wide swaths of what is a large and heterogeneous population, the idea of developing nuclear power (though not necessarily nuclear weapons, and power is the fig leaf for weapons development) is apparently viewed favorably by a great majority of Iranians, meaning any new regime in Iran might continue along the same lines.

I am not sure what the least worst choice is in dealing with Iran. If the Iranians leadership is smart, they will play cat and mouse in Iraq for the duration of the Bush presidency and then go full throttle to influence events there and also full throttle in nuclear development, maybe with a successful 5 KT test around March 2010, figuring that a Democratic controlled House, Senate and White House will do about as much as Europe will -- voice strenuous objections, but do essentially nothing, and live with the situation.

By Anonymous, at Wed Jan 31, 01:20:00 PM:

Escort81, "full throttle in nuclear development"? Even if the US and Europe won't do anything about it, think maybe Israel would? If I were GWB, I would send a message to Israel, maybe in the form of a letter to the New York Times, telling them that he would understand any action that Israel would take to protect themselves.

By skipsailing, at Wed Jan 31, 01:45:00 PM:

Dan, you are just so completely full of crap I bet you creak when you walk.

1. Our constitution is a great outline for a gov't
2. We are a nation of laws, which we follow - not a nation of rogue leaders doing what they please
3. We are a nation opposed to terrorism, one whose ideals would forbid us from engaging in acts of terrorism ourselves
4. We are a nation that cares for the Other - especially for the down and out and marginalized
5. We are a nation that is generous and believes in personal responsibility

1. Agreed, the constitution is a marvelous document. Tell us Dan is it a living breathing body of words, does it mean just what it says? Inquiring minds want to know.

2. "A nation of laws" Is weenie code for "don't you dare do anything to which Dan and his friends might object". Are all laws good? Are they all equal? what claptrap.

3. This is complete bunk Dan. Implicit in this foolish statement is the contention that we'll remain forever mean and nasty if we have to be tough enough to win a war. There is simply no historical evidence to support this hogwash dan. We firebombed dresden, inflicted massive casualties on the japanese and then taxed ourselves to rebuild the country. Your statement is just spineless. We need to be as nasty and we must to win, then, as always, we'll return to being American citizens. Spare us this faux sanctimony.

4&5 Are hilarious Dan. It wasn't but a few short months ago that you were assuring me that only the coercive power of the government would insure the amount of funding YOU require. Dan you're being more than a little hypocritical here. On the one hand you demand that the government extract money from me so that your conscience can be salved and on the other hand you're telling me how great we are for handing over our hard earned cash.

And my original point stands. You decide your priorities and this morning the most important thing for you to say was that bush is wrong. It's not about how america is great its about what you find important.

By D.E. Cloutier, at Wed Jan 31, 02:03:00 PM:

To Iranian hard-liners, America's dovish senators are nothing more than useful idiots.

New York newspaper editor John B. Bogart (1848-1921) said: "When a dog bites a man, that is not news, because it happens so often. But if a man bites a dog, that is news."

Even since that time, individuals who are foolish enough to bite a dog have gotten most of the news coverage in the United States.

One day the Muslim political right and the Christian political right may realize that they often have more in common with each other than they have with the political left in the West. Then all hell may break lose.

By D.E. Cloutier, at Wed Jan 31, 02:05:00 PM:

P.S. Make that "loose," not "lose."

By Dan Trabue, at Wed Jan 31, 02:52:00 PM:

Skip said:

"We need to be as nasty and we must to win"

Fortunately for folk like me, the majority of the US supports us obeying our own laws. You can have your mass destruction wetdreams all you want, Skip, but the rest of us will hold the US accountable for obeying our own laws. THAT is where we'll find our security, not in becoming more like the terrorists we oppose.

By The Machiavellian, at Wed Jan 31, 03:15:00 PM:

I think you might be on to something. I lamented at my blog
that Senators like Dodd were undermining our troops.

But you might be right. The Iranians might see the Democrats as the canaries in the cave, whose antics might be signaling military action is afoot.

Good insight.

By skipsailing, at Wed Jan 31, 03:23:00 PM:

It is time to grow up Dan. We had laws aplenty in the past and we still did what we had to do to win the wars we fought.

So spare me the smarm dan. I don't have a wet dream, I'm facing reality. If there's a wet dream here it's yours. You somehow think that these horrible people respect you because you cower behind your "laws". These people who want you dead only understand one law Dan. And that law isn't something dreamed up by human rights watch or some other group of ineffectual jerkoffs who wonder aloud why we can't just all get along.

It is pretty typical of the surrender now crowd to assume that those of us who find force of arms necessary sometimes think its necessary at all times. I don't Dan, but I know that we need to fight now and I know that you're supporting the enemy.

By skipsailing, at Wed Jan 31, 03:56:00 PM:

THAT is where we'll find our security, not in becoming more like the terrorists we oppose.

Yet Dan every time you are challenged to describe how this will work you come up short.

so once again Dan, tell us how you're approach assures of security. Is this the return of the son of "law enforcement" wherein you couldn't actually describe how it was going to work but you believed in it whole heartedly?

Come now Dan, turn your platitudes into details. I'm curious. who knows, maybe you're right.

By Anonymous, at Wed Jan 31, 04:09:00 PM:

Iran has the upper hand in this for a lot of reasons.

