Of Realists, and Madmen.

Re: Of Realists, and Madmen.

I agree on all your observations Medved.

[medved]

Re: Of Realists, and Madmen.

You people are definitely knuckleheads. Attacking Iraq was supposed to put the fear of God (sic) in Arabs the world round. Looks like it just pissed them off.

Not quite. It did put fear of God into some of them. Syria is out of Lebanon, Quaddafi is out of WMD program (so far). Second, attacking Iran will make a lot of them very happy. Remember, for all the anti-zionist talk, Saddam's first victim was Kuwait and the Saudi Arabia was the next one. This time it is the same, Iran talks a lot about Israel, but puts pressure on the Gulf states. It is this little problem, that worries American gov't.

Why would attacking Iran be any different? Not all problems require a military response.

I agree, that endless war does not solve all the problems, but neither does endless appeasement. It is a matter of making a right choice, and right execution, which is not a strong side of American foreign policy.

As for comparing Iran to Germany in the 1930's, it's my belief that you lose any argument in which an opponent is compared to Hitler. It's an insult to Hitler. Iran has not invaded anything. Their assisting bad guys in Iraq? PRACTICALLY THE ENTIRE SHIITE LEADERSHIP SPENT YEARS IN IRAN IN EXILE! Of course they're close to Iran. Read up, people.

Saddam was no problem either before invading Kuwait. Should US wait and watch oil price going from $100+ to $200+ ?

The power in Iran is held by the religious leaders, and Amadinejad i barely a figurehead. The man is not particularly popular in Iran, and does not have the support of a majority of Persians.

As for fearing an attack by them, we could turn Iran or any other attacker to a sea of glass within hours of an attack.

Again, the danger is their attack or increased influence in the Gulf. Besides, we live in the 21st century, not the 20th. We cannot use the same methods, the Greatest Generation used against Germans. Otherwise the war in Iraq would end in a few months.

[BiscayneSunrise]

Re: Of Realists, and Madmen.

I'm not sure I follow the logic.

Chamberlain was willing to sacrifice the Austrians, Poles, and Czechs to slake Hitler's thirst, hoping that Germany would continue to stay focused on eastward expansion. Nice of Chamberlain to throw them to the wolves.

Great plan. That was, right up to the time where Hitler decided to invade France first and then turn his eyes on Britain.

Chamberlain admits that his plan was to give Britain time to re-arm but his calculus was incorrect. In the case of WW 2, the lesson learned was appeasement alone didn't work. Containment must be accompanied by a strong military along with the notion that it WILL be used.

[Andreuccio]

Re: Of Realists, and Madmen.

What exactly was so wrong about "appeasing" Iran during the hostage crisis?

Cost to US in lives? Zero!
Cost to US in dollars? Maybe millions.
Cost in Iranian lives? Zero?

Compare and contrast to preemptive war in Iraq:

Cost in US lives? Over 4,000.
Cost to US in dollars? THREE TRILLION
Cost in Iraqi lives? Hundreds of thousands.

Give me containment vs. preemptive war every time.

I agree.

Appeasement of Hitler wasn't necessarily as bad as the rap it's gotten, either. From the Wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeasement_of_Hitler

The Chamberlain government in 1937 eventually decided to pursue a more active policy of appeasement to push Germany eastwards, with the aim of encouraging and allowing Germany to expand towards the east until Germany and the Soviet Union shared a common frontier.
The plan allowed Germany to annex Austria, Sudetenland, Danzig and the Polish Corridor.
The British government had calculated that this situation of Germany sharing a closer border with the Soviet Union would increase the probability of Hitler launching an attack against the Soviet Union.
This line of thinking proved accurate when Germany invaded the Soviet Union on 22 June 1941.

Further, Chamberlain himself said that the policy of appeasement essentially bought time for the British to rearm.

http://www.historyguide.org/europe/munich.html

One good thing, at any rate, has come out of this emergency through which we have passed. It has thrown a vivid light upon our preparations for defense, on their strength and on their weakness. I should not think we were doing our duty if we had not already ordered that a prompt and thorough inquiry should be made to cover the whole of our preparations, military and civil, in order to see, in the light of what has happened during these hectic days, what further steps may be necessary to make good our deficiencies in the shortest possible time.

