The Manichean President
Greenwald's argument is a simple one: Because of the overwhelming military might of the United States, no other country can attack us without facing utter destruction. Other countries, wishing rationally to advance their own interests, grasp this fact.
Accordingly, they will neither attack us nor threaten us. A rational American foreign policy then to a large extent presents no difficulty. Military measures directed against other countries are unnecessary. Given the manifest costs of these measures, we should not undertake them.
Of course the Bush administration does not see matters this way. FULL ARTICLE
Comments (60)
Well to be fair, Osama Bin Laden didn't subscribe to Greenwald's to-big-to-attack logic either.
I see the entire WMD rationale as a mere political maneuver. It was an attempt to get the UN to go along with regime change. The real reason for the invasion was the belief that a model democracy could be created in the middle east. That rationale has not subsided and is the primary motivation behind the war effort today.
Published: November 8, 2007 3:43 PM
Does anyone else notice this pattern: Congress of Vienna restores Europe to pre-Napoleon borders, then a century of national unification wars and Imperial adventures culminating in World War I, which was ended by the Versailles Conference in which the victors divided up the the world. Versailles led to nationalist wars culminating in World War II and again the victors divided up the world at a conference, laying the ground for the Cold War and more Imperialism . . .
Published: November 8, 2007 3:55 PM
Greenwald's argument is a simple one: Because of the overwhelming military might of the United States, no other country can attack us without facing utter destruction. Other countries, wishing rationally to advance their own interests, grasp this fact. Accordingly, they will neither attack us nor threaten us. A rational American foreign policy then to a large extent presents no difficulty. Military measures directed against other countries are unnecessary. Given the manifest costs of these measures, we should not undertake them.
It there were no evil people in the world and if men were not sinners, a tabula rasa, the perhaps, I emphasize PERHAPS this logic would hold water, but the entire logic falls apart the moment someone steals anything, not to mention 9/11 - and 9/11 is a problem even if our government did do it because even that would be evil done by evil people. Sorry evil in the world blows up the logic.
Published: November 8, 2007 4:40 PM
Bravo! and thanks to David Gordon for his top-notch review of Greenwald's "The Manichean President". This article is, indeed, highly persuasive commentary on the absurdity of the Bush administration's military adventures in the Middle East.
The idea that the mass murders of 911 refute Greenwald's common sense observation that the minimally rational nation-state will avoid attacking the US, fails, on two counts. First, according to the official account of that event, Islamic terrorists, acting on behalf of their transnational ideological cause, and armed only with box cutter knives, brought about the total destruction of three skyscrapers in NYC, AND successfully attacked the Pentagon, the most heavily fortified building on earth. In short, no nation-state attacked America; the murders were an act of fanatical criminals, similar to the attack on the WTC in 1993. As in the '93 attack on the WTC, the 911 attack should have been prosecuted as a crime, not a pretext for war.
Second, the official story about 911 is a political fairy tale, similar in ways to the cover-up of FDR's complicity in the "surprise" attack on Pearl Harbor. Compelling evidence has been analyzed and cogently presented in David Griffin's books, including "Debunking 911 Debunking", that the present administration was either complicit, with advance knowledge of the murders; or planned and orchestrated the attacks including a stand down of the US Air Force.
Dick F's comment leaves one wondering: if Whitety steals in purse in downtown Queens or in Brooklyn, should the US army invade NYC? Is cause for a just invasion unleashed the moment a crime is committed?
Published: November 8, 2007 7:14 PM
Oh my.
I think that there a question about the thesis of the book that is relevant to terrorism, although it is different from those that the other commenters have raised.
The
Published: November 8, 2007 8:53 PM
Woo hoo, another anti-Bush book with a pop-culture theory whose conclusions will be outdated in a year. I'm no great supporter of Bush, but I have to wonder how many books were written in the 80's about the "misguided" foreign policies of Reagan.
I think I'll spend my time reading about history that is actually history, not wishful thinking.
Published: November 9, 2007 6:40 AM
Mark Humphrey,
I am curious. First, would you favor disbanding your local police force?
Second, do you really believe that Che Guvera and Islamo-Fascism should have all of the methods allowed a US citizen in a court trial since they are not supported by a nation-state?
Finally I am surprised that you did not mention the Trilateral Commission, the Illuminati, Skull and Bones, and alien invasions in your assessment of 9-11.
Published: November 9, 2007 6:52 AM
Yeah Mark, lets prosecute the hijackers. That'll dissuade others from doing it.
Oh btw, do you believe in the holocaust? Or is that just another jewish conspiracy? I have absolutely no respect for the 9-11 conspiracy theorists, because I've been to one of their talks at the University ot Texas. A few friends and I were handing out tin foil hats at the door so the government couldn't read the guests minds. It was basically just to make fun of them, but a surpising amount of them actually thought we were serious and took one. In the debate that followed I heard the phrase, "It's simple physics man" almost constantly and there was even a guy there saying that he was an engineer, but when I told them that I was an engineer and asked to them explain to me "simple physics," they scattered.
Now I know that doesn't represent all conspiracy theorists. I was just telling a story.
Published: November 9, 2007 7:24 AM
I liked the review of the book. I especially liked the part about Bush being guided by a higher father.
Now I believe in God, but I am aware that there are all kinds of people who claim to have revelations from God. Just because someone claims that God tells them what to do doesn't mean I accept it.
If a mother kills her children because she heard the voice of God telling her to do it, I still convict her of murder. Maybe God really told her to do it, but I still don't care.
If the President of the United States violates the constitution he is sworn to uphold and embarks on a holy crusade against evil in the world because God told him to, I think he should be held accountable. Maybe God told him to, but I still don't care. I believe in the rule of law and upholding constitutional freedom.
All the people who want to argue about the immediacy of evil being a justification for abrogating our rights and prosecuting preemptive violence need to be opposed and put down. Otherwise, they will complete the process of enslaving us in the incipient totalitarian state they are building.
