by hilzoy
Busy busy busy. But NPR was very interesting today. On Fresh Air, Seymour Hersh was discussing his article on Iran. (Note: I do intend to write about this at some point, but reading it reduced me to speechlessness.) Two points seemed interesting to me. First, he said that he has heard that one of the reasons why the White House has been lobbying so hard against Ibrahim Jaafari becoming prime minister of Iraq is that were he to become prime minister, he would ask US troops to leave. That's interesting. Another interesting thing about this remark: Hersh made it in response to Terri Gross' asking what role Iraq was playing in the administration's thinking. She seemed to me to be expecting an answer like: it hasn't gone very well, admittedly, but here's why they think Iran might be different. Instead, Hersh said this, and added that he could see why they might imagine that in the summer, trying to explain to the American people why, after all those dead troops and all that money, we were being asked to leave, they might regard Iraq as politically attractive. It was about the last answer to Gross' question that I expected.
At the end of the interview, she asked him whether he had any concluding thoughts. It seemed like a throwaway question, but Hersh said: yes. At no point in the hundreds of conversations I had about this did anyone suggest that we had made any official estimates of the Iranian civilian casualties that would result from a bombing campaign, and that he thought that was dreadful. I agree.
It was a very interesting interview with one of the best reporters currently working, and well worth listening to.
Earlier in the morning, I heard Gen. Anthony Zinni on the Dianne Rehm show. He described one occasion, in the 90s, when he was opposed to the Iraq Liberation Act and the support of Ahmed Chalabi, and William Cohen, who was then Secretary of Defense, and who disagreed with him, nonetheless brought him personally to meet with various Congressional leaders on the grounds that they ought to hear what Zinni had to say. I thought: yes, that's exactly what people who were concerned with the good of the country, as opposed to winning at any cost, would do: they would bring people who disagreed with them, but whose views they respected, to meet with decision-makers, in order to be sure that they heard both sides of the story. It's also what anyone who respected Congress as an equal branch of government would do.
I sometimes worry that we will get used to the levels of mendacity that we've seen from this administration: that we will stop remembering that it is not normal for administrations to lie to Congress on a regular basis, to suppress all dissenting points of view, or to try to game the system so that their preferred outcome prevails. Some of this, I imagine, always happens; but I think we should never forget that it has not always been the norm, and we should never, ever get used to it.
Final, utterly unrelated note: does anyone here know anything about radon? Specifically, if the EPA standard is 4, and one's reading is 4.1, and it was very stormy, and barometric pressure drives up radon readings, should one worry?
Otherwise, open thread.
should one worry?
Only if you're predisposed to that behavior. Over 20 I would install a radon system. 4.1, just open the basement windows occasionally.
Posted by: Happy Jack | April 12, 2006 at 10:29 PM
4.1 where? And stormy usually means low barometric.
Posted by: Tim | April 12, 2006 at 10:30 PM
Tim: in the basement. And I should have said: low barometric pressure drives up radon readings.
Happy Jack: mercifully, I'm not predisposed to worry. My thought was: test it over a longer period; then take steps as needed. Before then, worry about installing central air.
Posted by: hilzoy | April 12, 2006 at 10:40 PM
after all those dead troops and all that money, we were being asked to leave, they might regard Iraq as politically attractive.
You intended 'Iran' here, yes? Because as is, it's not only an unexpected but incoherent answer of Hersh's.
Posted by: Nell | April 12, 2006 at 10:49 PM
"Like I said, we may not be able to stop our march toward destruction. But we can at least have some fun with it as we swirl down history's drain." ...Josh Marshall. You think he is kidding?
I have pasting links on Iran for days. Lindsey at Majikthise has a few. Billmon of Whiskey Bar and Arthur Silber of Once Upon a Time have excellent articles. Yglesias at TPM has several posts. Clemons and Rosen and Firedoglake. I am just tired and depressed. Gonna watch my Mav's.
I have always expected these guys to go nuclear. A certain part of the right has had har**ns for nukes since I was born. They wanted to use them in to prevent the USSR from becoming a power, in Korea, during the Cuban Missle Crisis, in Vietnam. Really big guns for little men.
