Friday, September 12, 2008
Is it just me?
If this has been Bush's/his many general's/cabinet member's plan all along, they're brilliant.
13 Comments:
By 
MEANA55, at
Fri Sep 12, 02:50:00 AM:
Heh. This would be driving Ahmadenijad and the mullahs nuts if only they weren't already there!
By 
, at
Fri Sep 12, 08:22:00 AM:
I got the impression that from the beginning, having US presence in Iraq for what it meant relative to Iran was a factor in the decision to topple Saddam.
The "Bush lied" crowd will then say that it was unethical of Bush to NOT include that reason in the 23 reasons to topple Saddam given in the October 2002 Iraq War Resolution. OTOH, since that crowd discounts the Iraq War Resolution, and most of them have most likely not even read it, perhaps not.
By , at
Fri Sep 12, 08:55:00 AM:
If you ask Palin, she'll tell you it's all part of the Bush Doctrine. Whatever that means, Charlie:-)
By Dawnfire82, at
Fri Sep 12, 08:58:00 AM:
Yeah, I observed this years ago. It's just gotten worse since. The Arab penninsular powers have since been convinced that Iran is a threat not just to us, but to them and their wealth. The UAE (I think it was them, I can't find the report now) just contracted to buy a tone of anti-missile missiles from the US, for example.
By antithaca, at
Fri Sep 12, 09:07:00 AM:
why would arabs think iranians are a potential threat?
couldn't be that whole persian empire thing? nah.
By , at
Fri Sep 12, 09:29:00 AM:
Yeah, and we're surrounding you too, kid. So don't try getting away with anything. Stand up straight and tuck that shirttail in.
By , at
Fri Sep 12, 09:38:00 AM:
I have tried to point this out to leftists for years. Remember when they we asking why we were not doing something about Iran, which is a "real threat"? We also have Iran surrounded at sea.
Afghanistan is mountainous and tanks and helicopters are hampered by the terrain. Iraq has lots of good tank country, and shares a big border with Iran. I used to point this out to Democrats and such when they were talking about something besides Gov. Palin's family but they always refused to believe that their might be some thought into what was going on in the Middle East. After all, the leftists really, firmly believe with an undying faith that Bush is an idiot, manipulated my Carl Rove.
In other news, it turns out the Rosenbergs were guilty. I wonder if the socialist crowd that insulted the American government for years will give us some an apology and reparations?
By Dawnfire82, at
Fri Sep 12, 09:45:00 AM:
"In other news, it turns out the Rosenbergs were guilty."
I didn't realize that there was still any question about that. But then I suppose that they don't want to hear that a Democrat who was a Soviet agent was very nearly named Vice President, either.
(Who? No spoilers, gotta read the book yourself.)
http://www.amazon.com/Sword-Shield-Mitrokhin-Archive-History/dp/0465003125/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221226955&sr=8-1
There's another one from the same source called "The World Was Going Our Way" that focuses on the covert war for the Third World. Some interesting stuff about India, Syria, and Afghanistan. (never read the chapters about East Asia and South America... wasn't important to me professionally)
By TigerHawk, at
Fri Sep 12, 10:17:00 AM:
Good post! That Middle Eastern history course is already paying dividends!
We have surrounded Iran. The question is whether it was wise to have done so. The answer depends on how you "model" the behavior of the Islamic Republic.
If you are a typical academic foreign policy expert, you say that it was unwise to surround Iran because we have put it in a "security dilemma," in which it lashes out because it feels insecure. According to this view, Iran is only hostile because we are hostile, and if we relieved the pressure Iran would become much more moderate. Therefore, surrounding Iran is a bad idea both because it provokes Iran into hostility and because it turns our soldiers into points of leverage (as in Iraq).
The alternative view is that Iran is a revolutionary state motivated by a transformative ideal. It wants to spread its revolution, just as the communists did in the first few decades. If this is your model of the Islamic Republic -- and it is mine, by the way -- then Iran will take every concession, bank it, and use it as a starting point for the next confrontation. Therefore it is wise to confine Iran in as small a box as possible.
The problem we have when we discuss Iran policy is that there is no consensus "model" of Iranian behavior, so hawks and doves both believe that the other's policies will provoke more aggression.
By Noumenon, at
Fri Sep 12, 11:44:00 AM:
OK, now. Country A has invaded countries B, C, and now D in order to surround E. Country E has begun developing weapons that would assure massive retaliation if they were ever used aggressively instead of as a deterrent. Should we be worried about "aggression" and "the next confrontation" from Country A, or Country E?
I don't even know what to say, that this is OK with everyone. This just isn't what the "good guys" do.
By Dawnfire82, at
Fri Sep 12, 12:41:00 PM:
You conveniently left out that Country E had taken every opportunity to harass, embarrass, and kill Country A's citizens for 20 years, and began developing those weapons before Country A ever invaded anyone in the area.
And if you follow international affairs expecting to see 'good guys,' you're in for a rude shock.
By , at
Fri Sep 12, 01:22:00 PM:
We have Iran surrounded and that's a good thing. OK..... What do we do next?????
By , at
Fri Sep 12, 04:13:00 PM:
Iran declared war against us in 1979 and has never "undeclared" it.
feeblemind asks, "OK..... What do we do next?"
Tighten the noose. The US cut off Japans oil supply before Pearl Harbor and look where that lead. If the world is serious about stopping nut cases from getting the bomb, we have to follow up all of the diplomacy with action, or at least the potential to take action. We got all of Libya's nuclear material with very few shots being fired, we can do the same thing to Iran, but we have to be strong in order to get it done. Muslim fanatics generally do not back down from a weak enemy.