[BiscayneSunrise]

Re: Of Realists, and Madmen.

Jeff,

Thanks for the data, I had not seen those polling numbers before. Putting our two insights together, what I gather is that while many national leaders in the ME support the US, either willingly or begrudgingly, many of the people in the infamous "Arab street" dislike the US.

It will probably always be that way since many national leaders make compromises they think necessary and many Middle Easterners will always dislike the US for our support of Israel. What this means to me is that we we still have a lot of diplomatic work to do, especially at the grass roots level, which brings me to my next point:

It is popular to deride the involvement of private contractors in Iraq and elsewhere in the ME, you know,: military-industrial complex and all that. But after thinking about it, I believe that is exactly what you want. Forget about whether, the war should have started in the first place. The reality is the US is faced with nation building and changing the psychology of the Middle East. It seems to me that rather than having a military dominated reconstruction process, the better alternative is to have independent businessmen and private citizens working should to shoulder with local Iraq's teaching them about modern western business and social practices and developing business contacts that can be leveraged far into the future.

Jeff, I agree with your point on a different post that containment is preferable to pre-emptive war but nobody asked us and we are where we are now. The question is where do we go from here and I guess we disagree on the current US strategy. Not because I'm a Bush supporter but because as Luke points out the alternative is likely to lead to greater tragedy. I noticed on your website, you have made some extraordinarily prescient, investment calls over the years. Given your insight, what do see see as the best course of action out of our current situation and how that would play out?

Best regards,

Greg

[Jeff]

Re: Of Realists, and Madmen.

What exactly was so wrong about "appeasing" Iran during the hostage crisis?

Cost to US in lives? Zero!
Cost to US in dollars? Maybe millions.
Cost in Iranian lives? Zero?

Compare and contrast to preemptive war in Iraq:

Cost in US lives? Over 4,000.
Cost to US in dollars? THREE TRILLION
Cost in Iraqi lives? Hundreds of thousands.

Give me containment vs. preemptive war every time.

[Starving Steve]

Re: Of Realists, and Madmen.

If I may just interject (sp?) a comment here:

This little Hitler in Tehran would never have been in power now if it were not for Jimmy Carter's appeasement of the Iranian hostage-takers back in 1979-80. Instead of acting militarily against the hostage-takers, he chose the so-called high road of negotiation and diplomacy.

A lesson from history: Take madmen at their word. Hitler meant every word that he said, and he did not vanish or moderate with the passage of time. He got stronger and more dangerous.

Thirty years on, the hostage-takers still run Iran, and their regime is stronger and more dangerous than ever before. This is what appeasement has led to.

Why is this lesson from history so hard for the world, especially the British and the French, to understand?

Re: Of Realists, and Madmen.

Rajiv -

Thanks for the videos of Lt. Gen. William Odom. We should indeed have a man of this intelligence at the NSA or on the Joint Chiefs of Staff today. I also applaud his insights and conclusions - very hard-headed and pragmatic.

However answer me this: How do these posted videos answer any of the points I've raised? Where have I made any direct endorsement to widening of the current war or even it's prolongation? The answer is "no".

You may be falling into the same stereotyping which informed Jeff and Phirang's objections, i.e. that you imagine you are addressing an apologist for this war? Is it possible you are assuming that someone who disagrees with even just portions of your arguments "must be subscribing" to a foolishly unqualified support for the Iraq war?

What I notice with some wry amusement, is that all the objections I've read here uniformly ignore the fact that all I've posted here has merely called attention to Iran's evident financial and direct arms support to Hezbollah, and Hamas, as well as divers small Shia groups in Iraq.

Why are you guys not expending a single breath denying this is true? Could it be that you consider the odds of debunking this assertion are slim?