We had to keep them out of power, or gotten them out after 9/11, at any cost. Any cost.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | April 12, 2006 at 10:52 PM
Storms suck?
I'd say ventilate your basement. Maybe better: paint your basement walls with a good sealant. Radon seeps in; if the basement is sealed, less will seep in. Radon's also heavier than air, so it'll tend to collect in the basement unless disturbed.
And that's probably more than I know about radon.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | April 12, 2006 at 11:19 PM
"First, he said that he has heard that one of the reasons why the White House has been lobbying so hard against Ibrahim Jaafari becoming prime minister of Iraq is that were he to become prime minister, he would ask US troops to leave. That's interesting."
Um, since Jaafari has made about a million statements on this, for months, I'm at a bit of a loss as to where the news is there. Although what he's said is that there should be a timetable, leaving vague what the timetable should be, last I looked; but that this was one of the conditions laid down by Moktada Sadr to get Jaafari his votes has been endlessly written about.
Now, is that a primary reason the Admin is against Jaafari? I couldn't possibly say today; could be, but the fact that Jaafari is, by everyone's account, a nice incompent, under whom Iraq is rapidly disappearing down the drain, and that with him there, Jafr remains as Interior Minister, and the Shiite death squads go on -- see "drain" again -- certainly seems sufficient explanation.
Not that I don't believe that the Admin wants long-term bases, since I do believe that.
"I sometimes worry that we will get used to the levels of mendacity that we've seen from this administration: that we will stop remembering that it is not normal for administrations to lie to Congress on a regular basis, to suppress all dissenting points of view, or to try to game the system so that their preferred outcome prevails."
I don't worry about it sometimes; I either worry about it all the time, except when I've given up in despair.
My most recent lengthy post about Iran was here a couple of days ago, though with another couple of links snuck in at the bottom of this.
There have been more stories today both on the alarmist side, and on the knock-down, no, it's just to wave a stick at Iran, side; I haven't blogged them because in the last couple of days, everyone has been writing about Iran, and it would be redundant until there are more facts, less speculation, to discuss. Mostly everyone is just repeating themselves, or someone else, now. Arkin continues to be someone to read, among many others, this week.
Posted by: Gary Farber | April 12, 2006 at 11:22 PM
4.1 in the basement. What HJ said. A small vent should do it.
Posted by: Tim | April 12, 2006 at 11:50 PM
More generals.
And since it's an open thread, has everyone seen the weirdest USB devices?
And it's not just George's poll numbers that are falling.
Spying on teh gay.
And so on and so forth.
Posted by: Gary Farber | April 13, 2006 at 01:07 AM
"Arkin continues to be someone to read, among many others, this week."
I have been studying Arkin as if I were going for a oral exam on Friday. Seems intensely cryptic this week. Some blogger had a comment on Arkin, I forget who, along the lines:"OK, they got plans Bill, but what are they going to do?"
"I've asked in these pages whether the situation has reached some "tipping point," some point of no return like in 2002 when war with Iraq was inevitable. The answer, I believe, is absolutely not." ...Arkin, 4/10
But:"A war with Iran started purposefully or by accident, will be a mess. What is happening now though is not just an administration prudently preparing for the unfortunate against an aggressive and crazed state, it is also aggressive and crazed, driven by groupthink and a closed circle of bears." ...Arkin, also 4/10
So what is going on here? The various plans are a little interesting, but...well, if I may just make stuff up. Arkin is telling us in great detail that he has terrific sources inside the Pentagon, that war is not yet inevitable, and the WH and Pentagon civilians want to blow up Iran a lot.
Answer:The Military is trying their best to stop this war, or at least minimize the damage. This obviously must be handled very carefully and quietly. I have no idea how heavy the situation at the Pentagon is, or could get.
Note:Tacitus wrote a post about Newbold this week that emphasized the dangers of officers not unquestioningly obeying their civilian masters. Retired Gen Newbold was not all subtle when he started his piece with "Won't Get Fooled Again.", nor as to what war he was really talking about, or who he was talking to. The left blogosphere who complained:"Now he tells us" really didn't get it.
