Fighting & Winning The Global War on Terror (WW IV)

[Pikache]

Nuke is the greatest equalizer. Isn't this the reason why Iran and NK is trying to develop a nuke?

 

[MissMolsonIndy]

MissMolsonIndy,

Since you took the time to respond, I'll offer up my rebuttal.

And I will offer mine.

Old Guy really said it best.  Instead of asking a question that begins with a negative opinion on Missile Defence/Iraq/George W Bush/whatever and then asking the question, why don't you simply ask the question?

eg:

instead of:

14. The Vietnam War was launched on "government lies passed on by pliant mass media," where "North Vietnamese torpedo boats launched an "unprovoked attack" against a U.S. destroyer on "routine patrol" in the Tonkin Gulf on Aug. 2 -- and that North Vietnamese PT boats followed up with a "deliberate attack" on a pair of U.S. ships two days later." The Gulf War, was sold to the United States, "the mother of all clients," by a "it bleeds, it leads" story about babies being tossed out of incubators by Iraqi soldiers. As officials and the mass media learned of the witness's blood ties with the Kuwaiti government, the story began to fall apart, and the war was launched on false information/propaganda. The Iraq War was launched by the United States of America on the basis that Iraq was developing and concealing weapons of mass destruction, with no evidence that these weapons of mass destruction even exist, is it viable that government lies and deception have once again "sold a war" to the media and public?

couldn't you just ask:

Do you feel that the media plays a role in legitimizing or presenting a state's justification for war?  If so, what do you think is the nature of this relationship?

Yes, you're right, the question could have and should have been phrased in ways that would have reduced any excess indications of bias. The questions, however, have already been formulated, many responses have already been welcomed, and this issue has been addressed several times over; I have made it clear that I am in agreement with you, so why do you insist on beating a dead horse? You don't make your argument any stronger by reiterating the same point again and again.

If you're still convinced that I have come to this forum (which is, needless to say, predominated by conservatism, and by and large â Å“right-wingâ ? views) in search of having my commonly â Å“left-wingâ ? beliefs confirmed, particularly in the sense that the questions I have posed will 'sway' readers towards responding with more â Å“leftistâ ? ideals, values and supporting information, than they otherwise would, then I honestly don't know what more to say, Infanteer...

I have come here to have the very views and supportive evidence that I accept as â Å“truthâ ? to be challenged by alternative ways of thinking. If that weren't the case, would I not be at the local 'war resisters campaign,' bathing in 'idealist goodness'?

Furthermore, I have been erroneously painted with stripes of â Å“academic with a deficiency of real world experienceâ ?, â Å“leftist-eggheadâ ?, and â Å“idealism.â ? Although I can unearth validity in the ways in which â Å“idealistsâ ? paint the world, my views very much run parallel with the realist perspective. I believe that ideology, â Å“a set of expectations, assumptions, beliefs, values and prescriptions for the organization of society,â ? and the most fundamental ways in which human beings render the complexity of the world into something simplistic and comprehensible, inevitably breeds conflict, and conflict, for the most part, promotes change. I do, however, remain skeptical about the ways in which this particular conflict should be dealt with, be it with diplomacy or â Å“hotâ ? conflict. Therefore to paint me as an â Å“idealist war resister,â ? on the basis that I disagree with the fundamental basis and implementation of the Iraq War (for moreover philosophical reasoning than for aiding the Iraqi populace to live freely from an oppressive dictatorship) runs against the perspective in world politics that I most closely associate myself with: realism. Furthermore, to paint me as such also reveals the narrow line of thought in your ideological framework, because if I'm not entirely â Å“forâ ? the war, then I must be â Å“againstâ ? it. I think our good friend George W. Bush says it best: â Å“If you're not with us, you're with the terrorists!â ?

