(cross-posted at C&L -- will post more later this afternoon)
As Bush followers gear up for another election year campaign to start a war, they are using exactly the same rhetorical tactics and are revealing precisely the same mindset to which we were subjected during the 2002 campaign for the Iraq War. What is starkly apparent from this repetition is that their awareness of history and knowledge of the world is sadly confined to one singular event, which is all they know and which, rather bizarrely, they have a need to live over and over and over again.
To pro-Bush war supporters, the world is forever stuck in the 1930s. Every leader we don't like is Adolf Hitler, a crazed and irrational lunatic who wants to dominate the world. Every country opposed to our interests is Nazi Germany.
From this it follows that every warmonger is the glorious reincarnation of the brave and resolute Winston Churchill. And one who opposes or even questions any proposed war becomes the lowly and cowardly appeaser, Neville Chamberlain. For any and every conflict that arises, the U.S. is in the identical position of France and England in 1937 – faced with an aggressive and militaristic Nazi Germany, will we shrink from our grand fighting duties in appeasement and fear, or will we stand tall and strong and wage glorious war?
With that cartoonish framework in place, war is always the best option. It is the only option for those who are noble, strong, and fearless. Conversely, the sole reason for opposing a war is that one is a weak-minded and weak-willed appeaser who harbors dangerous fantasies of negotiating with madmen. Diplomacy and containment are simply elevated, PC terms for “appeasement.” War is the only option that works.
Bill Kristol, the pundit and Weekly Standard editor who likely exerted the greatest influence in persuading Americans to support an invasion of Iraq, is not the slightest bit deterred, or ashamed, by the fact that virtually every bit of pre-war wisdom he offered led to disaster and every prognostication he made was dead wrong. To the contrary, he is once again parading around with pretenses of great warrior nobility and military wisdom, this time leading the war dance against all of the new Hitlers in Iran.
His latest column is his most overt call yet to war against Iran, and he cannot even wait one paragraph to dredge up the only historical event that he knows:
IN THE SPRING OF 1936--seventy years ago--Hitler's Germany occupied the Rhineland. France's Léon Blum denounced this as "unacceptable." But France did nothing. As did the British. And the United States.
To Kristol, being serious and avoiding the mistakes of France “would mean serious preparation for possible military action [against Iran]--including real and urgent operational planning for bombing strikes and for the consequences of such strikes.” And not only do we need to go to war against Iran, we need to do it very quickly:
It is not "moral progress" to put off serious planning for military action to a later date, probably in less favorable circumstances, when the Iranian regime has been further emboldened, our friends in the region more disheartened, and allies more confused by years of fruitless diplomacy than they would be by greater clarity and resolution now.
Anyone who opposes this mindlessly militaristic approach simply seeks, of course, to “appease the mullahs.”
This sort of cheap equivalence between Hitler and the tyrant de jour is rather disorienting. One minute, Hitler is a singular manifestation of unique and unparalleled evil to which nothing should ever be compared, lest the uniqueness of his atrocities be minimized. The next minute, though, there are nothing but Hitler spawns running around everywhere, and we need to constantly wage war against each of them in order to avoid suffering the fate of 1938 Czechoslovakia and Neville Chamberlain.
This rhetorical stunt is not new. The current President's father insisted (.pdf) that Saddam was the equivalent of Adolf Hitler back in 1990 when it was time to launch the Persian Gulf War:
The most significant aspect of Bush's personal demonization of Saddam Hussein was his comparison of the Iraqi leader to Adolph Hitler. Sometimes this comparison was implicit rather than explicit: “In World War II, the world paid dearly for appeasing an aggressor who could have been stopped.” . . . . .
On one occasion, he even implied that the Iraqi leader was worse than Hitler: “This morning, right now, over three hundred innocent Americans – civilians – are held against their will in Iraq. Many of them are reportedly staked out as human shields near possible military targets, something even Adolph Hitler didn't do.”
And prior to the latest Iraq war, claiming that we had to fight Hitler again was the favorite tactic of the neoconservatives:
Appearing on the "Meet the Press" on February 23, Bush administration official Richard Perle compared the charade of visits by United Nations weapons inspectors to Iraq with the infamous 1944 visit by Red Cross officials to the Nazis' Theresienstadt ghetto, where the performance of the prisoners' orchestra helped lull the visitors into believing that Nazi treatment of the Jews was not so terrible after all. Perle was referring to Saddam Hussein's systematic effort to hide Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. . . .
Perle's remark was the latest in a series of statements by U.S. officials drawing analogies between current events and those of the Nazi era. President Bush, in his speech after the September 11 attacks, said that Muslim terrorists "follow in the path of Nazism." Other U.S. officials have compared European reluctance to confront
Saddam with Europe's reluctance to confront Hitler in the 1930s.
And now, of course, we have yet another set of Hitlers – this time, a whole governing council of them – ruling over a new Nazi German, in Iran, and we therefore must march to war. As Digby recently pointed out:
Iran is a member of the axis 'o evil. It is, therefore, already presumed to be batshit crazy and the new president has certainly helped with his holocaust denial and loony rhetoric. It will not be that difficult for Bush and his minions to transfer their earlier madman images to Iran.
That, of course, is the central strategy, and it is best accomplished through the never tired Hitler imagery. But this sort of mindset is as simplistic as it is manipulative and, as intended, is a rock-solid recipe for eternal war. Not every dictator is irrational and suicidal. Most are not, including the most brutal. Throughout the 20th Century, the U.S. was able quite successfully to contain, negotiate with, and even form discrete common alliances with a whole array of dictators, thugs, murderous cretins and even militaristic madmen.
And the U.S. is not unique in that regard. No country is pure, and every country, driven by rational self-interest, finds ways to achieve co-existence even with the most amoral regimes. The notion that we have to wage war or even threaten war against every hostile, tyrannical government is itself sheer lunacy, and yet that is the premise driving this crusade for more war.
To be sure, Saddam Hussein was a brutal thug who murdered and oppressed his citizens with virtually no limits, etc. etc., but the notion that he was ever in a league with Adolph Hitler in terms of the threats he posed, the capabilities he possessed, or even the ambitions he harbored, was always transparent myth. This equivalence is even more fictitious with regard to Iran, which -- although saddled with a highly unpopular president who is clearly malignant and who uses nationalistic rhetoric to boost the morale of his base – is a country that is, in fact, ruled by a council of mullahs which has exhibited nothing but rationality and appears to be guided by nothing other than self-interest.
We were led into invading Iraq by a group of people who are as bloodthirsty as they are historically ignorant. They are stuck in a childish and stunted mental prison where every event, every conflict, every choice is to be seen exclusively through the prism of a single historical event, an event which – for a variety of reasons, some intellectual, some cultural, some psychological – is the only one that has any resonance for them. Even as we are still mired in their last failed war, they are attempting to impose these stunted historical distortions to lead us into a new one.
The now well-known principle, Godwin's Law, holds: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler" increases and that once such a comparison is made, "the thread in which the comment was posted is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress." That principle should be applied 100-fold to foreign policy choices, especially decisions about whether to start new wars.
UPDATE: Gregory Djerejian at The Belgravia Dispatch has compiled a series of pre-Iraq war denials from the president and top military and civilian officials which are strikingly, and alarmingly, similar to those being issued now with regard to Iran. As Djerejian documents, many of the denials with regard to Iraq -- including those made to our ex-closest European allies -- are, if not outright false, highly misleading.
Is there anyone who doubts that the administration's denials that they have intentions to engage in a military assault on Iran are equally misleading? Either way, the array of unreliable and misleading statements made with regard to many matters prior to the invasion of Iraq have completely destroyed this government's credibility, making its word automatically subject to serious doubt by any rational person -- including, most destructively, its own citizens, in a way that is almost certainly unprecedented in our nation's history (h/t Hypatia).
From Glenn from yesterday:
ReplyDelete"it's truly amazing that our country has been led for the last five years by this most simplistic and stunted understanding of the world."
Actually, its not too surprising. So simple a viewpoint is easy to communicate and casts the world into simple, opposing camps. This certainly appeals to a frightened populace and makes them easier to direct (particularly when they're convinced they're on the 'right'/moral/virtuous side).
The fact the world is a complex, complicated place and issues are often colored in grayscale rather than black-and-white requires a degree of understanding and empathy with those in the nominal opposition. Not really the forte of the current cast of clowns we're talking about.
Unfortunately, we're now reaping the consequences of such simple-minded governance. Gods help us all.
The hitler thing actually worked on me pretty effectively after 9/11, when I was listening to Daniel Pipes and National Review and so on. I think that the combination of this post, a good article on the Iraq war, and a little history could go a long way towards dispelling this obsession for most reasonable observers. This is a really great contribution to that process.
ReplyDeleteby the way, I'm the commenter formerly known simply as "Dave." I changed after some confusion with another Dave and starting my own blog.
Great post.
ReplyDeleteFor the Reactionary Right, the Munich Framework always applies perfectly to every foreign conflict, and always results in the use of our strong suit (military power) being the only responsible option. Hence, the rise of the Nazis will be the ONE area of world history that will always be taught in our schools and found on our cable channels---never forget what a failure diplomacy is, and how pathetic its hopes are!!
Interestingly, the real Adolf Hitler was elected Chancellor by less than a majority of the voters. He promptly usurped dictatorial powers by perverting the constitution, undermining the powers of the national legislature, and destroying the independence of the German courts. He worked closely with, and was backed and supported by, the largest German corporations, whom he repaid with emormous subsidies and economic influence within the country.
He ultimately embarked on an aggressive, militarist, expansionist policy of pre-emptive invasions and occupations, claiming that those target countries represented a serious threat to the safety and security of the Fatherland. ("A dagger pointed at the heart of Germany!") Often those invaded countries had natural resources which were essential to the German economy.
Given this history, one would think that Bush, Cheney and company might be a little hesitant in claiming to find "Hitlers" everywhere they look.
One regime that can be compared to the Nazi regime is the Bush regime. Everyone knows that. We also know that this country was "founded" on the same principals...CONQUER THE SAVAGES and TO THE VICTOR GO THE SPOILS. (What...? You thought it was freedom?)
