MotherJones.com | MoJo Blog - Social Issues and Political Commentary: Hawks Declare War on Iran

« Generals Speaking Out | Blog Index | Armitage Says Talk With Iran »


Advertisement
recent entries Condi Busted on Her Own Personal State of Denial Which Is Worse: The U.S. Torturing British Residents or Britain Not Taking Them Back? Salacious Exchanges With Underage Male Pages Foley Now In Deeper Trouble Environmental Damage: Another Reason Why a Border Fence is a Bad Idea Supreme Court Declines to Take Up Sex Toys Texas to DC: Don't Fence Me In Update--PERA Has Passed In the House of Representatives Woodward, Kissinger, Vietnam--Let's Do The Time Warp Again They've known about Foley for almost a YEAR?

Hawks Declare War on Iran

Matthew Yglesias points out that the Weekly Standard is gearing up for war with Iran. As he notes, the two articles he cites are a combination of fantasy (would air strikes actually destroy Iran's nuclear program? No one knows. Oh well…) and insanity (thousands and thousands of people could die? Oh well…) But for sheer nuttery, it's hard to top William Kristol's editorial on the subject:

Given Iranian president Ahmadinejad's recent statements and actions, it should be obvious that it is not "a sign of humanity's moral progress"--to use Blum's phrase--to appease the mullahs. It is not "moral progress" to put off serious planning for military action to a later date, probably in less favorable circumstances, when the Iranian regime has been further emboldened, our friends in the region more disheartened, and allies more confused by years of fruitless diplomacy than they would be by greater clarity and resolution now.

Virtually no one, of course, thinks it's unequivocally moral or non-problematic to "appease the mullahs," as Kristol terms it. The people making the case for engagement just think it's the rational thing to do—the thing that will get fewer people killed and cause fewer catastrophes. (Plus, engagement is far more likely to help Iran eventually liberalize than bombs and sanctions will—we've seen how well that worked for Cuba.) Sometimes foreign policy just doesn't have a "pretty" choice that will make everyone feel warm and fuzzy inside. But notice also that Kristol says we need to act right this very instant. Bombs can't wait. Yet right before that, he says this:

That action would be easier if the situation in Iraq improved--which implies an urgent push to make progress there, with the deployment of more troops if necessary. Planning for action in Iran would be somewhat easier if the president finally insisted on a far-too-long-delayed increase in the size of the military. It would be easier, too, under the leadership of a new, not-discredited defense secretary in whom the president would have confidence, since he has surely (if privately) lost faith in the current one.

That's a nice fantasy. Set aside the fact that there aren't "more troops" we can magically send to Iraq, and even if they were, they likely wouldn't do much good—the ongoing civil war almost certainly isn't something that "more troops" can quell. But how on earth would an "increase in the size of the military" help with Iran? Training troops and expanding the active service takes years and years. If we need to act immediately, as Kristol demands, then any expansion of the military is completely irrelevant. Iraq isn't going to get better immediately. A newfound invasion force isn't going to materialize immediately. I can't tell if Kristol's truly insane or just badly confused, but either way, it's disturbing that this sort of stuff gets taken seriously.

Posted by Bradford Plumer on 04/13/06 at 2:23 PM | E-mail | Print

TrackBacks

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://161.58.185.225/mb/mb-backtracks.cgi/610

Comments

I guess "victory" in Iraq has emboldened our fearless leaders, who have few, if any, family members involved, and has but whetted their appetites for the shedding of more blood.

Posted by: Electric Lady on 04/14/06 at 8:14 PM

throug out the ages people have taken for serious really silly things if the right person puts it public. The war with Iran is only a rumor now, we really hope it doesn't evolve to more.

Posted by: Dr,Q on 04/15/06 at 2:55 PM

Experience is supposedly the greatest of teachers, but if we ditch class we miss out on the lesson of the day. Smart people does not always do smart things. But you can always rely on idiots to do idiotic things.
A third war in the area would be the epitome of idiocy. And we know Bush is on a roll!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Elgato on 04/15/06 at 10:22 PM

Bush “Siverfoot “ 43 and Dick “The Slick” ChenY and his cast of cronies did not read period…!!!They simply forgot to read and follow The Tenets Of Just War Theory… :
TENETS OF JUST WAR THEORY
• Cause must be just, often limited to self-defense or to redress injury. Scholars dispute whether preemptive or preventive war can be a just cause.
• Public declaration by a lawful authority.
• No ulterior motives. War must be pursued with right intention - justice - not self-aggrandizement or vengeance
• Reasonable probability of success.
• More good done than harm.
• Use of force only as last resort.
• Avoid harming noncombatants.
• Proportionality - use of the least destructive force possible.
• Intention to restore a just peace.

And, had they reviewed and accepted the advice of men trained and experienced in war such as Admiral Grace Hopper, who
stated : “"One accurate measurement is worth a thousand expert opinions." , we would not be in "...Knee Deep in Caca and Turd Blossoms..."
In my opinion, President and General Eisnehower had it right when he stated : "Every gun that is made, every warship that is launched, every rocket that is fired signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those that are cold and not clothed."

“…That Spirit hasn’t been here since 1969(Hotel California)…”

S…JIM…RODRIGUEZ+++ECLECTICIST SEEKER+++

Posted by: ECLECTICIST , S. JIM RODRIGUEZ on 04/16/06 at 5:23 AM

to attack Iran would place Bush lite at the very top of the list of the world's most evil men. Above idi Amin, Saddam Hussein, Hitler and Atilla the Hun, even!

Posted by: captwilco on 04/16/06 at 4:21 PM

"Planning for action in Iran would be somewhat easier if the president finally insisted on a far-too-long-delayed increase in the size of the military."

It sounds like Kristol is pushing for a return of the draft.

That'll certainly make the GOP more popular.

Posted by: Gideon S. on 04/16/06 at 6:48 PM

So what if Bush represents the goal of the American oil interests,after all whoever controls the oil of the world controls the economy of the world and has every other nation by the throat Isn't that the creed of greed that perpetuates the rich and powerful interests of the world. To hell with the rest of mankind, only the people with the right DNA deserve to enjoy living on earth. All this and heaven too. America needs a patriot. God help us if a faithful,patriotic American does not rise up to save our nation.

Posted by: Art Weidel on 04/17/06 at 3:20 PM