You really don't have any argument with me regarding Lt. Gen. Odom's testimony. I agreed emphatically with his entire assessment, save the last conclusion, which he offered on the final CNBC interview - which given his quite evident intelligence otherwise, left me wondering whether his last comment was conciously or unconsciously inconsistent with all the rest of his testimony - he asserts that in the absence of a US presence in Iraq, Iranian 'meddling' in the form of active support for militias would 'subside'.

I submit to you, despite the remarkable authority which is evident in his testimony, that this is manifestly a partial, or glossed over assessment of the reality.

Why? Because Iran have been very actively funding and arming Hezbollah and later Hamas, to the point of instigating hot shooting wars, well before 09/11, George W. Bush, or the Afghanistan or Iraq wars started. Where is the consistency or acuity of Lt. Gen. Odom's argument - when it's quite clear that Iran was actively funding Hezbollah's systematic dismantlement of the Lebanese state even back when Bill Clinton was first inaugurated?

Iran was funding and arming Hezbollah's challenge to the Lebanese Government many years ago, which left to it's own devices would have long since cemented a peace treaty with Israel. Iranian funding of Hezbollah was so pernicious and so toxic to the peace in that region, that it culminated in a full fledged UN investigation (which promptly went nowhere) of President Assad of Syria's assassination of Rafik Hariri, the premier of a neighboring country to Syria. That's Iran acting, during a period when no other wars were occurring in the middle east, the US presence was nowhere in sight. It stretched on for years, steadily building up Hezbollah's growth and subversion of the Lebanese state.

The UN investigation of top echelons of the Assad family, and of the Syrian Military's involvement in Hariri's assassination was getting so close to an indictment of Assad himself, that Assad found it necessary to goad Hezbollah (they receive all their arms and money through Syria) into starting another shooting war with Israel in '06 precisely to derail that UN investigation into their complicity - and it was direct complicity in the murder of an adjacent sovereign country's premier? This is what I posted comments about to begin with - and it is precisely the point which Lt. Gen. Odom's analysis skirts delicately around.

Why would he skirt delicately around this point?

Yes, the US commitment to Iraq is indeed manifestly untenable, and prolonging the conflict will put us far deeper into the mire. But reality is often presented in the form of a paradox, and in this circumstance the paradox is that Iran has manifestly demonstrated, well before the Iraq conflict, that it has an extremely audacious, intrusive and irresponsible propensity to meddle very dangerously in neighboring countries, with militias, with arms, and with propaganda aimed precisely at neutering and eventually gobbling up their sovereign government - and you can take LEBANON as your prime example.

I've scanned the various contributor comments here and this is where I think a lot of you have some rather large partisan 'blinkers' on. Taking your blinkers off will irrevocably complicate your view of the merits we expect to see accruing from the end of this war. My suggestion is that what follows this war, in terms of shifts in the balance of influences for peace or war in the region, will be treacherous and large, seriously affecting Kuwait, Lebanon, Israel, and the balance of influence between hot-head fundamentalist hysterics such as Hezbollah and more pragmatic players such as Jordan or the secular and democratic Fouad Saniora government in Lebanon (now on it's way out).

The complexity of these observations about ramifications would seriously compromise Gen. Odom's suggestion that a pull-out may have a benign dividend at some point. It in most probability will not, given the evidence of history. That certainly does not imply a pull out is not critical for the US to aim towards - in fact as he notes, it's even now imperative - but it's a quite large WHITE-WASH of the probable consequences. The idea that Iran's proven propensity to meddle in foreign nations will subside with a US withdrawal is manifestly not borne out by the previous regional history, and that is what he so notably declines to mention.

An abrupt departure from Iraq does not only leave the Iraqi conflict to deepen and worsen, as he acknowledges - it also offers to Iran a clear green light to become ever bolder in it's manipulation of Lebanon, right to the point of collapsing the last vestiges of it's civilian government and turning Lebanon into a 100% hollowed out Hezbollah stronghold (it already is on the edge of that), which together with the hollowed out shell of a Palestinian state which is the Hamas stronghold in Gaza, will turn two entire nation groups, the Palestinian and the Lebanese peoples, into 100% wholly owned proxies for further relentless goading of the Israelis into that "definitive conflict" which has obsessed the Mullahs in Iran for more than two decades.

