I agree that the "War for Oil" theory is weak, but focusing purely on Israel is too narrow.
The relocation of American bases out of Saudi Arabia was a primary purpose for the war, which has nothing to do with Israel.
The establishment of a client state has implications that go well beyond just protecting Israel.
The elimination of a hostile government was also important to the war's architects.
The best way to describe the Iraq War is as a war to expand the American presence and influence in the region. Israel is certainly a part of that concept, as is oil, but neither tell the whole story.
Using the term genocide is also problematic because, while it effectively conveys the enormity of the horror, it deflects attention away from the cause, which was not an effort to destroy a racial, ethnic or national group in whole or in part, but stemmed from a different set of pathologies and errors that need to be understood so they can be avoided in the future.
And through all of it, the architects insisted on the glories of the New Middle East they were creating, waving their purple fingers and gloating about the wonders to come.
The United States doesn't have to allow Iran to use our banks, or to allow third countries that trade with Iran to use our banks.
Both Iranian noncooperation and the American sanctions regime are, indeed, well within those countries' rights. The question is, would we be better off standing on those rights, or cutting a deal?
"The republicans have really shot the US in the head and made the US dollar very unreliable."
This overstates things. They have done damage, yes, but less than you're suggesting here. They folded last night, and they're on the run politically. What you're talking about might still come to pass, but it hasn't yet, and there is very good reason to think the fever is breaking.
Obama has two years to make progress with Iran work. If he can move the ball down the field and create momentum, the Israel lobby will have to work not just to prevent an initiative from beginning, but to stop and reverse one that has already made progress and gained support - a much more difficult task.
You assume, Adam K, that warming relations with Iran, eliminating the threat of another, bigger Iraq-style war, and, oh yeah, being able to brag about heading off the skeery Persiatic nuke, will be a political liability, because the Likudniks will oppose it. I think you're giving short shrift to how much those accomplishments would function as affirmative political benefits.
There were plenty of people, during the thaw between Reagan and Gorbachev, denouncing nuclear deals and rapprochement, but when the deal was signed and the mutual charm offensives really got going, they were huge political winners.
I do agree with both of you, though, that there is a threat of the window slamming shut after 2016. There is an opportunity right now for both the American and Iranian leaders to accomplish something and thereby set back the hardliners that oppose rapprochement, and it must be seized aggressively.
It is definitely better to talk about "the right" in American politics these days, than to talk about "conservatives."
Likewise, there are people on the left in American politics who are radicals, too, as opposed to liberals or progressives, but they are a much smaller segment of the overall left-coalition than their right-radical counterparts are the right coalition.
You would hold up the resolution of the standoff, the elimination of the sanctions, and the cooling of potentially war-spawning tensions so that you can score a point about something that happened 60 years ago?
As the Perfesser mentions in the post, he can set foreign policy at the executive level.
Formal treaty ratification lies with the Senate, but that's hardly the limit of foreign policy. Most foreign policy is run out of the White House and State Department, and Congress has relatively little to do with it.
The other virtue of this ongoing steps approach, as opposed to a one-shot deal, is that it can smoothly segue into actions beyond the nuclear question, into other areas of the bilateral relationship.
Iran has had a defense asymmetry with Israel for decades, which makes the US/China comparison somewhat off-point.
Also, the United States is a much bigger national security threat to Iran than is Israel. A deal that warms up American-Iranian relations and removes that threat would be a major gain for Iranian security, for reason that include, but also go quite a bit beyond, the implicit restraint on Israel.
Syria, like Libya before it, really had nothing to do with the "War on Terror."
One of the most significant shifts in American foreign policy has been the narrowing down of Bush's vision of a global, Cold War-style fight between "the West" and "political Islam" into series of limited counter-terror actions against al Qaeda.
That's not to say the United States isn't doing other things in the world, but (with the exception of the winding down Afghan War) they are neither operationally nor conceptually part of a "War on Terror."
I don't think "The US, Western Europe, Israel and the Gulf Cooperation Council oil monarchies are convinced that Iran is trying to make an atomic bomb," but rather, worried that they are, are could be.
Also, writing it up that way suggests that the concern is about Iranian military capability only, and ignores the other half of the equation, which is a desire to arrest the regional nuclear proliferation process. Israel and Pakistan got nukes, so Iran wants one; and if Iran has one, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt, and after them, who knows?
On the US side, the Israel lobbies and Israel itself will accept nothing less than the mothballing of the whole Iranian enrichment program, which is highly unlikely to happen.
Netanyahu has spent the last five years spitting in Obama's face in public. He tried to throw the 2012 election to his opponent, and failed. Obama is never going to face another election. I doubt he cares very much about what Israel wants out of these negotiations.
we also have to acknowledge that this is offset by the increased emissions from the massive increase in domestic drilling.
No, we really don't. There really is no plausible reason to believe that American drilling and piping is worse than that in places like Saudi Arabia or Venezuela.
Fracking for oil does not, in fact, result in methane releases; you're thinking of natural gas fracking. Fracking fluids, earthquake theories, pipeline leaks, and wastewater have nothing to do with carbon emissions.
You're kind of throwing the kitchen sink into the comment threads.
The United States replacing imported petroleum with domestic petroleum - which is what the additional oil drilling the US has done - is carbon-neutral, perhaps slightly carbon-positive, if you take into account reduced transportation emissions.
What actually matters, in terms of American carbon emissions from oil, is not where the oil comes from, but how much we consume. American oil consumption has been falling throughout the period of increased domestic drilling, and is down about 9.5% from the peak, and still falling:
The main reason the lives in Gaza are so miserable is that their Hamas government devotes massive resources (like 50 tons of concrete) to trying to murder Israelis.
Well, no. Certainly, Hamas hasn't always made the best decisions, but that is very far from the main reason for the suffering in Gaza.
The figures cited, Irwin, do not come from the US government, but from the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, which relies upon local accounts and the local media.
But I suppose they're spinning for the Great Satan, too.
There are currently zero new coal-fired power plants proposed for construction.
Numerous regulations that hammer the coal industry have been passed under the Obama EPA, from Clean Air Act regulations on particulates, mercury/toxics, and smog precursors to Clean Water Act regulations on coal ash.
At least in the US, coal is a dying industry. This is why the United States has achieved the world's largest GHG reductions over the past five years. The fate of Big Coal in the U.S. is one of the environmental bright spots in the world today.
Your comment illuminates the great fallacy behind anti-government, libertarian capitalist ideology.
When you don't have a strong-enough government, you don't get unimpeded market transactions. You get gang rule.
Markets - actual, non-metaphorical markets, the places where commerce took place - were always, right from the beginning, places with enough armed government employees walking around to allow the merchants to be secure.
That may be true, Bill, but it doesn't put the Libyan government on the same side as al Qaeda, the way the Pakistani government chose to be when it protected bin Laden.
Indeed, Brian, multinationals were making a fortune under the iron grip of the Gadhaffi regime. Halliburton was in, the big oil companies were in, John McCain was meeting with Gadhaffi and tweeting about what an "interesting man" he was.
And now we see the people who opposed the revolution in Libya crying fat, salty ham tears about oil production being down. If only we'd politely averted our eyes as the psychotic dictator was mowing down the protesters, the country would still be open for business, as it was under George Bush.