As per the â Å“attacks on Academia,â ? it is my belief that you lack an understanding of how the Academic World functions: academic institutions don't serve as a breeding-ground for â Å“leftistâ ? ideals, if anything, academic institutions provide grounds upon which one formulates and confirms one's own perspectives on local, national and international affairs. How else would one account for â Å“right-wingâ ? politicians (many of which complete their undergraduate degree within Political Science), Infanteer's generally â Å“right-wingâ ? views (who also studied Political Science at a local University, no less), and a large portion of the population who don't necessarily conform to â Å“left-wingâ ? values and ideals? I've had excellent professors, in every which field I have studied, that have come from â Å“left-wingâ ?, â Å“right-wingâ ?, and everything in between. Again, you wrongly assume that because one doesn't fall as far â Å“rightâ ? as possible on the spectrum, that they automatically fall as far â Å“leftâ ? as possible. I fall somewhere in between the rightist and leftist extremes, and refuse to make the case that the majority of individuals fall far â Å“leftâ ?, or far â Å“rightâ ?, when most of the political parties available do not hold fast to either extreme.

Similarly, on the same basis that you have argued that Academia births â Å“leftist-eggheads,â ? I could argue that military institutions birth â Å“right-wing war mongers.â ? Although I cannot speak for all, I personally refrain from this line of reasoning; I simply wanted to indicate that the coin could be flipped either way.

Lastly, no I have not served in the military, but unless you are suggesting that the military is the only means by which one may acquire real world experience, it does not inhibit my potentiality to gain real world experience, nor does it discount any real world experience that I have previously gained.

Likewise, on what basis can you argue that all military personnel have acquired â Å“real world experienceâ ??

Paint me if you so please, just know that you are colouring me on individual grounds, and not on the basis of my arguments.

It has everything to do with the question.  You've attempted to justify the utility of the BMD program based on costs.  A cost/benefit analysis is one good way to approach the issue.  I countered with my own thoughts on a cost/benefit analysis.  Is the cost of the BMD so large that it justifies ignoring ways to prevent the cost of a major metropolitan center being immolated because someone like Kim Jong Il had a bad hair day?

The notion that the US Ballistic Missile Defence will breed "an atmosphere where more conflict and more terrorist activity emerges, due to the fact that states (particularly those who do not participate in the "global defense system") feel more vulnerable?" (Your words).  The BMD isn't designed to stop a bomb in a container ship, it is aimed at states that possess limited nuclear arsenals and may be inclined to use them.

If that is how you choose to read into it. Perhaps my question should have been rephrased. My implications were aimed at trying to isolate other variables involved, and (forgive my leftist crayons) perhaps ulterior motivations in the establishing of this Missile Defense Program. National security arguments aside, it is my belief that the implementation of such a program has a strong correlation with a â Å“power-hungryâ ? globe.

Yes, but the job of the citizenry is to send representatives to focus on and deliberate the issues for us and to hold them accountable to the duties of their Office, not to decide policy on a whim.

You bet, however by sending these representatives on our behalf, and holding them accountable to their duties in Office, the public-at-large speaks through a singular voice in order to have their interests and values pursued. Policy may be determined by a few heads at the table, but it is the public that has put these heads in office in order to push a common agenda through the door.

Read Edmund Burke.

Maybe over the Christmas holidays...

The UN has no sovereignty over the acts of independent states.  Yes, it is the duty of signatories to uphold the Charter, but considering that the UN has been a political pawn-game since day 1, do you really expect any state to adopt such an altruistic view to the detriment of their own interests?

If the United Nations has no sovereignty over the acts of independent states, then how do you explain the UN sanctions, and possible military action in Darfur, Sudan? The United Nations was set up as an international governing body to impose collective measures on states. The following was taken from the â Å“Mid American Global Education Councilâ ?:

â Å“When the delegate stands up crying about infringements on his/her sovereignty, other delegates just might point out the obligations of all states to uphold all the principles of the UN Charter.  States voluntarily waive some of their sovereign rights simply by agreeing to be in the UN.  It is up to states, individually and collectively, to negotiate to what extent they will surrender their sovereign rights in pursuit of the common good.  In short, not every resolution which calls upon states to alter their behavior is, in fact, an illegal attack on sovereignty.â ? (MAMUN, 2004)

The United Nations certainly doesn't have an unlimited scope of sovereignty over nations, but that does not mean it is completely lacking...