ReplyDeleteWe also know that the GOP is famous for, among other things, psychological projection.
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
6 a : the act of perceiving a mental object as spatially and sensibly objective; also : something so perceived b : the attribution of one's own ideas, feelings, or attitudes to other people or to objects; especially : the externalization of blame, guilt, or responsibility as a defense against anxiety
We can all do that from time to time. Trouble is, what to do about it in this particular situation.
'"Jaw-Jaw" is always better than "War-War".'
ReplyDeleteWinston Churchill, 22 June 1953.
Why don't we just nuke them into smoking, atomic ruins? Then we'll be safe.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Glenn. Well put.
ReplyDeleteI've long referred to this aspect of American foreign policy as "the deskignated Hitler rule".
D'oh. "designated"
ReplyDeleteKinda funny. Someone talking about people who do not use diplomacy and claim everyone is a madmad like Hitler.
ReplyDelete....and what is the meat of the rant? That these people are bloodthirsty war mongers that diplomacy and reasoning does not work on?
Seems like the writer does exactly what he complains about. The only differance is his target. Although it seems he has given a pass to all the dems who helped fan the flames of fear over Sadam and now Iran.
Whatever.
Are we all prepared, then, to allow the Mullahs and Ahmadinejad to possess nukes? It sounds like Glenn, and everyone here, is just fine with that.
ReplyDeleteSome years down the road, as the war with radical, political Islam continues on -- as it surely will, in dimensions unknown and unforseeable to us now -- will we look back and be thankful that the U.S. took the politically difficult and risky step of taking nukes out of the Iranian arsenal, or will we be looking at an Iranian-dominated Middle East, an Iranian stranglehold on oil, the Gulf and the straits, and terrorists enjoying the protection of an Iranian nuclear umbrella, all the while wishing we weren't effectively neutralized (like with North Korea) because we allowed Iran to attain a strategic semi-parity under our watch?
While I don't support bombing Iran right now, we should be bringing the situation to a head through sanctions, diplomacy and, I dare say it, direct negotiations. But our bottom line position should be clear: we will not allow Iran to possess nukes, even it means bombing them ultimately.
While Hitler analogies are never helpful, it's appropriate in the sense that we should caution ourselves not to avoid doing what's necessary just because we're tired of war, like France and England were during Hitler's run-up to power. Calculating that it's better to allow Iran nukes than to deal with a world post-preemptive bombing is one thing. But let's not allow our bitter experience of occupying Iraq after deposing Saddam effect our judgment in a different situation. Just like every tyrant is not Hitler, so too not every Middle Eastern security problem is the occupation of Iraq.
To "mammal": The alarm here is about the IMMEDIATE prospect of bombing (even nuking) Iran - most people would agree on the "eventual". Granting my lack of knowledge of all that is "secret", I can only think of the 2006 elections as the force behind this "let's hurry and bomb" attitude.
ReplyDeleteAnd Glenn I notice that two of your commenters have already compared Bush to Hitler does that mean by applying Godwins Law that you have lost this debate?
ReplyDeleteGood point, UA. These days, Glenn only attacks right-wingers and Republicans (Dems are only attacked if they are insufficiently tough against Bush). He does so because they are in power. But the hard-left is just as despicable as the hard-right. And we see a lot of it in these comments.
Glenn:
ReplyDeleteYesterday, you promised me an alternative to the Hitler comparison which would guide us in dealing with Iran's blatant nuclear ambitions. Perhaps this will come in the afternoon because this morning's post was more ridicule without an constructive alternative.
Let me offer a much more recent and relevant comparison - North Korea.
In the early 90s, North Korea was in the same position in which Iran finds itself - a few years of development away from fielding nuclear weapons.
It was at this point that the US took notice to the point where they started diplomacy to stop the NK development program, just like we have been doing with Iran for over a year now.
NK attempted to fend off the US military option by holding the city of Seoul hostage because it was in the range of approximately 30,000 NK artillery pieces fortified in the mountains.
Clinton and his diplomatic partners blinked, took the US military option off the table and literally attempted to bribe NK to stop development without any meaningful concessions in return from NK.
Of course, the NK lied and finished development of their nuclear program unblocked by the US.
Iran is in a much more precarious military position than was NK. The US has ground forces surrounding Iran which have the capability of finishing a regime change in about a month. The US can also bring in the USAF and perform an air campaign to take down the Iranian nuclear facilities, the Iranian navy and air force threatening the Gulf oil lanes, and if they choose to do so, target the nuclear scientists with smart munitions at their home or work.
Iran is attempting to stave off such attacks by threatening to unleash 40,000 suicide bombers. This is probably a boast and not nearly the effect of 30,000 cannon trained on a city of 10 million or so.
I do not see any chance for success in stopping Iran through the diplomatic process. Iran thumbed their nose at the UN confident in a Russian and/or Chinese veto.
The Euros will not do anything militarily. Israel is willing, but probably does not have the resources to conduct a multi week air campaign over that distance.
That leaves the US.
Even more so than NK, Iran is gambling that the US is divided and no longer has the resolve to act militarily. They see our divisions and the calls to cut and run from Iraq everyday on our media. Unfortunately, the Iranians may be right. Apart from Joe Lieberman, is there a Dem in Congress left with the guts to vote for another AUMF to deal with Iran?
That leaves George Bush with the option of acting unilaterally for the first time to order military action against Iran. If he does so, that will be the final act of his presidency. The Dems will go ballistic (only in the verbal sense of which they are capable) and this issue will dominate until the 2008 election campaigns start next year.
Bush is caught in a no win situation for him. A true test of political resolve.
Mammal,
ReplyDeleteYou wouldn't know a "hard-lefter" if it came up and kissed you on the mouth.
Be gone.
From mammal at 11:48AM:
ReplyDelete"Some years down the road, as the war with radical, political Islam continues on -- as it surely will, in dimensions unknown and unforseeable to us now -- will we look back and be thankful that the U.S. took the politically difficult and risky step of taking nukes out of the Iranian arsenal, or will we be looking at an Iranian-dominated Middle East, an Iranian stranglehold on oil, the Gulf and the straits, and terrorists enjoying the protection of an Iranian nuclear umbrella, all the while wishing we weren't effectively neutralized (like with North Korea) because we allowed Iran to attain a strategic semi-parity under our watch?"
Finally! At long last at least one contrarian is willing to admit what's fueling this phantom 'War on Terror'. Pity the rest of this comment is so hard to swallow on factual grounds.
Let's start with the supposition a pre-emptive bombing campaign is initiated. Leaving aside the omnipresent danger of 'collateral damage' (a phrase more worthy of contempt doesn't exist in the English lexicon) to the civilian infrastructure and population, would such a campaign actually destroy Iranian nuclear capacity? I have yet to see a single decently reasoned and sourced analysis that suggests such an outcome could be given a reasonable (better than 50%) chance of resulting, no matter how extensive or careful such a campaign ultimately proves.
Next is the prospect of an Iranian-dominated region. This presupposes Iran can do so either economically (it lacks the oil reserves and capacity found in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Kazakhistan, so this is unlikely), militarily (they could try, but are unlikely to succeed simply on practical grounds as Iran's armed forces aren't large enough to overwhelm all its neighbors simultaneously), or politically/diplomatically (this they could also try, but would likely run into staunch resistance as the Gulf States know their fortunes are tied up with Western interests, Whabbism is rampent in much of Central Asia and doesn't particularly care for Tehran's pseudo-secularism, and we're talking about a lot of different, potentially unstable nation states from the Himilayas to eastern Med coast). In short, Iran has neither the economic standing, the military or human resources, nor the cultural/political standing to dominate the region now or in the near future.
Tied to this is the prospect of Iran offering a 'nuclear umbrella' to terrorist groups. The paradox here is so obvious as to be laughable. Terrorist groups strike from *within* the targeted country, so Iran promising them 'protection' through their nuclear weapons (did I mention Iran doesn't appear to have a reliable means to deliver these hypothetical weapons yet, either?) is about as empty as the space between President Bush's ears. It doesn't work, either intellectually or practically.
Finally there's the money quote of the US being 'neutralized' by a mythical 'semi-strategic parity' Iran would then enjoy. Let's be realistic about which side has more nuclear weapons at the ready, more reliable methods to deliver them, and which one weilds the bigger diplomatic stick. No other nation on the planet, Russia and China included, can match us in that respect.
mammal continues:
"While I don't support bombing Iran right now, we should be bringing the situation to a head through sanctions, diplomacy and, I dare say it, direct negotiations. But our bottom line position should be clear: we will not allow Iran to possess nukes, even it means bombing them ultimately."
So say we all on the first part. The second however is unrealistic and naive. There's still a chance the former will defuse this growing crisis; the latter will lead only to tears.
One regime that can be compared to the Nazi regime is the Bush regime.
ReplyDeleteQueen, are you suggesting that your above-quoted statement is representative of the mainstream Left? If so, we can expect Republican rule for decades to come. Good work.
I'm sick of these Bush-Hitler comparisons, they're inane. Bush is nothing like Hitler. Take, for example, The Enabling Act--Bush would never seek such legislation because he believes that he doesn't need Congressional approval in the first place--he has already interpreted Article II to give himself all the power he wants!
ReplyDeleteSee, Hitler was a wimp who was constantly seeking approval, whereas Bush doesn't need to listen to polls or opinions. Also, Hitler was a charismatic and popular speaker, wheareas Bush has some well-known problems in the speechification department. But that's ok, because Bush doesn't feel the need to 'convince' or 'represent' anyone but himself--he's not some wimp who bows to public opinion and shifts in the wind, seeking approval from mommy, his Congress, and the people of his country,like Hitler did.
one point that may be off topic from this particular article but bush wont even need congress approval to go after iran ,he will just use the previous AUMF? and say it is same war powers
ReplyDeletesigh
br3n
We were led into invading Iraq by a group of people who are as bloodthirsty as they are historically ignorant.
ReplyDeleteThis is hilarious considering the fact that Our Leader has a degree from Yale in history :-O
Also take into account all the businesses W has run into the ground and the business administration masters W recieved at Harvard. Is there any value of an Ivy League education?