I came up with a slogan for the people who didn't support the Libyan revolution:
There was disagreement concerning State’s vs. Federal rights and responsibilities, but they were hammered out in conference.
You've never heard of, oh yeah, the Civil War?
There is absolutely no comparison between the establishment of the American Republic by those individuals deeply steeped in the Magna Carta, the philosophy of John Locke, and the Enlightenment; and those who are attempting to establish a government in Libya (and their opponents) whose legacy includes none of the above.
I guess you've also never heard of the NTC, or read the Interim Constitution:
if you consider it a bad thing that the name "Benghazi" has become shorthand for the killing of four people, instead of becoming the Libyan Hama or Sbrenca, you really need to take some time to look to the state of your soul.
Since then you’ve been glossing over the country’s slide into being a failed state.
The same amount of time after the beginning of the American Revolution, it was a still a shooting war. It would be more than a decade before a stable constitutional order was achieved.
But you just keep rooting for the failure of Arab Spring, if that's what matters most to you.
I don't see this as equivalent to Abbottobad. Bin Laden was being actively protected by elements in the Pakistani government, which could have very easily squashed him and his entire operation if they'd felt like.
As opposed to the Libyan government, which still needs to get permission from the local militia when it wants to turn on a water works. The Libyan government wasn't protecting this guy.
It almost seems that your position is that if no efforts were made to improve the security forces of an nation, that nations security would remain the same or improve?
It's a tricky spot he's in. On the one hand, the United States must be to blame for not stabilizing Libya. On the other hand, he has to opposed to any American stability assistance.
Wow, lots of closet authoritarians showing their true colors on this thread.
Apparently, it is the height of leftist liberationist principle to insist that order under a dictator, in superior to revolutionary uprisings, because there might be disorder for a little while after the overthrow of the ancien regime.
Armed extremism in Libya seems to be extremely polite. He ordered his guards not to open fire, his captors made him comfortable in a hotel, and the "rescue" doesn't seem to have involved any gunfire, either.
And by "severely damaged," you mean, of course, "was able to pass Congress."
And here you sit, pining away for the "undamaged" version that would have gotten 32 House votes, never even come up in the Senate, helped no one, and killed off health care reform for another twenty years.
But note the Professor's claim: "a transfer of wealth from the white rich and middle classes to the minorities"
The ACA does indeed represent a transfer of wealth from the rich, but not from the middle class. It represents a transfer of wealth to the middle class.
They're been trained to believe it for decades, going back to Richard Nixon's Southern Strategy. Conservative domestic politics has revolved around framing all government operations to supporting a parasitic class, presented as a racially and/or culturally different "other," since the late 1960s.
The Tea Party being convinced that the Affordable Care Act is a “transfer of wealth” must be based on some concrete analysis?
Heh. You're not from the United States, are you? Somewhere in Central Europe, right?
Do you ever see anything I write and NOT feel an unendurable desire to change the subject to what Random Bad Stuff 'Bout 'Merica happens to be floating through your brain?
The multi-variate causes of the sectarian conflict in the Middle East deserve more serious treatment than a springboard for the bitterness of some crackpot.
I remember when it was the right-wingers who insisted that the proper measure of America's efforts against al Qaeda as "no more terrorism will ever happen again."
That was, of course, an irresponsible bit of propaganda intended to shut down meaningful consideration and bully the other side by drawing an unachievable line.
People* have been threatening the US with "it will increase terrorism" for over a decade now.
So where is this increase in terrorism? Where are all of these Iraqi, Pakistani, and Afghan terrorist attacks on the United States? And why did all of these Egyptians and Saudis launch them in the decade before 9/11, without there ever having been an American military action in those countries?
*Predictably, the people issuing this threat are the same ones who, in every other circumstance, downplay the threat of terrorism, changing the subject to traffic fatalities and Mohammmed Mossedegh whenever it comes up. Sort like how they insist that al Qaeda isn't al Qaeda if it's in the Arabian Penninsula, while describing everyone who took up arms against the Assad regime as "al Qaeda."
You know, it's almost as if these people aren't actually discussing the subject of al Qaeda terrorism and American policy in good faith at all.
Let's not leave out the role of al Qaeda in Iraq's sectarian conflict. They spent years conducting a campaign of anti-Shiite atrocities for the purpose of inspiring revenge attacks, in the hope of creating a civil war - and it worked. Ali Al-Sistini held that nation together by his fingertips for years, but after the Golden Mosque bombing, it was open warfare.
Second, save us your concerns for civilian life’s in the Middle East. Drones are responsible for the death of hundreds of civilians in Pakistan and Yemen.
There have been fewer civilians killed by drones in 12 years of strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia combined than were killed in one day in Mogadishu when a special forces raid went bad.
Actually, there have been far fewer international terrorist attacks against the United States recently than there were twelve years ago. Compared to the two WTC attacks, the Cole bombing, the embassy attacks, the US has been subject to a great deal fewer such attacks in recent years. Perhaps "address the cause of terrorism" means something different than you are assuming.
If that is the case - if the Iranian government is assuming that the nuclear non-proliferation argument is merely a pretext - then the Obama administration's actions towards Syria may have played a role in the thaw.
Remember that the administration spent two and a half years prior to the August 21 chemical attack opposing military action in Syria, then changed its policy in response to a WMD crisis, and then backed off military action when the chemical weapons issue was resolved, despite there being no progress on the Syrian Civil War itself.
That is a convincing demonstration that, to this administration, it really is about the unconventional weapons and their proliferation, and that they aren't just using that as an excuse for an unrelated foreign policy goal, as was done in Iraq.
Sherman also told the Senate panel last Thursday that any diplomatic engagement with Iran will be accompanied by the “vigorous enforcement” of sanctions already in place, which she described as “the toughest sanctions the world has ever seen”. In that case, why should Iranians take part in any negotiations at all.
I think you misunderstand; she's saying there will be both carrots and sticks in the negotiations, not that the sanctions will remain regardless of the outcome.
But you're right about which leader has to watch his back more. Khamenei deducted some style points; Menendez took a substantive step to blow up the talks.
Those "recent elections" were almost a year and a half ago. Surely you've noticed that there have been changed in Egyptian public opinion since then.
The amount of time that has passed between the most recent Egyptian elections and the present is roughly the same amount of time that passed between Barack Obama's election and Scott Brown's victory in a Massachusetts Senate race.
Far too much of the commentary about Egypt and Syria has discussed those situations in terms of a two-sided conflict (fascist/military dictators vs. Islamists), when it is actually three-sided.
One would think that the third side, the youth/liberal/labor protest movements, would be the natural recipient of left-liberal support, but instead, they tend to get overlooked entirely. Commentary about the coup in Egypt* has ignored the massive anti-Morsi street protests, while the Arab Spring successors in Syria get lumped in under the heading "al Qaeda."
*the second, 2013, coup. The first coup, which the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces conducted against Mubarak, is described exactly the opposite way, with the role of the military leadership ignored entirely, and the street protests assumed to be the sole force behind his ouster.
Yes, Bill, allowing feelings to take precedence in one's analysis is a terrible idea.
That's why you should stop doing it (for instance, by saying that Netanyahu has outmaneuvered Obama based on his accomplishment of nothing), and try to be more like the Vulcan-in-Chief currently sitting in the Oval Office in your perception of geopolitics.
Except for the offense against the office of the president of the United States, which just goes to demonstrate Netanyahu’s contempt for any part of the United States that isn’t useful to him.