1st) They are in more control of the events happening between them and the rest of the world. After all, it's Iran's actions that the world is chatting about. This puts Iran in control.

2nd) Time is on Iran's side with regard to Iraq and their nuclear program. All they have to do is drag it out for less than two years. The US gets a new president, Dem or Rep, doesn't matter.

3rd) Unless nuclear weapons are used Iran has the home field advantage militarily against the US. Simple "air strikes" won't do anything but start another long continuous war. Iran is 3 times the size of Iraq, (and the US is having a horrible time there), It's military is modern and has not been degraded as Iraq's was since the first Gulf War. In fact, Just today the Pentagon decided to stop selling US military spare parts to Iran! Nothing like making sure your future opponent has spare parts of your own weapon systems (for the past SIX years).

On the other hand, US forces are over stretched in Iraq and Afghanistan, lack proper equipment, and are tired. The army is near being broken.

4th) The Persian Gulf is a pond which makes the US deep water ocean fleet a sitting duck. There is simply no room to hide or maneuver.

5th) Iran can shut down the strait of Hormit easily stopping most Mideast oil shipments. Even a few days delay can be distrasious for the world's economy.

6th) All oil installations in the Persian Gulf are easy targets if things get out of hand. That could destroy the world's economy.

7th) An attack on Iran would violate international law without UN permission of some sort, (the US used UN 1441 as cover for the Iraq invasion). Iran could then ask for UN help and the UN would be required to give assistance; it's in the UN treaty. The US could be declared a rogue state; and the world is down on the US as it is.

Considering Bush's track record on making war; I'll say not attacking would be the smart bet.

Looks like diplomacy is the best way. But that requires brains. Who's up for the task?

By Lanky_Bastard, at Wed Jan 31, 04:10:00 PM:

Evidently our foreign policy is copied from a 1970's "good cop/bad cop" movie.

By skipsailing, at Wed Jan 31, 04:18:00 PM:

This one is really funny:

7th) An attack on Iran would violate international law without UN permission of some sort, (the US used UN 1441 as cover for the Iraq invasion). Iran could then ask for UN help and the UN would be required to give assistance; it's in the UN treaty. The US could be declared a rogue state; and the world is down on the US as it is.

Oh my, how will I live with this shame? Imagine being scolded by the UN. I can see people hurling themselves from the roof tops in sheer anguish.

jeeze, what bilge.

By Dan Trabue, at Wed Jan 31, 04:26:00 PM:

"tell us how you're approach assures of security."

Tell you again? To what end? So you can mock obeying our laws again?

Very well:

1. When we obey our laws, we show that we are a nation that abides by the rules
2. The more consistently we do this, the more it is obvious that this is true
3. In the Muslim world, there is a majority opposed to the use of terrorism according to polls
4. In the Muslim world, there was a huge majority that expressed outrage at 9/11, the world was united with us in stopping those terrorists
5. The more we broke or bent laws and portrayed ourselves as dangerous, the more traction the terrorists claims that we're the Great Satan gain. The less likely Muslims - even though they oppose violence against innocent people - are to speak out in our defense
6. The more we obey our laws, therefore, the less support terrorists have
7. The smaller the number of terrorists there are, the easier it is to treat them like the criminals that they are
8. We have excellent policing capabilities, we allow and finance and support the law enforcement agencies to do their job and to do it legally
9. We encourage - through legal means and through the shining example of our great ideals - nations with rogue leaders to get rid of them. Iran's Ahmadinejad's only strength comes from portraying us as a threat. The more obvious that is false, the less support he'll have and he's on the ropes already as it is.

Anonymous of 4:09 makes some good points. Diplomacy is the best answer.

Is it a perfect system? No. But you know what? It's not a perfect system.

Regardless, the majority of the US are not going down your road, skip. We're not nuking nations anymore. We're not firebombing homes and children. That's not who we are. We're better than we were even 60 years ago, and we were good then.

I believe in our greatest ideals, Skip. As does America. Get used to it, whether or not you like it, we're not going down that path.

By Dan Trabue, at Wed Jan 31, 04:26:00 PM:

I meant, "You know what? It's not a perfect world." Sorry.

By lugh lampfhota, at Wed Jan 31, 04:54:00 PM:

Dan,

Which muslims are speaking out? where? cite these muslims that speak out. You can't because they don't. They can't because they would die. And they know it.

Tell me about the successful "policing" of terrorists prior to 9/11. Cite the arrests that shutdown Al Qaeda, Hezbollah and every other terrorist group. You can't because they don't exist.

Thirty years of policing and occaisionally lobbing a few cruise missiles did nothing but demonstrate weakness. Just like our "laws" that Islamists use against us, to hinder us and someday overwhelm us.

The center of gravity for the Islamists today is Iran. We need to kill this snake now. Will the world live in peace thereafter? No. Because there will always be a jackass that preys on the weak (like you Dan).

You are an evolutionary dead end. Go read Thomas Hobbes; Leviathan. Maybe you might learn something about law and the real world.

The clock is ticking. Iran has time on it's hands as long as we do nothing. And all it takes for evil to prevail, is for good men to do nothing. Kill the snake now.