Glenn, I think you might be too quick to think that the people pushing for this war (again...) have a narrow view of history. Why would they bother to come up with new historical parallels when this one seems to be effective time and time again. They only have to fool some of the people all the time. If the 'x is just like Hitler, let's not be Chamberlains' argument didn't work, they wouldn't use it. They are cynical and evil power-mongers, but they aren't stupid. Everything that the Republicans do is highly calculated. If they are all saying the same thing, parsing the same rhetoric posing as 'argument' or 'debate', it's because they know that this is the best strategy for convincing just enough people to be on their side. Of course, it might not work this time, but if it does, the 'Left' needs to seriously reconsider its strategy in opposition to the fascist-corporate oligarchy that has been consolidating power since 1980.
ReplyDeletePatrick Kirts
Given this history, one would think that Bush, Cheney and company might be a little hesitant in claiming to find "Hitlers" everywhere they look.
ReplyDeleteActually, I think this is probably the best argument for tyrants comparing everyone under the sun to Hitler. If the term gets so diluted, it will never stick to them.
Patrick Kirts
Quick responses to Yankee's points:
ReplyDeleteI have yet to see a single decently reasoned and sourced analysis that suggests such an outcome could be given a reasonable (better than 50%) chance of resulting, no matter how extensive or careful such a campaign ultimately proves.
Bombing would certainly render Iran's nuclear facilities non-functional and would set them back SOME amount of time. If we see them rebuilding, we can bomb again.
Next is the prospect of an Iranian-dominated region.
You disagreed with that prospect. Forget domination for a moment. After obtaining nukes, Iran could move its pieces on the chessboard with impunity. After all, they merely need to calculate that we would not risk a nuclear exchange over that particular move. Think of a nuclear-armed Saddam annexing Kuwait.
Whabbism is rampent in much of Central Asia and doesn't particularly care for Tehran's pseudo-secularism
I don't buy it. Iran is supporting Hamas. Hamas has no problems accepting their support because of Iran's "secularism" -- an absurd notion in the first place.
Finally there's the money quote of the US being 'neutralized' by a mythical 'semi-strategic parity' Iran would then enjoy. Let's be realistic about which side has more nuclear weapons at the ready, more reliable methods to deliver them
Also silly. Are we not in a completely paralyzing stand-off with North Korea? What options do we have? We're begging the Chinese to do something. THAT'S what we've got left. Does it really matter that we have more nukes than NK? It's the possession of a few nukes that matters strategically.
From Bart at 12:13PM:
ReplyDelete"Of course, the NK lied and finished development of their nuclear program unblocked by the US."
I'm presuming you can quote an authoritative source that confirms this? And was this program directed to military or civilian application?
"The US can also bring in the USAF and perform an air campaign to take down the Iranian nuclear facilities, the Iranian navy and air force threatening the Gulf oil lanes, and if they choose to do so, target the nuclear scientists with smart munitions at their home or work."
I'm further presuming accept such a campaign is even plausible when you factor in the need for bases and permission to overfly other countries? Where exactly where would this air campaign be flown out of? Sounds daunting to say the least.
Bart continues:
"Even more so than NK, Iran is gambling that the US is divided and no longer has the resolve to act militarily. They see our divisions and the calls to cut and run from Iraq everyday on our media."
As usual, Bart gives undue credit to the occupation's many critics than they warrant. Iran likely is banking at least in part that the American public has neither the stomach nor desire to initiate yet another war, but they are also as likely pleased with how badly the occupation and reconstruction of its neighbor and rival has so badly alienated the Iraqis to the US. This however is very likely but one of a host of elements to their calculations on this issue, and not necessarily a paramount one.(I could be wrong as I lack a magickal glass ball with which to gaze into the mullah's minds)
"I do not see any chance for success in stopping Iran through the diplomatic process. Iran thumbed their nose at the UN confident in a Russian and/or Chinese veto."
On this, Bart and I agree. Sadly, it looks like a nuclear-capable (not necessarily nuclear-armed) Iran is the most plausible scenario.
Bart concludes:
"Bush is caught in a no win situation for him. A true test of political resolve."
Sadly, its one of his own making. I don't look forward to the coming days, and only pray our country can survive them.
Greg Djerejain at Belgravia Dispatch has a disturbing analysis of Bush Admin claims in 2002 vis-a-vis war plans for Iraq, and eerily similar statements now issuing from them regarding Iran. Greg had been a Bush supporter and in favor of the war in Iraq. But he's intelligent and honest, and now sees how dangerous (and dishonest) Bush really is in his foreign policy.
ReplyDeleteThere are several things to note in the comments on Glenn's posting. While the Hitler analogy has become so empty of meaning as to prove intellectually worthless, it still carries great emotional charge.
ReplyDeleteMuch in the way that telling a child that the boogeyman is coming, the Bush admin hopes that calling every two-bit dictator a Hitler will raise the appropriate stink such that people will simply react to its noxiousness.
Most people don't have the historical consciousness to see the disanalogy in the Bush propaganda. Instead, Hitler is a symbol of incarnate evil and as such can be floated across the one-dimensional consciousness of most Americans and create paranoia and angst.
Since few Americans have that historical awareness required to see the fallacy in the Hitler analogy, they must attach it to something in their lives. The common fare on the 24/7 news channels creates a great petrie dish for breeding fear, paranoia, and hysteria.
Continually barraged with false alarms about bombs at airports, cannibal pedophiles, tornadoes, new episodes of 24, and so on, the media seem intent on maintaining that level of anxiety in which such emotionally charged symbols as the next Hitler can shed their nightmarish chrysalids.
Let's hope that the blogosphere can reach out beyond its borders and provide some actuality to dispel these ghouls and goblins that the Bush nightmare machine fabricates.
In this regard, the closely argued and logical approach adopted by Glenn is certainly a part. But I fear that the Bush admin is beyond logical persuasion. As in any dialectic, the Bushites can pull in as many experts and facts as can their opponents. So ultimately, the issue becomes a pissing match.
That means the decision to go to war is prisoner to Bush's warped way of looking at the world. Immune to public opinion now, always giving credence to "gut" versus brain, this leader requires something more than logic to sway him.
Perhaps this is something the generals are lining up to bring to bear on him. I imagine that Hersh is right, and we'll begin to see some resignations of the generals en masse in the offing.
The brick bat might get through, although again that is a strategy that is the most precarious of all. Is there really anyone or anything that stands in Bush's way right now?
Whenever the Nazis enter a discussion, some rationality quietly tiptoes out of the room. Nevertheless, since you brought the subject up ...
ReplyDeleteEvery human being carries within a dirty secret or two. We all have a little bit of Hitler in us. It's why those of us who strive to be more than a chain reaction of appetites and frustrations search for an ethical, moral path through life. We also have some potential to follow a Hitler He didn't work alone.
We point at this or that episode of grandiose menace and identify Hitler's spirit, but it was the Nazi German machine that frightened the world even as it found the courage to fight back. The Luftwaffe, the SS, the gestapo, and all the other more or less enthusiastic cogs in the juggernaut were the agents dealing fear, torture, and death in Europe and beyond. The mere silhouette of a German helmet was enough to populate a child's nightmare.
During World War II and forever after, films depicted the peculiar nature of Nazi terror. The cruelly completent officers, the craven collaborators, the spectacle of evil taking charge: "Sieg heil." "Raus!" "Ve have vays of making you talk." "I vas just following orders." Typical for a Nazi. Unthinkable for the rest of us.
In the current conflict, who finds the Nazi costume to be an unnervingly comfortable fit these days? With leadership traceable right to the top, no matter how hard the military justice system tries to control it, we are committing acts that our better selves would find unconscionable. Where did we learn to behave this way? What happened to the firewall between us and them? Who is responsible? How can we stop?
Problems: Bush's grandad actively supported the nazis. Second, the neo-con philosophy is much more in accord with fascism than opposed to it. Finally, both Bush and the neo-cons are in no position to judge anyone's diplomacy capabilities. They completely lack any credibility in this area, as they willfully deceived the world community about the last war they started.
ReplyDeleteFrom mammal at 12:46PM:
ReplyDelete"You disagreed with that prospect." (re: Iran dominating the region)
Then either I mis-read your original post or you should've been more exact what you were proposing.
mammal continues:
"I don't buy it. Iran is supporting Hamas. Hamas has no problems accepting their support because of Iran's "secularism" -- an absurd notion in the first place."
Hamas isn't a good counter-example. Whabbism, as exemplified by Bin Laden and his ilk, seek a purely religious political superstate, and as such anything remotely smacking of secular institutions is an anathema.
And I said Iran's pseudo-secularism, ie having a President and elected Parliament. The mullahs are clearly in charge there.
mammal continues:
(re: US being 'neutralized' strategically) "Also silly. Are we not in a completely paralyzing stand-off with North Korea? What options do we have? We're begging the Chinese to do something. THAT'S what we've got left."
Actually we have the same list of options we have with Iran (albeit slightly modified). To date however, US policymakers have judged that a potentially nuclear-armed North Korea is a more tolerable option than initiating another war or likely unsuccessful bombing campaign against targets whose location we cannot be certain of.
The fact the US has pursued a half-hearted diplomatic effort to date can be traced back to the White House, not North Korea's few hypothetical nukes.
Clearly, conservatives in this country still have issues with FDR.
ReplyDeleteAll the Hitler analogies that Mr. Greenwald cites are surely a case of envy. Cons can't abide the fact that it was FDR who was Commander in Chief in the fight against Hitler. FDR was a Dem, and Dems are pussies, and cue the mental sparks and smoke-from-the-ears that that line of thinking surely causes.
And don't forget the social programs like Social Security and the rhetoric of a country working together. Cons would tear all that up in a heartbeat if they could.
American conservatives: stuck in the 1930's.
1. Do you think that Iran with nuclear weapons poses a danger to the world and U.S. interests?
ReplyDeleteDepends what you mean by this - for instance, I think a Pakistan with nuclear weapons is a danger to the world and U.S. interests, but I probably wouldn't have favored a war against them to stop that and I certainly wouldn't favor such a war now.