Quite a few of those true enemies of our well-being have already posted in this blog.
Published: November 9, 2007 9:42 AM
Two major flaws in the Greenwald's logic.
1. "Iran is a rational nation". This in itself is debatable depending on what is Iran's major premise. If its major premise is to wipe Isreal off the face of the map, then it would be quite "rational" for Iran to nuke Isreal, killing 80% of the Jews, while retaliation would result in killing maybe 10% of the Muslims. "Rational" depends on what one uses as a major premise. Since it is not "rational" to strap a bomb to your body and blow up innocent people, as well as yourself, by Greenwall's logic, suicide bombings will never take place. But since they do happen, we must conclude that the bombers subcribe to a major premise that "rationalizes" such actions. This in itself should tell Greenwald what mindset we are facing, and how his major premises do not match the faction of Islam that wants to convert the world to their brand of religion.
2. Secondly, Greenwall fails to recognize the "enemy" is not a country, but a religious movement whose goal is to convert the entire world to its brand of Islam, and kill all those who do not conform.
Ignoring there are factions on this planet that will die to force their brand of religion on the world is being naive at best. What is not "rational" is to deny forces exist that have has their major premise to convert the world to their brand of Islam, and these forces have no boundaries by country, nor do they use the same "logic" as naive authors. Rather than bashing Bush, we would do well to be discussing how to defeat such an enemy that is not "rational".
Published: November 9, 2007 10:14 AM
David Spellman,
I don't know what kind of religion you exercise but you apparently do not understand President Bush's religion. He is a Methodist. He does not get audible directions from God. He understands that he has been called to be President of the United States and it is his responsibility to do that to the utmost of his ability. He prays to God for wisdom but he knows that any decision is his to make.
Any president who does not seek the guidance of a higher power will be a very dangerous man indeed.
You may disagree with sending troops in to liberate Iraq as does Greenwald and apparently Gordon, but to argue based on a faulty religious straw man is to lower the level of discourse.
Let us talk strategy and justification and leave the man's faith between him and God, because at best it is speculation and a worst it is prejudice.
Published: November 9, 2007 10:20 AM
1) Iran's purpose in this world is not simply to destroy Israel. It is a nation filled with people many/most of whom would prefer to go about their business and not get blown up by anyone (nor blow anyone up).
2) If the enemy is a religious movement, why have no actions been taken to kill all of the devout and ban the religion in the US? Why have we not attacked every country that contains members of that religion? If they are so deadset on killing all of the non-believers why haven't there been attacks in every country that contains non-members of their religion?
Published: November 9, 2007 11:36 AM
I agree with Tom Henderson on this one. Of course Iranians are rational, if by that you mean that they can use logic. But as Tom pointed out, their logic starts from a different set of assumptions than does ours. Their logic creates suicide bombers and leaders who ordered the bombing of the synagogue in Argentina. They have created an Islamic/Marxist state that has caused the standard of living of the average Iranian to fall by 3/4 since the revolution. Their logic also caused them to murder close to 100,000 of their own people in the early years of the revolution.
I used to give Iranians the benefit of the doubt until I read what Bernard Lewis, the dean of Middle Eastern studies, had to say. He believes that Iran will attack Israel as soon as it has a nuke. Iranian leadership believes the US will do nothing in response, and they're absolutely certain that Europe won't. On the outside chance that the US does attack in response to their attack on Israel, the Iranians believe they could weather the attack just fine and that they US would get tired and leave in a few years.
Published: November 9, 2007 11:52 AM
Another piece that should be on Lew's site and not here. Greenwald is SO credible and authoritative!
Rational and logical are not the same. Hitler's means arguably were logical to his ends, which were wholly irrational and plainly wrong. A religious funadmentalist who wants to bring about the coming of his perception of heaven will see as perfectly logical means to that end the utter annihilation of his opponents and the utilization of such means as child-killing and published decapitation to terrorize subjects into complicitly, if not obedience. It is completely irrational and any reasonable person should recognize such logic as abhorrent and anithetical to a liberal, much less free, society. Such also is beyond the structure of such cilized terms as "negotiation" and "appeasement". The first rule of society is protection of life. The only logical and rational response to such a threat is to kill first he who would kill you. A country that hosts, indeed supports, such killers are as good as the killers and should be addressed accordingly. That is the logic and rationale behind the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the former being responsive and the latter being preemptive.
Is this manichean? Yes. Sometimes it is as black and white as a matter of life or death.
Believing the US is a greater threat than Islamic terrorists is neither rational nor logical, although it is certainly easier to criticize the US, since it won't seek to cut off your head on live TV.
Anyone who would choose the proposed Islamist theocracy over the current US, warts and all, is an abject idiot who deserves to get what he wants, good and hard.
Published: November 9, 2007 12:20 PM
I read the review of Greenwald's book with interest. It seems that Mr. Greenwald may have his history just a little off center. The concept of Good & Evil was borrowed by Mani (not Manes) from us Zoroastrians. We believe that there are forces of good and forces of evil that want control of our material world. Other concepts of the Zoroastrian faith that were borrowed by Chrstianity, Judaism and Islam are Heaven and Hell, Angelology and the concept of one God.
I was not amazed to read that Glenn Greenwald sees Iran as a "rational state actor". The fact of the matter is that had it not been for Jimmy Carter and the State Department, the Shah would have still been around and American interests in the Middle East would have been protected. Instead, Jimmy and his gang decided to get rid of the Shah because the State Department had already made plans to get rid of the Soviet Union. They played on the religious sentiments of the middle-class Iranian while courting favor of the young zealots who had been fired up by the false ideal of a socialist Eutopia practiced in Europe. There is just a fine dividing line between religion and socialism. One says you get everything from God whereas the other says it all comes from the State. Either way, your life is not your own.
Another reason why Iran will not be attacked is that their government and our State Department are busy blackmailing each other. Neither one of them can open their mouths without losing credibility. The State Department selected Khomenie as a temporary plant. They had one of the Shah's "Yes" men in mind to play a permanent role in Iran. When Khomenie got wind of it he took hostages and called America the "Great Satan", because the most notorious quality of Satan is that he lies.
