I think Phudi and Ike are focusing too much on Prof. Cole's statement as a moral judgment about whether Hamas can be described as terrorists, and missing the more important point: that this is not an organization with international reach of aspirations - like al Qaeda, for instance - but rather, a local organization driven by a very local motives.
But I can see how you could have read the perfesser's language that way.
Nice little bit of weaseling around, the way you go from "has a nuke" - unadorned, no adjectives, to "has conclusive proof that..."
You've moved those goal posts quite a way from your original "the experts were/are saying there is no evidence."
So, why, exactly, do you imagine that any of the evidence you quoted is supposed to rebut what I wrote about the motives of those who are concerned about the Iranian nuclear program?
Or are you arguing that the US should invade... my idea for Israel to give up their nuclear stockpile
I haven't written anything about what the US should do, or about what Israel should be, because I'm not writing about a policy. I cling to this very unfashionable idea that first we should get our facts right, and then come up with a policy to address them.
See, this is your problem, the same problem presented by the neocons in the runup to the Iraq War: you base your opinion about the factual question not on the facts, not on the evidence, not on the opinions of the people who know a whole hell of a lot more about the question than you, but, as I said, on whatever position is most convenient for your pre-determined policy preference.
"BTW," I didn't misunderstand you even the slightest bit. Your point is incredibly simple - even simplistic - and poses absolutely no challenge to comprehension whatsoever.
I disagreed with it, which is quite a different thing from misunderstanding.
What I'm getting from this map is that the countries that consume the most oil are the "only" ones honoring the boycott, while countries that consume much less oil are not.
It's sort of like those 2000 Electoral College maps that the Republicans loved so much, because they showed these huge, mostly-empty areas colored red.
No, I think the US is actually worried about an Iranian nuclear program, as opposed to Iraq, when the WMD program was a mere pretext.
In both cases the experts were/are saying there is no evidence for these fears.
I think you would do well to go back and check your facts, because the UN inspectors are saying something very different this time around. I suppose the International Atomic Energy Agency doesn't count as experts, though, and ceased to count as experts the moment they said something you didn't want to hear.
Thank you for so aptly demonstrating my point about the specific facts of the situation being no match for a deeply-beloved Universal Narrative That Explains Everything. This must be exactly like Iraq, because it's just gotta be.
I agree with everyone else that this episode is clearly not about the Iranian nuclear program, but rather, fits in perfectly with a pre-existing narrative that I always apply to every situation, regardless of the specific details of the case, and which I needn't ever provide plausible evidence to support, because it's so obviously and universally true.
I, for one, am very impressed with myself for, once again, having the courage and insight to understand that my Grand Theory of Everything explains this, too.
I mean, seriously, the United States being concerned about the Iranians getting a nuclear weapon? Yeah, like that would ever happen. There's no way that fear of a nuclear Iran could actually be the driver here, because everyone in the American military and foreign service community loves the idea of the Iranian government having nuclear weapons. It must be something else.
The answer is, you respect democracy. Not only because it's the moral thing to do, but for two very important practical reasons:
1. The demonstrable evidence, since the rise of mass-suffrage and democratic governance, is that such governments behave more rationally and more responsibly than undemocratic governments. Not less, more.
2. Providing for genuine democratic participation based on universal rights means that the people are bought into the system and feel responsible for it. Do you think it is a coincidence that we haven't had a civil war under your "post-Civil War" system?
I think you're over-estimating the precision of the polling instrument. I don't think a "Yes" answer to the question "Do you think Iran currently has nuclear weapons, or not?" where those are you only choices and you can't ask for clarification necessarily means the respondent is distinguishing between having a nuclear weapons program and having an existing, deployable weapon.
"He should call off the March 5 meeting now planned with Netanyahu and let him cool his heels till he apologizes."
Is that actually a punishment, though? This meeting looks an awful lot like Nethanyahu being called on the carpet, after the administration jerked the chain a bit. I think that canceling the meeting would be just the opposite.
The problem with trying to take away your drunk friend's keys when he staggers out to his car swearing to "Kill dat bitch" after doing a few shots is that he tends to punch you in the face.
I got the point of the poem; I was thinking that the poet was saying that the religious accouterments of other religions were "tokens of Islam," which would make the point even more explicitly.
Using the term "intervention" by itself, as if everything that can be called by that name is part of an undifferentiated mass, is as wrong when applied to foreign affairs as it is when libertarians apply the term to domestic policy.
Iraq was not a problem for the US until 1990. The US navy was an adjunct to the Iraqi army in the 1980s. As the US replaced the British in the course of the 1980s, it viewed post-1979 Iran as the threat.
All of that is true, Professor, but the creation of most of the American bases around the Gulf, and most of the personnel we have stationed in the region, didn't come out of that, but out of our two-decade contretemps with Iraq.
In the 80s, and before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, our presence in the Gulf was mainly limited to aircraft carriers. It was a BFD when George H. W. Bush convinced the Saudis to approve American troop deployments in the Kingdom in Operation Desert Shield, which begat Operation Desert Storm, which begat the long-term, large-scale troop presence.
most Gulf bases were put there specifically for that purpose
Most Gulf bases were put there specifically to deal with Iraq, whether before the First Gulf War (Saudi Arabia), immediately after it (Kuwait) or before the invasion of Iraq.
Now, the bases we built and abandoned in Iraq - most of those were built to "project power" against Iran.
But the biggest puzzle from that map to me is the absence of any bases at all in oil-rich Iraq, after we have spent trillions of dollars fighting a war there.
That is rather notable, isn't it? It certainly is a remarkable departure from the historical norm.
My beef is with all the Players, on all the sides, American, RussoSoviet, and Israeli and Chinese and French and British and on and on, who have sloshed weapons into places where people with guns find reasons to kill one another, in an endless cycle of revenge.
And per our US security spokespersons, we are being “informed” that various of the provocational attacks and incidents have an “al Quaeda-in-Iraqish” flavor to them.
Professor Cole has written about his himself. Tell me, is he one of these "US security spokespersons" you mention?
Here's a crazy thought: maybe, rather than being "informed," you're actually being informed.
Just so we're clear, Professor: you're merely "accounting facts," and not arguing one way or another about the likelihood that the Iranians are working towards nuclear weapons capability?
Just the facts, ma'am? You're not coming down on one side or the other of that question?
I think there might be a bit of a misunderstanding. Could you kindly clarify what, exactly, is your opinion on whether Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons capability, and whether they are involved in the string of bombings of Israeli facilities?
As to “overwhelming” evidence from a USAToday AP story, I see a lot of quotes from Israeli warlords, but not much from maybe more reliable sources with less of a history of “having said the thing that is not so” to nail down so uncontrovertibly the Guilt of All Iran.
The double-standard you're displaying here is astounding. It took you roughly 2 seconds to implicate Israel and the United States in the assassinations of the Iranian scientists when not a single arrest had been made, but whoa now! Let's not jump to any conclusions about who's bombing Israeli targets in multiple countries.
When, exactly, are we going to get a "level-heading accounting of the facts" in Bangkok, like people keep asking for?
It was always profoundly silly for you to reflexively insist on Iranian innocence in the bombings, and your defensiveness shows that you're quite aware of this.
If you, like some others out there, believe it is a rational decision for Iran to build nuclear weapons given the carnage the US and Israel have unleashed upon its neighbors, then perhaps instead of arguing with us here, you should be writing to your congressmen and President asking them why they won’t stop the provocations and threats that have forced Iran to pusrsue this “rational” policy of deterrence via nuclear arms.
I think you are missing the distinction between what is rational for Iran's interests, and what is rational and best for the world at large. There are numerous examples, from the Tragedy of the Commons to the guy who moves out of the city and takes on a 70 mile commute in order to get away from air pollution, of the actions of an individual actor being rational for him given a set of circumstances, but irrational in the aggregate.
It is both rational for Iran to want a deterrent, and for the global community to want to stop nuclear proliferation. Until we get to the point of a verifiable nuclear abolition regime, I don't see any way around this clash of legitimate, rational interests.
No, because it only considers one side of the equation. All of the suboptimal (from the Iranian point of view) outcomes you describe - do you actually think that they are worse than the status quo, and the possible future, for Iran?
Pretty obviously, Joe, they started because there was this superpower that invaded and occupied two of the neighbours and then kept looking them in the eye muttering “regime change”.
Indeed. I can't understand why Professor Cole and others find this so implausible.