See Old Guy's interpretation of the event.  I think it firmly points out the old adage that "The First Casualty in War is the Truth" - but I'd be wary of saying that the abuse of truth is a systematic and continuous ploy by spooky government guys.

I saw it. I'd be interested to have him run his list of â Å“veritable historiansâ ? by me, and explain to me why historians that counter his particular view are by no means â Å“recounting history as it truly happened.â ?

[Edited for spelling mistakes and grammatical errors]

Your spelling mistakes and grammatical errors, or mine?

I look forward to a response.

 

[McG]

. . . and on that note, lets try to keep with the topic now.

Debating academia can get its own thread: http://army.ca/forums/threads/22954.0.html

 

[Infanteer]

Yes, you're right, the question could have and should have been phrased in ways that would have reduced any excess indications of bias. The questions, however, have already been formulated, many responses have already been welcomed, and this issue has been addressed several times over; I have made it clear that I am in agreement with you, so why do you insist on beating a dead horse? You don't make your argument any stronger by reiterating the same point again and again.

I'm only beating it because you insisted on beating it too.   Consider it "Infanteer's stubbornness"....

If you're still convinced that....

I have come here to have....

Furthermore, I have been erroneously painted.....

You happy now?   I don't no what brought this impassioned apologia on.   I was merely trying to help you with the structure of your questions.   I don't recall painting you with any title or trying to find your ulterior motives - I simply stated that you have a bias (which we all do) and how you could help tone it down in the questionnaire.

As per the â Å“attacks on Academia,â ? it is my belief that you lack an understanding of how the Academic World functions:

Thanks.   I'd like to think that my time spent in the hallowed halls of Buchanan - C Block for 4 years gave me no perspective on my surrounding environment.   If you look at the general trend, you will find academia to be more liberal in their positions.

Lastly, no I have not served in the military, but unless you are suggesting that the military is the only means by which one may acquire real world experience, it does not inhibit my potentiality to gain real world experience, nor does it discount any real world experience that I have previously gained.

Likewise, on what basis can you argue that all military personnel have acquired â Å“real world experienceâ ??

Where did I say that?

If that is how you choose to read into it. Perhaps my question should have been rephrased. My implications were aimed at trying to isolate other variables involved, and (forgive my leftist crayons) perhaps ulterior motivations in the establishing of this Missile Defense Program. National security arguments aside, it is my belief that the implementation of such a program has a strong correlation with a â Å“power-hungryâ ? globe.

Explain "power hungry" globe?   I'm having a hard time seeing how a defensive system consisting of a few ballistic missiles in Alaska is some sort of Machiavellian ploy to assert US Hegemony (which they already have).   Maybe I missed that part when I was busy misunderstanding university....

You bet, however by sending these representatives on our behalf, and holding them accountable to their duties in Office, the public-at-large speaks through a singular voice in order to have their interests and values pursued. Policy may be determined by a few heads at the table, but it is the public that has put these heads in office in order to push a common agenda through the door.

Now your confusing me.   "Singular Voice"?   What does this have to do with my understanding of Representative Democracy.   I'm not trying to knock what you said, I just don't understand how it relates to my earlier statement.

Maybe over the Christmas holidays...

Ask nicely, and Santa Claus will bring you Thomas Hobbes too....

If the United Nations has no sovereignty over the acts of independent states, then how do you explain the UN sanctions, and possible military action in Darfur, Sudan? The United Nations was set up as an international governing body to impose collective measures on states. The following was taken from the â Å“Mid American Global Education Councilâ ?:

â Å“When the delegate stands up crying about infringements on his/her sovereignty, other delegates just might point out the obligations of all states to uphold all the principles of the UN Charter.   States voluntarily waive some of their sovereign rights simply by agreeing to be in the UN.   It is up to states, individually and collectively, to negotiate to what extent they will surrender their sovereign rights in pursuit of the common good.   In short, not every resolution which calls upon states to alter their behaviour is, in fact, an illegal attack on sovereignty.â ? (MAMUN, 2004)

If you believe that statement, watch how far a UN Peacekeeping mission to Chechnya gets.