I think the U.S. would be better off if Iran didn't have nukes. I think there's no question about that. But I also think that we've seen that nuclear proliferation is something close to inevitable and I have zero confidence in this administration's ability to do anything about this situation other than make it worse. I think it's far from clear that we will achieve anything through a military attack other than inflaming the situation, making it more likely they will proliferate, and re-inforcing the lesson - yet again - that the smartest thing you can do if you want to be protected from an attack by the U.S. is obtain nuclear weapons as soon as possible.
2. If so, what would you do about it?
Negotiations, sanctions, etc. I have more confidence in that working than any military action, especially by our current government. But I think we have time, and I believe that Iran is as much a rational actor as any other country is. I haven't seen any examples which convince me of the contrary, and I've seen lots of examples which prove this to be true.
The issue here is not so much the well-used and abused AH analogy, it's the converse: Bush is Churchill, and shares all of Churchill's war-time attributes. It's more about the glorification and idolatry of Bush as the decisive leader taking on a malevolent menace in the face of international tergiversation and all going wobbly at the knees. Remember, to invoke the '30s Hitler, you must counterpoise with Chamberlain/Munich (the UN/Democrats), then complete the syllogism with the '30s Churchill (Bush)...end of argument.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Iran is as much a rational actor as any other country is.
ReplyDeleteWhat makes you so sure? Moreover, Iran could be both rational and homicidal. It's "moderate" former President, Rafsajani, said that it will nuke Israel, EVEN IT MEANS GETTING NUKED IN RETURN, because while Iran would be hurt, Israel would be destroyed with just one nuke. Now take that together with Ahmadinejad's statements, and Iran's existing support for the genocidal aims of Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad.
That leads to the next question: How would it be responsible for ISRAEL to allow Iran to go nuclear? And if Israel moves preemptively, won't that result in the very same negative consequences that a U.S. attack will engender? The only difference would be that the Israeli attack would be less effective.
And, for the sake of this discussion at least, let's remember that Israel is a U.N. member and entitled to protection from genocide. If it makes it easier for the Israel-haters, you can pretend that Iran is threatening to exterminate France, and proceed with your analysis accordingly.
>According to Hersh, plans to destroy all Iranian nuclear facilities, combat aircraft, anti-aircraft batteries and command-control centers are in the early stages of implementation.
ReplyDeleteNo one in the Bush-Cheney administration is denying that.
Even the option to nuke an empty bunker.<
http://www.lewrockwell.com/prather/prather42.html
william kristol is just another right-wing chickenhawk,
ReplyDeleteselling another right-wing war for the white house.
he does not know it yet,
but he is only a few years away from needing to make a public apology for his folly.
as for the hitler comparisons,
they are silly political rhetoric;
a big verbal rock to throw at someone you are angry with over political differences.
but there is a comparison to be made between the power-acquiring and consolidating stratagems of the national socialist democratic workers party of germany in the 1920's and 30's
and
the right-wing radical (nominally, "republican") party of today in the u.s.
that comparison is with the consistent efforts by both political parties to
systematically destroy and perpetually dominate,
not just defeat at the polls,
their political opposition.
thru using or abusing the law and judgeships
thru political pressure
thru social pressure
thru individual intimidation and threat
thru intimidating or co-opting media (information channels)
thru neutralizing or marginalizing scholarly and academic criticism,
thru exploiting america's substantial underground racism (question: in what town did ronald reagan begin his 1980 presidential campaign?)
but, above all else,
thru persistent public lying about their intentions and goals
thru nationalistic, foreign-threat propaganda,
thru recruiting and propagandizing teenage recruits (college republicans).
feel free to add to the list.
for today's "republican" radicals
i count this effort as having started
with former senator alan simpson's successful attack on the AARP some years ago.
or perhaps it should be marked as beginning with the attack on the "liberal" media
or the reagan-era attack on national public television
or the tobacco industry's attack on public health scientists, now expanded to scientists dealing with genetics, global warming, economics,
there probably are better and deeper analogies that could be made between the radical republicans of today
and previous
authoritarian political parties
but from my viewpoint
this analogy with the national socialist party of germany in the 1920's and 30's seems a wise use of history.
That leads to the next question: How would it be responsible for ISRAEL to allow Iran to go nuclear? And if Israel moves preemptively, won't that result in the very same negative consequences that a U.S. attack will engender? The only difference would be that the Israeli attack would be less effective.
ReplyDeleteI don't know of anyone who thinks that anything would result from an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel other than the complete annihilation of Iran. For that reason, no "rational" leader, by definition, would engage in a nuclear attack on a country with the nuclear capabilities of Israel.
But let's assume you're right - Iran is just itching to get into a nuclear exchange with Israel (I'm almost embarrassed to even write such an inane sentence as a hypothetical - are you really not embarrassed to espouse it as reality?) -- what does that mean for the U.S.? Are we supposed to start preemptive wars not only with every country which threatens us, but also every country which threatens Israel?
If it makes it easier for the Israel-haters, you can pretend that Iran is threatening to exterminate France, and proceed with your analysis accordingly.
We have an agreement with France that any attack on it is considered an attack on us. But let's pretend that didn't exist. I think most Americans would wonder why France (or England or Argentina or Norway or South Africa) doesn't go and attack the country which is threatening it, rather than the U.S. having to do so. Why should Israel be any different? Why is a country's hostility towards Country X a basis for the United States going to war with the threatening country?
England of all countries should remember the threat posed by Hitler, and in particular Germany's primitive V-2 rocket. Iran's power hungry president dreams that Iran will one day be considered a "regional superpower" by other countries and according to experts Iran is making every effort to develop both long range ballistic missiles capable of hitting all of Europe, as well as nuclear warheads.
ReplyDeleteAhmadinejad has publicly stated a number of times that the holocaust is a myth and more recently added that Israel is a "rotten, dried tree" that will be annihilated by "one storm." How can this man be expected to take UN diplomatic efforts seriously when he doesn't even recognize a neighboring state created after WWII by the UN itself?
When asked in February 2006 if Iran was a state sponsor of terrorism Tony Blair replied: "It certainly does sponsor terrorism, there's no doubt about that at all". Given Iran's insane rhetoric, it seems reasonable for world leaders to compare Ahmadinejad to Hitler, yet so far it looks like Mr. Blair doesn't mind allowing a state sponsor of terrorism that already has ballistic missiles to also acquire nuclear weapons, and has decided to sit the next war out. Go figure.
"We were led into invading Iraq by a group of people who are as bloodthirsty as they are historically ignorant."
ReplyDeleteThat's a little strong, isn't it? Wolfy, e.g., cannot be described as ignorant. I'll bet he even read Paul Kennedy.
Rather than ignorance, many of the neo-cons seemed driven by almost euphoric, utopian idealism. Democracy and capitalism, under the pax-Americana, were the final, inevitable, stage of history. The people of Iraq would rise up in welcome. Any data, analysis, or anecdotal evidence to the contrary could be ignored, vilified, discredited because this was an ahistoric moment and opportunity.
Either you got it, or you didn't. Those who didn't, or who drearily held out for hard analysis, would be convinced by the inevitable, triumphiant outcome.
To ignore history is not necessarily to be ignorant of history.
Adams
Ahmedinajad this, Ahmedinajad that... American cultural and socio-political ignorance is at its height here.
ReplyDeleteNo one who knows Iranian politics seriously thinks that Ahmedinajad runs Iran. He's merely a small part of the political system, the most important being the mullah ruling council.
They are the pragmatists, they are the ones allowing Ahmedinajad to run off his mouth; they'll be the ones to pull the plug on him when the time comes.
Ahmadinejad has publicly stated a number of times that the holocaust is a myth and more recently added that Israel is a "rotten, dried tree" that will be annihilated by "one storm." How can this man be expected to take UN diplomatic efforts seriously when he doesn't even recognize a neighboring state created after WWII by the UN itself?
ReplyDeleteThe United Arab Emirites doesn't recognize Israel either. They don't use the word "Israel" except with snide quotation marks, and prohibit all Israeli citizens from even entering their country.
But they are a great and responsible ally in the War on Terror and we can trust them to run our ports.
So which is it?
Given this history, one would think that Bush, Cheney and company might be a little hesitant in claiming to find "Hitlers" everywhere they look.
ReplyDeleteIs this another example of
"those that only have hammers think of every problem as a nail?"
This is just a devise to deflect attention and accountability. Smear your opponent before they have an opportunity to talk about you. They want to "frame" the oppoistion as "hilter" because it is actaully the best analogy for their actions.
Bush is nothing like Hitler.
ReplyDeleteWell, bush is a chickenhawk, at least hitler served in the armed forces.....
Is that what you mean?
He is JUST LIKE HITLER in that he is promoting the economic interests of the same band of thieves that brought us WWII and his family is continuing to profit from it.
It was treason when his grandfather did it and it is treason now.
you poor little bedwetters, so what if Iran gets a nuke? Just ONE of our Trident subs could incinerate Iran, and Israel could do the same. Jeebus, we wouldn't have survived the Cold War if you bedwetters had been in charge.
ReplyDeleteBart: "The US has ground forces surrounding Iran which have the capability of finishing a regime change in about a month."
ReplyDeletewhat a bedwetting little fool, IF you truly believe that then you need to ENLIST immediately
Mammal, Rafsanjani did not say he would nuke Israel, he just said Iran would be more able to survive a nuclear exchange. Mao Tse-tung said the same a long time ago, and we didn't fight a war with China. Hezbollah, to pick one of the groups you mention is hardly "genocidal". Rather, it was formed to resist a war of rather naked aggression - the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon. Even taking the worst estimates of how many, including civilians, they have killed, it is very small in comparison to the numbers 10-20,000, almost all civilians, that Israel killed in a war Israel started. I suggest Defending Israel, by the leading Israeli military thinker Martin Van Creveld, for anyone who wants an analysis of Israel's defense situation - and he is not in the least hysterical about a threat from Iran.
ReplyDeleteGlenn, no nation has an obligation to recognize any other nation. We did not recognize the People's Republic of China for a long time. If UN GA 181, which helped create Israel, obligates a nation to recognize Israel, as the PLO/Palestine has since 1993, then why doesn't it equally obligate other nations, like the US and Israel, to recognize Palestine, the other state that UNGA 181 attempted to create, and that about 90 states recognize?