Juan Cole has written many times that Iran seems to be going for the capacity to build a nuclear bomb
He certainly hasn't written anything of the sort lately. Take a look at this post; he's been arguing quite forcefully that Iran is absolutely not engaged in any work towards nuclear weapons capability - indeed, he seems to find it quite important that the most powerful politician in Iran has said that they aren't - and keeps denouncing such a suspicion as baseless.
It would be naive to think Iran does not seek the capacity to build nuclear weapons
Yes, it would. Very much so.
I agree with you, quite strongly, that the west and even Israel don't face a real threat from an Iranian nuke. Iran hasn't launched an offensive war in well over two centuries. It's quite clear to me that Iran has a very great interest in having a deterrent. I think we can live with it, just as we lived a Chinese nuke. That's the argument that we Iran doves should be making, and I fear that the decision to push the naive position will, once it becomes impossible to maintain that claim, discredit the entire anti-Iran-war argument.
Do you have some reality-based, verifiable facts (rather than fear-based speculations) about “facilities,” presumably BOMB-BUILDING FACILITIES, in “hollowed out mountains”?
You're welcome to peruse the IAEA's reports on your own. It's generally considered bad form to pick and choose when you are and are not going to take international weapons inspectors' reports seriously based on whether you like what they're saying.
BTW, I didn't write anything about "bomb-making facilities," or threats to the stability of the world, or threats to Israel. If you're responding to me, kindly respond to what I write, instead of inventing arguments that you find easier to deal with. Again, it's considered good form.
BTW, this little pose you strike of having some lofty insight into the human condition is as tedious as it is baseless.
in one form or another is doing an awful lot of work in that sentence. The recent sanctions regime is certainly a big deal to the Iranian government.
In fact Iran’s justification for acquiring nuclear technology from the international “black market” was the embargo on nuclear technology imposed by the west.
But at this point, they have a standing offer from Russia to supply them with uranium and help them with a civilian nuclear power program - and yet they choose to push ahead. The Iranian regime has shown itself to be quite rational in acting in its self-interest, so I have trouble believing that they are choosing to do so for reasons of feelings, unmoored from their national interest - particularly since they have such an obvious national interest in developing a nuclear deterrent, and sped up their programs after the Iraq War.
The bottom line is there are no wining arguments here and picking a fight with Iran on such a lousy pretext would be far more reckless and destructive than what was done in Iraq.
I certainly agree with you on the policy, but we can't be reasoning backwards and assuming facts based on their convenience for making that argument. That's what the Iraq hawks did.
Certainly, the logic of Iran wanting a nuclear deterrent is impeccable.
But for some reason, we're not supposed to conclude that what looks for all the world like Iran, quite rationally, pursuing such a deterrent is actually Iran pursuing a deterrent.
It has to be something else because shut up, warmonger, that's why. After all, a government leader said they weren't, and we can take him at his word.
Those would all be good reasons why Iran would want to plow ahead even when there are sanctions in place, but they don't provide an explanation of why Iran would start down a path that is likely to lead to sanctions.
"We're going to act in a manner that leads others to think we're engaged in a nuclear weapons program, even though we're not, so that our country will be subject to sanctions, international condemnation, and possibly worse, because that's good politics."
Well, maybe, but it seems a little far-fetched. What country has deliberately brought down such consequences on itself, without there being a substantive national interest to be gained?
And you are dodging the question, probably because you have no answer you'd be willing to put your name to. I don't think that's clever at all.
to Iran putting its civilian enrichment program where it cannot be bombed by Israel or the US, which have both threatened to do so
Because I'm so very helpful, I highlighted the unsupported assumption you included in an attempt to define your conclusion. Obviously, the United States and Israel aren't threatening to bomb Iran's nuclear program because they think it's purely a civilian effort, but because they think it's a military program - a impression that isn't exactly refuted by Iran's decision to harden their facilities against military attack.
Which goes directly to my point about the American, Israeli, and European nuclear arsenals not actually being a good reason for those countries not to be afraid of a hostile country getting nukes.
So, anyway, was there going to come some point where you would respond to the question about why a country seeking only nuclear power generation would be willing to endure international pariah status, painful sanctions, a covert spy war, and threats of military attack, just so they could enrich their own uranium instead of importing the stuff ready-made?
Actually, Professor, I didn't switch the conversation the slightest bit. If you go back to your post, you'll notice that it begins with the statement These are some of the countries that say they are afraid of Iran. Between them they have thousands of deadly atomic weapons and proceeds to depict a chart comparing the nuclear arsenals of different countries. If you don't want a conversation about the security concerns of nuclear powers involving comparisons of their capabilities, then perhaps that wasn't the best content to put on your web site.
to Iran putting its civilian enrichment program where it cannot be bombed by Israel or the US, which have both threatened to do so
Because I'm so very helpful, I highlighted the unsupported assumption you included in an attempt to define your conclusion. Obviously, the United States and Israel aren't threatening to bomb Iran's nuclear program because they think it's purely a civilian effort - a impression that isn't exactly refuted by Iran's decision to harden their facilities against military attack.
So, anyway, was there going to come some point where you would respond to the question about when a country seeking only nuclear power generation would be willing to endure international pariah status, painful sanctions, a covert spy war, and threats of military attack, just so they could enrich their own uranium instead of importing the stuff ready-made?
Nuclear weapons aren't like battleships or infantry battalions. Having superiority in nuclear weaponry doesn't actually protect you against other countries that have nuclear weapons. That's why President Obama is so interested in negotiating nuclear arms reduction, and has proposed big cuts in the American arsenal. The only reliable way to protect yourself against nuclear attack is abolition.
it is likely that Iran does not want to construct an actual nuclear weapon
So, your theory about why they're doing things like building facilities in hollowed out mountains and enduring global sanctions rather than simply buying enriched uranium from Russia is...what?
You're going to criticize someone else for writing pejoratives?
Really? You?
Do you ever go back and read what you write, JT?
And now you, you of all people, are insisting on waiting for a formal report before drawing even tentative conclusions - since when have you EVER held yourself to that standard? Pray tell, are you going to stop writing that Israel is behind the assassination of Iranian scientists until someone issues a formal report?
Anyway, calling me a "realist" is laughably wrong-headed, so much so that I don't even think you understand what the term means in international affairs. It doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the merits of the rest of your canned patter.
Israel dealing out all sort of destruction in Beirut and throughout Lebanon, as opposed to limiting its actions to striking Hezbollah directly, in 2006 was a perfect example of "forcing your enemies to protect you from other enemies." Israel was trying to punish the Lebanese government for not doing enough to reel in Hezbollah.
You're throwing a tantrum, sticking your fingers in your ears and going into your canned patter, because you've been faced with facts you find inconvenient for your pre-existing narrative.
The audience for that story (if Prof. Cole is correct) consists of military and political figures around Assad or in the military who are trying to decide whether to defect to the opposition, or go down fighting with Assad.
Indeed; smarmy internet comments are throwing out rather appalling claims of equivalence between the dictator and the opposition, just as they did during the Libya War.
Yes, Robert, bad things happen in wars. We should always keep in mind that, no matter how just one side is, or how noble its adherents, bad things are going to happen in a war.
But that's quite a bit different from claiming that we should oppose one side on the grounds that some of its adherents defected from a tyrant's army, and some of them are young.
The people of Saudi Arabia consider Israel more of an adversary
And you're basing this on...what? Your decades of experience there? Or are you just projecting your own opinions onto a few million people you've never met?
The only possible explanation is that Saudi Arabia is not an independent state, but executes the foreign policy imposed on it by the United States
I pulled up a chart of crude oil prices and Saudi production when I read this statement, and laughed until a little pee came out. Yeah, those Saudis, they sure do take marching order from the US.
The US would have had the ability to give air support, but, as I said, Congress, the ‘liberals-progressives’ like Senator Frank Church, prohibited it.
Except that's bull. You are inventing, as if you are a fiction writer attempting to make a buck, an alternate history in which the United States government and the conservatives therein made even the slightest effort to do something about their anti-Vietnamese de fact allies, the Khmer Rouge. The same Khmer rouge that they supplied during the Vietnam War in order to destabilize the Cambodian prince's government. The same Khmer Rouge that they - the American Cold War conservatives - ran interference for at the UN.
You are telling yourself a pretty little bedtime story that bears about as much relation to reality as a fairy tale.
Does the world have a moral obligation to intervene, even to the point of “regime change” to prevent this kind of thing, OR NOT?