Certainly. Netanyahu seems to one of those irrational actors who views the indulgence of his feelings as more important than substantive accomplishments or advancement of his own or his nation's interests.
While Iran could easily attack US outposts around the world after being attacked by Israel, I suspect they will not unless there is real proof the US helped.
I think you're exactly right here. There is no angle that makes it a good idea for Iran to do anything to bring the US into a conflict, and they are as adept at geopolitical thinking as you say. They're not loons like Saddam or Gadhaffi, likely to do something stupid out of a fit of pique.
"The United States has repeatedly, openly and unambiguously affirmed its intention to defend Israel from the consequences of their aggression, both militarily and diplomatically."
That's nice, but it's a complete non-sequitor. The question was why Iran would act in a way to bring the United States into a war. You canned speech about how much you hate Iraeli-American relations doesn't answer my question.
Also, I'll note that the United States' security guarantees to Israel haven't included doing anything about the sorts of "ordinary" attacks against Israel, such as Hezbollah incursions, or rocket attacks, that have happened. It only seems to apply to actual state-on-state warfare.
"I would say if Netanyahu embarrassed and humiliated Obama and got away with it he outmaneuvered him – at least in the short term."
Because feelings, and not outcomes or political power, are the measure of geopolitics?
Most people would use the term "outmaneuvered" to refer to a situation in which one political accomplishes something by somehow getting around the efforts of another political actor to prevent it.
Netanyahu has been disrespectful towards Obama in public. Bully for him.
Professor presupposes that Iran would act to bring the United States into the conflict - to conduct actions that would generate a direct American military response.
Why would Iran want to do that? They aren't al Qaeda, with no compunction about generating massive casualties among the civilians in the country they're operating in in order to make a political point. They're a reasonably-responsible government that hasn't courted military conflict with the United States before.
Why would Iran sic its proxies on American targets instead of Israeli ones, in a situation in which the U.S. wasn't, on its own, eager to attack Iran?
I can see a whole lot of downside to Iran in having the United States attack it, and not a whole lot of upside. Iran is generally a rational actor on the world stage. What interest would it have in painting a target on its back?
The C.I.A. officers have been in southern Turkey for several weeks, in part to help keep weapons out of the hands of fighters allied with Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups, one senior American official said. The Obama administration has said it is not providing arms to the rebels, but it has also acknowledged that Syria’s neighbors would do so.
You are entitled to you own opinions, sir, but not to your own facts.
Let me make it clear, I agree with the general proposition that American influence is less than it was in, say, 1998. I've noted any number of times that being a superpower ain't what it used to be.
I'm just saying that the outcome of the Syrian chemical warfare episode is a really terrible case to point to if you want to make that point. It actually shows the opposite.
If we pretend the chemical warfare crisis and the American response wasn't really about chemical warfare, then we can also pretend that solving the chemical warfare problem without firing a shot isn't really a success. OK, but why would we do that? Obama spent 2-1/2 years opposing military involvement in Syria, and only prepared to use force after the sarin attack.
Syria has been recognized as a Russian client state since the Cold War. Russia's longstanding policy of arming Syria with both chemical and conventional weapons, and using the Tarsus naval base, already established that Syria was in the Russian sphere of influence. It's not like disarming them of the weapons they gave to them breaks new ground in terms of recognizing their influence. It's not as though Putin agreed to disarm, say, Mexico of chemical weapons, but a long-time client state.
I think you grossly over-estimate the scope of those who do not recognize other powers' spheres of influence. Most of the American political scene thought John McCain was crazy for wanting to interfere in Georgia. The US is constantly asking China very politely to intercede with North Korea. European powers such as France are recognized as having such spheres in Africa.
As to whether the US really wants a peaceful settlement in Syria...
This comment, and the assertion I was responding to, are not about a settlement to the Syrian Civil War, but about the chemical warfare crisis. Note that the United States was not contemplating military action before the August 21st gas attack, and has returned to that position since the deal was struck. They really are two different issues, generating two different policies.
In the process, it underscored the continuing influence of Russia as a permanent member of the Council with a veto. Moscow also managed to spare the Assad regime the degradation of its military capabilities that would have resulted from the Pentagon’s strikes. In so doing, it enabled the Syrian leader to maintain the current battlefield superiority of his forces. Overall, the Syrian rebels and Washington were unmitigated losers.
Because Syrian military capability was degraded less than America was threatening, that make Assad a winner and the US a clear loser.
The "loss of clout," whereby the United States achieved it primary foreign policy in goal in Syria without firing a shot, by creating a situation in which Syria's major patron, and would-be competitor with the United States for superpower status, felt compelled to disarm its client state.
The "indecency" here is the desperation in which authors like this feel compelled to spin this episode of an American defeat. If I had predicted two months ago that Russia would destroy Syria's stockpile at America's behest, Dilip Hiro would have laughed me off the face of the earth. Now, that outcome just hasta be a demonstration of American irrelevance.
Netanyahu's arrogant, demanding, belligerent treatment of the Obama administration, and his glee in pursuing actions (the raid on the Gaza ships, the settlement activities) that he knew would anger the US, was stupid, irrational statesmanship. He seems to have been indulging his alpha-male instincts instead of pursuing his country's interest in any sort of strategic way.
He all-but endorsed Mitt Romney during the campaign. What was he thinking?
The terrible, horrible war against al Qaeda costs significantly under $10 billion a year. It is very, very far from a gravy train for the MIC. More like a gravy trickle.
MacArthur exceeded his mandate in seeking to destroy the North Korean forces (just has he had decades before in clearing the veterans from the Mall).
None of this changes the reality that the United States accomplished exactly what it set out to do. By all means, if you have anything to demonstrate the unification of Korea and even the invasion of China was an American war aim, please share it.
If al Qaeda by itself was enough of a bogeyman to sustain a national war footing (as opposed to just some small scale policies in the midst of a "normal" military/foreign policy footing, why did Bush all-but-ignore them and turn to Iraq?
First, on the threat: China + sub-state groups may not add up to as much of a threat as the USSR did, but they aren't likely to be chicken feed, either.
Second, on the common cultural background: While that may have been important in the 20th century, I'm talking about the second half of the 21st. Cultural integration among open societies continues apace. Differences that may have prevented the formation of an integrated bloc in 1950 aren't going to matter in 2070.
Third, I don't know why you assume the U.S. will not have a close relationship with the successor regime to the mullahs. The Iranian public is the most pro-American in the entire region.
Your description of American-Indian and American-Pakistani relations to date is accurate, but I'm postulating a big shift in those relations. You're still talking about the Cold War arrangement, and that is disappearing in the rear view mirror.
Since the Korean Was was fought to maintain the pre-war status quo - that is, South Korea free from Northern occupation - that "statement" represents the successful accomplishment of our primary war aims.
I find it interesting that your description of Somalia ignores the half million people who didn't die because the mission to guard the relief supplies succeeded. But, as you say, one mission that resulted in 18 American dead and 1500 Somalis was...um, what your point again?
I was unaware that the United States had been "driven out" of Afghanistan. So are the tens of thousands of American troops still there, awaiting their exit on the American-established timetable.
And now you're counting two wars that were never fought as defeats. Fascinating.