FACT: This country has very amply demonstrated with vigor and great consistency their interest in pursuing this strategy for decades, yet Lt. Gen. Odom does not mention it as relevant. If he's an intelligence or strategic / military analyst, this oversight or omission in that testimony is not a minor one.

You people are talking around the issues I raised, not addressing them directly. I am not pro-Iraq war. I think the Iraq war is a disaster, and I think 98% of Lt. Gen. Odom's analysis is correct. But the 2% which he glosses over is critical - perhaps the most critical aspect of the Iraq war aftermath - what Iran will do once it is emboldened by a US withdrawal.

For Lt. Gen. Odom to suggest at the end of his powerful testimony that this is a 'non-issue' is the one glaring anomaly to his otherwise commanding and very astute statement to the US senate.

Of course the US needs to end this war. But don't kid yourselves for a minute that this will not have seriously ugly, critically ugly repercussions, for the last scraps of a non-Hezbollah government in Lebanon, nor that Kuwait's security will not see a substantial deterioration, nor that the tensions between Iran and the Sunni States on the West side of the Arabian Gulf will improve, and in the final analysis, at least to my view, that Iran will become in net terms a better neighbor to Iraq in the aftermath.

Insofar as the aftermath of a US withdrawal involves warlords and a bloody free for all until a new strongman emerges as Odom describes, Iran will be in the thick of it - Why? Because they have quite manifestly been in the thick of it elsewhere for decades, so what disingenuous person would then conclude they would not then practice the same 'foreign policy' in Iraq, when the US are gone?

If you think these factors, particularly Lebanon's final surrender to the virus of the Hezbollah, will be minor you are kidding yourselves.

Your presentation of Gen. Odom's testimony as some kind of drastic rebuttal of what I've brought to your attention is a non-answer. You are talking right over my shoulder, past the observations of how toxic Iran has manifestly been in neighboring nations for decades, and you are talking to some imagined pro-Bush administration dummy. I was fully aware of the essentials of Lt. Gen. Odom's assessment for a good long while, and fully agree with them. It is you, not I, who need to broaden your scrutiny to the surrounding factors - and ask yourself if you have fully understood the role Iran has played in this region for the past twenty years.

Their footprints extend all the way out to assassinations of dissidents in Europe, to bombing of synagogues in Argentina across the decades, in their dogged pursuit of a sickly amalgam of theology with racism, with geopolitical machinations. But they sure don't seem to find very stern or outspoken critics among those who have responded on this thread.

And with regard to Lt. Gen. Odom being a realist - well, yes, he evidently is - but I suspect he's not offering up the full extent of his own understanding of the ramifications after the US withdrawal.

[Verrocchio]

Re: Of Realists, and Madmen.


Thanks for the videos, Rajiv. A person with the credentials of General Odom qualifies as a Realist.

[Rajiv]

Re: Of Realists, and Madmen.

Three videos for you to watch

General Odom

William Eldridge Odom (born June 23, 1932) is a retired U.S. Army 3-star general, and former Director of the NSA under President Ronald Reagan, which culminated a 31 year career in military intelligence

General Odom is a member of the Military Intelligence Hall of Fame

Transcript of his testimony (pdf)

Re: Of Realists, and Madmen.

Long oil are you then Lukester? For the record I cannot sanction assassination of any elected head of state.

*T* - I am long oil, and have been for the past six or seven years. There is no market with more compelling fundamentals for the next two decades.

With a few minor differences of view, I think Biscayne has it mostly right. To suggest that there 'is no use' for a US presence as security guarantor for multiple smaller nations in the gulf is, at least to my view, naive. I would ask all those who fervently believe that by pulling the plug on any US security guarantees to the Sunni Gulf states, you'd achive greater stability in the region, whether they sincerely feel audacious enough to want to experiment that alternate plan upon the hides of all the rest of us, as well as their own.