Intervention for such a purpose is justified, but any such action has to meet the requirements of just war theory, which includes both legitimate authority (this, btw, is why you are on the right track discussing "the world," and why you were on the wrong track equating a UN-mandated action in Libya with a UN-opposed action in Iraq) and a good likelihood of success. No one is ever required to throw lives away on something that will probably make the situation worse, no matter what their intentions.
I actually come down much more favorably towards R2P interventions than most people here, but the R2P doctrine is quite a bit more complicated than asserting that the world has a duty to start war whenever it spots a bad guy.
If I understand correctly, you're noting that the United States didn't support an indigenous resistance in Iraq (except the Kurds, btw), while we did support one in Libya.
I suggest that a more likely explanation than some supposed American favoritism towards Sunni Muslims over other Muslims would be, Barack Obama and George W. Bush are two very different Presidents. Obama has adopted a stance towards popular uprisings in the MENA region that is at least notably distinct from past American practice.
First of all, you are misrepresenting history regarding Cambodia. It was the Cold Warriors who ran interference for the Khmer Rouge, siding with the Chinese ally in a conflict with Vietnam. But forget all of that - you're comparing a Cold War flash point to a situation in 2012, and wondering why the United States didn't start a war with the Chinese client state, in the immediate aftermath of Vietnam? Compared to the intervention in Libya? And the only explanation you can come up with is hypocrisy? Incredible.
But beyond that, see my answer to Anan, above. It very much matters whether there is a credible, indigenous opposition to work with and back up, or not. For one thing, it matters in making the case that foreign intervention is legitimate. For another, it's rather important to the shape of the post-war situation, both in terms of the commitment required, and for the chances of success of the post-war state.
The badness of the dictator isn't the only issue that determines whether a foreign military intervention - which always has a high bar to clear - is a good idea.
While there was an Iraqi resistance prior to the war, they certainly didn't invite us in. I remember reading about how the Shiite militias approached coalition forces before the fighting began and offered to field combat units to help fight the Iraqi military - and I remember them being told that they would be treated as hostile forces if they came anywhere near the battlefield. The existence of an Iraqi resistance doesn't make Operation Iraqi Freedom an exercise in supporting an indigenous liberation movement. This, btw, is why I was supportive of the mission in Libya - because it was welcomed by the opposition - but am deeply hesitant to see foreign intervention in Syria, at least at this time. The Syrian opposition certainly aren't going to be waving French and American flags!
Saddam was far worse than Assad.
I agree, he was. Just look at the Iran-Iraq War, by itself. Please understand, the arguments against the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with the notion that Saddam didn't deserve it.
Yet many Americans and Europeans hated the Iraqi Government and the 650,000 Iraqi Security Forces fighting for that government.
To be fair, they hated the "resistance" just as much, if not more. I think you're way off if you're reading sympathy for the Baathists or jihadists into American anti-war sentiment.
Joe from Lowell, you want to know why the hypocrisy? Because in Syria the world’s more than 1 billion Sunnis are united behind the Free Syrian Army. More than united, but emotionally committed.
I think, sir, that you have a profound misunderstanding of the role that the sentiment of the world's 1 billion Sunnis plays in the thought process of your average red-blooded American.
You claim that al Jazeera is a "mouthpiece," and then you link to Russia Today?
You accuse other people of falling for propaganda, and then cite a rally in the capital organized by the regime and evidence of public opinion?
COME ON, MAN! You're not even trying!
how come there are no calls for intervention in Yemen? In Bahrain? In Saudi Arabia? Why do we hardly hear about any atrocities over there? How come there was complete silence when Saudi Arabia sent forces to crush demonstrations in Bahrain?
Because a couple dozen people were killed in Bahrain, while more than 100 times that number have been killed in Syria.
Is that a coincidence that the two countries where you have these civil wars are the ones who oppose US hegemony – Libya and Syria?
Libya, in 2011, was opposing US hegemony? Really? I think you could stand to have your knowledge of the region's politics updated. There was some news about Libya during the Bush administration that's worth looking into.
Yet we hear from many liberal-progressive groups that it was wrong to remove him from power
It's 2012, and you still don't understand the difference between a local movement removing its own dictator and a foreign nation invading and taking over that country?
Seriously?
I'm sure you've had this explained to you several thousand times already, but you're still feigning confusion, so it's probably not worth my while to go through it again.
Hypocritical is taking that one sentence out of context, presenting it as the totality of Professor Cole's position on the Iraq War at the time, and then complaining about memory holes.
I'm perfectly happy to blame Bush/Cheney for everything from the financial meltdown to toe fungus, but the Chinese envoy is just blowing smoke when he points to Iraq as the reason for his government's opposition to UN action.
Chinese and Russian opposition to international action to protect the human rights of those being oppressed by their government is par for the course, their standard operating procedure. Libya was a fluke, their decision to remain silent a huge departure from their ordinary behavior. For China and Russia to block action against Syria is just a reversion to their norm.
There used to be discrimination against Catholics in this country, too. Did our fighting on the side of the French cause a resurgence?
I'm quite comfortable indeed dismissing the premise that something that has never, ever happened given similar circumstances would, for the first time in American history, happen.
I'm leaning towards this explanation, too: Israel as Bad Cop, with the UN/IAEA as Good Cop. Note that this theory does not require actual cooperation or intent on the part of the international community, just the Israelis deciding that they want to play that role.
The likely effects of an Israeli strike are so plainly not worth it for them that I have trouble taking their threats seriously.
In general, countries do in fact REALLY disapprove of the actions of other countries, without then launching military strikes on them, all the time.
Would you say the same of Turkey, Germany, or China? That, if they REALLY didn't want Israel to attack Iran, they'd threaten the use of military force against Israel?
This is why it's legal for the US to fight a war in Afghanistan, for instance, even though al Qaeda's attacks weren't carried out by Afghans, or by the Afghan government.
There would also be significant blowback against the Jewish community for its perceived support of a country that dragged the US into yet another war, caused oil prices to rise and plunged the economy into another recession.
You're basing this on...what? When has that ever happened in American history?
Was there a backlash against Franco-Americans or WASPs during World War One? Or Two?
Was there an anti-French backlash over Vietnam?
I'd hate to characterize your comment as wishful thinking, but I can't figure out what would make someone conclude that a group of Americans of a certain ethnicity would suffer a backlash because we ended up joining a war on their side.
But, considering the fact that the Iranian government is occupying itself with statements and actions declaring to remove the “The Zionist cancer” it is hardly likely we (Israel) could establish any formal connection
Have you ever read the palaver the Marxist-Lenninists used to indulge in about the ultimate fall of the capitalist countries? How about Mao at the time of the Chinese nuclear breakout?
Talk is cheap.
The Iranians have always kept back-channel communications open with us (the Great Satan).
So your theory is that the "assassination" of bin Laden and the drone strikes against al Qaeda targets in places like Pakistan and Yemen represented a new war.
That's odd, because the United States has been legally at war with al Qaeda since September 2001.
I wonder: did Obama's actions during his first term also open the door for Israel's strike against Osirak in 1981?
The notion that an Israeli strike against Iran would be something novel, only possible because of some unprecedented American actions in the second decade of the 21st century, seems bit far-fetched. There are plenty of things that happen in this world that aren't caused by Barack Obama.
That's not quite fair. A massive ground invasion and long-term occupation and military presence was the plan right from the beginning of the Iraq War.
Looking at Libya (1986 and 2011), I don't think we can reflexively assume that a bombing campaign will inevitably turn into a ground war. You need to fill in the blanks.
I think Obama will do anything his Wall Street and AIPAC masters tell him to do.
You know, like cancel the joint military exercises with Israel. Or support the Skeery Al Qaeda Mooslems in the Libyan resistance. Or push hard for a strong consumer protection office in Dodd-Frank. Yup, he's just a big ol' patsy for those Jewish bankers.
With the exception of Iraq...
We have a saying in this country: "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"
Even if the only distinction you're able to made between different Presidents' military performance is the amount of military action, it's still absurd to claim that Obama comes even close to matching his Republican opponents.
Well, Arnold, you're personal opinion aside, the world community was, indeed, pretty well convinced that there was a massive massacre in the offing at Benghazi. People like Samantha Powers, the people who are the foremost experts at how genocide as similar massive political crimes happen, took the threat quite seriously, and the world community found them quite credible.
But I do find it odd that, after so helpfully pointing out that the death toll from Gadhaffi's actions was significantly greater even than that in Syria, you're now choosing to argue exactly the opposite and downplay the humanitarian situation.
I think you're just picking and choosing what you want to believe, based on its momentary convenience in a debate with a guy on the internet.