You are exactly right. I believe that Iran is the United States' most natural ally in Southwest Asia, and that there will an American-Indian-Iranian alliance by the end of the 21t century that will be as important as NATO was in the 20th.
The President who cut the deal on Syria and is engaging in a diplomatic thaw with Iran is also the President who used the drone program to decimate al Qaeda. His recognition of the threat of terrorism doesn't seem to have prevented him from pursuing peace with Iran.
It is certainly true that the threat of terrorism has been used in the way you describe; that does not mean that is must be used that way. It can actually be treated as a policy goal in its own right, and not merely a pretext for another foreign policy vision.
Invading and occupying Iraq in order to install Ahmed Chalabi and gain basing rights and striking al Qaeda targets are two very different policies, the results of two very different mindsets. You don't even have to agree with the President about the threat of terrorism in order to recognize this point.
No, Iran is still at the top of the queue, for people who have a "war queue." If everyone ahead of John McCain in the line of succession died tomorrow, the U.S. would probably be at war with Iran within the year. What happened is that we have a President who doesn't have a "war queue," and who is actively working against that faction of the American political establishment that does. Kindly note that those "Washington hawks" continue to push for military action in Syria even after President Obama jumped off the bus, and have been poo-pooing the diplomatic thaw he's pursued with Iran.
This is not to say that this President would never use military force (obviously). What it means is that this President would use force for reasons other than those "Washington hawks" - for instance, to back up the Arab Spring (Libya), to maintain the chemical weapons norm (Syria), or to check nuclear proliferation (Iran), but not in the pursuit of the imperialist foreign policy you describe.
Wouldn't the most obvious explanation for why the USSR, as a matter of policy, helped Syria get a chemical weapons program be that the Syrians wanted on, and the Soviets wanted to strengthen its ties to its regional client state? If the Syrian government wanted bombs full of kittens, the Soviets would have sent them cats instead.
Also, there are several steps of conflation going on to make the illegal actions of some companies in Germany, France, and Britain appear to be the policy of "the West."
JT, this is an embarrassing performance, even for you. You literally don't even know what you're supposed to be arguing, you just know that Those People On The Internet Are Wrong.
Bill,
It is far from obvious that the Islamists are winning fighters’ loyalty because they are getting more outside support than the moderates.
That's what the story reports, Bill.
Military commanders complain of the modest finances that reach the Joint Chiefs of Staff, something that forces the commanders of the brigades fighting on the ground to shift their alliances to the quarters that supply them with money and weapons.
The Islamists are winning fighters' loyalty because they getting more outside support than the moderates, so therefore, this demonstrates that the US should not be giving the moderates support?
More important to me than handshakes and Holocaust semiotics is substantive diplomacy.
Will the Kerry/Zarif meeting be the first face-to-face meeting between an American Secretary of State and an Iranian Foreign Minister since the revolution?
There was no regime change in 1993. There was no regime. The government had collapsed, and both the international response and the ICU were consequences of the chaos of that internal Somali implosion.
The 1998 embassy attacks were organized and carried out by international al Qaeda, the organization headed by bin Ladin, not some local, single-nation group that is merely "affiliated" with them.
And as far as those counter-terrorism professionals go, there hasn't been a drone strike in Somalia since June 2012. It would appear that those professional agree with the perfesser and me - or, rather, that we agree with them.
Of course intel agencies should keep al Shabab on the radar. Like any other ordinary terrorist group, the type of ordinary counter-terror operations (a combination of law enforcement and intelligence work) is an appropriate response - which makes them very unlike AQ in Pakistan and Yemen.
They don’t have to, Joe. They have affiliated themselves with Al-Qaeda, and it is enough that they have the potential to mount attacks against US interests in East Africa. (e.g., American Embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam in 1998.)
The embassy attacks in 1998 were organized and carried out by the actual al Qaeda run by bin Laden, not some local, single-nation organization affiliated with it, like al Shabab. Not the same thing at all.
You may think Al-Shabab is on its last legs, and you have a right to your opinion. But there are counter-terrorism experts who know a lot more about the organization than either you or I
There hasn't been a drone strike in Somalia since June 2012. Those experts seem to be in agreement with the perfesser and me - or, rather, we seem to be in agreement with them.
I remember when it was only neoconservatives who couldn't tell the difference between invading Iraq and conducting counter-terrorism operations against al Qaeda.
I'm quite aware that al Shabab's attacks are terrorism, Bill. November 17 is a terrorist group, too.
But neither rise to the level that warrants the type of attention that AQAP or AQ International gets. The goal of the war against al Qaeda - the actual, non-metaphorical war - is to knock those actual major terrorist threats down to the level of al Shabab. When President Obama and his defense and intel chiefs talk, correctly, about decimating al Qaeda, they're talking about rendering them as bush league as al Shabab.
© 2024 All Rights Reserved
"Intent be damned,:"
In point of fact, intent is central to the legal definition of genocide.
Words have meaning. They're not just there to provide emotional oomph.
Apparently, someone is offering deals on bulk purchases of scare quotes.
the Crackpot Realists
You are never, ever going to get over your bitterness about your crackpot chemical weapons theory being refuted, are you?
I agree that the "War for Oil" theory is weak, but focusing purely on Israel is too narrow.
The relocation of American bases out of Saudi Arabia was a primary purpose for the war, which has nothing to do with Israel.
The establishment of a client state has implications that go well beyond just protecting Israel.
The elimination of a hostile government was also important to the war's architects.
The best way to describe the Iraq War is as a war to expand the American presence and influence in the region. Israel is certainly a part of that concept, as is oil, but neither tell the whole story.
Using the term genocide is also problematic because, while it effectively conveys the enormity of the horror, it deflects attention away from the cause, which was not an effort to destroy a racial, ethnic or national group in whole or in part, but stemmed from a different set of pathologies and errors that need to be understood so they can be avoided in the future.
And through all of it, the architects insisted on the glories of the New Middle East they were creating, waving their purple fingers and gloating about the wonders to come.
Iran doesn't have to allow those inspections.
The United States doesn't have to allow Iran to use our banks, or to allow third countries that trade with Iran to use our banks.
Both Iranian noncooperation and the American sanctions regime are, indeed, well within those countries' rights. The question is, would we be better off standing on those rights, or cutting a deal?
"The republicans have really shot the US in the head and made the US dollar very unreliable."
This overstates things. They have done damage, yes, but less than you're suggesting here. They folded last night, and they're on the run politically. What you're talking about might still come to pass, but it hasn't yet, and there is very good reason to think the fever is breaking.
Obama has two years to make progress with Iran work. If he can move the ball down the field and create momentum, the Israel lobby will have to work not just to prevent an initiative from beginning, but to stop and reverse one that has already made progress and gained support - a much more difficult task.
You assume, Adam K, that warming relations with Iran, eliminating the threat of another, bigger Iraq-style war, and, oh yeah, being able to brag about heading off the skeery Persiatic nuke, will be a political liability, because the Likudniks will oppose it. I think you're giving short shrift to how much those accomplishments would function as affirmative political benefits.
There were plenty of people, during the thaw between Reagan and Gorbachev, denouncing nuclear deals and rapprochement, but when the deal was signed and the mutual charm offensives really got going, they were huge political winners.
I do agree with both of you, though, that there is a threat of the window slamming shut after 2016. There is an opportunity right now for both the American and Iranian leaders to accomplish something and thereby set back the hardliners that oppose rapprochement, and it must be seized aggressively.