By Dan Trabue, at Wed Jan 31, 05:18:00 PM:

Poll showing Muslims opposition to violence against innocents:

http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=248

You'll note that it's nowhere near unamimous agreement that it is always wrong to use violence against innocents. One poll cites the responses from Jordan, where only 11% said violence is always wrong against innocents, whereas 57% said it was sometimes.

But then, on that point, Skip and others here agree - they are saying that it is sometimes okay to kill innocents. So, if this poll were taken in the US, there would be some percentage that would agree with skip and those Muslims who think violence directed at innocents is sometimes okay.

As to the question of where are those condemning violence?

Here, for starters (found with a 2 minute google check):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1549573.stm
http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php
http://www.masnet.org/takeaction.asp?id=2648
http://www.americanmuslimwoman.com/id14.html
http://www.cair-net.org/html/911statements.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/07/28/national/main712548.shtml
www.fas.org/sgp/crs/terror/RL33012.pdf
http://seenonslash.com/node/92
http://www.themodernreligion.com/terror/wtc-distortion.html
http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php
http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2001-09/13/article18.shtml\
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1544955.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1690624.stm

Some of these are links to pages with other links. How many pages of condemnation would you like to see?

By skipsailing, at Wed Jan 31, 05:20:00 PM:

Since I'm new to the whole church up on Sunday routine, I listen carefully to the service. Sunday's reading mentioned Jeremiah and I found it very interesting. Essentially I understood the passage to mean that it is better to be right than popular. that there are occasions when one must "gird thy loins".

if I misunderstood this, Dan, perhaps you could tell me how the new laws you mention would essentially prevent this prophet from doing what the Lord demanded.

Fair enough?

By Dan Trabue, at Wed Jan 31, 05:51:00 PM:

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking there, Skip.

You mention Jeremiah, the prophet who told Israel:

Only if you thoroughly reform your ways and your deeds; if each of you deals justly with his neighbor; if you no longer oppress the resident alien, the orphan, and the widow; if you no longer shed innocent blood in this place, or follow strange gods to your own harm, will I remain with you in this place, in the land which I gave your fathers long ago and forever.

But here you are, putting your trust in deceitful words to your own loss! Are you to steal and murder, commit adultery and perjury, burn incense to Baal, go after strange gods that you know not, and yet come to stand before me in this house which bears my name, and say: "We are safe; we can commit all these abominations again"?

Jeremiah, tells us above (from Jeremiah 7) that our safety comes not in lies, stealing, murder and going after strange gods, but rather specifically in not shedding innocent blood and ending their oppression the poor, the foreigner and the marginalized.

So, when you ask, "how the new laws you mention would essentially prevent this prophet from doing what the Lord demanded?" what exactly are you asking? What new laws are you referring to?

I'm not referring to any new laws, but rather laws that have been part of the US for decades now (although not always observed) as well as traditions such as Jeremiah spoke of. Finding safety in following God's laws and not killing innocent people.

Gird up? Certainly. Stand against oppression, work to stop oppressors? Yes, yes, yes. But we can only do that if we are not playing the role of oppressor ourselves. Which is why I say we'll gird ourselves and find our security in obeying our laws and not stooping to their level.

As Jeremiah said on behalf of God.

Does that answer your question?

By skipsailing, at Wed Jan 31, 06:05:00 PM:

Thou therefore gird up thy loins, and arise, and speak unto them all that I command thee: be not dismayed at their faces, lest I confound thee before them.
18 For, behold, I have made thee this day a defenced city, and an iron pillar, and brazen walls against the whole land, against the kings of Judah, against the princes thereof, against the priests thereof, and against the people of the land.
19 And they shall fight against thee; but they shall not prevail against thee; for I am with thee, saith the LORD, to deliver thee.

Speak against them, dan, even if they hate you for it. gird your loins and fight for what is right.

That's the lesson I'm drawing from Jeremaih Dan. When confronted with wicked people, he was commanded to fight them.

When espousing unpopular opinions he was told not to be afraid. Persistently you tell me that the majority agree with your "position". I don't and I find comfort in the fact that the Lord made Jeremiah understand that it is better to be right than to be accepted. Better to be strong than accepted. Better to fight for what is right than to accede to the demands of those who are wrong.
I further note that when John the Baptist was asked by the soldiers what they should do, he never told them to lay down their arms.

You council surrender Dan, and I see absolutely no support for that position. NONE.

By Dan Trabue, at Wed Jan 31, 06:25:00 PM:

"he was commanded to fight them."

Actually, nowhere in that passage you quoted was Jeremiah commanded to fight. He was told to gird himself up (prepare himself) and "I am with thee, saith the LORD, to deliver thee." I agree wholeheartedly with that passage and with the passage I quoted. We ARE to prepare ourselves, strengthen ourselves to stand against oppression - and do so without choosing evil means/killing innocents - and let God deliver by God's hand, not ours.

It requires a bit of fortitude to be prepared to fight using "clean" means - that's why we're told to gird ourselves, it seems to me - but that is what we're called to do.

And please, Skip, don't twist words. We're both adults here. I assume, since you're attending church, that we're both Christians. I've never suggested we surrended - quite the opposite and repeatedly. Bearing false witness is becoming a man such as yourself.

I do commend you in being prepared to do what you think right even if the majority is against you. You should do so. But you need to recognize that in a representative republic, that the minority position - especially when it comes to war- is not the position that will be embraced.