You bring up another reason why Libya was a special case: even the actions of Assad in trying to put down this rebellion pale in comparison to what Gadaffi was doing, and what he intended to do in Benghazi. There was greater interest from the international community and regional actors in a protective mission, because the humanitarian crisis was even worse.
I just can't agree with those who claim that the Libya operation was a model for things to come. It's much more likely to be a one-off, because it really was a perfect storm of circumstances that we're not likely to see again.
If you take the Libyan mission and eliminate the popular support in the country for foreign intervention, the support of the Arab League, and the support of all five permanent UN Security Council members, you get the situation in Syria.
That was tried recently; it's called Operation Iraqi Freedom. I don't see any of the NATO countries champing at the bit to try that again.
Ron Paul's history and racism and generally crankery discredit every position he takes. If I found that he was on the same side as me on a issue, I certainly wouldn't advertise that fact.
And the “existential threat” issue is, of course, a dirge that Netanyahu has been wailing on the international stage for years, and that, Bibi knows, is a card that he – as well as AIPAC and other denizens of the Israel lobby – can play very effectively if he wants to influence the American electorate. . . .
I don't think this is true, not anymore. I don't think that issue can flip a Presidential election.
That message appeals to two significant groups of voters - right-wing, mainly evangelical, Christians and a segment of American Jews. The former are certain to vote against Obama anyway. Among American Jews, there is a small conservative contingent, who are also certain to vote against Obama, a larger liberal contingent that is certain to vote for him, and a third group that tends to lean Democratic but is hawkish on foreign policy, especially in regard to Israel and terrorism.
This last group could well have their vote changed from pro- to anti-Obama by such a political campaign, but how important are they? They are only a significant number in a few states, and almost all of them are very safe, blue states. Florida is really the only state that stands much of a chance of being swung by such an appeal, given its relatively large Jewish population and its history of close margins in Presidential elections.
Certainly, Florida isn't chopped liver when it comes it Presidential politics, but it's a vast overstatement to claim that Obama would be "hard pressed" by such a threat.
Romney is not ‘pandering’ to the Christian Community,/i>
Romney is a Mormon with a record of, to put it mildly, ideological flexibility. The notion that his comments reflect his true feelings just doesn't ring true to those of us - where are you from? - who've actually seen how he actually governs.
how little some understand the background that is and has been going on in this area.
These little unsupported, unexplained postures of superiority are much less impressive than "some" seem to think they are.
The harm to actual Israelis is from Americans pushing the Greater Israel project is deliberate. They know it will make peace impossible; they intend it to make peace impossible.
Gingrich and, perhaps, Romney are pandering to a fundamentalist and evangelical voting block in the Republican Party, which reads the Book of Revelation as a prediction for the future. (Catholics don't read it this way, but as commentary on contemporary Rome). They support "rebuilding the temple" - often interpreted as the refounding of the state of Israel - as a step towards the return of the Christian messiah, as laid out in the book. A massive war in which Israel is decimated is, according to this prophesy, a necessary intermediate step.
When politicians like this take such a hard line, their message has two levels. First, there is a general hawkishness towards the Muslims in the region and belligerent support for Israel and its security, but beneath that, there is a dog whistle message to the End Times Christians.
You're probably thinking of either President Obama's executive order to close it down, or of Congress's bill forbidding him from spending any money to do so, or to house prisoners from there in American prisons.
You know, rather than behaving like George Bush and merely checking your gut to see whether the statement "China claims the South China Sea," is ideologically acceptable and consistent with your pre-packaged rant, you could have done the reality-based thing and done some research on the matter.
The tides of war are still strong in northern Pakistan, where President Obama has ordered many drone strikes; in Yemen; and etc. Obama has bought into Donald Rumsfeld’s vision of the whole world as a perpetual battlefield and the US military as a sort of large special forces unit that goes here, there and everywhere without regard for international law.
International law quite explicitly authorizes actions against hostile forces in locations where the local government cannot or will not take action against them themselves. Rather than "the whole world," it is only certain specific locations where this situation obtains where the United States is taking military action. There are, no doubt, al Qaeda in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Europe, but we aren't using military means in those places.
But in a larger sense, the tide of war is receding in those places, too. The Obama administration does not view the war against al Qaeda a perpetual war, like Rumsfeld's War on Terror, but as a discreet one that can be ended with the destruction of al Qaeda's command structure, and one which we are quite close to accomplishing.
I think Obama's plan is to declare that war over before the end of his second term.
Although Obama might have been open to US forces being stationed in Iraq, as they are in South Korea, the Iraqi refusal to grant them legal immunity made it impossible for the president to keep them there.
Pray tell, Professor, who was it that decided that it was impossible to keep American troops in Iraq unless they had legal immunity? Oh, that's right - President Barack Obama.
Apparently, he was so "open" to keeping American troops in Iraq that he, himself, made it impossible to keep them there.
You knew the Iraqi parliament would never grant that immunity. I knew it. Malaki knew it. My cat knew it. But we're talking as if Barack Obama didn't know it when he made that immunity a non-negotiable demand?
Perhaps there's some other reason why, instead of giving a wavering ally a straight-up "No" to his request, he gave an answer that amounted to "No" but put the blame for the "failure" on the ally himself.
Remind me, Jonathan, who was it that made immunity a non-negotiable demand in the first place, when Malaki approached him about having a continuing mission in Iraq?
Oh, that's right: Barack Obama.
Boy, he was really pulling out all the stops while "trying to continue the war," wasn't he?
This "double standard" argument doesn't hold up once you remember that the South Carolina election was a party primary, while the Egyptian elections were national elections.
It's not considered notable that South Carolinian Republicans voted for a religious candidate because we already knew they would. It would be similarly unremarkable if the Muslim Brotherhood held primary elections and they were won by religious candidates.
© 2024 All Rights Reserved
Thinking like yours gave us George Bush and the Iraq War.
Assad is a uniter, not a divider.
I think Phudi and Ike are focusing too much on Prof. Cole's statement as a moral judgment about whether Hamas can be described as terrorists, and missing the more important point: that this is not an organization with international reach of aspirations - like al Qaeda, for instance - but rather, a local organization driven by a very local motives.
But I can see how you could have read the perfesser's language that way.
Nice little bit of weaseling around, the way you go from "has a nuke" - unadorned, no adjectives, to "has conclusive proof that..."
You've moved those goal posts quite a way from your original "the experts were/are saying there is no evidence."
So, why, exactly, do you imagine that any of the evidence you quoted is supposed to rebut what I wrote about the motives of those who are concerned about the Iranian nuclear program?
Or are you arguing that the US should invade... my idea for Israel to give up their nuclear stockpile
I haven't written anything about what the US should do, or about what Israel should be, because I'm not writing about a policy. I cling to this very unfashionable idea that first we should get our facts right, and then come up with a policy to address them.
See, this is your problem, the same problem presented by the neocons in the runup to the Iraq War: you base your opinion about the factual question not on the facts, not on the evidence, not on the opinions of the people who know a whole hell of a lot more about the question than you, but, as I said, on whatever position is most convenient for your pre-determined policy preference.
"BTW," I didn't misunderstand you even the slightest bit. Your point is incredibly simple - even simplistic - and poses absolutely no challenge to comprehension whatsoever.
I disagreed with it, which is quite a different thing from misunderstanding.
Experts don’t know anything
No, of course not. Internet commenters and magazine writers know everything.
What would nuclear technicians, scientists, and people who spent their careers studying nuclear proliferation know about anything, amirite?
Best just to check your gut when it comes to a tricky question of science and international affairs. Experts...pfffft! Who needs 'em?
What I'm getting from this map is that the countries that consume the most oil are the "only" ones honoring the boycott, while countries that consume much less oil are not.
It's sort of like those 2000 Electoral College maps that the Republicans loved so much, because they showed these huge, mostly-empty areas colored red.
No, I think the US is actually worried about an Iranian nuclear program, as opposed to Iraq, when the WMD program was a mere pretext.
In both cases the experts were/are saying there is no evidence for these fears.
I think you would do well to go back and check your facts, because the UN inspectors are saying something very different this time around. I suppose the International Atomic Energy Agency doesn't count as experts, though, and ceased to count as experts the moment they said something you didn't want to hear.
Thank you for so aptly demonstrating my point about the specific facts of the situation being no match for a deeply-beloved Universal Narrative That Explains Everything. This must be exactly like Iraq, because it's just gotta be.