Totally uninteresting how JT deflects conversations about policy into his continuing obsession with That Guy He Hates On The Internet.
This would be a much better forum if you would stop that, JT.
It is definitely better to talk about "the right" in American politics these days, than to talk about "conservatives."
Likewise, there are people on the left in American politics who are radicals, too, as opposed to liberals or progressives, but they are a much smaller segment of the overall left-coalition than their right-radical counterparts are the right coalition.
You would hold up the resolution of the standoff, the elimination of the sanctions, and the cooling of potentially war-spawning tensions so that you can score a point about something that happened 60 years ago?
The United States is "pushing for war" with Iran?
The United States isn't pursuing nuclear disarmament?
ORLY?
As the Perfesser mentions in the post, he can set foreign policy at the executive level.
Formal treaty ratification lies with the Senate, but that's hardly the limit of foreign policy. Most foreign policy is run out of the White House and State Department, and Congress has relatively little to do with it.
The other virtue of this ongoing steps approach, as opposed to a one-shot deal, is that it can smoothly segue into actions beyond the nuclear question, into other areas of the bilateral relationship.
Oddly enough, the Iranian leadership doesn't seem to agree with your assessment.
Iran has had a defense asymmetry with Israel for decades, which makes the US/China comparison somewhat off-point.
Also, the United States is a much bigger national security threat to Iran than is Israel. A deal that warms up American-Iranian relations and removes that threat would be a major gain for Iranian security, for reason that include, but also go quite a bit beyond, the implicit restraint on Israel.
Any deal between the Obama administration and Iran will set the American right to howling that the sky is falling.
Once the sky fails to fall, that will open up all sorts of opportunities to go farther.
You seem to think conservatives are running the show when it comes to American foreign policy.
They've been sidelined for years.
Syria, like Libya before it, really had nothing to do with the "War on Terror."
One of the most significant shifts in American foreign policy has been the narrowing down of Bush's vision of a global, Cold War-style fight between "the West" and "political Islam" into series of limited counter-terror actions against al Qaeda.
That's not to say the United States isn't doing other things in the world, but (with the exception of the winding down Afghan War) they are neither operationally nor conceptually part of a "War on Terror."
I don't think "The US, Western Europe, Israel and the Gulf Cooperation Council oil monarchies are convinced that Iran is trying to make an atomic bomb," but rather, worried that they are, are could be.
Also, writing it up that way suggests that the concern is about Iranian military capability only, and ignores the other half of the equation, which is a desire to arrest the regional nuclear proliferation process. Israel and Pakistan got nukes, so Iran wants one; and if Iran has one, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt, and after them, who knows?
On the US side, the Israel lobbies and Israel itself will accept nothing less than the mothballing of the whole Iranian enrichment program, which is highly unlikely to happen.
Netanyahu has spent the last five years spitting in Obama's face in public. He tried to throw the 2012 election to his opponent, and failed. Obama is never going to face another election. I doubt he cares very much about what Israel wants out of these negotiations.
we also have to acknowledge that this is offset by the increased emissions from the massive increase in domestic drilling.
No, we really don't. There really is no plausible reason to believe that American drilling and piping is worse than that in places like Saudi Arabia or Venezuela.
Fracking for oil does not, in fact, result in methane releases; you're thinking of natural gas fracking. Fracking fluids, earthquake theories, pipeline leaks, and wastewater have nothing to do with carbon emissions.
You're kind of throwing the kitchen sink into the comment threads.
The masses don't seem to be buying the delusion.
The United States replacing imported petroleum with domestic petroleum - which is what the additional oil drilling the US has done - is carbon-neutral, perhaps slightly carbon-positive, if you take into account reduced transportation emissions.
What actually matters, in terms of American carbon emissions from oil, is not where the oil comes from, but how much we consume. American oil consumption has been falling throughout the period of increased domestic drilling, and is down about 9.5% from the peak, and still falling:
http://ourfiniteworld.com/2013/01/31/why-is-us-oil-consumption-lower-better-gasoline-mileage/
Yes, Chris, my question was meant as sarcasm about the purported threat.
Hezbollah has no helicopters, of course.
The only thing JT hates more than hostile American actions towards Iran are friendly American actions towards Iran.
But Chris, what if they ship helicopter brake pads to Hezbollah?
"the Iranians are constantly looking for spare parts for old U.S. jets"
I have to wonder if this isn't the very heart of the matter. A quiet overture towards Rouhani.
The main reason the lives in Gaza are so miserable is that their Hamas government devotes massive resources (like 50 tons of concrete) to trying to murder Israelis.
Well, no. Certainly, Hamas hasn't always made the best decisions, but that is very far from the main reason for the suffering in Gaza.
The main reason is "Land of Israel" ideology.
Fired upon?
The Hamas-run station is reporting that the ship was fired upon?
That seems rather implausible.
The figures cited, Irwin, do not come from the US government, but from the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, which relies upon local accounts and the local media.
But I suppose they're spinning for the Great Satan, too.
Interesting.
The stories linked to in this post report 0 civilians killed by US drone strikes, and approximately 150 killed by Pakistani jihadists.
Yet most of the comments the thread are devoted to bemoaning the evil of using force against Pakistani jihadists.
This report does an excellent job explaining the nature of the threat to Pakistani civilians.
More must be done to prevent such wanton slaughter of innocent civilians.
No so much. Big Coal is getting its butt kicked, at least in the United States.
The 150th coal-fired power plant was closed in the United States last week.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/10/08/1245239/-150-Plants-Retired-Another-Major-Milestone-Hit-in-Moving-Beyond-Coal
There are currently zero new coal-fired power plants proposed for construction.
Numerous regulations that hammer the coal industry have been passed under the Obama EPA, from Clean Air Act regulations on particulates, mercury/toxics, and smog precursors to Clean Water Act regulations on coal ash.
At least in the US, coal is a dying industry. This is why the United States has achieved the world's largest GHG reductions over the past five years. The fate of Big Coal in the U.S. is one of the environmental bright spots in the world today.
Your comment illuminates the great fallacy behind anti-government, libertarian capitalist ideology.
When you don't have a strong-enough government, you don't get unimpeded market transactions. You get gang rule.
Markets - actual, non-metaphorical markets, the places where commerce took place - were always, right from the beginning, places with enough armed government employees walking around to allow the merchants to be secure.
If the world can put together an anti-piracy flotilla for the area, it should be able to put together an anti-poaching operation as well.
That may be true, Bill, but it doesn't put the Libyan government on the same side as al Qaeda, the way the Pakistani government chose to be when it protected bin Laden.
Indeed, Brian, multinationals were making a fortune under the iron grip of the Gadhaffi regime. Halliburton was in, the big oil companies were in, John McCain was meeting with Gadhaffi and tweeting about what an "interesting man" he was.
And now we see the people who opposed the revolution in Libya crying fat, salty ham tears about oil production being down. If only we'd politely averted our eyes as the psychotic dictator was mowing down the protesters, the country would still be open for business, as it was under George Bush.
I came up with a slogan for the people who didn't support the Libyan revolution:
No-war, for oil!
You've never heard of Shay's Rebellion?
You've never heard of the Whiskey Rebellion?
There was disagreement concerning State’s vs. Federal rights and responsibilities, but they were hammered out in conference.