What's the worst thing that could happen in the event of an Iranian ascendancy in the Middle East? Probably that they will have us by the balls in resource wars over oil. So is Iran supposed to play Manchuria to our 1930s Japan? Are we establishing a co-prosperity sphere in the gulf? Extra points for being honest.
ReplyDelete"And if Israel moves preemptively, won't that result in the very same negative consequences that a U.S. attack will engender? The only difference would be that the Israeli attack would be less effective."
I think I've heard this argument that Nation A could attack Nation B any minute, so preemptive action is necessary. If there's one good thing to come out of the Iraq War, it's that we may be a bit more uneasy about the Bush Doctrine from now on.
The United States will retain its nuclear primacy. The two nations with the largest stockpiles after the United States, Russia and China, are getting to the point where they don't have a MAD deterrent any more because they couldn't stop a US first-strike.
All this scaremongering about the Iranian nuclear bomb (which is years away, as far as we know) ignores the fact that there is nowhere to go but up with nuclear weapons. It's not like if Iran had 5 weapons, all of a sudden they would have a credible deterrent.
What are the real consequences of an preemptive Israeli attack on Iran? Well, we might have to consider cutting Israel loose. Honest nations don't attack others without provocation (which is what preemption really means, thanks to Bush). If, God save us all, we had a more diplomatic POTUS with some moral authority when Israel attacked Iran, the US could play peacemaker. We can't be a peacemaker if we attack Iran, we can just do Regime Change II.
The worst of all possible worlds is the one where the nuclear champion of the world starts using its weapons preemptively. Who could stop them? And when that barrier to using WMDs is gone, God only knows what the fallout will be.
This "rational and homicidal" talk is just that, talk. There's no corpus delicti. The evidence that Iran actually plans to attack Israel comes up to the level that Saddam was planning to attack us. So prove it and link it.
Here's a slightly different thread of thought on the original subject:
ReplyDeleteForget whether comparisons to Hitler and Nazi Germany to Saddam Hussein, the current regime in Tehran, or Belgrade, or any other leader or country we're presently contending with are either fair or accurate.
My question is: are such comparisons even necessary? If comparing Iran of today to Nazi Germany circa 1940 isn't an adequate or factually accurate comparison, *must* we find one that is? Is it automatically encumbent upon us to say 'yes, the situation we're facing is exactly the same as we faced with Country X in Year Y'?
I don't know of anyone who thinks that anything would result from an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel other than the complete annihilation of Iran. For that reason, no "rational" leader, by definition, would engage in a nuclear attack on a country with the nuclear capabilities of Israel.
ReplyDeleteI just cited Rafsanjani's statement. Then, there's the President Ahmadinejad, who makes his calls for genocide fully knowing Israel's capability. Perhaps they are calculating that when it comes down to it, the world won't allow a full nuclear exchange, or that Israel will be pressured not to completely eradicate Iran. Or maybe they are calculating that given Israel's size, it won't be able to pull off a retaliatory strike because it will be cooked. I don't know what they are thinking. Saddam certainly miscalculated, and badly. Bottom line is that I don't know why you would assume rationality on the part of a country that has as its policy the wholesale extermination of another people.
I think most Americans would wonder why France (or England or Argentina or Norway or South Africa) doesn't go and attack the country which is threatening it, rather than the U.S. having to do so. Why should Israel be any different? Why is a country's hostility towards Country X a basis for the United States going to war with the threatening country?
I'm not suggesting that that should be the basis for the U.S. to enter a war as a general proposition. I was describing the security crisis of the larger Middle East. An Israeli preemptive strike, though morally justified, would be just as problematic for the U.S. Iran's push for a nuclear weapon could lead to a regional war. The U.S. has an obvious interest here.
Moreover, we've gone to bat for allies prior to NATO. We'd probably go to bat nowadays for Australia if, say Pakistan, was about to launch nukes at it. We went to bat for Kuwait. The concept is not as farfetched as you as you make it seem. So, I'll ask you the same question: "Why should Israel be any different?"
From mammal at 3:08PM:
ReplyDelete"Moreover, we've gone to bat for allies prior to NATO. We'd probably go to bat nowadays for Australia if, say Pakistan, was about to launch nukes at it. We went to bat for Kuwait. The concept is not as farfetched as you as you make it seem. So, I'll ask you the same question: "Why should Israel be any different?" "
You've just answered your own question with examples like that (ie. a nuclear-armed nation launching a presumably-unprovoked attack upon a nation that doesn't have nukes).
Israel offers a somewhat different dynamic in that it (a) has nuclear weapons and (b) has a history of pre-emptive air campaigns on real and potential threats to it (ie.the 1967 war and the 1981 raid in Iraq).
That said, today's suicide bombing in Tel Aviv throws many of these concerns into stark relief. Hamas is already claiming the bombings were 'a legitimate response to Israeli aggression'. One could argue that either way.
My point is Israel presents a wholly different set of calculations and considerations vis-a-vis US support of its actions, complicated mightily by the history of the past century and current policies. A simple, knee-jerk support of Israel is no more constructive or in the national interest than a simple, knee-jerk condemnation of the same.
Where exactly where would this air campaign be flown out of?
ReplyDeleteDiego Garcia, presumably.
Billmon made a similar point a couple of days ago that is also a good read.
ReplyDeleteThat said, today's suicide bombing in Tel Aviv throws many of these concerns into stark relief. Hamas is already claiming the bombings were 'a legitimate response to Israeli aggression'. One could argue that either way.
ReplyDeleteAre you for real? There you have it folks! The post-colonial, moral equivalence, Leftist ideologues converge with the Islamic Death Cult. Saeb Erekat and Abu Mazen even condemned the suicide bombing. That leaves you in the fine company of Zahar, Meshal, Haniyeh and Ahmadinejad. Nicely done.
From mammal at 3:39PM:
ReplyDelete"Are you for real? There you have it folks! The post-colonial, moral equivalence, Leftist ideologues converge with the Islamic Death Cult. Saeb Erekat and Abu Mazen even condemned the suicide bombing."
As do I.
If you'd read with both eyes and both hemispheres of your brain, you'd note I simply stated Hamas was claiming it was 'justified' and noted it could be argued either way.
I said nothing to suggest there was moral equivalence between the two sides of this hypothetical 'argument', and admit I should have clearly stated my own condemnation.
Next time, read the comment, then think a few seconds before responding. It'll cut down the embarrassment for all sides.
I don't even bother anymore thinking that what our government says can be believed. nothing the government does anymore surprises me.
ReplyDeleteWhat I tend to look at is the awareness of the people of the US to gauge the propogandist effects that this administrations rhetoric unendingly spews from the mouth.
I keep wondering , where is the outrage?
Still unclear, Yankee. What can be "argued either way"?
ReplyDeleteIf Iran is ever successful at creating nuclear weapons (which is certainly NOT a sure thing regardless of whether we intervene or not) how would it ever benefit them to use them against us? How would it ever benefit them to close down the strait? The answer is obvious when you pull your frantic heads from your asses - it would never benefit them.
ReplyDeleteYou assume that they operate on a plane of rational and logical thought. That is an awfully big risk to take and one that I am not so sure is smart.
Don't forget that there are cultural differences that play into this as well.
Ender Says:
ReplyDelete[The world] is certainly no more dangerous now than it was in the 60's and 70's.
Then, in the same paragraph:
[Bush] makes the world a more dangerous place with every position he takes and every move he makes.
No wonder no one takes the left seriously anymore.
From anonymous at 4:19PM:
ReplyDelete"No wonder no one takes the left seriously anymore."
Actually, its the Bush Administration and its supporters no-one takes seriously anymore.
The rest of us just have to live with the mess they make.
Actually, its the Bush Administration and its supporters no-one takes seriously anymore.
ReplyDeleteGlenn Greenwald seems to take the Bush Administration quite seriously, since he spends most of his waking hours writing endless sky-is-falling screeds warning us of its perfidy, malfeasance and incompetance. If he doesn't take it seriously then he is either deranged or seriously in need of another hobby.
No, it is the left that no one takes seriously anymore. The Washington Post article exposing the behavior of that chain-smoking moonbat blogger queen is the image most Americans have of those inhabiting the leftist "blogosphere." The Bush administration is running the country. Those buzzing around the leftist fever swamp run blogs.
It doesn't take much effort to decide which group is taken seriously, and which group is not.
And why do you think it is that Israel is lobbing over artillery shells into Gaza, Nuf? Do you think it has something to do with the hundreds of rockets those upstanding Pals are shooting into Israel?
ReplyDeleteOh, yes, the occupation. But didn't Israel just end the Gaza occupation? And what was the Arab world's reasons for wanting to exterminate Israel before the occupation started in 1967?
Ultimately, it comes down to this. One party believes in a two-state solution. The other believes in extermination of the other side. One side has accepted every single partition plan offered up by the international community since 1937. The other side wants extermination of the other side. I simply do not understand those who espouse moral equivalence. There is a fundamental difference between the two sides.
"Ugly American":
ReplyDeleteDo you doubt for a second what Iran intends to do when they acquire nuclear weapons?
Ummm, to be sure, not quite clear at all as to what they'll do with them if they acquire them. Maybe nothing; that seems to be the rule (only country ever to break it was the good ol' U.S. of Aye, you know).
But you're right. I don't know. Perhaps you can tell us where you got the inside scoop, OK? Voices inside your head, perhaps?
Cheers,
Mammal: Ultimately, it comes down to this. One party believes in a two-state solution. The other believes in extermination of the other side. One side has accepted every single partition plan offered up by the international community since 1937.
ReplyDeleteThis is simply wrong. The Jewish side did not accept the 1937 Peel partition plan, although it did accept the 1947 UN plan. More recently, the PLO and the bordering Arab states have been willing to accept the international community's 2 state solution since 1976. Israel is the one rejecting these plans, e.g. the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative and its 2005 reaffirmation.
Glenn, to clarify, what I found funny was that your post decried comparisons of Iran to Hitler, and then in the fifth comment on your post somebody compared Bush to Hitler. I'll admit that wasn't as clear as it could have been in my post so I will append a clarification. I think your point is reasonable; the point made by The Queen Is Not Amused was what set me off.