If that's what you think right, then by all means, make your case. But understand that we won't be going down that path. And largely because of the traditions of Judeo-Christian values as represented in the book of Jeremiah.

By lugh lampfhota, at Wed Jan 31, 06:42:00 PM:

Dan,

Where did you come up with the "killing innocents" crap? Most of your links refer to killing innocents. Changing topics? I've been dragged down that path by moonbats before, not going again.

Iran has been at war with the United States since 1979 and has killed Americans on numerous occaisions, including the killing of Americans today in Iraq. The stated goal of Iran is to destroy Israel and the United States. These are the words of the leader of Iran. Not mine.

Iran is developing nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles to carry out their policy goals.

So we can wait until Iran has the means to carry out their policy goals of genocide or invoke the Bush Doctrine and neutralize Iran's weapons programs.

My vote....kill the Iranian snake now.

By Anonymous, at Wed Jan 31, 07:27:00 PM:

Nothing like making sure your future opponent has spare parts of your own weapon systems (for the past SIX years).

If you want them to continue using old junk you know how to defeat, yes, yes, indeed that is exactly what you would do.

By Assistant Village Idiot, at Wed Jan 31, 08:58:00 PM:

Quote from Dan
"A nation that knows we will not invade unprovoked has less cause to want nuclear weaponry, for instance."

A lovely sentiment, and one sees how it would be true for reasonable people. What that has to do with the current situation I can't tell. It would be nice if it were true. What is the evidence that it is?

Your long discussion of biblical and "our highest" principles is very revealing. What you are describing is a "health and wealth gospel" as applied to foreign policy. Christians of the left find that distasteful to hear, but it is so. Your claim is that if we are very, very good, either God will reward us with peace, or the natural fruit of our godly actions will be peace. That sounds very warm-hearted, pious, and sincere.

Let me introduce you to Baptists from Romania, proved by fire under Ceaucescu and better Christians than you or I, who will assure you that this doctrine comes straight from the mouth of hell. It is an accretion onto Christian thought that is quite recent. Not well-observed but not coincidentally, this milk-and-water doctrine showed up first among Christian socialists, when it looked like we might have to fight other socialists, of the German and Russian varieties.

Read Luther. Read Calvin. Read Augustine. Read Aquinas. Read anyone from more than 100 years ago.

By Assistant Village Idiot, at Wed Jan 31, 09:00:00 PM:

By Dawnfire82, at Wed Jan 31, 09:05:00 PM:

"Anonymous of 4:09 makes some good points. Diplomacy is the best answer."

No, not really. For instance:

"On the other hand, US forces are over stretched in Iraq and Afghanistan, lack proper equipment, and are tired. The army is near being broken."

I've been hearing this crap for the last 2 and a half years, and we haven't broken yet. And its continued repetition is offensive, like people WANT it to be true, maybe if they repeat it for long enough it will eventually BECOME true. Sorry to disappoint.

"The Persian Gulf is a pond which makes the US deep water ocean fleet a sitting duck. There is simply no room to hide or maneuver."

Um. That's good for us. WE'RE the ones with the stronger navy, with hundreds of fighter planes and anti-missile systems and Tomahawks. The quicker we can find enemies, the quicker we can blast them to pieces with our overwhelming firepower. Rather similar to land warfare in that regard.

"Iran can shut down the strait of Hormit easily stopping most Mideast oil shipments. Even a few days delay can be distrasious for the world's economy."

Wishful thinking. See above. Not to mention that would be an effective declaration of war against Kuwait, Saudi, Iraq, Bahrain, and anyone else who uses said Straits. It's Hormuz, by the way. Not Hormit.

"All oil installations in the Persian Gulf are easy targets if things get out of hand. That could destroy the world's economy."

This is assuming that they hit, of course. And to reach them, Iran has to either 1) fly aircraft across the Gulf which, as you mentioned, is small and cramped and practically jam-packed with US ships and aircraft, or 2) somehow sneak missiles past said fleets and Patriot Air Defenses, which work beautifully, installed for just such an event. This is also an effective act of war against all targeted nations on top of the fact that they have tried to cripple the industrialized nations of the world, and is therefore a kind of death-by-cop suicide guarantee.

"7th) An attack on Iran would violate international law without UN permission of some sort, (the US used UN 1441 as cover for the Iraq invasion). Iran could then ask for UN help and the UN would be required to give assistance; it's in the UN treaty. The US could be declared a rogue state; and the world is down on the US as it is."

This is hilarious.

Diplomacy exists for one reason: to prevent war through compromise. If your opponent does not fear war, (and thereby does no wish to compromise) then diplomacy does not work. Period. There are three options: We either have to scare the Iranians badly enough that they would rather deal with us than not, (current policy) do nothing and thereby live in a world with a nuclear-capable Hezb Allah, or force them to see things our way.

"3. In the Muslim world, there is a majority opposed to the use of terrorism according to polls"

This statement is a bit misleading. Consider http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=248

88% of Jordanians in 2005 considered violence against civilians at least sometimes justified, along with 58% of Lebanese. In *non-Arab* countries, the numbers decline, though Pakistan is still at 44%. So in raw population, you might be right. Only 33% of Indonesian Muslims think that terrorism is justifiable, which is less than half. (though still significant) But in the Arab world, things are different. And in Iran and Palestine, of course, it's a matter of state policy. They also apparently overwhelmingly hate Jews, (whether in an Arab country or not) but that's neither here nor there.