You've never heard of, oh yeah, the Civil War?
There is absolutely no comparison between the establishment of the American Republic by those individuals deeply steeped in the Magna Carta, the philosophy of John Locke, and the Enlightenment; and those who are attempting to establish a government in Libya (and their opponents) whose legacy includes none of the above.
I guess you've also never heard of the NTC, or read the Interim Constitution:
http://portal.clinecenter.illinois.edu/REPOSITORYCACHE/114/w1R3bTIKElG95H3MH5nvrSxchm9QLb8T6EK87RZQ9pfnC4py47DaBn9jLA742IFN3d70VnOYueW7t67gWXEs3XiVJJxM8n18U9Wi8vAoO7_24166.pdf
It is as admirable a declaration of Enlightenment values as one could ask for, but oh noes, it includes references to Islam!
if you consider it a bad thing that the name "Benghazi" has become shorthand for the killing of four people, instead of becoming the Libyan Hama or Sbrenca, you really need to take some time to look to the state of your soul.
Since then you’ve been glossing over the country’s slide into being a failed state.
The same amount of time after the beginning of the American Revolution, it was a still a shooting war. It would be more than a decade before a stable constitutional order was achieved.
But you just keep rooting for the failure of Arab Spring, if that's what matters most to you.
Under international law, they're welcome to try.
And under international law, the United States is welcome to defend its citizens.
I don't see this as equivalent to Abbottobad. Bin Laden was being actively protected by elements in the Pakistani government, which could have very easily squashed him and his entire operation if they'd felt like.
As opposed to the Libyan government, which still needs to get permission from the local militia when it wants to turn on a water works. The Libyan government wasn't protecting this guy.
It almost seems that your position is that if no efforts were made to improve the security forces of an nation, that nations security would remain the same or improve?
It's a tricky spot he's in. On the one hand, the United States must be to blame for not stabilizing Libya. On the other hand, he has to opposed to any American stability assistance.
Wow, lots of closet authoritarians showing their true colors on this thread.
Apparently, it is the height of leftist liberationist principle to insist that order under a dictator, in superior to revolutionary uprisings, because there might be disorder for a little while after the overthrow of the ancien regime.
Henry Kissinger approves.
Prime Minister Zeidan has been freed: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2013/10/libyan-prime-minister-freed-from-captivity-2013101093314649841.html
Armed extremism in Libya seems to be extremely polite. He ordered his guards not to open fire, his captors made him comfortable in a hotel, and the "rescue" doesn't seem to have involved any gunfire, either.
Tell us, Bill, how many of those "many others" were being helped before the ACA?
And by "severely damaged," you mean, of course, "was able to pass Congress."
And here you sit, pining away for the "undamaged" version that would have gotten 32 House votes, never even come up in the Senate, helped no one, and killed off health care reform for another twenty years.
But note the Professor's claim: "a transfer of wealth from the white rich and middle classes to the minorities"
The ACA does indeed represent a transfer of wealth from the rich, but not from the middle class. It represents a transfer of wealth to the middle class.
What is it that makes the Tea Party believe this?
They're been trained to believe it for decades, going back to Richard Nixon's Southern Strategy. Conservative domestic politics has revolved around framing all government operations to supporting a parasitic class, presented as a racially and/or culturally different "other," since the late 1960s.
The Tea Party being convinced that the Affordable Care Act is a “transfer of wealth” must be based on some concrete analysis?
Heh. You're not from the United States, are you? Somewhere in Central Europe, right?
Do you ever see anything I write and NOT feel an unendurable desire to change the subject to what Random Bad Stuff 'Bout 'Merica happens to be floating through your brain?
The multi-variate causes of the sectarian conflict in the Middle East deserve more serious treatment than a springboard for the bitterness of some crackpot.
I remember when it was the right-wingers who insisted that the proper measure of America's efforts against al Qaeda as "no more terrorism will ever happen again."
That was, of course, an irresponsible bit of propaganda intended to shut down meaningful consideration and bully the other side by drawing an unachievable line.
And it remains so.
People* have been threatening the US with "it will increase terrorism" for over a decade now.
So where is this increase in terrorism? Where are all of these Iraqi, Pakistani, and Afghan terrorist attacks on the United States? And why did all of these Egyptians and Saudis launch them in the decade before 9/11, without there ever having been an American military action in those countries?
*Predictably, the people issuing this threat are the same ones who, in every other circumstance, downplay the threat of terrorism, changing the subject to traffic fatalities and Mohammmed Mossedegh whenever it comes up. Sort like how they insist that al Qaeda isn't al Qaeda if it's in the Arabian Penninsula, while describing everyone who took up arms against the Assad regime as "al Qaeda."
You know, it's almost as if these people aren't actually discussing the subject of al Qaeda terrorism and American policy in good faith at all.
Let's not leave out the role of al Qaeda in Iraq's sectarian conflict. They spent years conducting a campaign of anti-Shiite atrocities for the purpose of inspiring revenge attacks, in the hope of creating a civil war - and it worked. Ali Al-Sistini held that nation together by his fingertips for years, but after the Golden Mosque bombing, it was open warfare.
Second, save us your concerns for civilian life’s in the Middle East. Drones are responsible for the death of hundreds of civilians in Pakistan and Yemen.
There have been fewer civilians killed by drones in 12 years of strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia combined than were killed in one day in Mogadishu when a special forces raid went bad.
Do you even care?
Actually, there have been far fewer international terrorist attacks against the United States recently than there were twelve years ago. Compared to the two WTC attacks, the Cole bombing, the embassy attacks, the US has been subject to a great deal fewer such attacks in recent years. Perhaps "address the cause of terrorism" means something different than you are assuming.
If that is the case - if the Iranian government is assuming that the nuclear non-proliferation argument is merely a pretext - then the Obama administration's actions towards Syria may have played a role in the thaw.
Remember that the administration spent two and a half years prior to the August 21 chemical attack opposing military action in Syria, then changed its policy in response to a WMD crisis, and then backed off military action when the chemical weapons issue was resolved, despite there being no progress on the Syrian Civil War itself.
That is a convincing demonstration that, to this administration, it really is about the unconventional weapons and their proliferation, and that they aren't just using that as an excuse for an unrelated foreign policy goal, as was done in Iraq.
If your question is about democratic legitimacy, Destin, the answer is "Nothing."
Sherman also told the Senate panel last Thursday that any diplomatic engagement with Iran will be accompanied by the “vigorous enforcement” of sanctions already in place, which she described as “the toughest sanctions the world has ever seen”. In that case, why should Iranians take part in any negotiations at all.
I think you misunderstand; she's saying there will be both carrots and sticks in the negotiations, not that the sanctions will remain regardless of the outcome.
But you're right about which leader has to watch his back more. Khamenei deducted some style points; Menendez took a substantive step to blow up the talks.
Those "recent elections" were almost a year and a half ago. Surely you've noticed that there have been changed in Egyptian public opinion since then.
The amount of time that has passed between the most recent Egyptian elections and the present is roughly the same amount of time that passed between Barack Obama's election and Scott Brown's victory in a Massachusetts Senate race.
Thank you for writing this.
Far too much of the commentary about Egypt and Syria has discussed those situations in terms of a two-sided conflict (fascist/military dictators vs. Islamists), when it is actually three-sided.