I have little confidence that this region would 'subside into peace' without a US security guarantee - as the lack of such a guarantee would logically compel several of these nations to enter into an arms race. If you believe not, you are being extraordinarily optimistic.

Further, to suggest that the entire effect of a US presence, prior to the second Gulf war was in sum merely toxic to this neighborhood is ideologically 'exasperated' and also risks being simplistic.

And in specific response to Jeff and Phirang (who's views I actually find quite astute), please don't impose cardboard cut-out stereotypes on those who venture to critique Iran. You automatically assume anyone criticizing Iran, especially those like me who refer to it as 'toxic for peace' in the region, must automatically endorse bombing, war, or some kind of military intervention there. This is a silly stereotype, which reduces such a discussion to a straw man argument : "anyone endorsing a widening of the current Iraq conflict to Iran is definitely a looney" - of course they are - but that observation ignores the more intelligent criticism being put forward, which is instead: "but what are we to do to ensure Iran stops fomenting and subsidizing para-military splinter groups".

Last time I checked, the are, and doing so very vigorously.

If you get past your stereotypes of those who critique "peace-niks" and Iran's Mullah government, (which frankly displays a lot of particularly ugly bigoted and outright fascist leanings itself), you may notice that nowhere in any of my own posts on this topic have I advocated bombing Iran, invading Iran, or military intervention towards Iran in any way.

I agree - it is a can of worms and we do not want to venture into it if humanly possible. Any responsible political leader of a Western nation understands this today with burning clarity, particularly the US as it's had the experience in Iraq burned into it's awareness. But here is the real point - in the process of avoiding that messy and strategically disastrous eventuality, we will also find ourselves 'bending over backwards' to work around Iran's quite evident 'adventuresome' forays into underwriting groups like Hezbollah, who are manifestly chewing up Lebanon daily, and have been, with direct Iranian complicity and lots of their money, for decades.

I see you people pick the 'easy targets' to criticize, pointing out how foolhardy it would be to open any military action against Iran itself - that's obvious - what I don't see you do (or any of the fervent proponents for "Peace at all Costs") is offer any acknowledgement of Iran's quite evident involvement with some very violent, and very active proxies, such as Hamas and Hezbollah. If any entity in the Middle East is guaranteed to spark another war, it's them - reduce their provocations, and I guarantee you eliminate potential Israeli reactions. THAT is the knot which the world should pick apart, or cut, or somehow eliminate to cement a large cornerstone for peace after Iraq in this region - and the Iranians are into those knots up to their necks.

Are you as sick and tired of their active underwriting and encouragement of these groups as I am? Or do you merely ignore their active underwriting and encouragement of these groups?

Given the vigorous extent of Iran's involvement with these paramilitaries (to call Hamas a "government" is a cruel joke upon the Palestinians trapped under their tutelage in Gaza, as all they can envision for their future is renewed "total war" with Israel), and given Iran's quite evident equivalent underwriting of other groups in Iraq, why do you in effect 'sweep these problems under the carpet' by merely noting how foolish it would be for the US to slide into any armed conflict with Iran?

Iran is already imposing 'armed conflict' upon the region through these proxy groups, and have been for a long time !!!

Do you therefore endorse finding some way to transmit a message to Iran, that the entire world has tired of their meddling directly in other nations, via paramilitary groups, just like the entire world is tired of Syrian blatant meddling in Lebanon? Syria assassinated the Lebanese Prime Minister, who was an outstanding proponent of genuine multi-ethnic and multi-religion democracy in this region. Why are the vociferous critics of a foolhardy US attempt to lean on Iran routinely omitting any mention, or position of principle in this horrific intrusion upon Lebanon's political affairs by Syria (and Iran!)?

Do you have a position on that - are you as outraged as I am that the sole genuinely democratic and charismatic premier of an Arab country was summarily assassinated by Syrian / Iranian interests in bolstering Hezbollah's grip on that country? Yes? No? Maybe? How complacent are you about the potential for further explosions there?