Jesse,
I agree with everyone else that this episode is clearly not about the Iranian nuclear program, but rather, fits in perfectly with a pre-existing narrative that I always apply to every situation, regardless of the specific details of the case, and which I needn't ever provide plausible evidence to support, because it's so obviously and universally true.
I, for one, am very impressed with myself for, once again, having the courage and insight to understand that my Grand Theory of Everything explains this, too.
I mean, seriously, the United States being concerned about the Iranians getting a nuclear weapon? Yeah, like that would ever happen. There's no way that fear of a nuclear Iran could actually be the driver here, because everyone in the American military and foreign service community loves the idea of the Iranian government having nuclear weapons. It must be something else.
The answer is, you respect democracy. Not only because it's the moral thing to do, but for two very important practical reasons:
1. The demonstrable evidence, since the rise of mass-suffrage and democratic governance, is that such governments behave more rationally and more responsibly than undemocratic governments. Not less, more.
2. Providing for genuine democratic participation based on universal rights means that the people are bought into the system and feel responsible for it. Do you think it is a coincidence that we haven't had a civil war under your "post-Civil War" system?
The greatest fear of the neo-cons is that Iran will eventually be known to have a bomb, but will not use it. Then what will Israel do?
That is an excellent observation.
I think you're over-estimating the precision of the polling instrument. I don't think a "Yes" answer to the question "Do you think Iran currently has nuclear weapons, or not?" where those are you only choices and you can't ask for clarification necessarily means the respondent is distinguishing between having a nuclear weapons program and having an existing, deployable weapon.
"He should call off the March 5 meeting now planned with Netanyahu and let him cool his heels till he apologizes."
Is that actually a punishment, though? This meeting looks an awful lot like Nethanyahu being called on the carpet, after the administration jerked the chain a bit. I think that canceling the meeting would be just the opposite.
Poor General Dempsey.
The problem with trying to take away your drunk friend's keys when he staggers out to his car swearing to "Kill dat bitch" after doing a few shots is that he tends to punch you in the face.
Right, Persian, duh.
I got the point of the poem; I was thinking that the poet was saying that the religious accouterments of other religions were "tokens of Islam," which would make the point even more explicitly.
Everything I know about Islamic theology, I learned from The Satanic Verses, so forgive me if this question doesn't make any sense:
Is the term that you translated as "servitude to God" the same as "submission" or "Islam?"
Using the term "intervention" by itself, as if everything that can be called by that name is part of an undifferentiated mass, is as wrong when applied to foreign affairs as it is when libertarians apply the term to domestic policy.
Ha!
Win.
Iraq was not a problem for the US until 1990. The US navy was an adjunct to the Iraqi army in the 1980s. As the US replaced the British in the course of the 1980s, it viewed post-1979 Iran as the threat.
All of that is true, Professor, but the creation of most of the American bases around the Gulf, and most of the personnel we have stationed in the region, didn't come out of that, but out of our two-decade contretemps with Iraq.
In the 80s, and before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, our presence in the Gulf was mainly limited to aircraft carriers. It was a BFD when George H. W. Bush convinced the Saudis to approve American troop deployments in the Kingdom in Operation Desert Shield, which begat Operation Desert Storm, which begat the long-term, large-scale troop presence.
most Gulf bases were put there specifically for that purpose
Most Gulf bases were put there specifically to deal with Iraq, whether before the First Gulf War (Saudi Arabia), immediately after it (Kuwait) or before the invasion of Iraq.
Now, the bases we built and abandoned in Iraq - most of those were built to "project power" against Iran.
Love love love seeing Iraq blue and free of stars on that map. Some said it would never happen.
Turning around an aircraft carrier take a long time, but at least it's turning.
But the biggest puzzle from that map to me is the absence of any bases at all in oil-rich Iraq, after we have spent trillions of dollars fighting a war there.
That is rather notable, isn't it? It certainly is a remarkable departure from the historical norm.
Elections have consequences.
Obama/Biden 2012.
I don't disagree of your description of 50s-era Anglo-American Cold War meddling at all, JT.
As far as the weapons, well, didn’t the al-Qaeda clean out the arsenal[s] in Libya, with the blessings of the West, taking them to who knows where?
Link? Could you perhaps provide some evidence that skerry al Qaeda Mooslems have possession of weapons looted in Libya?
Again, isn’t as-Qaeda a CIA client?
No, that's actually rather nuts. The CIA tends not to wage global wars in multiple countries against its clients.
My beef is with all the Players, on all the sides, American, RussoSoviet, and Israeli and Chinese and French and British and on and on, who have sloshed weapons into places where people with guns find reasons to kill one another, in an endless cycle of revenge.
You just can't bring yourself to say, it can you?
Iran.
Iran.
C'mon, I dare you. Iran.
And per our US security spokespersons, we are being “informed” that various of the provocational attacks and incidents have an “al Quaeda-in-Iraqish” flavor to them.
Professor Cole has written about his himself. Tell me, is he one of these "US security spokespersons" you mention?
Here's a crazy thought: maybe, rather than being "informed," you're actually being informed.
Just so we're clear, Professor: you're merely "accounting facts," and not arguing one way or another about the likelihood that the Iranians are working towards nuclear weapons capability?
Just the facts, ma'am? You're not coming down on one side or the other of that question?
I think there might be a bit of a misunderstanding. Could you kindly clarify what, exactly, is your opinion on whether Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons capability, and whether they are involved in the string of bombings of Israeli facilities?
Thanks.
Sure, but the heavy-metal poisoning from DU dust has been quite well-established.
No, it's not a radiological hazard; it's a toxic.
As to “overwhelming” evidence from a USAToday AP story, I see a lot of quotes from Israeli warlords, but not much from maybe more reliable sources with less of a history of “having said the thing that is not so” to nail down so uncontrovertibly the Guilt of All Iran.
The double-standard you're displaying here is astounding. It took you roughly 2 seconds to implicate Israel and the United States in the assassinations of the Iranian scientists when not a single arrest had been made, but whoa now! Let's not jump to any conclusions about who's bombing Israeli targets in multiple countries.
When, exactly, are we going to get a "level-heading accounting of the facts" in Bangkok, like people keep asking for?
It was always profoundly silly for you to reflexively insist on Iranian innocence in the bombings, and your defensiveness shows that you're quite aware of this.
As much as I respect Professor Cole's desire to push back against the Iran hawks, he's picking some strange hills to die on.
Um, actually, Pakistan was our ally when they were supporting terrorists.
Pointing out that the word is misused isn't the same thing as demonstrating that it is meaningless.
If you, like some others out there, believe it is a rational decision for Iran to build nuclear weapons given the carnage the US and Israel have unleashed upon its neighbors, then perhaps instead of arguing with us here, you should be writing to your congressmen and President asking them why they won’t stop the provocations and threats that have forced Iran to pusrsue this “rational” policy of deterrence via nuclear arms.
I think you are missing the distinction between what is rational for Iran's interests, and what is rational and best for the world at large. There are numerous examples, from the Tragedy of the Commons to the guy who moves out of the city and takes on a 70 mile commute in order to get away from air pollution, of the actions of an individual actor being rational for him given a set of circumstances, but irrational in the aggregate.
It is both rational for Iran to want a deterrent, and for the global community to want to stop nuclear proliferation. Until we get to the point of a verifiable nuclear abolition regime, I don't see any way around this clash of legitimate, rational interests.
Does that answer your question?
No, because it only considers one side of the equation. All of the suboptimal (from the Iranian point of view) outcomes you describe - do you actually think that they are worse than the status quo, and the possible future, for Iran?
Derrida Derider,
Pretty obviously, Joe, they started because there was this superpower that invaded and occupied two of the neighbours and then kept looking them in the eye muttering “regime change”.
Indeed. I can't understand why Professor Cole and others find this so implausible.
RBTL,
Juan Cole has written many times that Iran seems to be going for the capacity to build a nuclear bomb
He certainly hasn't written anything of the sort lately. Take a look at this post; he's been arguing quite forcefully that Iran is absolutely not engaged in any work towards nuclear weapons capability - indeed, he seems to find it quite important that the most powerful politician in Iran has said that they aren't - and keeps denouncing such a suspicion as baseless.
It would be naive to think Iran does not seek the capacity to build nuclear weapons
Yes, it would. Very much so.
I agree with you, quite strongly, that the west and even Israel don't face a real threat from an Iranian nuke. Iran hasn't launched an offensive war in well over two centuries. It's quite clear to me that Iran has a very great interest in having a deterrent. I think we can live with it, just as we lived a Chinese nuke. That's the argument that we Iran doves should be making, and I fear that the decision to push the naive position will, once it becomes impossible to maintain that claim, discredit the entire anti-Iran-war argument.