ReplyDeleteYankeependragon:
ReplyDelete[to HWSNBN]: "I'm presuming you can quote an authoritative source that confirms this?"
Yeah. Freerepublic.com and WorldNetDaily. He'll do it until you give up in disgust. Of course, that doesn't change the fact that all of HWSNBN's "facts" are made up.
The "Mighty Wurlitzer" in action, showing one of Herr Hitler's colleagues to have been right about propaganda techniques.
Cheers,
s
From anonymous 4:48PM:
ReplyDelete"It doesn't take much effort to decide which group is taken seriously, and which group is not."
Agreed. And given the administration hasn't gotten a single thing right, policywise or in implementation, in any of its six years, whereas 'the left' has had it correct before the fact on everything from Iraq to the Katrina response to Medicare-D to the consequences of tax cuts...
No, it should be an absolute no-brainer as to which group should be taken seriously, and which is an absolute disaster and laughing stock.
Incidentially, you may want to actually *read* the Washington Post article from yesterday before hanging your hat there. Its an even worse embarrassment, factually and substantively, than the last State of the Union President Bush recited. If that proves too much effort however, just read through Glenn's post from yesterday.
David Shaugnessy:
ReplyDeleteJust for our edification, what (and/or who) is an "Islamofascist"? I looked it up in "dictionary.reference.com" and couldn't find any such entry.
Could you give some examples? Can we also start slurring the two major political parties in the U.S., seeing as there is a Democratic People's Republic of Korea that's a little shaky on the human rights angle (not to mention feeding their people)? Hope you can understand my confusion....
Thanks.
Cheers,
... illegal occupation...
ReplyDeleteWas the Ottoman occupation of the West Bank "illegal"? Was the British occupation of the West Bank "illegal"? Was the Jordanian occupation of the West Bank "illegal"?
You are an anti-Semite because you characterize as "illegal" only the Jewish occupation of the West Bank, and not any other of the nations who have politically ruled the Arabs there for thousands of years.
You are an anti-Semite because you condemn only the Jews for the violence that has occurred there in the last 50 years, and you are an anti-Semite because you believe the Jews run American foreign policy.
If you are confused about this I can go into more detail.
From the ugly american at 6:19PM:
ReplyDelete"Yankee doubts North Korea even has Nuclear weapons yet they claim to have them and every other country in the world believes they do."
Do I? I believe the closest I've come to such an assertion is my recognition that it simply hasn't been concretely verified by a third party like the IAEA.
Yes, North Korea is claiming they have them. Yes, a sizable portion of the rest of the world has good reason to think they have them.
There's also a portion of the population that thinks they've had microchips implanted in their bodies by little gray aliens from Zeta Reticula B.
Needless to say, we should be careful what we accept as fact based more on group or social consensus than verified fact.
The larger point is however well taken. We've a plurality of opinions expressed here, many differing on key points and emphasis that it makes it hard to actually discuss anything without risking degenerating into a shouting match.
I question whether this is necessarily a bad thing as it provides a good range of viewpoints. The fact many of these opinions and viewpoitns are so entrenched makes it naturally unlikely any of us can or will be dissuaded from them.
"Ugly American":
ReplyDeleteIt used to be that we could have different opinions but argued over the same set of facts. Today we can not agree on the facts.
So go tell the freakin' maladministration to stop making s*** up....
Cheers,
David Shaugnessy:
ReplyDeleteOsama bin Laden, for example, is an Islamofacist.
Pardon me, but I'm still confused. What does Osama bin Laden have to do with Fascism? Why is he an exemplar of this unheralded political movement? Why hasn't bin Laden taken on teh sobriquet himself? How does Osama compare (and be specific now) to Mussolini and his political movement? You know, I thought I was reasonably well read, but I'm still having difficulty tying the two (Mussolini and bin Laden) together in any sort of a coherent manner....
Thanks.
Cheers,
David Shaughnessy writes: Osama bin Laden, for example, is an Islamofacist.
ReplyDeleteAgreed.
Arne, actually I don't think "Islamofascism" is a poor term for describing what most people mean to capture by it. It would be a species of the sociological term clerical fascism. Some identify it as such.
Ok, let's try that clerical fascism link again.
ReplyDeleteHow do you know what I believe?
ReplyDeleteOnly from what you write, nimrod.
Perhaps you could explain why you never condemn the Arabs for their murderous attacks on Jews?
Perhaps you could explain why you don't characterize as "illegal" any of the other "occupations" of Arab lands west of the Jordan River that have occurred for the last 1000 years of human history, and only do so of the Jews?
Perhaps you could explain why you believe the Jews run American foreign policy?
I'll say it again since you don't seem to understand what I've told you in previous posts: You are a moron anti-Semite in the David Duke mold, and should be condemned for it by all who read this blog.
a new troll writes: You are a moron anti-Semite in the David Duke mold, and should be condemned for it by all who read this blog.
ReplyDeleteNuf Said demonstrates about as much anti-Semitism as you do measured discourse. At least Bart is polite; you are a crude and vicious cretin troll.
I can't really comment in the thread - haven't been able to keep up with all of it. Just wanted to give props to a fairly good blog entry about the same issue
ReplyDeleteaxis of evil knievel
David Shaughnessy:
ReplyDeleteI hope that resolves your confusion and salves the discomfort you feel upon hearing "slurs" directed at those who would prefer to see the Western world exterminated.
Two commments:
1). Hard to say I'm talking about "slurs" of any specific people until you tell me who it is you're talking about with your "Islamofascist" label. For instance, if you were referring to any and all Muslims as "Islamofascists", then I'd say it would be a slur, nicht wahr?
2). Your claim that certain people "would prefer to see the Western world exterminated" assumes facts not in evidence, counsellor (not to mention that the prototype Fascists were in fact denizens of the Western world; some would even say a unique product of the Western world). And I'd say that is true even for the Great Satan Himself, Osama bin Laden. You really ought to step back from the hyperbolic rhetoric.
Cheers,
Actually yhe German people never reelected Hitler, unlike us. As far as Iran is concerned, they have the right to nuclear power to generate electricity. They have signed the treaties and they have for the most part complied with the requirements.
ReplyDeleteThere are a nuclear rogue nation or two out there that Bush ardently supports and is even willing to provide nuclear technology. India and Israel spring to mind. Before we get all het up and start bombing Iran, let's save a couple of bombs for the real nuclear nuts, starting with us and and a number of our allies.
Did you know that Canada has created nuclear reactors that produce weapons grade plutonium? They are a lot closer so we should start with downtown Montreal, non? The buggers don't even speak our language.
Arne, just because it is necessary to have a reasonable response to the problems presented by radical Islam, does not mean that Islamofascism does not exist. Consider this Der Spiegel interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a victim of these nutjobs.:
ReplyDeleteHirsi Ali: That's exactly the reflex I was just talking about: offering the other cheek. Not a day passes, in Europe and elsewhere, when radical imams aren't preaching hatred in their mosques. They call Jews and Christians inferior, and we say they're just exercising their freedom of speech. When will the Europeans realize that the Islamists don't allow their critics the same right? After the West prostrates itself, they'll be more than happy to say that Allah has made the infidels spineless.
David Shaughnnesy:
ReplyDeleteWell, you're right, I suppose. I mean, Osama bin Laden is not Italian. However, fascism is defined thus:
n : a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government (as opposed to democracy or liberalism). Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University
OK, when you want to use one-liner dictionary references to "simplify" the discussion, I guess I'd be technically accurate in saying I was conversing with a member of the phylum Chordata. The classification sure fits, but I'm not sure it really furthers the discussion. Say, homw many of the otherdefinitions of "fascism" did you snip to get there, eh? If you're going to choose that one, care to explain why "authoritarian" doesn't suffice (pretty much any gummint is "hierarchical" in practise)? Is it the "baggage" that comes with attaching the cute little "fascist" label on a box which the label barely fits? You, know, the "Godwin" technique?
If you think I'm being unfair, feel free to explain why the "fascist" label is particularly apt for the group you're trying to describe (and explain well why it's not in fact unhelpful because it introduces biases and inaccuracies that are not really necessary, and frames the debate in a somewhat dishonest way).
Here's someone else's view of the label:
Third, it is hard to see the difference between the bigotry of anti-Semitism as an evil and the bigotry that Medved displays toward Islam. It is more offensive than I can say for him to use the word "Islamo-fascist." Islam is a sacred term to 1.3 billion people in the world. It enshrines their highest ideals. To combine it with the word "fascist" in one phrase is a desecration and a form of hate speech. Are there Muslims who are fascists? Sure. But there is no Islamic fascism, since "Islam" has to do with the highest ideals of the religion. In the same way, there have been lots of Christian fascists, but to speak of Christo-Fascism is just offensive. It goes without saying that a phrase like Judeo-fascist is an unutterable abortion. (And this despite the fact that Vladimir Jabotinsky, the ideological ancestor of Likud and the Neocons, spoke explicitly of the desirability of Jewish fascism in the interwar period). Medved is even inaccurate, since the terrorist attack on civilians in Jerusalem to which he referred was the work of the Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, a secular rather than an ostensibly Muslim group.
Feel free to discuss. But don't expect a free ride for your Humpty-Dumpty behaviour.
Cheers,
Hypatia:
ReplyDeleteIt would be a species of the sociological term clerical fascism.
I guess I just don't see what tacling on the gratuitous (and emotionally laden) term "fascism" does to help further the conversation. As pointed out by some of the initial posters, compared to the original fascism, the Dubya regime may capture the essence of fascism better than Osama could ever hope for (and may include a religious reconstructionist element as icing on the cake, depending on how much you think he's entwined with the ECRW folks like Scaife and the other CR big moneybags). The use of the "fascist" label is meant to forestall or confuse any substantive discussion (after all, isn't that what Glenn's thread here is all about?). If we're going to call them Islamofascists, then you can't get snitty if people say that Dubya's the real fascist ... and then trot out specific comparisons to support their claim.
Cheers,
...measured discourse...you are a crude and vicious cretin troll
ReplyDeleteHeh. It is clear that your authority on the subject of "measured discouse" is far too thin to be taken seriously, especially given your "measured" contribution to a conversation in which you're not even participating.