Mr. Bush clearly needs to define "Good" and "Evil". Perhaps he will have to be guided by his values in that regard.
Published: November 9, 2007 2:03 PM
There is a difference between a private citizen who goes nuts and blows himself up and the president of a country, the vast majority of whose people do not want to be blown up by the US. And Iran is a democracy, so it is at least prima facie plausible that the elected president is not going to sacrifice his country for the sake of some alleged murderous desire of his, such as to destroy Israel, for which no one, by the way, has produced a scintilla of evidence.
So do I. What's wrong with wanting to see the whole world become Christian? And I think we should be able to handle some competition from Islam.
Now you might try to argue that the Mussulmen want to convert the world by force. But surely, they can't. They live in impoverished countries. Their militaries are weak. Their schemes, therefore, are of no concern to us.
But Greenwall is specifically talking about Iran with which we are about to start a war, not about a religious movement. And convert by force? Maybe a tiny minority might want to, but it is silly to fear them.
Furthermore, attacking countries is a poor way of checking religious movements; in fact, it is a good way of reinforcing them.
The 9/11 attack was a response to the US's meddling in the Middle East. The more we intervene, the worse the situation will get. Even now, however, the religious or political extremists can do little damage to America. They can attempt a terrorist act once a decade, but no more than that.
Well, if this guy said it, then it must be true. But where's the evidence?
Published: November 9, 2007 2:22 PM
A quote near the bottom, from Mr. Greenwald's book, got my attention:
Putting these two contentions together, and assuming that they don't contradict each other, yields this premise: 'Defeating an apostle of unparalleled Evil, humbling the State that he ran to a condition of total unconditional surrender, and rendering his name to be a veritible eponym of infamy, results in a spawn's worth of disciples of said apostle of Evil in two or three generations' time.'
Published: November 9, 2007 2:39 PM
This point approaches the same problem of Manicheanism from another angle: calling the other side 'evil incarnate', even if this label is accurate, doesn't change your side into 'good incarnate'. To believe that it does is a non sequitur.
The War Manicheans forget that war is waged by hellish means, and as such has to be put into the history bin once the victory has been secured. Else, an opening is left for those who have acquired somewhat of a taste for hellishness. If the movie Lawrence of Arabia is an accurate biopic, then it demonstrates that Dorian Gray sometimes shows up in a uniform. Trouble is, in times of war, it aids victory to let a Dorian of that sort wreak a little wrath if it further cows the enemy and doesn't lead to any victory-inhibiting blowback. War often changes amoralism into pragmatism.
Published: November 9, 2007 3:30 PM
fudamentalist-bernard lewis is not the dean of anything. geez have you been in jail since 2003 bro? go back to townhall.com and this time read this author: patrick buchanan.
no one says any of that stuff anymore. well, except all the other townhall colomnists lol
Published: November 9, 2007 3:59 PM
lester: "fudamentalist-bernard lewis is not the dean of anything. geez have you been in jail since 2003 bro?"
Bernard Lewis is probably the most respected authority on the Middle East, and he wrote about Iran just last year. What do 2003 and Buchanan have to do with anything?
Published: November 9, 2007 4:37 PM
To Dick F: First, I am at a loss as to why you blurr distinctions that are perfectly clear. You stated that the commission of a "crime" demands the prosecution of "war". So I responded that a mugging or purse snatching in Manhattan hardly justifies bombing NYC. The clear implication of my statement to any reasonable person is: call in the police.
Second, the commission of a crime by a foreign national against an American in the United States properly calls for extraditing and prosecuting the criminal in a U.S. court of law with a jury. This proceedure helps to mitigate the dangers of domestic bullying and rights violation by our government. In the absence of this proceedure, which requires the prosecutor to prove the guilt of the accused, justice gets trampled by political crusaders and manipulators to the applause of the mob.
Third, you seem contemptuous that anyone could question the history of 911, as though any explanation that challenges the story served up by the Bush people is, by the nature of things, absurd. But what is absurd or sound ultimately depends on evidence, rather than on assurances and shifting stories issued by sources that make you feel safe. That you toss into one mental category skepticism about who was responsible for the murders of 911, with unproven denials of Hitler's mass murders, and with belief in alien invasions from space, and with the unproven prower of the illuminati, demonstrates a great deal about your thinking processes and your apparent inability to make rational distinctions. (rational: based on evidence and logic, ratheer than by, for example, appeals to authority.)
Robert, with due respect, who cares whom you respect, or disdain for that matter? The important question is, as always: how do you arrive at your conclusions about history, or any other subject? By means of careful and responsible thinking, based on evidence and logic? Or by reference to your feelings, to the vibrations of the crowd, or to the unproven claims and denunciations of political authorities?
The fact that you attended the gathering of 911 "Truthers" for the purpose of ridicule--not alone, but in the company of a buddy--demonstrates you had no interest in listening critically and thinking carefully.
Published: November 9, 2007 6:15 PM
Meh, these topics on Iran/Iraq always explode in no time... hard to catch up on all the new posts. These and anything finance- or IP-related, it would appear.
Published: November 9, 2007 9:27 PM
And btw... the author is Greenwald, not Greenwall. :p
Published: November 9, 2007 9:29 PM
Yay for people who think ideologies/religious beliefs can be "defeated" by killing other people. And after all the people they killed to "defeat" communism, the U.S. is more communistic than ever before. Way to go!
Maybe we'll all convert to radical Islam after the "War on Terra" is won (in about 100 years, so don't get impatient).
Published: November 9, 2007 10:01 PM
I don't get it. Why is it that so many Christians are warlike, when Christ is portrayed in the New Testament as a man of peace?
Published: November 10, 2007 12:50 AM
Religions evolve. Christianity was once a great religion of peace, and many monks and religious scholars practiced non-violence. But when the Christian Church became an instrument of state power, things changed a little.