Russia, Pakistan, and China all sponsored terrorist groups while they were nuclear powers.
Notably, they didn't pass any nukes to them.
Do you have some reality-based, verifiable facts (rather than fear-based speculations) about “facilities,” presumably BOMB-BUILDING FACILITIES, in “hollowed out mountains”?
You're welcome to peruse the IAEA's reports on your own. It's generally considered bad form to pick and choose when you are and are not going to take international weapons inspectors' reports seriously based on whether you like what they're saying.
BTW, I didn't write anything about "bomb-making facilities," or threats to the stability of the world, or threats to Israel. If you're responding to me, kindly respond to what I write, instead of inventing arguments that you find easier to deal with. Again, it's considered good form.
BTW, this little pose you strike of having some lofty insight into the human condition is as tedious as it is baseless.
Jahan,
in one form or another is doing an awful lot of work in that sentence. The recent sanctions regime is certainly a big deal to the Iranian government.
In fact Iran’s justification for acquiring nuclear technology from the international “black market” was the embargo on nuclear technology imposed by the west.
But at this point, they have a standing offer from Russia to supply them with uranium and help them with a civilian nuclear power program - and yet they choose to push ahead. The Iranian regime has shown itself to be quite rational in acting in its self-interest, so I have trouble believing that they are choosing to do so for reasons of feelings, unmoored from their national interest - particularly since they have such an obvious national interest in developing a nuclear deterrent, and sped up their programs after the Iraq War.
The bottom line is there are no wining arguments here and picking a fight with Iran on such a lousy pretext would be far more reckless and destructive than what was done in Iraq.
I certainly agree with you on the policy, but we can't be reasoning backwards and assuming facts based on their convenience for making that argument. That's what the Iraq hawks did.
Certainly, the logic of Iran wanting a nuclear deterrent is impeccable.
But for some reason, we're not supposed to conclude that what looks for all the world like Iran, quite rationally, pursuing such a deterrent is actually Iran pursuing a deterrent.
It has to be something else because shut up, warmonger, that's why. After all, a government leader said they weren't, and we can take him at his word.
Those would all be good reasons why Iran would want to plow ahead even when there are sanctions in place, but they don't provide an explanation of why Iran would start down a path that is likely to lead to sanctions.
"We're going to act in a manner that leads others to think we're engaged in a nuclear weapons program, even though we're not, so that our country will be subject to sanctions, international condemnation, and possibly worse, because that's good politics."
Well, maybe, but it seems a little far-fetched. What country has deliberately brought down such consequences on itself, without there being a substantive national interest to be gained?
And you are dodging the question, probably because you have no answer you'd be willing to put your name to. I don't think that's clever at all.
to Iran putting its civilian enrichment program where it cannot be bombed by Israel or the US, which have both threatened to do so
Because I'm so very helpful, I highlighted the unsupported assumption you included in an attempt to define your conclusion. Obviously, the United States and Israel aren't threatening to bomb Iran's nuclear program because they think it's purely a civilian effort, but because they think it's a military program - a impression that isn't exactly refuted by Iran's decision to harden their facilities against military attack.
Which goes directly to my point about the American, Israeli, and European nuclear arsenals not actually being a good reason for those countries not to be afraid of a hostile country getting nukes.
So, anyway, was there going to come some point where you would respond to the question about why a country seeking only nuclear power generation would be willing to endure international pariah status, painful sanctions, a covert spy war, and threats of military attack, just so they could enrich their own uranium instead of importing the stuff ready-made?
Actually, Professor, I didn't switch the conversation the slightest bit. If you go back to your post, you'll notice that it begins with the statement These are some of the countries that say they are afraid of Iran. Between them they have thousands of deadly atomic weapons and proceeds to depict a chart comparing the nuclear arsenals of different countries. If you don't want a conversation about the security concerns of nuclear powers involving comparisons of their capabilities, then perhaps that wasn't the best content to put on your web site.
to Iran putting its civilian enrichment program where it cannot be bombed by Israel or the US, which have both threatened to do so
Because I'm so very helpful, I highlighted the unsupported assumption you included in an attempt to define your conclusion. Obviously, the United States and Israel aren't threatening to bomb Iran's nuclear program because they think it's purely a civilian effort - a impression that isn't exactly refuted by Iran's decision to harden their facilities against military attack.
So, anyway, was there going to come some point where you would respond to the question about when a country seeking only nuclear power generation would be willing to endure international pariah status, painful sanctions, a covert spy war, and threats of military attack, just so they could enrich their own uranium instead of importing the stuff ready-made?
Nuclear weapons aren't like battleships or infantry battalions. Having superiority in nuclear weaponry doesn't actually protect you against other countries that have nuclear weapons. That's why President Obama is so interested in negotiating nuclear arms reduction, and has proposed big cuts in the American arsenal. The only reliable way to protect yourself against nuclear attack is abolition.
it is likely that Iran does not want to construct an actual nuclear weapon
So, your theory about why they're doing things like building facilities in hollowed out mountains and enduring global sanctions rather than simply buying enriched uranium from Russia is...what?
...because that's so much more important that trying to stop the violence in Syria.
You're going to criticize someone else for writing pejoratives?
Really? You?
Do you ever go back and read what you write, JT?
And now you, you of all people, are insisting on waiting for a formal report before drawing even tentative conclusions - since when have you EVER held yourself to that standard? Pray tell, are you going to stop writing that Israel is behind the assassination of Iranian scientists until someone issues a formal report?
Anyway, calling me a "realist" is laughably wrong-headed, so much so that I don't even think you understand what the term means in international affairs. It doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the merits of the rest of your canned patter.
What are you talking about?
Israel dealing out all sort of destruction in Beirut and throughout Lebanon, as opposed to limiting its actions to striking Hezbollah directly, in 2006 was a perfect example of "forcing your enemies to protect you from other enemies." Israel was trying to punish the Lebanese government for not doing enough to reel in Hezbollah.
You're throwing a tantrum, sticking your fingers in your ears and going into your canned patter, because you've been faced with facts you find inconvenient for your pre-existing narrative.
Try joining the reality-based community.
So the conflict that threatens to shut down the Straits of Hormuz and cause a massive global spike in oil prices is motivated by oil?
I think you're knee is jerking. Not everything is about oil.
Iranian men were behind the Bangkok bombing.
http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/279816/iranian-injured-in-bangkok-bombs
Stay tuned.
The attacks in Georgia and now Bangkok make the Pakistani militant angle much less likely.
Let's not forget that the Pakistani-based terrorists who attacked Mumbai three years ago targeted the city's Jewish cultural center.
No, he meant "psychological warfare."
The audience for that story (if Prof. Cole is correct) consists of military and political figures around Assad or in the military who are trying to decide whether to defect to the opposition, or go down fighting with Assad.
the usa really needs to mind its own business.
Former11BP feels terribly for the victims of the Syrian regime, but you can't make an anti-imperialist omelette without breaking a few eggs.
This is Libya redux.
Indeed; smarmy internet comments are throwing out rather appalling claims of equivalence between the dictator and the opposition, just as they did during the Libya War.
Yes, Robert, bad things happen in wars. We should always keep in mind that, no matter how just one side is, or how noble its adherents, bad things are going to happen in a war.
But that's quite a bit different from claiming that we should oppose one side on the grounds that some of its adherents defected from a tyrant's army, and some of them are young.
The people of Saudi Arabia consider Israel more of an adversary
And you're basing this on...what? Your decades of experience there? Or are you just projecting your own opinions onto a few million people you've never met?
The only possible explanation is that Saudi Arabia is not an independent state, but executes the foreign policy imposed on it by the United States
I pulled up a chart of crude oil prices and Saudi production when I read this statement, and laughed until a little pee came out. Yeah, those Saudis, they sure do take marching order from the US.
The US would have had the ability to give air support, but, as I said, Congress, the ‘liberals-progressives’ like Senator Frank Church, prohibited it.
Except that's bull. You are inventing, as if you are a fiction writer attempting to make a buck, an alternate history in which the United States government and the conservatives therein made even the slightest effort to do something about their anti-Vietnamese de fact allies, the Khmer Rouge. The same Khmer rouge that they supplied during the Vietnam War in order to destabilize the Cambodian prince's government. The same Khmer Rouge that they - the American Cold War conservatives - ran interference for at the UN.