Yeah, yeah, I should link this stuff. I'll do it tomorrow. Here's Arkin
Posted by: bob mcmanus | April 13, 2006 at 01:46 AM
"Instead, Hersh said this, and added that he could see why they might imagine that in the summer, trying to explain to the American people why, after all those dead troops and all that money, we were being asked to leave, they might regard Iraq as politically attractive. It was about the last answer to Gross' question that I expected"
I think you meant to say "Iran"
Posted by: moe99 | April 13, 2006 at 01:58 AM
Hey, don't miss the Pseudo-Academic Celebrity Death Match on C-SPAN this weekend!
American Perspectives
Debate Between David Horowitz & Ward Churchill
C-SPAN, Sat. Apr. 15, 8pm ET
Think of it as it as the political equivalent of an electron-positron annihilation. Two high-energy but lightweight entities collide...and the sparks fly.
Posted by: Christopher M | April 13, 2006 at 02:04 AM
"Two high-energy but lightweight entities collide...and the sparks fly."
Or, in human terms, two unbelievably immense assholes, neither of whom is worth listening to, collide.
Or more like: I'd run a thousand miles away at a thousand miles an hour to avoid having to listen to either, ever again.
In particle terms, it would be as if two anti-particles colliding somehow produce nothingness of a thousand times their previous mass.
The sum of their parts is stunningly a thousand times less than their complete worthlessness when apart.
Something like that. IMNHO.
Posted by: Gary Farber | April 13, 2006 at 02:58 AM
Or, in human terms, two unbelievably immense assholes, neither of whom is worth listening to, collide.
Sounds like that was the consensus.
Posted by: Christopher M | April 13, 2006 at 03:02 AM
More on why anyone not supporting SCIRI or the Badr Brigades wants Jaafari gone.
"Sounds like that was the consensus."
I live in Boulder; I'm in danger of running into Churchill walking down the street; he's been on local tv news far too much, though fortunately not lately, and i tend to mostly avoid local tv news, anyway. And Horowitz, well, the planet is too small to want to be on the same one he's on.
Two schmuckier representatives of their whatevers, I can't imagine, outside of -- well, I'd be insulting college freshman if I pointed to them as a class.
Posted by: Gary Farber | April 13, 2006 at 03:34 AM
On Ye Other Hande, Churchill, for all his immense dislikeability, did completely pwn Sean Hannity on his show the other day. If you've not read the transcript, please do so. Between the three them -- Hannity, Horowitz and Churchill -- it's like this critical mass of smugness and jerkosity.
Posted by: Phil | April 13, 2006 at 06:19 AM
I saw Charlie Rose last night: guests Gary Sick and Joseph Circincione were quite coherent. One thing that struck me is their view that a powerful faction in DC thinks the Iranian government is tottering, and only needs a small push. Neither guest thought this remotely plausible, but as we all know, we're talking about people for whom reality is just another possible interpretation.
My own view is that talking about nukes is designed to keep Bubba on board -- no more mollycoddling of ragheads this time, we're going to get in there and really shock and awe everyone.
Posted by: CharleyCarp | April 13, 2006 at 07:40 AM
hilzoy,
I agree with prior comments on radon. It's massively overhyped, and the easiest way to cure it is ventilation. At your level, opening the windows one afternoon a month should keep it to acceptable levels.
And I think Gary hit the nail on the head better than Hersh on why us being asked to leave is anathema to the Administration -- if we are asked to leave, we don't get to keep our well-fortified new bases.
Posted by: Dantheman | April 13, 2006 at 08:49 AM
Hilzoy, given your experiences in Turkey, you might possibly find these pictures and brief travelogue of Michael Totten's through Turkish Kurdistan sad but perhaps interesting.
Dantheman: "And I think Gary hit the nail...."