Published: November 10, 2007 6:08 AM
I'm not sure I understand the almost paranoid fear of Islam. Do some people really think Islamic terrorists hate the West because it is freer?
Published: November 10, 2007 8:56 AM
Christianity is the same as it was it the time of Christ. I think most people who don't read the Bible but comment on it have no clue what they are talking about. Jeaus Christ died for us to save mankind. Jesus was not a mild mannered, long haired skinny guy with a beard but a man's man. He was a carpenter and worked in that field for years. He was rugged looking from years working with his hands and was an in your face type of man. He was opionated, confrontational, sarcastic, and would verbally attack the religious leaders of his time. Do you remember the story when Jesus threw out the money changers from the temple? He went ballistic! Jesus was also kind and loving but he was also a warrior and came to fight for the minds and hearts of men. Read the New Testament and you will see the real Jesus and not what is portrayed in movies.
Published: November 10, 2007 9:44 AM
fundamentalist- bernard lewis is probably the LEAST respected propagandist / pretend middle east scholar. He thought that we'd be greeted as liberators in iraq. he now thinks there was no armenian genocide. Whatever benfits israel is what he "teaches" people. in short, the failure of the iraq war disproves most of his philosophies about the middle east.
my point about 2003 is no one with any sense does neo conservatism anymore. it's dead at the practical and academic level. If you started talking about "war of civilizations" and "generation long war" on C span or in most internet discussions you'd be laughed off if you were LUCKY.
the iraq war is simply another case of government biting off more than it can chew. take iran, what will bombing their nuclear facilities do? they could still support terrorism. they could still launch hundreds of OTHER types of missiles at whoever they wanted. if you went as gfar as regimechange, who would you change them with? virtually all muslims hate the united states and israel regardless of their religiosity or status in society.
We don't have the ability to foster change using military means. we can't invade oil rich muslim countries any more than we could have invaded , say, Moscow in during the cold war. you can imagine what that would have been like, we certainly wouldn't be alive to discuss it here.
Published: November 10, 2007 9:48 AM
I don't get it. Why is it that so many Christians are warlike, when Christ is portrayed in the New Testament as a man of peace?
IMHO,
From this comment it seems clear that you are not a Christian. Those who are not Christians hold Christians up to a phony definition of Christianity fashoned to make a Christian submissive. Christ is the Prince of Peace and He did instruct to turn the other cheek, but he also told his disciples to sell their cloaks and buy a sword right before he died. Self-defense and resisting evil are as Christian as being a peacemaker; as a matter of fact they are a component of being a peacemaker.
In the drive toward fulfillment of “Manifest Destiny” our forefathers did some awful things, but in today’s world the US is not seeking to build an empire nor is it seeking to subject people. The US is about preventing tyrants working their evil.
One thing that seems to be misunderstood here is a significant difference between Christianity and Islam. Christianity believes in soul freedom and so a person can only be right with God in his own heart. A person comes to Christ and becomes a Christian by a change of heart.
Islam believes the religion is the state and peace only comes by subjection of non-believers by the use of the sword. This Islamic belief is not unique to hatred of Israel or the US but is foundational to the religion in its approach to the world. Whether Caliphs conquering the Middle East and Africa, the Moors invading Europe, a suicide bomber in an Israel night club, or a terrorist flying an airplane into the Twin Towers the purpose is the same, spread the faith of Islam by violence and the sword, force and intimidation. It is this that makes our current struggle different from any war in the past. It is not based on personal enrichment or self preservation, but on religion, based on faith not reason. A failure to understand this is very dangerous.
Never forget the fable of The Scorpion and the Frog.
Published: November 10, 2007 10:08 AM
DickF,
Personal self defense is one thing. War is another thing entirely.
Christ never endorsed or promoted the idea of war. In fact, He rejected it when He told Pilate that His kingdom is not of this world, else His followers would not have allowed Him to be taken by Pilate.
Resistance to evil is a personal struggle against the temptation to sin.
Dropping bombs on Iraq, knowing full well that people will die who have never so much as threatened to harm us, IS evil. It is evil even if you believe it is necessary to serve some "greater good."
And I'm not even going to get into the evil of robbing people (taxes) and enslaving them (the draft) to provide for this carnage overseas.
There's nothing Christian about any of it.
Published: November 10, 2007 11:29 AM
Man neoconns like to lie by omission a lot.
Israel can take care of itself. Consider,
1) Israel has over 100 nukes, and they can retaliate by themselves just fine.
2) Israel has taken out nuclear programs before (Iraq).
3) Israel has an immensely competent intelligence agency.
Also, the author is not arguing that Iranians are not evil people. Maybe they are, but so what? Evil doesn't imply stupid or suicidal. You might say "but suicide terrorism is irrational and suicidal", but you'd only be correct for an individual. For a group, suicide terrorism is VERY rational and not at all suicidal. Its a highly effective and cheap way to kill the enemy. While it is logical for a group to sacrifice some of its members for its ultimate goal, it is not logical for that group to partake in actions which will result in it being utterly annihilated.
If Jihadists launched a major attack (of much greater scale than 9/11) on the USA, they'd be doomed. Period. The lack of public support for the war in Iraq is immaterial, because the entire country would get behind the government if a major attack occurred (similar to what happened in WWII).
Published: November 10, 2007 1:51 PM
lester: "bernard lewis is probably the LEAST respected propagandist / pretend middle east scholar."
By whom? The left and anarchists? Anyone who knows anything about the Middle East holds him in very high regard. And he was right about Iraq for the most part: the Shia and Kurds without a doubt welcomed us as liberators. Of the Sunnis wouldn't; they were intimately tied to Hussein and watched their power and money vanish with his downfall. As for the Armenian genocide, he does not deny that many Armenians died; he just doesn't think the way they died amounted to a sound definition of genocide.
lester: "...my point about 2003 is no one with any sense does neo conservatism anymore."