You are telling yourself a pretty little bedtime story that bears about as much relation to reality as a fairy tale.
Does the world have a moral obligation to intervene, even to the point of “regime change” to prevent this kind of thing, OR NOT?
Intervention for such a purpose is justified, but any such action has to meet the requirements of just war theory, which includes both legitimate authority (this, btw, is why you are on the right track discussing "the world," and why you were on the wrong track equating a UN-mandated action in Libya with a UN-opposed action in Iraq) and a good likelihood of success. No one is ever required to throw lives away on something that will probably make the situation worse, no matter what their intentions.
I actually come down much more favorably towards R2P interventions than most people here, but the R2P doctrine is quite a bit more complicated than asserting that the world has a duty to start war whenever it spots a bad guy.
Anan,
If I understand correctly, you're noting that the United States didn't support an indigenous resistance in Iraq (except the Kurds, btw), while we did support one in Libya.
I suggest that a more likely explanation than some supposed American favoritism towards Sunni Muslims over other Muslims would be, Barack Obama and George W. Bush are two very different Presidents. Obama has adopted a stance towards popular uprisings in the MENA region that is at least notably distinct from past American practice.
First of all, you are misrepresenting history regarding Cambodia. It was the Cold Warriors who ran interference for the Khmer Rouge, siding with the Chinese ally in a conflict with Vietnam. But forget all of that - you're comparing a Cold War flash point to a situation in 2012, and wondering why the United States didn't start a war with the Chinese client state, in the immediate aftermath of Vietnam? Compared to the intervention in Libya? And the only explanation you can come up with is hypocrisy? Incredible.
But beyond that, see my answer to Anan, above. It very much matters whether there is a credible, indigenous opposition to work with and back up, or not. For one thing, it matters in making the case that foreign intervention is legitimate. For another, it's rather important to the shape of the post-war situation, both in terms of the commitment required, and for the chances of success of the post-war state.
The badness of the dictator isn't the only issue that determines whether a foreign military intervention - which always has a high bar to clear - is a good idea.
Anan,
While there was an Iraqi resistance prior to the war, they certainly didn't invite us in. I remember reading about how the Shiite militias approached coalition forces before the fighting began and offered to field combat units to help fight the Iraqi military - and I remember them being told that they would be treated as hostile forces if they came anywhere near the battlefield. The existence of an Iraqi resistance doesn't make Operation Iraqi Freedom an exercise in supporting an indigenous liberation movement. This, btw, is why I was supportive of the mission in Libya - because it was welcomed by the opposition - but am deeply hesitant to see foreign intervention in Syria, at least at this time. The Syrian opposition certainly aren't going to be waving French and American flags!
Saddam was far worse than Assad.
I agree, he was. Just look at the Iran-Iraq War, by itself. Please understand, the arguments against the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with the notion that Saddam didn't deserve it.
Yet many Americans and Europeans hated the Iraqi Government and the 650,000 Iraqi Security Forces fighting for that government.
To be fair, they hated the "resistance" just as much, if not more. I think you're way off if you're reading sympathy for the Baathists or jihadists into American anti-war sentiment.
Joe from Lowell, you want to know why the hypocrisy? Because in Syria the world’s more than 1 billion Sunnis are united behind the Free Syrian Army. More than united, but emotionally committed.
I think, sir, that you have a profound misunderstanding of the role that the sentiment of the world's 1 billion Sunnis plays in the thought process of your average red-blooded American.
The “Free Syria Army” is largely made up of defected military men and mobs of young Syrians boys.
People who defected from Assad's military sound pretty ok to me.
The youth of Syria sound pretty ok to me.
Was I supposed to like the "Free Syria Army" less?
You claim that al Jazeera is a "mouthpiece," and then you link to Russia Today?
You accuse other people of falling for propaganda, and then cite a rally in the capital organized by the regime and evidence of public opinion?
COME ON, MAN! You're not even trying!
how come there are no calls for intervention in Yemen? In Bahrain? In Saudi Arabia? Why do we hardly hear about any atrocities over there? How come there was complete silence when Saudi Arabia sent forces to crush demonstrations in Bahrain?
Because a couple dozen people were killed in Bahrain, while more than 100 times that number have been killed in Syria.
Is that a coincidence that the two countries where you have these civil wars are the ones who oppose US hegemony – Libya and Syria?
Libya, in 2011, was opposing US hegemony? Really? I think you could stand to have your knowledge of the region's politics updated. There was some news about Libya during the Bush administration that's worth looking into.
Yet we hear from many liberal-progressive groups that it was wrong to remove him from power
It's 2012, and you still don't understand the difference between a local movement removing its own dictator and a foreign nation invading and taking over that country?
Seriously?
I'm sure you've had this explained to you several thousand times already, but you're still feigning confusion, so it's probably not worth my while to go through it again.
Even further on the correct use of words:
Secession. The act of seceding; separation from fellowship or association with others, as in a religious or political organization
The protesters who were attacked by the Syrian regime, and then took up arms in response, were not part of a secession movement.
Let's not let overblown propaganda get the better of us here.
Something short of 800 people were killed by the Israels in the Gaza War.
About 1200 Lebanese were killed in the 2006 border war. Those are both terrible things.
According to the UN, as many as 7000 people have been killed by the Syrian regime during the uprising.
Hypocritical is taking that one sentence out of context, presenting it as the totality of Professor Cole's position on the Iraq War at the time, and then complaining about memory holes.
I'm perfectly happy to blame Bush/Cheney for everything from the financial meltdown to toe fungus, but the Chinese envoy is just blowing smoke when he points to Iraq as the reason for his government's opposition to UN action.
Chinese and Russian opposition to international action to protect the human rights of those being oppressed by their government is par for the course, their standard operating procedure. Libya was a fluke, their decision to remain silent a huge departure from their ordinary behavior. For China and Russia to block action against Syria is just a reversion to their norm.
There used to be discrimination against Catholics in this country, too. Did our fighting on the side of the French cause a resurgence?
I'm quite comfortable indeed dismissing the premise that something that has never, ever happened given similar circumstances would, for the first time in American history, happen.
Well, that is a gamble
As opposed to a preventive war? That's not a gamble? That's not a much-more significant gamble?
Your country didn't just get out of Iraq. Don't talk to me about war being the safe option for people who don't want to gamble.
I'm leaning towards this explanation, too: Israel as Bad Cop, with the UN/IAEA as Good Cop. Note that this theory does not require actual cooperation or intent on the part of the international community, just the Israelis deciding that they want to play that role.
The likely effects of an Israeli strike are so plainly not worth it for them that I have trouble taking their threats seriously.
BTW, you're talking about the United States unilaterally carrying out an attack on another country out of a Responsibility to Protect obligation.
It's generally the case that such actions aren't legal under international law but, as in Libya and Cote D'Ivoire, require UNSC approval.
In general, countries do in fact REALLY disapprove of the actions of other countries, without then launching military strikes on them, all the time.
Would you say the same of Turkey, Germany, or China? That, if they REALLY didn't want Israel to attack Iran, they'd threaten the use of military force against Israel?
This is exactly right.
This is why it's legal for the US to fight a war in Afghanistan, for instance, even though al Qaeda's attacks weren't carried out by Afghans, or by the Afghan government.
Not even "their side."
The side of a country with a population of the same ethnic group.
Obviously, Jewish Americans are OUR - that is, the American - "side."
There would also be significant blowback against the Jewish community for its perceived support of a country that dragged the US into yet another war, caused oil prices to rise and plunged the economy into another recession.
You're basing this on...what? When has that ever happened in American history?
Was there a backlash against Franco-Americans or WASPs during World War One? Or Two?
Was there an anti-French backlash over Vietnam?
I'd hate to characterize your comment as wishful thinking, but I can't figure out what would make someone conclude that a group of Americans of a certain ethnicity would suffer a backlash because we ended up joining a war on their side.
But, considering the fact that the Iranian government is occupying itself with statements and actions declaring to remove the “The Zionist cancer” it is hardly likely we (Israel) could establish any formal connection
Have you ever read the palaver the Marxist-Lenninists used to indulge in about the ultimate fall of the capitalist countries? How about Mao at the time of the Chinese nuclear breakout?
Talk is cheap.
The Iranians have always kept back-channel communications open with us (the Great Satan).
Any of Israel's neighbors, except Saudi Arabia, that attempted an air attack on Israel would be sacrificing its air forces for a symbolic action.
So your theory is that the "assassination" of bin Laden and the drone strikes against al Qaeda targets in places like Pakistan and Yemen represented a new war.