These factors are real - but because people need to line their geo-political views into neat cookie-cutter squares, anyone who fancies themselves as 'anti-war' focuses upon the US is the primary agent of these regional problems. If you ask them, "but what about Iran's destabilizing meddling with Hamas and Hezbollah" such commentators will offer a quick perfunctory acknowledgment that Iran does such things, and then quickly move on to other topics as "more relevant".

My irritation is, far too many of you dis-ingenuously omit any acknowledgement that Iran's actions are a very active problem in the region. Your partisan viewpoints cannot seem to accomodate 'messy' positions, where you are critical of the US exacerbation of ME problems, but cannot marry that viewpoint in your thoughts with also being deeply concerned with Iranian meddling in the region - which is if anything a good deal more toxic as they are Shia, have a rather 'immoderate' Mullah government guiding their foreign policy, and are surrounded by precarious Sunni governments with large Shia minorities. You have no comment on the potential for mayhem there?

You critique the US's past blunders, and potential new blunders, but you offer no constructive 'what can we do to finally resolve' remarks about Iran's multiple, highly destabilizing actions in those partnerships? Methinks you need to tacke the thornier problems regarding Iran's highly "imaginative" so-called "foreign policy" in this region, to present a more complete assessment. Foreign policy is a term far too dignified for the tentacles Iran is extending into the region via it's active underwriting of paramilitary groups who openly subvert their own governments. You would gain a good deal more of my trust in your arguments were you not ignoring that altogether.

Re: Of Realists, and Madmen.

Moved Down

[Jeff]

Re: Of Realists, and Madmen.

So we have military bases in a number of dictatorships that are handsomely paid for the privilege, therefore the US is popular in the Arab world? Oh my. How would you like to show us that Arab opinions of the US (since Bush II) haven't cratered?

The latest Pew survey finds the answer to opinion of the US by country for "Very unfavorable or Somewhat unfavorable"

Turkey (ally) 77%
Egypt 67%
Jordan (ally) 62%
Kuwait (ally) 26%
Lebanon 31%
Morocco (ally) 41%
Palestinian Terr. 75%
Indonesia 52%
Pakistan (ally( 60%
Malaysia 53%

Not our biggest fans. They were very different before George W. assraped the US Constitution.

[*T*]

Re: Of Realists, and Madmen.

Long oil are you then Lukester?

For the record I cannot sanction assassination of any elected head of state.

[BiscayneSunrise]

Re: Of Realists, and Madmen.

WOW! This thread offers, as the fighter pilots like to say, a target rich environment. Let's take aim at a few:

"EU Leaders issued a joint condemnation in the "strongest terms" ?!?!?!!?
Strongest terms, eh? but no military back up. And in the case of the British, total abdication of their responsibilities in Basra giving rise to the recent uprising there. Words alone mean nothing, especially in that part of the world.

Steve, Excellent point about taking down Mr. A. I am not proposing assassination but it is popular to say that people like Mr. A have no value for their lives, being religious fanatics. Funny thing is, that you never see the Mr A's of the world strapping on suicide vests themselves. The political leaders of these ostensibly religious groups value their lives very highly and threat of a military takedown sobers them.

Jeff, How do you figure we pissed off the Arabs? The Kuwaitis have no problem with the US presence in Iraq. Actually, want us there. Remember, these are the people who kissed the American flag upon their liberation 17 years ago. They remember the Saddam occupation very clearly. Many Arab countries (Kuwait, Saudi, Qatar, Bahrain) host large US military bases. Doesn't sound like a group of people who are pissed off at the US.

As for comparing Mr A with Hitler. Rhetorically, they are similar, but in terms of real political cruelty and military capability, Mr A. is a poser and as you point out, just a figurehead. As you point out, we could level Iran's military capabilities in just a matter of days. What does everyone think all those bases I mentioned around the Gulf are doing?

As phirang points out, there will be NO ground invasion of Iran. The US doesn't have the resources and besides, it would be entirely counter productive. We are in the end game period of the Iraq theater BUT, the end game is dependent on a compliant Iran that stops trying to de-stabilize Iraq. Ensuring Iran's compliance will require a large military presence in the Gulf for quite some time, regardless of the cost.