I wasn't preaching neo conservatism. I was simply telling the truth.
lester: "take iran, what will bombing their nuclear facilities do?"
I wasn't advocating bombing or attacking Iran in any way. I was simply pointing out that defending the Iranian leadership by calling them rational is very simplistic; every human being acts rationally according to his own assumptions. Saying the Iranians are rational is nothing more than saying they're human. Rational humans can act in opposite ways, not because they're irrational, but because they start with differing presuppositions.
The author tried to make it sound like because Iranians are rational they won't attack anyone. I pointed out that they could be rational and still plan to attack a lot of people if you understand their presuppositions. Their different presuppositions cause them to arrive at very different conclusions and actions than we do.
For example, one of their ex-presidents, considered a moderate in the West, has stated that it wouldn't matter if Iran were totally destroyed, as long as Israel was too because other Muslims would quickly repopulate Iran.
I don't advocate attacking Iran, but that doesn't matter. It's clear that Iran will attack Israel the first opportunity it gets. If it doesn't succeed in completely destroying Israel so that Israel retaliates, I can guarantee you that the conflict will spread and the US eventually dragged into it.
Published: November 10, 2007 3:14 PM
If anyone cares to really learn about Iran, the best web site I have found is http://iranvajahan.net/english/
Published: November 10, 2007 3:15 PM
"It's clear that Iran will attack Israel the first opportunity it gets."
Oh, really? When was the last time Iran attacked another country? By contrast, the U.S. has been beating up on Iran since 1953, when the CIA overthrew the Iranian president and installed a brutal dictator in his place.
During the 1980s, the U.S. supported Iraq in its war of aggression against Iran. Along with other western nations, the U.S. helped the Iraqis develop chemical weapons (you know, those evil WMDs?) to use against the Iranians.
But they hate us for our freedoms, of course.
What's really clear is that the U.S. will attack Iran, yet again, the first opportunity it gets. Which means, as soon as the American public has been sufficiently propagandized into believing such an attack is necessary.
Hence, the Iranians are all Osama bin Hitlers, a nation of orcs and goblins whose only purpose in life is to nuke Israel. Repeat it enough times and it becomes a well-known fact.
Published: November 10, 2007 3:43 PM
Robert Brazil: "When was the last time Iran attacked another country?"
Well, let's see. Interpol just issued warrants for the arrests of five top officials in the Iranian government for the bombing of the synagogue in Argentina. Iran funds, trains and directs Hezballa, which attacked Israel and they are the main funder/director of Hamas. They were behind the attack on the Marines in Lebanon in the 80's and the Khobar towers in Saudi Arabia in the 90's.
It seems that people like you think the Iranians are stupid, not me. They're smart enough to use surrogates that provide themselves with deniability. They know they're not strong enough, yet, to directly attack anyone. That's why the want the Bomb. But their behavior since the revolution makes it pretty clear what they will do with a bomb.
Robert: "Along with other western nations, the U.S. helped the Iraqis develop chemical weapons..."
That is leftist propaganda, nothing more.
Robert: "What's really clear is that the U.S. will attack Iran, yet again..."
When did we attack them before? And no, it's not clear that we will attack them. In fact, I think it unlikely.
Published: November 10, 2007 5:48 PM
Seeing things in black and white is an evolved tribal cognitive attribute that we all tend to have - for good reason - that will continue to bedevil us.
We depended on our clan for our security, and fought murderous battles with others. The result? WE are good, well-intended and honorable, and we are right to be susicious of and hostile to THOSE evil, duplicitous, degraded lying scum.
Religions generally serve an important purpose in stengthening the cohesion of one group vis-a-vis another. This is fine in moving from small clans to larger and more urban cultures, but inevitably leads to friction between two different cultures - friction that is easily manipulated by politicians for personal gain. Stirring up hatred and suspicion may be great for politicians and weapons manufacturers etc. who benefit from war, even as citizens and commerce suffer.
Thus our tribal emotions are always easily hijacked by the unscrupulous, who then find convenient self-justifications in black-white thinking, even as they rip us off and cause great harm. War pays such great dividends! Even when the political gains may be abbreviated by being bogged down, the defense industry does really well. It is no coincidence that the strongest warmongers or "hawks" in the Administration and Congress (in both parties) are closely tied to the defense industry; they profot while we lose.
Black-white thinking is one of the chief tools by which this class of parasites has misled and manipulated us - and continues to try to do so. And we are ALL susceptible to it.
TT
Published: November 10, 2007 9:56 PM
This point occurred to me when reading some of the other comments. Ceteris paribus, a State always finds it easiest to aggress against its 'deviant' subjects, provided that they are sufficiently 'deviant' to not warrant secret sympathy amongst enough State officials and workers with sufficient clout to shield them. If it truly were the Iranian State's goal to wipe Israel off the map, then why aren't they wiping Jews off the face of Iran for practice? That's precisely what Hitler began to do with the Jews under the control of the Nazi state, even though the Nazi apparatus began the State-sanctioned murder of the 'unfit' first. The Nuremberg Laws were in place before the German army marched at all, and the Kristallnacht occurred before Poland was invaded.
If there's no government-sanctioned pogrom against the Jews in Iran, then the argument that Ahmadinejad really meant to threaten war is doubtful. As implied above, an aggressively warlike State finds it easiest to use domestic victims as target practice before marching.
If it is true that Ahmadinejad and his minions intend to do so, but can't because other State officials are un-co-operative, then he's somewhat ineffectual with regard to that intention, making his words somewhat blusterish.
Where are the killing fields?
Published: November 11, 2007 2:20 AM
DickF,
"From this comment it seems clear that you are not a Christian. Those who are not Christians hold Christians up to a phony definition of Christianity fashioned to make a Christian submissive."
Read the Two Great Commandments (Matthew 22:37)
AND
The Beatitudes (Matthew 5:5).
What lessons do you believe Christ was trying to convey? Were they phony definitions of Christianity?