The United Nations certainly doesn't have an unlimited scope of sovereignty over nations, but that does not mean it is completely lacking...

The UN possesses no capabilities of its own - any powers it possesses are those of the member states who choose to execute them.   When the largest economic and military power in the world says that it won't be dealing through the UN, then that notion you presented is displayed for the charade it is.

I saw it. I'd be interested to have him run his list of â Å“veritable historiansâ ? by me, and explain to me why historians that counter his particular view are by no means â Å“recounting history as it truly happened.â ?

Having a witness statement from one who was present at the Gulf of Tonkin incident is usually a credible source.   Not saying I buy his version outright, just that there are probably more sides to the story then "government lies aimed to sell an illegal war to the American public".

Your spelling mistakes and grammatical errors, or mine?

Mine.   The 80 psi fingers are not conducive to a good looking yarn.

I look forward to a response.

Well, look no further....

 

[McG]

11. With recent statistics showing that 70% of Canadians show no desire to join onto the Missile Defense Program for North America, does Canada's participation in the Missile Defense Program look promising in the future years?

If â Å“promisingâ ? means â Å“likely,â ? then I cannot say.  The brokerage style politics typical in this country often leads governments to make popular decisions that may not be the best in the long run.  Remember the the decision to intern ethnic Japanese during WW II was driven by popular opinion despite being described as unnecessary by RCMP and military officials.  However, there is hope that the government will make the decision based on what is right for Canada (and not the next election).  As has already been described, the government must do its â Å“risk analysis. 

12. The United States organized an invasion in Iraq on the basis that the Iraqi government was developing and concealing "weapons of mass destruction". "Saddam Hussein's quest to acquire weapons of mass destruction (WMD) has been systematic and relentless," reports the US Department of State. With the United States harbouring the largest military on the globe, and weapons of mass destruction in greater numberm, strength and capability than any other state, could it be argued, on the same line of reasoning, that the United States is also a "threat to the peace and security of the world"? (US Department of State) In answering this question, it is necessary to look at it from the point-of-view of the "West", as well as the "Peripheral Countries" (less developed, economically and politcally dependent on the West etc...)

No.  The US does not have a history of government orchestrated crimes against humanity (including genocide). The US leadership is not corrupt and holding on to power through fear and violence.  If anything the threat is economic exploitation of impoverished nations by western corporations operating within the regulations of corrupt local powers.  This is something the western world should address (possibly through the UN) with an international human security policy/program.  However, this is well outside the scope of your question.

14. The Vietnam War was launched on "government lies passed on by pliant mass media," where "North Vietnamese torpedo boats launched an "unprovoked attack" against a U.S. destroyer on "routine patrol" in the Tonkin Gulf on Aug. 2 -- and that North Vietnamese PT boats followed up with a "deliberate attack" on a pair of U.S. ships two days later." The Gulf War, was sold to the United States, "the mother of all clients," by a "it bleeds, it leads" story about babies being tossed out of incubators by Iraqi soldiers. As officials and the mass media learned of the witness's blood ties with the Kuwaiti government, the story began to fall apart, and the war was launched on false information/propaganda. The Iraq War was launched by the United States of America on the basis that Iraq was developing and concealing weapons of mass destruction, with no evidence that these weapons of mass destruction even exist, is it viable that government lies and deception have once again "sold a war" to the media and public?

Is it possible that the US intelligence community just came to the wrong conclusions?  Conclusions, which had they not been wrong, could have been grounds for invasion?

Regardless, you have oversimplified the origins of all three wars and ignored the majority of factors (choosing instead to focus on the media sensationalized events).  Your criticism here should not be of the US government.  It should be of US news media.