Are you the resident den mother here, or just a nosy busybody with far too much time on her hands?
peter (9:02)
ReplyDeletethank you peter.
yours was a thoughtful comment that did not mince words about nuclear power --
th- th- that's us folks!
a non-opportunistic bush foreign policy would make every effort to reduce both our nuclear weaponry and that of all other nations,
and, especially,
to track clandestine nuclear trade.
that task was one of those that the cia front, brewster-jennings, was doing when cheney, libby, et al., blew their cover in 2003.
given the responsibility of the bush white house for the valerie plame/ brewester-jennings exposure,
for the president to
choose iran to focus on
at this particular time,
april 2006,
can only be considered
an election-manipulation ploy.
bush is using the tyrant's tried and true tactic of raising the prospect of a foreign "threat"
to throw the 2006 congressional elections elections to his right-wing radicals, aka, "republicans".
manipulating elections is a well-documented right-wing republican strategy --
cf,
ohio in 2004 and 2005,
florida in 2000 and 2004,
congressional elections and bogus iraq threat in 2002,
new hampshire phone-tapping in 2002.
this matter of manipulating elections to seize or preserve power
is where the radical (pseudo-republican) party of today in the united states
parallels
the national socialist democratic workers party in germany in the 1920's and 30's.
george bush and his radicals are unfit to rule the united states!
unfit to rule!
David Shaugnessy:
ReplyDeleteArne Langsetmo: I have no idea why you feel impelled to defend Osama bin Laden against "slurs."...
Ummm, I didn't. If you read what I wrote, I specifically noted that my original comment was based on your non-specific classing of someone (known only to you) as "Islamofascists". If meant to apply to all of Islam, or to generic Muslims, it is indeed a bit of a slur, no? If you'd meant Osama, why didn't you just say so (although I will still not agree that "fascist" (whatever the pejorative connotations of that word, and regardless of whether Osama deserves pejorative terms heaped on him) as really particularly accurate. Tell me, why do you think that "Islamofascist" is particularly descriptive (I mean, outside of RW foamer circles, where this is the currently the Swiss Army Knife of words)? See if you can describe in specificity how folks like Osama are uniquely or archetypically Islamic, and at the same time prototype fascist (as opposed to the many other fine adjectives to be used for those of an authoritative and religious bent). Islam has no copyright on intolerance (unfortunately), and the religious fundamentalists have no patent on authoritarianism. I'd note that fascism, in the original sense of the word, had much more of a political and economic connotation than it did religious.
I'd also note that the most common place I hear "Islamofascist" is from the RW and the chickenhawks, and it's intended as a pejorative, even a racist, characterisation of Islamic fundamentalists, with an easy elision into Islam in general, or Arabs (and/or others of suitable skin colour and national origin, but exceptions can be made...). Why don't we talk about the likes of McVeigh, Butler, and Rudolph as Christo-fascists? Would that be apt, you think?
... Nor do I understand your obsession with the purity of "facsism."...
You don't understand that fascism is more than just "nasty people". Sorry to be pedantic about it, but why hijack the more specific fascism for a more general distastefulness, when there's other words there that are perfectly suitable. Oh, yeah, sorry, forgot, calling them Islamo-authoritarians wouldn't have that cute Nazi tinge to it.....
... Worse, you appear to favorably compare Osama bin Laden to the political leadership of the United States....
You appear to hallucinate. I have done no such thing. But I did say that in terms of adherence to fascism as Mussolini coined the word and the doctrine, you may easily find the Dubya is a closer match (albeit there's quite significant differences in both cases). Feel free to dispute that, but if you do, then you'll have to address the comparisons made in the early posts here.
... It is inanity like that gives the Bush acolytes fodder for their canons....
Au contraire, mon ami. It's people like you that perpetuate these laden words, and think that spitting them out substitutes for serious argument, that provide the Bush acolytes "fodder for their cannons". By example. But that is not to say that the "cannons" you suggest be used are well aimed. Which is pretty much my point here.
Still waiting for an explanation as to why Osama should be given the appellation "fascist". Care to explain why you think he's a follower of Mussolini? Your reasoned argument would be welcomed.
Cheers,
"Ugly American":
ReplyDeleteIran is a nation ruled by mad men who have made their intentions clear.
Ummm, (neglecting for the moment that the "intentions" even as expressed aren't quite as clear as "Ugly" here would make them out to be): All you have for their "mak[ing] their "intentions clear" here is their expressed words. But by that token, we can be absolutely certain that Dubya never wanted to invade Iraq ... and it must have been a silent coup that took over the gummint and overruled Dubya's intentions. Guess we'd better roust up the troops and go off to Warshington, spring him from his house arrest and let him assume his rightful throne again.
Cheers,
It's just the Bush Administration and their supporters (like PNAC Founder Bill Kristol) projecting themselves on to who they think are their enemies.
ReplyDeleteIt's misdirection and redirect.
The Bush Administration is the closest we have had to Hitler's regmime since WW2.
The Bushstappo has mastered the use of propaganda and manipulating the authoritarian personality.
The NeoCons hope that by calling everyone else Hitler that it will distract the people from taking a closer look at Bush who obviously is a fascist.
It could kill millions of people from the fallout.
ReplyDeleteThis is an unutterably stupid remark. Iranian nuclear facilities are in remote areas, and bunker-busters explode deep underground (hence the name "bunker-buster"). The death toll would be in the hundreds, not the millions.
Is a nuclear first-strike ever moral?
Of course it is. We destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki and killed thousands...and saved millions. By any definition of "moral" that fits the bill.
BTW re: N. Korea. I have not paid as much attention to N. Korea as I should. But when exactly did N. Korea get the bomb? Ah google is my friend:
ReplyDeletehttp://northkorea.ssrc.org/Sigal/
Don't know how good a source this is, but it appears that Clinton got North Korea to stop trying to acquire the bomb, and it only began again after Bush repudiated all the Clinton agreements.
An Islamofacist.... armed with nuclear weapons.... must be prevented at all costs. All costs
ReplyDeleteTwo quick questions David S.
l) Please define an "Islamofacist." If it's the same as a Chistofascist or a Zionistfascist, then you needn't respond because I am familiar with those strains.
But if it's different, then please describe how. Can they be identified because they have mustaches? Do they believe in self-flaggelation to please their God? Or do they make and watch and glorify and revel in four hour movies showing the sadistic, prolonged and sadistic "horror movie gory" torture of their martyyrs? I am losing track here and would appreciate more precise definitions.
2) All costs? Really? Say no American could ever travel safely abroad again or go to the theater or a sporting event or a rock concert? Is that cost ok? How about if 100,000 Americans were to die? Okey dokey with you? A million? Half the country?
Please define "all costs." Where is a dictionary when one really needs it......
OFF THE TABLE
ReplyDeleteBombing Iran is not only illegal and unjust, it is an unacceptable risk. The risks of "stopping Iran" are greater than not "stopping Iran." It isn't just my opinion that the risks that come with military actions against Iran are unacceptable. Look at the conclusion drawn from war-game simulations of attacking Iran. The final conclusion after running through many options was expressed by General Gardiner, a simulations expert at the U.S. Army’s National War College:
"After all this effort, I am left with two simple sentences for policymakers," Sam Gardiner said of his exercise. "You have no military solution for the issues of Iran. And you have to make diplomacy work.""
The CIA and DIA have war-gamed the likely consequences of a U.S. pre-emptive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. No one liked the outcome. As an Air Force source tells it, ‘The war games were unsuccessful at preventing the conflict from escalating.‘” I HOPE SO! But the Bush Administration OFTEN IGNORES advice from intelligence.
The example of the USSR is an important one to analyze. The biggest close call was because of U.S. policy maker's recklessness and aggression toward Cuba. We don't want to repeat the same kind of mistakes. And the sick part is President Kennedy didn't know about the hypocrisy of U.S. nukes already based a mere 150 miles from Soviet boarders, in Turkey.
As far as the habits of other nuclear countries, the U.S. and Israel are heavily involved in terrorism. The U.S. has inflicted massive amounts of terrorism against Cuba, just one example. And the hypocrisy is incredible. Look at the case of Orlando Bosch. The U.S. Justice Department, which was overruled by Bush I, complained that the U.S. harboring Bosch put the public interests at risk because "the security of this nation is affected by its ability to urge credibly other nations to refuse aid and shelter to terrorists." Look also at the shameful case of the Cuban 5.
We also need to look at what Israel actually is, and it isn't pretty. For example, if all the people living in Israel had equal rights, the same rights we demand for ourselves, that would be the destruction of Israel by definition. Keeping in place a system of discrimination based on religion is not something Americans should risk their lives for. Keeping in place a system of injustice is not something Americans should support. Should the Confederacy have been wiped off the map?
David Shaugnessy:
ReplyDeleteThere are serious debates to be had about the grave threats facing the country and the world,...
Which explains why you reduce it to one-word epithets?!?!?
Cheers,
David Shaughnessy:
ReplyDeleteYou cannot even conceive of the possibility that just because using military force in Iraq was wrong, that doesn't necessarily mean that using military force in Iran in automatically wrong....
Ummm, no one said that. But I think there's a fair of people that said, when they heard the Dubya maladministration trotting out the Iran "threat" rhetoric, "We don't beeellleeeiiivvvveeee yyyoooouuuuu!" To be fair, I was/am consistent, I said the same thing when they were trotting out the Dodgy Dossier and the other Iraq crapola.
... Iran is not Iraq.
Indeed. For that matter, Iraq was "not Iraq". But why this makes you think the maladministration is any more reliable is beyond me. Having it demonstrated once to your eyes that the maladministration would lie their a$$es off, amd then make a complete bollix of it when they got their way, why would you ever trust them again?
Cheers,
George W. Bush should be compared to Churchill - Ward Churchill, not Winston.
ReplyDeleteGodwin is dead, btw.
ReplyDeleteFrom the ugly america at 12:49PM:
ReplyDelete"The Iranians have said they are our enemy. They have called us the great satan. They have called numerous times for the destruction of the United States and Israel. They have threated to attack us with suicide bombers and in fact employ suicide bombers now in Lebanon, Israel, and Palestine."