Avee,
I really don't see Christ as the original Rambo. As for what happened in the temple, I don't recall him injuring anybody.
Published: November 11, 2007 2:21 AM
The government of Iran(the President, Council of Guardians, Supreme Leader and so on)is only a "rational actor" if one accepts the starting point of their logic. This is as follows:
That if they kill enough infidels around the world (especially if they do enough harm to the leading infidel nation - the United States) the 12th or hidden Imam will lead Shia Islam to world conquest.
O.B.L. and A.Q.-Taliban (and other such organizations) reject this - as they favour world conquest by Sunni (not Shia) Islam.
However, neither the Shia radicals who govern Iran or the Sunni radicals who make up groups like the Taliban are interested in the Non Aggression Principle - nor are they interested in their interpretations of Islam only controlling part of the world. To them all nonMuslims, and Muslims who do not share their interpretation of Islam, must be exterminated or enslaved - this is a central religious duty.
They are interested in the United States because it the most important infidel nation - not because of what its foreign policy happens to be.
The West has real enemies, they are not the invention of George Walker Bush (although I agree with the Ludwig Von Mises Institute line that he is a wild spending and fairly useless President - I also think that going into Iraq in 2003 was a major tactical mistake).
By the way - citing Bob Woodward, on anything, is a mistake. Mr Woodward is a shameless liar - as can be seen from his claim to have interviewed William Casey at a time when the former C.I.A. Director's family and friends have pointed out that Mr Casey was incapable of giving an interview to anyone.
You will, of course, reject all of the above because it conflicts with your a priori assumption that if the West in general and the United States in particular had a non interventionst foreign policy there would be no enemy attacks.
This is because you believe that the West has no real enemies - just people who are justly angry with us because of our various misdeeds.
You are mistaken, but as you (unlike Ludwig Von Mises) follow the idea of an a priori foreign policy there is no way to convice you of this - as if information or argument conflict with the principle that you (again unlike Ludwig Von Mises) have adopted the information and argument will be rejected.
Published: November 11, 2007 7:15 AM
Daniel:"If there's no government-sanctioned pogrom against the Jews in Iran, then the argument that Ahmadinejad really meant to threaten war is doubtful."
That would be true if the Iranian leadership had Western thought patterns, but they don't. Americans have to read something like the writings of Bat Ye'or, the French anthropologist, or Bernard Lewis, to understand Muslims. The Iranian leadership doesn't want to kill all Jews. They want the relationship between Jews, Muslims and Christians to go back to what it was under the Caliphate that we destroyed in WWI. From the beginning of Islam until WWI, Jews and Christians held the status of what is called in Arabic dhimmi. We would call them second-class citizens. They had to pay a special, and very heavy, tax for not converting to Islam and they had no rights vis-a-vis muslims. But the muslims state would allow them to live in their territory as long as they behaved. That is the status of Christians and Jews in Iran today.
Muslims are particularly offended by Israel because it overturns what they consider the natural relationship, the dhimmi one, between the three religions. They would have no problem with Jews living in Palestine if Israel were a Muslim state and the Jews accepted their dhimmi status. But having Jews be the rulers in territory that Muslims consider Muslim land is an enormous offense to Muslims.
Furthermore, if you study the history of the Israeli/Arab conflict, you'll find that until 1973 Arabs considered the US to be on their side. What changed? At the end of the 1973 war, after the Israeli victory, the US sold Israel some of our worn-out tanks and other military equipment. This gave the Arabs a pride-saving excuse for not defeating the much smaller nation in 1967 and 1973: they were fighting the US, too.
Unless you read Arab web sites (there's quite a few in English) you won't have any idea how shamed Arabs feel about the 67 & 73 defeats. They call them disasters, because they can't imagine how Muslim armies, the armies of Allah, far superior in number to the Israelis, could be defeated by inferior Jews. It was just unimaginable. So the sale of tanks to Israel at the end of the 73 war was a gift. Arab Muslims could reclaim their pride by arguing they were fighting the US, not Israel. Today, that is still the major explanation in the Arab media for their defeat. As a result, the US became enemy #1 for all Muslims in the world, because not just the pride of Arab Muslims, but the pride of the entire Muslim world hinges on defeating Israel. They believe that they could easily defeat Israel if the US didn't support them.
Iran has plenty of reasons to hate the US because of our support for the Shah, but they mainly hate us for the same reason Arab Muslims hate us, our support for Israel. Iranians have no elusions that they can take on the US in a full-scale battle and win. All they want is to make life miserable for us, through terrorism, so that we quit supporting Israel. If we took the Arab position on Israel, Iran would embrace us tomorrow.
Published: November 11, 2007 8:26 AM
fundamentalist- I am very knowledgable about the middle east and i think bernard lewis is a total fraud. i'm not a leftist or an anarchist. He was absolutely wrong about iraq. He's not "an authority" on the midle east. He doesn't even live there. her's a teacher in the united states. OWuld you want to hear some saudi scholar who was "an authority" on the US? and yes there are many websites for muslims that are in english. I post at one called shiachat. There are also these things called people who exist who you can converse with.
"at would be true if the Iranian leadership had Western thought patterns, but they don't. Americans have to read something like the writings of Bat Ye'or, the French anthropologist, or Bernard Lewis, to understand Muslims. The Iranian leadership doesn't want to kill all Jews. They want the relationship between Jews, Muslims and Christians to go back to what it was under the Caliphate that we destroyed in WWI. From the beginning of Islam until WWI, Jews and Christians held the status of what is called in Arabic dhimmi. We would call them second-class citizens. They had to pay a special, and very heavy, tax for not converting to Islam and they had no rights vis-a-vis muslims. But the muslims state would allow them to live in their territory as long as they behaved. That is the status of Christians and Jews in Iran today."
fisrt of all, why would we as americans care if iran wanted to put a dhimmi tax on christians and jews in Iran? we have 38 million people living under the poverty line in the US. if paying high taxes is worth going to war for we shuld invade ourselves. and part of the reason islam spread the way it did was because of the extremely LOW taxes people were told to pay. at any rate, most muslims I know arte not longing for a dhimi tax, they want the US out of their countries because the US brings destruction. and just on principle.