Going back to one of my earlier posts:

Your topic is pretty broad/vague as posted. Are you contrasting Canada's definition of the war on terror with the US definition (which included Iraq), or are you exploring something else. Perhaps your looking at issues of human security vs national security?

How do you define the war on terror?  You've made no mention of military actions in Afghanistan.  You focus on the unrelated issue BMD.  You reference human security issues but seem to believe that the humanitarian aspects are mutually exclusive of the military aspects.  What is "the War on Terror" to you?  What should it be?

 

[MissMolsonIndy]

The motive behind Bush invading Iraq was to end Saddam's tyranny. Is that a crime?

I believe there to be multiple motives behind the invasion, some of which are justifiable, and others clearly not.
Whether or not the war unjust is really dependent on how large of a driving force you assign to each motive.

 

[McG]

I believe there to be multiple motives behind the invasion, some of which are justifiable, and others clearly not.

What unjustifiable motives do you believe caused the war?

 

[Ty]

I believe there to be multiple motives behind the invasion, some of which are justifiable, and others clearly not.
Whether or not the war unjust is really dependent on how large of a driving force you assign to each motive.

A quick caveat- the war is justifiable if you believe that any one motive carries enough weight to offset the immediate consequences of your actions.  For example, if you believed that the tyranny in Iraq had to come to an end immediately and that belief was so strong that it justifies the means, then you go ahead.  It seems that you believe that since some people's motives may be unjustifiable in your opinion, it negates the legitimacy of the war based on other peoples motives, which, again in your opinion, may be  justifiable.  I'm unsure if I misinterpreted your post. 

My personal belief is that the Bush administration carried out the invasion of Iraq for far less honourable intentions than liberation of an oppressed people- a point that can be debated ad nauseam on this board (and already has); However, I supported military action in Iraq as Husain's regime was creating another pot of instability in the powder keg of the middle east.  I am not ignoring the damage created by military forces in Iraq (100,000 civilian deaths), nor am I ignoring the occupying force's casualties, and I am certainly not condoning the criminal misbehaviour of some American troops, but these unfortunate facts are ones that we must accept in a modern military operation.  You don't have to like it (I certainly abhor this fact), but if you hold any of the motives of which you speak as justifiable, than you must understand that this is the way it had to be. 

At the risk of sounding partisian, you are either for the war, or against it- both stances are based on your own justifications.  If you choose the former, then you must accept that the negative consequences of your decision will be far more tangible and immediate than the latter.

 

[Docherty]

  Just curious to know how many of you think Canada will ever have to go to Iraq and if so when?

 

[Da_man]

Mr. Martin has been very clear on the subject, Canada is not going in Iraq.

 

[MikeM]

Yes but Mr. Martin's government could collapse at any time. In the event that someone else takes over as PM, such as Harper, do you think we would then commit to the war in Iraq?

 

[Greg_o]

Its the governments job to lie, so the people feel safe..

 

[Redeye]

Yes but Mr. Martin's government could collapse at any time. In the event that someone else takes over as PM, such as Harper, do you think we would then commit to the war in Iraq?

Deployment to Iraq is highly unlikely, given how much of a footprint we're placing in Afghanistan.  Not only that, it seems there would be very little public support for any deployment there, something that any government has to take into consideration.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

MMI, I realize I'm a little late to the party here, and I don't want to beat a dead horse too much, but as someone with degrees in Political Economy and Business, and having done surveys and written papers myself, I also will suggest you re-read Old Guy's post on the previous page.

The phrasing of the questions you've asked are loaded with presumption and bias: the answers you will get will be likewise distorted.  If you are looking to skew your results this is a very good way to do it, but they will be meaningless in any statistical sense.  IMHO, you should really re-examine your questions before you get too far down the road on this one ...

It is encouraging to see that while you have your convictions, you are at least willing to hear conflicting arguments and opinions: there is not enough of this these days!

Just trying to be helpful .... cheers!

 

[Acorn]

I believe there to be multiple motives behind the invasion, some of which are justifiable, and others clearly not.
Whether or not the war unjust is really dependent on how large of a driving force you assign to each motive.