This brings up that double standard thing again, too. "Come on, not even half of them think it's a good thing if one of their number explodes himself to kill you or your countrymen in a shopping mall. It's more like a third, or a quarter." This is supposed to be encouraging?

Reverse roles. What about, "A third of Americans feel that dropping cruise missiles into random foreign civilian targets during busy hours (which is analogous to how suicide bombings work) is justifiable." I can almost feel the boiling liberal outrage from here!

By Miss Ladybug, at Wed Jan 31, 09:51:00 PM:

I just have to chime in about the UN, re: if the US engaged in direct hostilities with Iran.

So, the UN would cry foul and call us a "rogue nation". What, exactly, would the UN do about it? Whenever they need real military forces, they look to the US. The UN gets the majority of it's funding from the US, as well, do they not?

For all practical purposes, the UN is unless. It is anti-American and anti-Isreali. Most of the member states of the UN are NOT democracies, but they want to tell US what to do? I could care less if we took actions against Iran without UN approval...

By Miss Ladybug, at Wed Jan 31, 09:53:00 PM:

That should be "couldn't care less" - didn't proofread before publishing...

By Dan Trabue, at Thu Feb 01, 06:26:00 AM:

Village said:
"Your claim is that if we are very, very good, either God will reward us with peace"

Umm...that's not what I claimed at all. Instead, I said that these were our laws and ideals (not killing innocent people) and that the American people will demand that our leaders abide by those ideals no matter the consequences. Within reason.

I think if pushed far enough (ie, an actual invasion, a nuclear bomb), the People may opt to forego our ideals. I'm not saying that's right, just my hunch that this is the way things are.

But in our current circumstances, we will not give our leaders permission to invade any other countries unprovoked. We will not permit any nuking of any countries, any firebombings of the sort that happened in Dresden. That's not who we are.

You don't have to like it, but you need to accept that this is the mood of the nation - the morals of the nation.

Village went on to say:

"Let me introduce you to Baptists from Romania, proved by fire under Ceaucescu" and

"It is an accretion onto Christian thought that is quite recent."

First, let me say God bless the Romanian Baptists. But I'm not exactly sure why you bring them up and what you mean is a recent accretion from the last 100 years? Peacemaking?

Surely you're aware that the Christian church was pacifist for the first 200-300 years. Surely you're aware of the anabaptist tradition and other historic peace churches that go back to the 1500s?

So, I'm not sure of your point. My point remains that old time Peace Churches along with the majority of Americans are now opposed to killing innocent people in attacks that some people here seem to be advocating.

By K. Pablo, at Thu Feb 01, 07:06:00 AM:

You know, I really want to agree with some of the Pollyanna sentiments I read coming from Dan Trabue, because they sound so innocent and artless. For example, the premise that "not killing innocent people" is "one of our ideals".

I would say "not killing innocent people" is a very context-driven imperative, not an ideal. An "ideal" would be a concept like "peace on earth", which is frankly unattainable. In a system of courts, you definitely would like to minimize how many innocent people were killed by the court system, but you would have to concede that it is very likely that the number would only rarely equal zero.

In the context of war, however, it is ridiculous to assume that you could spare ALL innocent people. You would definitely try to minimize the number, however, and that would be consistent with adhering to the imperative. And here is where DT's absurd criticism fails, because no military forces in history have gone through such lengths as the U.S. and the I.D.F. to minimize collateral damage to "innocent people". These lengths I refer to include the enormous expenditure of national resources to develop entire technologies such as "smart weapons", as well as the lavish expenditure of the lives of soldiers to laboriously cull out the likes of Hezbollah, who like to shield themselves by embedding among "innocent people".

I argue here that this relatively recent warfare doctrine, that of the Surgical Strike Paradigm (if you will), has failed in the real life laboratory of contemporary conflict. This has real implications for our survival as a civilization, and anyone familiar with Maslow's hieararchy of needs will concede that survival is a precondition to ideals....

By Anonymous, at Thu Feb 01, 09:55:00 AM:

From Dan at paynehollow [experiencing blogger problems that won't let me post with my login]:

I'd agree with you to the extent that the American population is okay with the notion of war and the sometimes tragic occurence of civilian deaths that is part and parcel of war (that would be a point where I'm in the minority in disagreeing with it even then, along with the historic peace churches and many others, but still a minority).

But you, yourself move from the idea of surgical strike - indicating that it is not effectual and, as many have here, suggesting that our "prissiness" about following our own laws is a hindrance to a "successful" war. It appears, then, that you're advocating a less surgical war, one where even more innocents will be killed. One where we may even use tactics such as the Dresden firebombings or Hiroshima nuclear devastation.

It is on THIS point that I'm saying that

1. Our laws generally don't allow it
2. The people won't stand for it

Again, you may not like our laws or the fact that the majority of the US supports abiding by those laws, but in our representative gov't, you must accept it. Speak out against it all you want (just as I'll speak out against most wars all I want) but you must accept that we will not be nuking any countries, nor moving away from the notion of surgical strikes, flawed as it is.