"Muslims are particularly offended by Israel because it overturns what they consider the natural relationship, the dhimmi one, between the three religions. They would have no problem with Jews living in Palestine if Israel were a Muslim state and the Jews accepted their dhimmi status. But having Jews be the rulers in territory that Muslims consider Muslim land is an enormous offense to Muslims."
muslims aren't offended by israel because of weird sociological relationships between religions. they hate israel because it was created by western fiat and by driving out the people who had lived there continuasly since the dawn of time. jerusalem had been a majority arab city for 18 centuries.
"Furthermore, if you study the history of the Israeli/Arab conflict, you'll find that until 1973 Arabs considered the US to be on their side. What changed? At the end of the 1973 war, after the Israeli victory, the US sold Israel some of our worn-out tanks and other military equipment. This gave the Arabs a pride-saving excuse for not defeating the much smaller nation in 1967 and 1973: they were fighting the US, too. "
tha'ts not how it went down.
"Unless you read Arab web sites (there's quite a few in English) you won't have any idea how shamed Arabs feel about the 67 & 73 defeats. They call them disasters, because they can't imagine how Muslim armies, the armies of Allah, far superior in number to the Israelis, could be defeated by inferior Jews. It was just unimaginable. So the sale of tanks to Israel at the end of the 73 war was a gift. Arab Muslims could reclaim their pride by arguing they were fighting the US, not Israel. Today, that is still the major explanation in the Arab media for their defeat. As a result, the US became enemy #1 for all Muslims in the world, because not just the pride of Arab Muslims, but the pride of the entire Muslim world hinges on defeating Israel. They believe that they could easily defeat Israel if the US didn't support them."
they could. virtiually all of the wars israel faught were wars of aggression done with western backing for the purpose of grabbing land. why do we give israel 3 billion a year if they don't need it as you imply? obviously they desperately need it.
"Iran has plenty of reasons to hate the US because of our support for the Shah, but they mainly hate us for the same reason Arab Muslims hate us, our support for Israel. Iranians have no elusions that they can take on the US in a full-scale battle and win. All they want is to make life miserable for us, through terrorism, so that we quit supporting Israel. If we took the Arab position on Israel, Iran would embrace us tomorrow.
"
we should take the arab position on israel. it's simply the last vestige of colonialism and isn't feasible in the 21st century. after all, if you believe muslims are as determined and fanatical towards other religions as you say you do, how long can 6 million jews last in the middle of a billion angry muslims? if the pilgrims had faced such odds there never would have been a united states. so your weird neo con muslim propaganda is the perfect argument against the continued existence of the jewish state
Published: November 11, 2007 10:15 AM
lester: "I am very knowledgable about the middle east..."
The rest of your post proves you wrong.
"...and i think bernard lewis is a total fraud."
You can't know much about the Middle East if you think one of the greatest scholars on the Middle East is a fraud. That's like thinking Mises was a fraud and calling yourself an Austrian economist. Are you fluent in Tukish, Farsi and Arabic as is Lewis? Have you devoted your life to chronicling the history of the Middle East and understanding its culture? A little humility might be appropriate.
lester:"we should take the arab position on israel. it's simply the last vestige of colonialism and isn't feasible in the 21st century."
You have the leftist/Arab line down really well. Keep repeating it and it should comfort you against the storm of contrary facts.
Published: November 11, 2007 12:44 PM
Paul Marks,
Here are two simple questions for you.
1. Do you deny that U.S. foreign policy has brought death and suffering to many people around the world who did nothing to warrant such treatment?
2. Do you understand that, whatever they might fancy, Muslim fanatics are incapable of conquering the world?
It seems to me that YOU follow an a priori foreign policy, one that has never worked yet, except to make worse the very problems it was supposed to address.
No one denies we have enemies. I think our enemies overseas would be weaker, and us stronger, if we minded our own business and focused on defending our borders instead of policing the world and nation-building.
But the greatest threat to our lives, liberties and prosperity does not emanate from overseas.
Published: November 11, 2007 2:38 PM
Fundamentalist,
People seem to respect Bernard Lewis re information on the Middle East. Is there anyone else that you can recommend? There's a lot of stuff out there, but I want information that's accurate and impartial. Thanks.
Published: November 11, 2007 3:24 PM
IMHO: "Is there anyone else that you can recommend?"
I don't know about impartial; I've given up on trying to find anyone impartial on anything. But people whom I have found reliable include Bat Ye'or, a French (Jewish) anthropologist; Dr. Fareed Zachariah of Harvard; Daniel Pipes; and one of my favorites is Amir Taheri. Taheri edited a newspaper in Tehran before the '79 revolution and lives in the Netherlands. He writes for a lot of magazines and newspapers, but you can find regular articles by him at the Arab Newspaper, Sharq alAwsat (Middle East), which is published in London. He probably understands the current Iranian regime better than anyone. The link to Sharq alAwsat is http://www.asharq-e.com/ Of course, memri.org is excellent, too, but some people think that because it is run by Jews that it's suspect.
Published: November 11, 2007 4:32 PM
Robert: "But the greatest threat to our lives, liberties and prosperity does not emanate from overseas."
I couldn't agree more. The threat from the Middle East is highly exagerrated.
Published: November 11, 2007 4:34 PM
Thanks, Fundamentalist.
Published: November 11, 2007 9:41 PM
It's November 12th and I see that you boys are still at it. So let me put some questions and/or concerns to rest. Let me start with:
1. I am a Persian. My faith is Zoroastrianism. We are the same guys who rescued the Israelites from Babylon, Millennia ago.
2. All Iranians are not evil. Even the Moslem types. My ex-wife's Muslim. (But that’s not why we are divorced :))
3. Neither Iran nor Israel will destroy each other. They are physically in too close a proximity for nuclear war.
4. It would be stupid to fall for Ahmadinejad's rhetoric. He does not have a voice in the Iranian parliament. He has to report to a number of individuals, each with a different opinion of how the country should be run.