The obverse of that is that some opposed to the invasion clearly had multiple motives, some of which are justifiable and some which are clearly not.

Acorn

 

[MissMolsonIndy]

My main problem with the "leftist" position is they still seem to focus only on the undeniable collateral effects of war, without looking at the political objectives the war is meant to achieve. This allows people to make silly statements like "Bush is a war criminal" with a straight face, since for the most part, they really have no idea what they are talking about. If 100,000 people have been killed in Iraq due to the actions of the coalition (BTW, this was a speculation, not an informed casualty count, see the "100,000 and counting" thread), then a very high price has been paid, but the political ends; removing an aggressive and destabilizing regime, breaking support links to various terrorist organizations, preventing the resumption of WMD research and development, and saving the citizens of the country from further oppression; would seem to make taking action worthwhile. Since the real casualty count is much lower, then the price is acceptable for what has been achieved, and since the conventional laws of war have been followed quite scrupulously by the coallition, then there is no case for stating the President is a "war criminal".

I disagree. I think that the "leftist" position (if you can even call it that these days) presents the undesirable consequences of war in an attempt to weigh them with the political objectives (i.e., in pursuing a certain political, economic and or social objective by means of warfare, is the resulting damage too significant or reasonable, for the lack of a better word, for the cause?) The process of policy making has a mandate to evaluate the results of any policy passed (domestic or foreign), and to further decide whether or not the decision made is the approriate route of action or non-action, and unless the decision-making process is placed entirely into "leftist" hands (which it wasn't, the last time I checked), then this process is similar for "right-wing" positions. Certainly, in the end, both parties will follow their own objectives, but that doesn't outrule possible consequences that don't happen to follow closely with their party line.

Furthermore, with the same line of reasoning that you've just presented, one could argue that the "rightist" position fails to take into account the "undeniable collateral effects of war," and simply pursues its own political agenda. You see, you can flip the coin both ways. Both sides of the coin are a little extreme for where I stand on the issue. I disagree with and challenge the notion that if you're not one, then you must be the other: one can further the political objectives of a state as well as take action to reduce the negative social, economic and political impact that will result.

I agree that certain political objectives were pursued in Iraq for collective reason, but I stand my ground as far as conduct of the war, and I believe that to be the position that is heavily under debate.

The other problem with most "leftists" is even when confronted by factual evidence, they will simply dismiss you with some insult and carry on as if you had never spoken. The only thing for "ignorent redneck cracker bible-thumping baby-killers" to do is continue to press on, find the facts and publish them wherever you can. It can't hurt, and you might help someone somewhere.

I'm sorry, but I couldn't keep a straight face in reading this response...

I agree with you on the basis that when an issue is undergoing debate, both sides push personal issues in the line of attack, but I think that your claim that only "leftists" do this, is outrageous. I can pick out multiple examples on this forum, including this thread, where personal attacks have been thrown at someone for representing leftist ideals, or ideals that stray further left than those on this board. If I need to drag them out for you, I will. I disagree with debates being pulled down to an individual level, but you'll realize that many of your fellow conservative posters can have the accusatory finger pointed at them, including yourself.

This is not a phenonmenon specific to any one ideology...

 

[a_majoor]

Europe's Ritual Dance

The Western counterpart of Iran's deception.

The European "solution" to the threat of Iranian atomic bombs bids fair to join the "peace process" as the most boffo running gag in the history of show biz. Every few months, the elegantly dressed diplomatic wizards from London, Paris, and Berlin race across a continent or two to meet with Iranians dressed in turbans and gowns, and after some hours of alleged hard work, they emerge with a new agreement, just like their more numerous counterparts engaged in the peace negotiations. The main difference is that the peace-process deals seemed to last for several months, while the schemes hammered out with the mullahs rarely last more than a week or two. Otherwise, it's the same sort of vaudeville routine: a few laughs, with promises of more to come.