-Dan

By K. Pablo, at Thu Feb 01, 11:05:00 AM:

Dan, please cite the legislation that either "generally" prohibits total war or specifically mandates use of precision-guided munitions. And, while it is true that the left "won't stand for it", it has been my observation that a significant proportion of the left won't stand even for self-defense, advocating policies that are suicidal. I'm not convinced that these people (you included) recognize the magnitude of the threat we (you included) face. What's disheartening is my suspicion that even if these folks understood the magnitude of the threat, they would still turn the other cheek. If there is one Christian principle I am constitutionally incapable of following, it is of turning the other cheek.

By Anonymous, at Thu Feb 01, 12:33:00 PM:

Umm...that's not what I claimed at all. Instead, I said that these were our laws and ideals (not killing innocent people) and that the American people will demand that our leaders abide by those ideals no matter the consequences. Within reason.

This has got to be the best bit of doublethink I've read in a long while. "No matter the consequences", but qualified with "Within reason". Nuance, nuance I tell you!

By Dan Trabue, at Thu Feb 01, 12:51:00 PM:

"Dan, please cite the legislation that either "generally" prohibits total war"

I've played this game before, but will again:

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague04.htm

The Hague conventions of war (1907) of which we are a signatory and, as such, it is legally binding upon us. It includes:

Article 23:
To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;

Article 25:
The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited.

These two, at least, would seem to prohibit the use of nukes, firebombing or other sorts of attacks that seem to be what some here are calling for.

Perhaps you might define what you mean by "total war" or removal of restraints that we have placed upon ourselves.

If there are legal loopholes that some might try to employ to get around our laws, I would still venture that the American people are generally not going to stand by and allow attacks upon civilian populations, at least in this sort of "pre-emptive invasion" which we have in Iraq.

It's not in our moral character to do such. And thankfully so.

You should further realize that we oppose such action NOT because we're "soft" or supportive of the enemy (don't be ridiculous) but rather because we think the sort of action that you seem to be advocating is exactly the sort of actions that would lead to our nation being LESS secure, not more.

By skipsailing, at Thu Feb 01, 03:03:00 PM:

Dan, I don't believe you're thinking this all the way through. You cite the Hague conventions of 1907, yet America fought several bitter wars since that time. If you really believe that the Hague conventions are the law of this land then FDR, Ike and the rest are war criminals, right?

this one alone is laughable Dan:

The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited.

Have you seen pictures of Germany and Japan immediately after the fighting stopped Dan?

so, which is it Dan: is every member of the American military a criminal based on your understanding of the hague conventions, or are these conventions not applicable?

As for Jeremiah, here's where my case rests:

And they shall fight against thee; but they shall not prevail against thee; for I am with thee, saith the LORD, to deliver thee.

so essentially your interpretation of this passage is that whatever those evil people do to us, we must simply trust in the Lord and suffer it? Am I getting that right Dan?

I'm not twisting words, I was honest in my limited experience with the bible. And I was quite clear in stating that this was MY understanding of what these words meant. If my interpretation of this passage is at variance with the generally accepted interpretation, too damn bad. I'm sticking with Jeremiah and girding my loins for the coming fight. I don't see any language in the passage that functions as a stricture against fighting back. In fact if one must simply suffer the depredations of the enemy, why gird your loins at all? Why not just kneel and bare one's neck to the Muslims?

Finally, at the mass I attend there are three readings. The first was Jeremiah, but the last, the gospel, dealt with the doubts of the jews about the ability of Jesus. We are asked to understand the relationship between the readings and to see the over arching lesson. That lesson is, once again Dan, that it is better to be right than to be popular. In your haste to bash Bush yesterday I believe that you forgot this lesson.

Recently Mr Bush visited Wall Street. As you can imagine business people are generally pleased with Bush's economic policies, yet, as note on this very blog, when bush spoke of his concern for excessive CEO salaries there was silence in the room.

Why Dan? Because Bush, like Jeremiah has girded his loins. He believes that he's right and therefore sees no reason to pander, even to an appreciative audience.

By Dan Trabue, at Thu Feb 01, 05:20:00 PM:

I'll repeat myself: The law says, The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited. Prohibited, meaning "against the law; not allowed."

I'll repeat myself from earlier: I think that if something was truly terrible happening, like WWII, a majority of Americans will be willing to look away from our laws, ignore them - but as I read it, it is still against the law and certainly against our values to attack undefended people (I can't believe I'm having to make a case for NOT attacking undefended people!).

But we're not dealing with a WWII. The majority of Americans will NOT abide with our leaders breaking our laws.

That is my position and I think it's both the right one and the majority one. As evidence of it being the majority one, I offer that we're, in fact, NOT committing atrocities at the scale of what happened in WWII (and even if we committed them, even with the best of intentions, they WERE atrocities. It is always, always, ALWAYS an atrocity to kill innocent people. Soldiers are the first to tell us this.)

We're not committing those actions and the People won't abide by us moving in that direction. Argue against it (and in favor of targeting civilians?!) if you feel that's the right thing to do, but we won't be heeding you.

By Dan Trabue, at Thu Feb 01, 05:43:00 PM:

As to your take on Jeremiah, and the Bible as a whole, that's obviously something you'll have to settle in your own heart. But keep in mind that just because you choose to interpret something one way, does not mean that this is the way it SHOULD be interpreted.