That's odd, because the United States has been legally at war with al Qaeda since September 2001.
I wonder: did Obama's actions during his first term also open the door for Israel's strike against Osirak in 1981?
The notion that an Israeli strike against Iran would be something novel, only possible because of some unprecedented American actions in the second decade of the 21st century, seems bit far-fetched. There are plenty of things that happen in this world that aren't caused by Barack Obama.
That's not quite fair. A massive ground invasion and long-term occupation and military presence was the plan right from the beginning of the Iraq War.
Looking at Libya (1986 and 2011), I don't think we can reflexively assume that a bombing campaign will inevitably turn into a ground war. You need to fill in the blanks.
I think Obama will do anything his Wall Street and AIPAC masters tell him to do.
You know, like cancel the joint military exercises with Israel. Or support the Skeery Al Qaeda Mooslems in the Libyan resistance. Or push hard for a strong consumer protection office in Dodd-Frank. Yup, he's just a big ol' patsy for those Jewish bankers.
With the exception of Iraq...
We have a saying in this country: "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"
Even if the only distinction you're able to made between different Presidents' military performance is the amount of military action, it's still absurd to claim that Obama comes even close to matching his Republican opponents.
Damn, those PUMAs can really hold a grudge.
The Russians are running interference for Assad in the UNSC. They and the Chinese are blocking a statement calling for Assad to step down.
Well, Arnold, you're personal opinion aside, the world community was, indeed, pretty well convinced that there was a massive massacre in the offing at Benghazi. People like Samantha Powers, the people who are the foremost experts at how genocide as similar massive political crimes happen, took the threat quite seriously, and the world community found them quite credible.
But I do find it odd that, after so helpfully pointing out that the death toll from Gadhaffi's actions was significantly greater even than that in Syria, you're now choosing to argue exactly the opposite and downplay the humanitarian situation.
I think you're just picking and choosing what you want to believe, based on its momentary convenience in a debate with a guy on the internet.
You bring up another reason why Libya was a special case: even the actions of Assad in trying to put down this rebellion pale in comparison to what Gadaffi was doing, and what he intended to do in Benghazi. There was greater interest from the international community and regional actors in a protective mission, because the humanitarian crisis was even worse.
I just can't agree with those who claim that the Libya operation was a model for things to come. It's much more likely to be a one-off, because it really was a perfect storm of circumstances that we're not likely to see again.
If you take the Libyan mission and eliminate the popular support in the country for foreign intervention, the support of the Arab League, and the support of all five permanent UN Security Council members, you get the situation in Syria.
That was tried recently; it's called Operation Iraqi Freedom. I don't see any of the NATO countries champing at the bit to try that again.
What kind of revolution embraces a theocratic monarchy like Saudi Arabia?
Any revolution that has the chance?
Well, what kind of revolution embraces an absolutist monarchy like France? The answer is, the Continental Army during the American revolution.
The writer claims that the reports of atrocities by Assad's forces are made up as part of a propaganda campaign.
I think that's all we need to know to judge the merit of that particular piece.
Ron Paul's history and racism and generally crankery discredit every position he takes. If I found that he was on the same side as me on a issue, I certainly wouldn't advertise that fact.
And the “existential threat” issue is, of course, a dirge that Netanyahu has been wailing on the international stage for years, and that, Bibi knows, is a card that he – as well as AIPAC and other denizens of the Israel lobby – can play very effectively if he wants to influence the American electorate. . . .
I don't think this is true, not anymore. I don't think that issue can flip a Presidential election.
That message appeals to two significant groups of voters - right-wing, mainly evangelical, Christians and a segment of American Jews. The former are certain to vote against Obama anyway. Among American Jews, there is a small conservative contingent, who are also certain to vote against Obama, a larger liberal contingent that is certain to vote for him, and a third group that tends to lean Democratic but is hawkish on foreign policy, especially in regard to Israel and terrorism.
This last group could well have their vote changed from pro- to anti-Obama by such a political campaign, but how important are they? They are only a significant number in a few states, and almost all of them are very safe, blue states. Florida is really the only state that stands much of a chance of being swung by such an appeal, given its relatively large Jewish population and its history of close margins in Presidential elections.
Certainly, Florida isn't chopped liver when it comes it Presidential politics, but it's a vast overstatement to claim that Obama would be "hard pressed" by such a threat.
Wow.
Have you ascended to freedom only to track it down now with a pack?
Powerful stuff. This writer is a treasure.
Romney is not ‘pandering’ to the Christian Community,/i>
Romney is a Mormon with a record of, to put it mildly, ideological flexibility. The notion that his comments reflect his true feelings just doesn't ring true to those of us - where are you from? - who've actually seen how he actually governs.
how little some understand the background that is and has been going on in this area.
These little unsupported, unexplained postures of superiority are much less impressive than "some" seem to think they are.
The harm to actual Israelis is from Americans pushing the Greater Israel project is deliberate. They know it will make peace impossible; they intend it to make peace impossible.
Gingrich and, perhaps, Romney are pandering to a fundamentalist and evangelical voting block in the Republican Party, which reads the Book of Revelation as a prediction for the future. (Catholics don't read it this way, but as commentary on contemporary Rome). They support "rebuilding the temple" - often interpreted as the refounding of the state of Israel - as a step towards the return of the Christian messiah, as laid out in the book. A massive war in which Israel is decimated is, according to this prophesy, a necessary intermediate step.
When politicians like this take such a hard line, their message has two levels. First, there is a general hawkishness towards the Muslims in the region and belligerent support for Israel and its security, but beneath that, there is a dog whistle message to the End Times Christians.
You're probably thinking of either President Obama's executive order to close it down, or of Congress's bill forbidding him from spending any money to do so, or to house prisoners from there in American prisons.
You know, rather than behaving like George Bush and merely checking your gut to see whether the statement "China claims the South China Sea," is ideologically acceptable and consistent with your pre-packaged rant, you could have done the reality-based thing and done some research on the matter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine-dotted_line
No, Mr. McPhee, it is not an unsupported assertion, it's not a breath-taking scale, and it has nothing to do with Risk.
It's a well-established, well-known fact, which doesn't disappear because you find it politically inconvenient.
The tides of war are still strong in northern Pakistan, where President Obama has ordered many drone strikes; in Yemen; and etc. Obama has bought into Donald Rumsfeld’s vision of the whole world as a perpetual battlefield and the US military as a sort of large special forces unit that goes here, there and everywhere without regard for international law.
International law quite explicitly authorizes actions against hostile forces in locations where the local government cannot or will not take action against them themselves. Rather than "the whole world," it is only certain specific locations where this situation obtains where the United States is taking military action. There are, no doubt, al Qaeda in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Europe, but we aren't using military means in those places.
But in a larger sense, the tide of war is receding in those places, too. The Obama administration does not view the war against al Qaeda a perpetual war, like Rumsfeld's War on Terror, but as a discreet one that can be ended with the destruction of al Qaeda's command structure, and one which we are quite close to accomplishing.
I think Obama's plan is to declare that war over before the end of his second term.
Although Obama might have been open to US forces being stationed in Iraq, as they are in South Korea, the Iraqi refusal to grant them legal immunity made it impossible for the president to keep them there.
Pray tell, Professor, who was it that decided that it was impossible to keep American troops in Iraq unless they had legal immunity? Oh, that's right - President Barack Obama.
Apparently, he was so "open" to keeping American troops in Iraq that he, himself, made it impossible to keep them there.
You knew the Iraqi parliament would never grant that immunity. I knew it. Malaki knew it. My cat knew it. But we're talking as if Barack Obama didn't know it when he made that immunity a non-negotiable demand?
Perhaps there's some other reason why, instead of giving a wavering ally a straight-up "No" to his request, he gave an answer that amounted to "No" but put the blame for the "failure" on the ally himself.
Remind me, Jonathan, who was it that made immunity a non-negotiable demand in the first place, when Malaki approached him about having a continuing mission in Iraq?
Oh, that's right: Barack Obama.
Boy, he was really pulling out all the stops while "trying to continue the war," wasn't he?
Imagine what Saudis will do with advanced jets, Oman too.
Pay spoiled princes to fly them poorly?
This "double standard" argument doesn't hold up once you remember that the South Carolina election was a party primary, while the Egyptian elections were national elections.
It's not considered notable that South Carolinian Republicans voted for a religious candidate because we already knew they would. It would be similarly unremarkable if the Muslim Brotherhood held primary elections and they were won by religious candidates.