The latest Iranian shenanigan may have set a record for speed. On Monday they announced they had stopped the centrifuges that were enriching uranium. On Tuesday they asked for permission to run the centrifuges again. The Europeans sternly said no. The next scene will be at Turtle Bay, with brief interruptions for somewhat off-color remarks about sexual harassment at high levels (so to speak) of the United Nations.

No serious person can believe that the negotiations are going to block, or even seriously delay, the Iranian race to acquire atomic bombs. The European posturing is the Western counterpart of the Iranian deception, a ritual dance designed to put a flimsy veil over the nakedness of the real activities. The old-fashioned name for this sort of thing is "appeasement," and was best described by Churchill, referring to Chamberlain's infamous acceptance of Hitler's conditions at Munich. Chamberlain had to choose between war and dishonor, opted for the latter, and got the former as well. That is now the likely fate of Blair, Chirac, and Schroeder.

They surely know this. Why do they accept it?

They accept it for many reasons, of which two seem paramount: They have huge financial interests tied up with the Iranian regime (billions of dollars worth of oil and gas contracts, plus other trade agreements, some already signed, others in the works); and Iran is the last place in the Middle East where they can play an active diplomatic role. This is particularly acute for France, which knows it will long be a pariah to free Iraqi governments, and views Iran as its last chance to thwart America's dominant role in the region. Sad to say, there is no evidence that the Europeans give a tinker's damn either about the destiny of the Iranian people, or about Iran's leading role in international terrorism, or about the Islamic Republic's joining the nuclear club. They are quite prepared to live with all that.

I think they expect Iran to "go nuclear" in the near future, at which point they will tell President Bush that there is no option but to accept the brutal facts â ” the world's leading sponsor of terrorism in possession of atomic bombs and the missiles needed to deliver them on regional and European targets â ” and "come to terms" with the mullahcracy. In other words, as the editorialists at the Wall Street Journal have wryly commented, the real goal of the negotiations is to restrain the United States, which, left to its own devices, might actually do something serious. If President Bush found a way to prevent Iran from acquiring atomic bombs, it might well wreck the Europeans' grand appeasement strategy.

There is certainly no risk that the United Nations will do anything serious, which is why the Europeans keep insisting that it is the only "legitimate" forum for any discussion of the Iranian nuclear menace.
At the same time, I rather suspect that the Europeans, like many of our own diplomats, would be secretly pleased if someone else â ” that is to say, Israel â ” were to "do something" to rid them of this problem. When they whisper that thought to themselves in the privacy of their own offices or the darkness of their own bedrooms, they mentally replay the Israeli bombing of the nuclear reactor in Osirak, Iraq, in 1981, an attack they publicly condemned and privately extolled. They would do the same tomorrow, sighing in relief as they tighten the noose around Israel's neck. Rarely has the metaphor of the scapegoat been so appropriate: the burden of our sins of omission loaded onto the Israelis, who are then sacrificed to atone for us all.

This may seem sheer wishful thinking, but wishful thinking is an important part of foreign policy. The idea that "we don't need to do anything, because so-and-so will do our dirty work for us" has in fact been central to Western strategy in the Middle East for quite a while. For example, it was practiced by Bush the Elder in 1991 at the end of Desert Storm, when the president openly mused that it would be simply wonderful if the Kurds and Shiites overthrew Saddam Hussein. They tried it, foolishly believing that if things went badly the United States would support them. But Bush the First was quite serious about his wishful thinking, and stood by as Saddam slaughtered them â ” the scapegoats of the hour â ” by the tens of thousands.

Similar wishful thinking is now at the heart of European â ” and probably a good deal of American â ” strategic thinking about the Iranian nuclear project. That it is a disgusting abdication of moral responsibility and a strategic blunder of potentially enormous magnitude is both obvious and irrelevant to the actual course of events.