One would think that the third side, the youth/liberal/labor protest movements, would be the natural recipient of left-liberal support, but instead, they tend to get overlooked entirely. Commentary about the coup in Egypt* has ignored the massive anti-Morsi street protests, while the Arab Spring successors in Syria get lumped in under the heading "al Qaeda."
*the second, 2013, coup. The first coup, which the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces conducted against Mubarak, is described exactly the opposite way, with the role of the military leadership ignored entirely, and the street protests assumed to be the sole force behind his ouster.
The writer seems to be unwilling to take Yes for an answer.
He appears to be more worried that negotiations would succeed than that they would fail.
For many people, the Iranian nuclear question is merely a pretext for a hostile foreign policy, and the author of piece seems to be one such person.
Let me amend that to, "They aren't loons like Saddam Ghadaffi, or Netanyahu."
Yes, Bill, allowing feelings to take precedence in one's analysis is a terrible idea.
That's why you should stop doing it (for instance, by saying that Netanyahu has outmaneuvered Obama based on his accomplishment of nothing), and try to be more like the Vulcan-in-Chief currently sitting in the Oval Office in your perception of geopolitics.
Except for the offense against the office of the president of the United States, which just goes to demonstrate Netanyahu’s contempt for any part of the United States that isn’t useful to him.
Certainly. Netanyahu seems to one of those irrational actors who views the indulgence of his feelings as more important than substantive accomplishments or advancement of his own or his nation's interests.
Spyguy,
While Iran could easily attack US outposts around the world after being attacked by Israel, I suspect they will not unless there is real proof the US helped.
I think you're exactly right here. There is no angle that makes it a good idea for Iran to do anything to bring the US into a conflict, and they are as adept at geopolitical thinking as you say. They're not loons like Saddam or Gadhaffi, likely to do something stupid out of a fit of pique.
Adam,
"The United States has repeatedly, openly and unambiguously affirmed its intention to defend Israel from the consequences of their aggression, both militarily and diplomatically."
That's nice, but it's a complete non-sequitor. The question was why Iran would act in a way to bring the United States into a war. You canned speech about how much you hate Iraeli-American relations doesn't answer my question.
Also, I'll note that the United States' security guarantees to Israel haven't included doing anything about the sorts of "ordinary" attacks against Israel, such as Hezbollah incursions, or rocket attacks, that have happened. It only seems to apply to actual state-on-state warfare.
"I would say if Netanyahu embarrassed and humiliated Obama and got away with it he outmaneuvered him – at least in the short term."
Because feelings, and not outcomes or political power, are the measure of geopolitics?
Most people would use the term "outmaneuvered" to refer to a situation in which one political accomplishes something by somehow getting around the efforts of another political actor to prevent it.
Netanyahu has been disrespectful towards Obama in public. Bully for him.
My question was about Iran, and its actions.
Professor presupposes that Iran would act to bring the United States into the conflict - to conduct actions that would generate a direct American military response.
Why would Iran want to do that? They aren't al Qaeda, with no compunction about generating massive casualties among the civilians in the country they're operating in in order to make a political point. They're a reasonably-responsible government that hasn't courted military conflict with the United States before.
Why would Iran sic its proxies on American targets instead of Israeli ones, in a situation in which the U.S. wasn't, on its own, eager to attack Iran?
I can see a whole lot of downside to Iran in having the United States attack it, and not a whole lot of upside. Iran is generally a rational actor on the world stage. What interest would it have in painting a target on its back?
No, I mean the foreign jihadist forces that the US has never funded, and has been working to steer the Gulf states' weapons shipments away from:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/21/world/middleeast/cia-said-to-aid-in-steering-arms-to-syrian-rebels.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
The C.I.A. officers have been in southern Turkey for several weeks, in part to help keep weapons out of the hands of fighters allied with Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups, one senior American official said. The Obama administration has said it is not providing arms to the rebels, but it has also acknowledged that Syria’s neighbors would do so.
You are entitled to you own opinions, sir, but not to your own facts.
If the Gulf states wanted to influence Obama's foreign policy, they shouldn't have crossed us by supporting the foreign-jihadist faction of in Syria.
Maybe this will wake some people up to the fact that the Gulf states haven't been operating as American puppets for a long time.
that appears by happenstance
Appears to whom? To you?
JT. having spent a month pushing your crackpot theory, a little humility might be in order.
Excellent comment.
Let me make it clear, I agree with the general proposition that American influence is less than it was in, say, 1998. I've noted any number of times that being a superpower ain't what it used to be.
I'm just saying that the outcome of the Syrian chemical warfare episode is a really terrible case to point to if you want to make that point. It actually shows the opposite.
If we pretend the chemical warfare crisis and the American response wasn't really about chemical warfare, then we can also pretend that solving the chemical warfare problem without firing a shot isn't really a success. OK, but why would we do that? Obama spent 2-1/2 years opposing military involvement in Syria, and only prepared to use force after the sarin attack.
Syria has been recognized as a Russian client state since the Cold War. Russia's longstanding policy of arming Syria with both chemical and conventional weapons, and using the Tarsus naval base, already established that Syria was in the Russian sphere of influence. It's not like disarming them of the weapons they gave to them breaks new ground in terms of recognizing their influence. It's not as though Putin agreed to disarm, say, Mexico of chemical weapons, but a long-time client state.
I think you grossly over-estimate the scope of those who do not recognize other powers' spheres of influence. Most of the American political scene thought John McCain was crazy for wanting to interfere in Georgia. The US is constantly asking China very politely to intercede with North Korea. European powers such as France are recognized as having such spheres in Africa.
As to whether the US really wants a peaceful settlement in Syria...
This comment, and the assertion I was responding to, are not about a settlement to the Syrian Civil War, but about the chemical warfare crisis. Note that the United States was not contemplating military action before the August 21st gas attack, and has returned to that position since the deal was struck. They really are two different issues, generating two different policies.
And immediately thereafter, that "someone" saw Syria and its patron agree to ditch their chemical arsenal entirely.
Is it supposed to demonstrate a decline in American influence that the threat worked, and worked better than I dared imagine?
In the process, it underscored the continuing influence of Russia as a permanent member of the Council with a veto. Moscow also managed to spare the Assad regime the degradation of its military capabilities that would have resulted from the Pentagon’s strikes. In so doing, it enabled the Syrian leader to maintain the current battlefield superiority of his forces. Overall, the Syrian rebels and Washington were unmitigated losers.
Because Syrian military capability was degraded less than America was threatening, that make Assad a winner and the US a clear loser.
Uh huh. More losses like this, please.
The "loss of clout," whereby the United States achieved it primary foreign policy in goal in Syria without firing a shot, by creating a situation in which Syria's major patron, and would-be competitor with the United States for superpower status, felt compelled to disarm its client state.
The "indecency" here is the desperation in which authors like this feel compelled to spin this episode of an American defeat. If I had predicted two months ago that Russia would destroy Syria's stockpile at America's behest, Dilip Hiro would have laughed me off the face of the earth. Now, that outcome just hasta be a demonstration of American irrelevance.
Netanyahu's arrogant, demanding, belligerent treatment of the Obama administration, and his glee in pursuing actions (the raid on the Gaza ships, the settlement activities) that he knew would anger the US, was stupid, irrational statesmanship. He seems to have been indulging his alpha-male instincts instead of pursuing his country's interest in any sort of strategic way.