Where you say, "If my interpretation of this passage is at variance with the generally accepted interpretation, too damn bad." - is that what you really mean? Even if God is telling you, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, turn the other cheek, overcome evil with good, don't rely upon your armies but upon me... you'd still say, "Too damn bad"?

I understand totally if you disagree with me on biblical interpretation, or disagree with 500 years of the Peace Church tradition or the first 200 years of the early church - you have to seek out God's will yourself and figure that out and, when you do, you need to stick with it. It IS better to be right that in the majority. But we must always stick with it humbly, as we're prone to error, you know?

Many times the majority is wrong and so our being in the middle of the majority is no assurance that we're in the right. But sometimes, the majority is the majority for good reason. Sometimes the majority IS right.

I'd suggest that the majority of people thinking that it is always wrong to attack and kill innocent people would be an obvious example of that, but I reckon that's something you'll have to decide on your own.

By Dawnfire82, at Thu Feb 01, 07:59:00 PM:

Your cited articles are intended to prevent the pillaging of enemy towns and use of poisoned arms. If there's a battalion in a city, it's defended and can be attacked. What we can't do is bombard a settlement into dust because the enemy might use it in the future. If they're using it now, it's fair game.

And, once more, international agreements to which nations are signatories are 'legally binding' only so far as they will be enforced. And since there is no agent of enforcement, they tend to only be followed when convenient.

By D.E. Cloutier, at Thu Feb 01, 10:10:00 PM:

Re: Jeremiah

Sorry, Dan and Skipsailing, I prefer Jeremiah Johnson.

By skipsailing, at Thu Feb 01, 10:23:00 PM:

Dan, what's all this "killing of innocents" stuff?

Given the war we're fighting, please define what you mean by innocent. I suspect we have significant disagreement there.

Thanks for the lesson in humility but you should think in terms of calcification. I'm looking at this stuff for the first time, I see no reason to simply accept 500 years of "theology". None. One of the clear messages from Jesus to the jews was "your culture is dysfunctional". Part of that dysfunction was their tendency to substitute religion for faith. It was the elders of an old and established religion that handed Jesus to his executioners.

I'm at least as smart as the next college graduate and having given the words some thought I reached my conclusion relative to their meaning. You've offered no valid counter argument so I'll stand by mine. The fact that my view is at odds with 500 years of calcified thought troubles me not.

Finally, I agree the majority isn't always right, in fact there are many times when the majority is simply wrong. Our current war against radical islam is a perfect case in point. The majority opinion here is wrong and wrong headed. No polls or news stories will change my mind. Neither will they change the president's mind. It's called having the courage of one's convictions.

I try to avoid ad populum arguments. That many people say something is true does not make it true. many people don't percieve radical islam as a threat. I do. It's really that simple.

finally, I have yet to read anything of a practical nature from you. Beyond your platitudes, you have never offered anything concrete to support your contention that doing nothing is better than doing something.

By Assistant Village Idiot, at Thu Feb 01, 11:52:00 PM:

Dan, the Church was not pacifist for the first 200-300 years of its existence. Tony Campolo made the claim a few years ago, but it is false.

Just as one could not say that "the Church in the last 200-300 years has been (blank)" one can't make any sort of similar claim about the early church. There is simply too much variation. There were groups in the early church which believed that no earthly government was worth fighting for. That is quite dramatically different.

Most "pacifism" in the peace churches was similar until the 20th C. Quakers and Brethren did not adopt pacifism because they thought it was a strategy that would "work" in the world; they did it because they thought it was right, and expected they might be killed for it. If that is what you are advocating, that we should be kind to others at all costs even though it won't work, then I suggest you phrase it differently. It certainly has appeared thus far that you are claiming that this peace strategy is going to help us have peace.

As to making the health and wealth gospel claim for foreign policy, I am aware that you did not say that - seeing it in black-and-white would reveal its foolishness. What I am claiming is that your statements amount to the same thing, but you don't wish to see that.

By skipsailing, at Fri Feb 02, 06:41:00 AM:

I was counting on ya DEC!!

By Dan Trabue, at Fri Feb 02, 06:59:00 AM:

Just a couple more follow-ups:

"I see no reason to simply accept 500 years of "theology"."

I'm not asking any non-Christians to accept my faith-based reasoning. That was directed towards believers, for whom there are additional reasons for opposing this war other than the multitude of civic, legal and humanist/ethical reasons.

Someone falsely claimed that pacifism is a new phenomenon. I was merely correcting that wrong assessment. In fact, someone repeated the mistake here:

"the Church was not pacifist for the first 200-300 years of its existence."

The early church believed it was against the teachings of Jesus to kill in war or to be part of the military. Besides the plain teachings found in the NT, there are early church writings from the first few hundred years of the church's existence. One source:

http://www.christiantrumpetsounding.com/co_1b.htm

Finally,
"I try to avoid ad populum arguments."

Me, too. I haven't made one here. I'm not saying that I'm right because I'm in the minority. I am just pointing out the reality that we will not be using methods (like nukes or firebombing) that will result in widespread death of innocent civilians.

I think that is the right move. But it's not right because it's the majority position, but rather because what you're calling for would decrease, not increase, our security.