Four sentences, the first three of which refer only to boilerplate public pronouncements, and the last referring in general to a specific tactic but not a specific incident, target or attack within or specifically against the United States.
The ugly american continues:
"So in word and deed they are in fact threatening us over and over again."
Threatened.
Not attacked. Not damaged. Not compromised. Not injured.
Threatened. That's really all Tehran can do.
The ugly american continues:
"And Dan Lewis even after I have pointed out his flawed logic continues to completely reject the possibility of Iran using nuclear weapons against Israel or the US through terrorists or other means."
I have seen no-one make such a comment on any of these threads. The consensus appears that if Iran should manage to successfully develop, build and test a nucelar weapon, it remains unlikely they will actually employ it either directly or through proxies.
There's always a chance whatever regime is in charge by then will be even more radical than the current one. There's an equally good chance there will be a more moderate, less bombastic one in charge.
The money quote:
"Yes it certainly could be all bluster and rhetoric but to ignore the possibility is foolish imo."
No-one here ignores the potential dangers, but that is all they are. Potential ones, not imminent, and as such requiring different handling than if Iran already had a nuke or three *and* was about to march on Tel Aviv.
Fair enough?
From juno1952 at 2:55PM:
ReplyDelete"Pardon me for asking such a silly question. Why doesn't anyone discuss the fact that if we bomb Iran, innocent men, women, and CHILDREN will surely die and be injured?"
That was one of the first things I and others pointed out when this "Iran must be bombed" meme emerged last week. Sadly, that small fact gets lost when our resident contrarians start discussing 'collateral damage' (a more disgusting phrase does not exist in the English lexicon) and the 'dangers' of not bombing.
Ultimately, I doubt those pushing for the bombing have sufficient souls or conscience left to be overly bothered by such contingencies. The rest of us, who will doubtlessly reap the consequences of that action, can only weep for those killed.
Dean Wormer:
ReplyDelete"Godwin is dead, btw."
Well then, somebody had better update his Wikipidia entry.
I think Godwin's Law is invalid in this case because wouldn't it make the initial post the end of the discussion and loose its own argument? It does mention Hitler first. Ooops, now I did.
ReplyDeleteI'm new here, but it was an excellent post. I link to it on my . I found it through This Modern World and will be a regular reader in the future.
"The now well-known principle, Godwin's Law, holds: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler" increases and that once such a comparison is made, "the thread in which the comment was posted is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress." "
ReplyDeleteThe first part of that is correct; the second part is incorrect. Godwin's Law is descriptive, not prescriptive. See here.
More people are confused about what Godwin's Law is, and misquote it the way you did than recall or were aware at the time of what it says. The Jargon File is the definitive source after Mike Godwin himself, as anyone who was around at the time can verify. See also Mike Godwin's linked piece.
If a nuclear bomb goes off in Tel Aviv, the world will change again, it's true; but that's not the worst thing that can happen
ReplyDeleteSure, if it is not your family it is easy to watch people die.
We also need to look at what Israel actually is,
A democracy in which Arabs are members of the government and participate in all facets of life.
First, an anonymous reader quibbles with two things I said. So it goes bold me, Anon, bold me, Anon.
ReplyDeleteIt could kill millions of people from the fallout.
This is an unutterably stupid remark. Iranian nuclear facilities are in remote areas, and bunker-busters explode deep underground (hence the name "bunker-buster"). The death toll would be in the hundreds, not the millions.
Is a nuclear first-strike ever moral?
Of course it is. We destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki and killed thousands...and saved millions. By any definition of "moral" that fits the bill.
The casualties from fallout from using nuclear bunker busters on Iranian targets would indeed number in the millions. The fallout cloud would get all the way to India. For a very informative flash video on the subject, go here. Here's a quote from the related page: "A simulation of RNEP used against the Esfahan nuclear facility in Iran, using the software developed for the Pentagon, showed that 3 million people would be killed by radiation within 2 weeks of the explosion, and 35 million people in Afghanistan, Pakistan and India would be exposed to increased levels of cancer-causing radiation (see Figure 1)".
Second, "first-strike" is a term of art in strategic nuclear war planning. It refers to a preemptive attack designed to prevent the enemy from being able to respond with nuclear weapons (because all the weapons were destroyed in the first strike). That, in my opinion, is what all this bunker-buster stuff is about: the United States attacking Iran in such a way that an Iranian response would be impossible.
For decades our WMD buildup (and the Soviets') was predicated on the idea that the ability to perform such a preemptive strike is dangerously destabilizing, because it tempts the first-striker to achieve political goals with deadly force. Russia made thousands of nuclear weapons, probably enough to kill everyone in the planet, assuming all that nuclear winter stuff has something to it, because they wanted to keep the US from having a credible first strike and deciding they could get away with shooting first.
The article I linked to in Foreign Affairs puts us in a world where the US has destabilized the nuclear equation. If the United States were dead set on it, it could hold the world hostage by threatening to use its nuclear weapons on anyone who disagrees with it. No one could stop it from happening.
In Iran, we are watching the consequences of this impunity play out. However, there is still a psychological barrier to using nuclear weapons. We incinerated two cities without any knowledge of long-term fallout effects. We haven't done it since, and there are a lot of good reasons why. But number one is that no one knows what would happen in this age of nuclear proliferation and weapons if that floodgate opens. More than any other potential cause, we could be staring the extinction of the human race in the face. Number two is that a first strike (not in retaliatory self-defense, but in defense against a foreseen future attack) can probably never be justified.
Like I said, ugly american, jack's shack, etc., I don't reject out of hand the possibility that Iran could use a nuclear bomb. And it would be terrible. It might even be used. But I prefer to think about things that are not over the horizon. Iran has no nuclear weapons.
In fact, I am trying to make a superlative comparison, a fact which seems to have escaped your posts: worse than Iran using a bomb on Tel Aviv is the United States creating a fallout plume that would kill three million people in order to prevent Iran from using a bomb. If the United States did that, it would be an example of the immorality of the Manichean "nuke or be nuked" at the heart of all racist talk about the clash of civilizations and Muslim extremists chopping off my head. "Nuke or be nuked" really means that we have abandoned our civilization and our humanity; only animals think that all you have to do is survive. "I'll kill you first!" is not what America is fundamentally about. Certain inalienable rights are involved, and I think your case will need to be much stronger before we abandon those rights.
More ugly american:
You are confusing fact with opinion. The possibility certainly exists Dan and what I described is certainly the worst case scenario. Thats a fact.
You may not believe the Iranians will do it but as I stated before it is best to take mad men at their word. (those are opinions)
The United States has nuclear weapons. The United States has a credible first strike capability. Our President floated the idea of using weapons against the Axis of Evil. Our President also has a messianic vision of his time in office. Our President has actually invaded a country, and lied about the casus belli doing it. So as scary as an Iranian nuclear weapon is (I agree it is scary), far more scary and dangerous is our belligerent foreign policy, and the likelihood that we will do something else terrible with it. The worst case scenario you are afraid of is not likely. But you want to kill untold numbers of people (watch the video) to prevent the possibility.
You can be afraid of the clash of civilizations all you want. I am going to be afraid of the man with the loaded gun.
"Ugly American":
ReplyDelete[Arne]: Ummm, (neglecting for the moment that the "intentions" even as expressed aren't quite as clear as "Ugly" here would make them out to be): All you have for their "mak[ing] their "intentions clear" here is their expressed words. But by that token, we can be absolutely certain that Dubya never wanted to invade Iraq.
George Bush said [publicly] he did not want to invade Iraq but threatened to do so if Saddam did not comply with UN resolutions, sanctions and inspections....
Newsflash, "Ugly": He lied!!!
... The rhetoric ratcheted up as the war drew closer ...
Ummm, yep. While Saddam conceded more and more, and was finally at the point where Blix and el Baradei were saying that he was complying, Dubya kept ratcheting the rhetoric up and up. Saddam had agreed to interviews with the scientists, had allowed inspections of the palaces, he even decided not to quibble about the marginally "illegal" (and arguably permitted) al Samoud missiles, and started destroying them.
Let's not rewrite history here. Saddam (albeit under pressure) was conciliatory. Dubya was hell-bent determined to have the war he said he didn't want.
... with GWB offering an eventual ultimatum for Saddam to get out or face invasion....
Which was a new demand, of course, and had nothing to do with UNSCR 1441 (and certanly wasn't authorised by it).
... Saddam didn’t we invaded. Bush did exactly as he said he would.
Nope. He said "Feels good!" and pumped his fist in the air on starting the war (how ghastly is that?), and said "F*** Saddam, we're taking him out" very early on. Both these are consistent with what Dubya did, but both these were private moments, and quite different from his public statements that war was his last choice and a last resort.
Don't try to pretend that this is not what happened.
Cheers,
You can be afraid of the clash of civilizations all you want. I am going to be afraid of the man with the loaded gun.
ReplyDeleteIt depends on the man holding the loaded gun. Be very afraid of this idiot we have with his finger on our nuclear trigger.
Regarding our use of nukes in WWII... it was probably unnecessary to deploy two on cities in Japan. It was a case of using live humans in a weapons test. Not unlike the Nazis or the Japanese with their germ and bio tests.
Anonymous,
ReplyDelete"It was a case of using live humans in a weapons test."
In 1945 the U.S. was regularly bombing Tokyo, yet Japan still refused to surrender. Other than using the new and untested atomic bomb, the U.S. had no other means to compel Japans surrender except for a direct invasion of massive numbers of ground forces.
Since Japan is an island nation 10,000 miles away from the U.S., and at the time we had no huge C-130 type aircraft, [and even if we did, where would they land, the Philippines?] that would have required an extremely costly effort keeping our entire Navy busy for several weeks just to get sufficient numbers of troops and equipment over there for the fight.
Even if you solved the logistical problems, we probably would have lost half of our fighting force on the beaches before the fight even moved on to the mainland. Was it necessary to use atomic bombs? If the objective was to end the war before the end of 1945, I would say there was no other way to do it.
BTW - Not unlike Hitler Jr., Japanese leaders at the time depicted the U.S. as barbaric, sub-human, and satanic, while instilling in their own people the idea that a "devine wind" would sweep away their inferior enemies and that they, having the superior culture, would one day rule the world.