5. If we have to blame someone for the current state of the Middle East, then only one entity comes to mind -- the US Department of State.
6. There certainly is an Israel Lobby in DC, whose feathers need to be trimmed and whose influence affects US Foreign Policy. I know that I will hear the customary squawking about this from the die-hards on this blog. So be it.
7. If we want to outlaw wars then we should outlaw force, i.e. the INITIATION of force. No man, group of men or entire nations have the right to the INITIATION of force. If they do, then the force that can be used against them IN RETALIATION can be of any magnitude.
Published: November 12, 2007 1:31 PM
fundamentalist- bernard lewis isn't considered an expert on the middle east IN the middle east. There are millions of people there who are ALSO fluent in arabic and farsi as it is the language they speak every day. In your analogy he is not von mises but krugman or keynes.
I don't have the leftist line on anything. I happen to support palestine. many right wingers do as well. I don't lobby washington to send money or weapons to palestine. I happen to feel they are right and zionism is wrong. There is no law against that nor is it indiciative of any particular ideology.
IMHO- do you really want to learn about the middle east from one the architects of the iraq war? Thats seems pretty absurd on the face of it.
oh, amd memri.org isn't stupid because it's "run by jews" It's run by Meyrev Wurmser, who's husband David is worked in cheneys infamous office of special plans and who wrote a policy paper called "a clean break" which is essentially the blueprint the neo cons are following in order to destablize/ bomb israels many enemies using washington and american taxpayer dollars to carry it out. The stuff on there is in fact genuine, but it simply shows you the oratory of random fundmaentalist scholars, not anything about the other billion people in the middle east.
But I would reccomend you go there anyway. you'll see how fruitless it is to try and "bring democracy" to a region as backward and utterly inconsequential as the middle east. It's israel and indias problem. not ours. the cold war is over. there is no reason for us to be there and we will have terrorism untill we leave. that's how it works.
Published: November 12, 2007 3:45 PM
lester: "bernard lewis isn't considered an expert on the middle east IN the middle east."
Finally, you've posted something accurate. It's true. Arabs don't consider Lewis an expert. They considered Edward Saied an expert, someone who was so Marxist he would have made Marx blush, and who hated the US more than death.
Published: November 12, 2007 4:25 PM
Lester
"do you really want to learn about the middle east from one the architects of the iraq war?
Prior to 9/11 and the Iraq war, was his take on Middle Eastern history accurate?
Published: November 13, 2007 9:54 AM
lester, who would you recommend as an expert on the Middle East?
Published: November 13, 2007 12:41 PM
IMHO- evidentally not! look at where his advice has left us? and I can say specifically that I remeber seeing a repeat of an interview with him on C Span in which he stated that countries that had regimes hostile to us were pro US and regimes friendly to us were anti US. That's not true. Jordan is relatively (meaning like only 83 percent of them hate us) and pre 03 iraq and Iran both had regimes AND populations that hated us.
fundamentalist- I tend to prefer to talk to ordinary muslim people rather than "experts" like Mr Lewis Or Juan Cole. But
http://www.aldeilis.net/english/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=108&Itemid=114
I would recommend henry Cattan's work. He is both a lawyer and a historian and does an excellent job of prsenting the palestinian position. It is biased of course.
Published: November 13, 2007 1:19 PM
Lester,
All I want to do is to buy a few books on the Middle East. In an effort to spend my money wisely, my chief objective is to get the names of a few historians whose information is accurate and to avoid the hacks who have an axe to grind.
Two historians having the same exact set of facts may arrive at different conclusions. Reminds me of the blind men and the elephant.
Anyway, I can recognize bias when I see it, just as I do every time I turn on CNN or FOX. What I try to glean from their programming, such as it is, are the basic facts of whatever story is being presented and ignore the rhetoric.
Published: November 13, 2007 11:49 PM
imho- well the above excerpt is from Cattan's excellent "the question of Palestine". He was one of the palestinians driven out by the creation of israel. He argued against israel to the UN in 1948, even getting Gandhi on his side. So, it's at least authentic though I don't know how widely available the book, which I own and re read pretty often, is today.
Published: November 14, 2007 9:11 AM
excuse me, that would be "the Palestine Question"
http://www.amazon.com/Palestine-Question-Henry-Cattan/dp/0863569323/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195052821&sr=1-11
5 bucks or so isn't bad for used. it is essentially the palestinian view of every war or event since the balfour declaration and is very very straightforward, no fat
Published: November 14, 2007 9:15 AM
lester: "I tend to prefer to talk to ordinary muslim people rather than "experts" like Mr Lewis Or Juan Cole."
Are you saying there is no value in scholarship? Just ask the locals what they think? Would you ask the man on the street in the US what's wrong with this country and accept it as the complete answer?
Published: November 14, 2007 1:07 PM
fundamentalist- No there is tremendous value in scholarship, but it's the difference between getting one opinion and getting many many opinions. I mean, if you wanted to know what the south "was like" you wouldn't crack open a book by some you know, trotsky-ite in new york city. that's why alot of the neoconservative stuff didn't pan out as expected, people don't always do what you would logically expect them too. Like, for example, almost to a man all the shias i know thought cindy sheehan was a nut. You would think they would support her as she wants the same thing they want, US divestiture from iraq, but they thought the typical right wing thing that her son signed up and therefore should have expected he may go to war and so on.
muslims: you never know what they'll say next!
Published: November 14, 2007 2:47 PM
Anyone familiar with this author and/or this book? "The Peace to End All Peace" by David Fromkin.
http://www.amazon.com/Peace-End-All-Ottoman-Creation/dp/0805068848/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195076051&sr=1-1
Also, authors Michael Oren and Albert Hourani.
I just want to say that I really do appreciate your input.
Published: November 14, 2007 3:51 PM