I do not believe Israel will solve this problem for us, both because it is militarily very daunting and because successive Israeli governments have believed that Iran is too big a problem for them, and if it is to be solved, it will have to be solved by the United States and our allies. Whether that is true or not, I have long argued that Iran is the keystone of the terrorist edifice, and that we are doomed to confront it sooner or later, nuclear or not. Secretary of State Powell disagreed, and he was at pains recently to stress that American policy does not call for regime change in Tehran â ” even though the president repeatedly called for it. And the president is right; regime change is the best way to deal with the nuclear threat and the best way to advance our cause in the war against the terror masters. We have a real chance to remove the terror regime in Tehran without any military action, but rather through political means, by supporting the Iranian democratic opposition. According to the regime itself, upwards of 70 percent of Iranians oppose the regime, want freedom, and look to us for political support. I believe they, like the Yugoslavs who opposed Milosevic and like the Ukrainians now demonstrating for freedom, are entitled to the support of the free world.

Even if you believe that a nuclear Iran is inevitable, is it not infinitely better to have those atomic bombs in the hands of pro-Western Iranians, chosen by their own people, than in the grip of fanatical theocratic tyrants dedicated to the destruction of the Western satans?

And maybe it isn't inevitable. Faster, please.

â ” Michael Ledeen, an NRO contributing editor, is most recently the author of The War Against the Terror Masters. Ledeen is Resident Scholar in the Freedom Chair at the American Enterprise Institute.

 

[jmackenzie_15]

All I have to say is, it's going to be a long time before there isnt any work for Canadian Peacekeepers/Warfighters to take care of.  :threat:

 

[a_majoor]

I disagree. I think that the "leftist" position (if you can even call it that these days) presents the undesirable consequences of war in an attempt to weigh them with the political objectives (i.e., in pursuing a certain political, economic and or social objective by means of warfare, is the resulting damage too significant or reasonable, for the lack of a better word, for the cause?) The process of policy making has a mandate to evaluate the results of any policy passed (domestic or foreign), and to further decide whether or not the decision made is the appropriate route of action or non-action,...

I doubt that anyone in the US administration is persuing war for its own sake, and indeed, if you remember the 2000 election, President Bush campaigned almost exclusively on domestic issues, and rejected the idea that America needed to insert itself into nation building or prolonged peacekeeping missions. On Sept 11, 2001, that position became untenable.

Various diplomatic efforts, the 12 year enforcement of the "no fly zone", the now revealed corruption in the "Oil for Food program" were doing little to contain Iraq's aggression, the risks of inaction were escalating constantly, and a repeat of the 9/11 attacks was far to high a price to pay. The political objective, to be blunt, is the safety of the American people, and I would expect from historical analogy they will be prepared to pay an enormous amount of blood and treasure for that. The closing battles of WW II, the various small wars during the cold war period, the gigantic sums expended to contain the USSR all suggest that the Americans will stay the course, and will regrettably accept the collateral damage as part of the cost of protecting themselves.

Per the last lines of my post, I have had the misfortune to encounter people who (without being aware of my military affiliation) launch into tirades against the war and keep going even in the face of contrary evidence (i.e. President Clinton did exactly the same thing in Kosovo, Haliburton received contracts in Bosnia on the same terms as the ones in Iraq without a peep from anyone etc.). If I press the point, I am usually rewarded with an insult, which seems to pass for "debate" among  this crowd. I have no problem with people who believe in "left wing" political philosophies (some of my best friends belong to the NDP or are members of the Teachers Union), as long as they are willing to support positions with facts then debates are enlightening and enjoyable. "Spouting off" is not debate (not that I am accusing you MMI), and yes, many conservatives are prone to do this as well...

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

I disagree. I think that the "leftist" position (if you can even call it that these days) presents the undesirable consequences of war in an attempt to weigh them with the political objectives (i.e., in pursuing a certain political, economic and or social objective by means of warfare, is the resulting damage too significant or reasonable, for the lack of a better word, for the cause?)

Unfortnately the "leftist" position leaves the analysis/debate at "undesirable consequences" vs. "sinister motives": there is much reluctance from the left to accept, or even acknowledge, the desirable (intentional or not) consequences of war ...