If you don't think I've offered enough reason to not do what you want, then I'm sure it's a combination of my lack of making an argument that you can agree with and your stubborness to accept my reasoning. I regret that, but it's the way it is.

We won't be engaging in mass death or destruction.

By Dan Trabue, at Fri Feb 02, 07:00:00 AM:

Of course, I meant, "I'm not saying I'm right because I'm in the majority..." not "minority"

By Anonymous, at Fri Feb 02, 08:46:00 AM:

[from Dan at paynehollow - more technical difficulty...]

And, I think, maybe one more clarification is in order. Where it was said:

"Quakers and Brethren did not adopt pacifism because they thought it was a strategy that would "work" in the world; they did it because they thought it was right, and expected they might be killed for it."

I will note that I agree totally. And this is why I'm not suggesting the majority accept the Peace Church view of pacifism. It requires a bit of faith and a willingness to die for what you believe in. I'm not forcing that opinion off on anyone.

I do make the case that Just Peacemaking Theory is an effective means of fighting evil, of overcoming evil with good. It STILL may result in deaths, but the point is that war WILL remain in deaths, as well. So one can't very well say that JPT doesn't "work" and that war does based on the likelihood of deaths occurring.

For more on JPT, see

www.fuller.edu/sot/faculty/stassen/Just_Peacemaking/just_peacemaking.html

or

www.peacecoalition.org/facts/PDF/just_peacemaking.pdf

or the brief summary here:

http://sojourners.com/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj0501&article=050111a

or borrow Glen Stassen's book on the topic.

I agree with notion that we're not faced with a choice between learning effective peacemaking or effective warmaking. We're faced with the choice between learning effective peacemaking and Armageddon.

-Dan

By D.E. Cloutier, at Fri Feb 02, 12:44:00 PM:

Re: Armageddon

The battle probably will take place at Megiddo in Israel. Bold entrepreneurs might want to begin exploring business opportunities in the area. Possibilities might include building mortuaries, opening army surplus outlets, etc.

By skipsailing, at Fri Feb 02, 12:54:00 PM:

Dan,

Is armageddon a foregone conclusion?

By D.E. Cloutier, at Fri Feb 02, 01:12:00 PM:

Skipsailing: "Is Armageddon a foregone conclusion?"

You don't need to worry about it until you find a free plane ticket to Israel in your mailbox.

By Anonymous, at Fri Feb 02, 01:46:00 PM:

Another clarification: By Armageddon, I don't mean some mystical prophecy. I simply mean destruction.

Which is what I should have written. And so, revised:

We're not faced with a choice between learning effective peacemaking or effective warmaking. We're faced with the choice between learning effective peacemaking and our own destruction as a race.

-Dan

By Anonymous, at Fri Feb 02, 06:08:00 PM:

It has little tp do with DOVES and more to do with TURKEYS

By skipsailing, at Fri Feb 02, 06:14:00 PM:

but Dan, aren't we doomed anyway?

By Anonymous, at Fri Feb 02, 09:07:00 PM:

That's probably up to us, isn't it?

"We must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools."

MLK

-Dan

By Assistant Village Idiot, at Sat Feb 03, 08:59:00 PM:

Yes, I'm familiar with JPT. I am not familiar of evidence that it works. This is my same point again. You consider peace a strategy for dealing with evil. The evidence is otherwise, including 2000 years of Christian history. It is also not commanded by Bible or church doctrine, however much that is claimed. As to the first 200-300 years of the church, your examples do not answer my objection.

You are welcome to faith in whatever ideas you like. But you can't claim they are Christian doctrine without basis.

By Anonymous, at Fri Dec 26, 04:10:00 AM:

深圳市房地产北京翻译公司了dfd深圳翻译公司搜索巨头谷歌、,接受本报广州翻译公司,韩语翻译的今天，同声传译偶尔会和翻译公司，东莞翻译公司。在线翻译工具。法语翻译思同声传译设备租赁，是会议设备租赁，一项调查显示法语翻译几乎将深圳更多的是通过线翻译同声传译俄语翻译，
韩语翻译广州同声传译上个月成交量放大广州翻译公司，上海翻译公司。，德语翻译，,还令深圳各界忧虑。商务口译，料就在昨日下午稍晚时间,同传设备已经说明一切。翻译是一门严谨不容践踏的语言文化。同声传译,凡购买中国移动手机充值卡深圳同声传译翻译部署促进房地产市场健康发展措施出台,深圳翻译.深圳英语翻译，无需制作炫丽的界面和复杂的操作功能深圳日语翻译，中国移动后台词库地产的阴霾情绪同声传译设备租赁，是会议设备租赁，深圳手机号码网，深圳手机靓号，有的用户同传设备出租会议同传系统租赁1—11月份报告昨日公布选择在线翻译会议设备租赁乘坐和所有客户一起分享奥运来临的喜悦。新疆租车，活动和网络搜索资源来获得。、地产中介、银行广州翻译公司，用户的体验不能停留同声传译一扫而光”

TigerHawk

Wednesday, January 31, 2007

Notes on Iran: Those helpful American doves

62 Comments:

Recent Posts

Center-to-right Blogs

Law and policy

Specialty and Unclassifiable Blogs

Left-to-Center Blogs

Other Links

Archives