He all-but endorsed Mitt Romney during the campaign. What was he thinking?
Lol wot?
The terrible, horrible war against al Qaeda costs significantly under $10 billion a year. It is very, very far from a gravy train for the MIC. More like a gravy trickle.
Bill,
China’s rise, economically and militarily, will not reach the level of being an “existential threat.”
To the US? Or to India?
I also find your faith in "state capitalism" as restraint on geopolitical avarice quite unconvincing.
Brian,
MacArthur exceeded his mandate in seeking to destroy the North Korean forces (just has he had decades before in clearing the veterans from the Mall).
None of this changes the reality that the United States accomplished exactly what it set out to do. By all means, if you have anything to demonstrate the unification of Korea and even the invasion of China was an American war aim, please share it.
Mark,
"The most remembered video"is now how we evaluate historical and military events?
I feel terribly sorry for Les Aspin, but could we please have some rigorous historical analysis here?
The US is a "colonialist" power?
ORLY?
Pray tell, what colonies has the United States set up in the past century?
I don't buy it.
If al Qaeda by itself was enough of a bogeyman to sustain a national war footing (as opposed to just some small scale policies in the midst of a "normal" military/foreign policy footing, why did Bush all-but-ignore them and turn to Iraq?
First, on the threat: China + sub-state groups may not add up to as much of a threat as the USSR did, but they aren't likely to be chicken feed, either.
Second, on the common cultural background: While that may have been important in the 20th century, I'm talking about the second half of the 21st. Cultural integration among open societies continues apace. Differences that may have prevented the formation of an integrated bloc in 1950 aren't going to matter in 2070.
Third, I don't know why you assume the U.S. will not have a close relationship with the successor regime to the mullahs. The Iranian public is the most pro-American in the entire region.
Your description of American-Indian and American-Pakistani relations to date is accurate, but I'm postulating a big shift in those relations. You're still talking about the Cold War arrangement, and that is disappearing in the rear view mirror.
Since the Korean Was was fought to maintain the pre-war status quo - that is, South Korea free from Northern occupation - that "statement" represents the successful accomplishment of our primary war aims.
I find it interesting that your description of Somalia ignores the half million people who didn't die because the mission to guard the relief supplies succeeded. But, as you say, one mission that resulted in 18 American dead and 1500 Somalis was...um, what your point again?
I was unaware that the United States had been "driven out" of Afghanistan. So are the tens of thousands of American troops still there, awaiting their exit on the American-established timetable.
And now you're counting two wars that were never fought as defeats. Fascinating.
You are exactly right. I believe that Iran is the United States' most natural ally in Southwest Asia, and that there will an American-Indian-Iranian alliance by the end of the 21t century that will be as important as NATO was in the 20th.
The President who cut the deal on Syria and is engaging in a diplomatic thaw with Iran is also the President who used the drone program to decimate al Qaeda. His recognition of the threat of terrorism doesn't seem to have prevented him from pursuing peace with Iran.
It is certainly true that the threat of terrorism has been used in the way you describe; that does not mean that is must be used that way. It can actually be treated as a policy goal in its own right, and not merely a pretext for another foreign policy vision.
Invading and occupying Iraq in order to install Ahmed Chalabi and gain basing rights and striking al Qaeda targets are two very different policies, the results of two very different mindsets. You don't even have to agree with the President about the threat of terrorism in order to recognize this point.
No, Iran is still at the top of the queue, for people who have a "war queue." If everyone ahead of John McCain in the line of succession died tomorrow, the U.S. would probably be at war with Iran within the year. What happened is that we have a President who doesn't have a "war queue," and who is actively working against that faction of the American political establishment that does. Kindly note that those "Washington hawks" continue to push for military action in Syria even after President Obama jumped off the bus, and have been poo-pooing the diplomatic thaw he's pursued with Iran.
This is not to say that this President would never use military force (obviously). What it means is that this President would use force for reasons other than those "Washington hawks" - for instance, to back up the Arab Spring (Libya), to maintain the chemical weapons norm (Syria), or to check nuclear proliferation (Iran), but not in the pursuit of the imperialist foreign policy you describe.
Wouldn't the most obvious explanation for why the USSR, as a matter of policy, helped Syria get a chemical weapons program be that the Syrians wanted on, and the Soviets wanted to strengthen its ties to its regional client state? If the Syrian government wanted bombs full of kittens, the Soviets would have sent them cats instead.
Also, there are several steps of conflation going on to make the illegal actions of some companies in Germany, France, and Britain appear to be the policy of "the West."
JT, this is an embarrassing performance, even for you. You literally don't even know what you're supposed to be arguing, you just know that Those People On The Internet Are Wrong.
Bill,
It is far from obvious that the Islamists are winning fighters’ loyalty because they are getting more outside support than the moderates.
That's what the story reports, Bill.
Military commanders complain of the modest finances that reach the Joint Chiefs of Staff, something that forces the commanders of the brigades fighting on the ground to shift their alliances to the quarters that supply them with money and weapons.
The Islamists are winning fighters' loyalty because they getting more outside support than the moderates, so therefore, this demonstrates that the US should not be giving the moderates support?
That is...not obvious.
The what?
FSA?
More important to me than handshakes and Holocaust semiotics is substantive diplomacy.
Will the Kerry/Zarif meeting be the first face-to-face meeting between an American Secretary of State and an Iranian Foreign Minister since the revolution?
There was no regime change in 1993. There was no regime. The government had collapsed, and both the international response and the ICU were consequences of the chaos of that internal Somali implosion.
Bill,
The 1998 embassy attacks were organized and carried out by international al Qaeda, the organization headed by bin Ladin, not some local, single-nation group that is merely "affiliated" with them.
And as far as those counter-terrorism professionals go, there hasn't been a drone strike in Somalia since June 2012. It would appear that those professional agree with the perfesser and me - or, rather, that we agree with them.
Of course intel agencies should keep al Shabab on the radar. Like any other ordinary terrorist group, the type of ordinary counter-terror operations (a combination of law enforcement and intelligence work) is an appropriate response - which makes them very unlike AQ in Pakistan and Yemen.
They don’t have to, Joe. They have affiliated themselves with Al-Qaeda, and it is enough that they have the potential to mount attacks against US interests in East Africa. (e.g., American Embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam in 1998.)
The embassy attacks in 1998 were organized and carried out by the actual al Qaeda run by bin Laden, not some local, single-nation organization affiliated with it, like al Shabab. Not the same thing at all.
You may think Al-Shabab is on its last legs, and you have a right to your opinion. But there are counter-terrorism experts who know a lot more about the organization than either you or I
There hasn't been a drone strike in Somalia since June 2012. Those experts seem to be in agreement with the perfesser and me - or, rather, we seem to be in agreement with them.
"Your co-pay is $4 trillion."
I remember when it was only neoconservatives who couldn't tell the difference between invading Iraq and conducting counter-terrorism operations against al Qaeda.
I'm quite aware that al Shabab's attacks are terrorism, Bill. November 17 is a terrorist group, too.
But neither rise to the level that warrants the type of attention that AQAP or AQ International gets. The goal of the war against al Qaeda - the actual, non-metaphorical war - is to knock those actual major terrorist threats down to the level of al Shabab. When President Obama and his defense and intel chiefs talk, correctly, about decimating al Qaeda, they're talking about rendering them as bush league as al Shabab.