Much as I'd prefer to agree (although I'd hope I used a hammer; my karate isn't that good, and just using my hand, I'd be all with the owie; let's not discuss results of my using other body parts), I'm neutral at best on whether that's why the U.S. wants Jaafari out; you kinda got that backwards, I'm afraid. I said I do believe that the U.S. wants to retain bases, absolutely, but I don't know that that's the primary reason for opposing Jaafari; etc.
Posted by: Gary Farber | April 13, 2006 at 09:49 AM
Gary: oh dear God.
The civil war was ongoing when I was there, but the huge campaign to raze villages had, I think, not gotten to full steam. As a result, most places were basically normal, as long as: (a) the army did not appear; (b) no one said anything inflammatory (and the boundaries of 'inflammatory' were expansive); (c) no one in any other way brought the civil war down on them. The army, of course, didn't need to be 'brought down', it just appeared, and did awful things when it did. People were randomly swept up and tortured. -- And there were places, notably Hakkari, where the army was always there, and there was a constant undercurrent of suspicion: anyone you met might be an informant, and if they weren't, they'd be wondering if you were.
And of course no one actually needed a reason to throw anyone in jail.
But for all that, when the army wasn't around and people didn't cause trouble, things had some semblance of normalcy.
Those pictures break my heart.
Posted by: hilzoy | April 13, 2006 at 10:28 AM
"Those pictures break my heart."
Yeah, sorry about that. They're quite awful, but I thought you might want to see/know, anyway. Hope that wasn't a bad call.
I found the other two installments of Michael's excursion also of interest, and less sad, by the way.
Michael tends to take a lot of crap because he's not remotely right enough for the right bloggers, and not remotely left enough for the left bloggers, and sometimes I agree with some criticisms of him, myself; at times he does have a tendency to overly split-the-difference.
But more than not I tend to find that he gets more crap and dismissal than he proportionally deserves. I found myself almost wary when checking his current front page, which I'd not done in at least a couple of weeks, but actually it's all pretty interesting, with more links to more on his visit to Hezbollah in Beirut than I'd seen before. So you might find his other current posts and links also of interest. The account of running through Troy is a bit odd, but the picture of the sea castle is impressive.
Posted by: Gary Farber | April 13, 2006 at 10:43 AM
This hersh article is totally non-news. We've had contingency planning against Iran since 1979. The only enlightening thing in the Hersh article is that we are currently updating our plans. So what? Planning does not equal intent. The military is required to create these kinds of plans by law. We have current contingency plans against Russia for many different possible scenarios - including nuclear plans. Does that mean we are about to attack Russia? Of course not.
There are many many legitimate reasons we are not supporting Jaafari - I would think that him asking us to leave is near the bottom of the list. He's a thug who has proven that he's in the pocket of the radical shiites.
Posted by: Andy | April 13, 2006 at 10:51 AM
Incidentally, Hilzoy, although you've done a number of posts on the Bush Admin vs. 4th Amendment issues, I don't know if you've been, given your busyness, following Hepting vs. AT&T. (I always enjoy it when the NY Times digs up info (on Narus) after I've already found it, and then they give less detail than I did, not that it wasn't available to anyone with web access.)
Posted by: Gary Farber | April 13, 2006 at 11:14 AM
"Planning does not equal intent."
Yes and no. I am (present tense) a supporter of staying in Iraq, but I am fully (oh too fully) aware that Bush has completely screwed things up. Having seen his 'work' in Iraq I can't support an invasion of Iran. (Actually I wouldn't have anyway, Iran being a very different case historically compared to a Saddam-led Iraq). But considering Bush's history, it isn't immediately obvious that he isn't thinking about it--in the way the Russia case is obvious.
Coupled with the fact that the international community isn't going to do anything substantial to stop Iran from getting nuclear bombs I don't see good things happening in the Middle East in the next decade. When Iran bombs Tel Aviv and Haifa, destroying almost 2/3 of the population of Israel with two bombs, and then Israel responds in a death strike destroying multiple cities in Iran, what happens next? I don't know, but I absolutely guarantee it won't be a good thing.
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | April 13, 2006 at 11:23 AM
I think even the Bubbas (maybe especially the Bubbas; you just never know) can recognize that shock and awe was demonstrated the last time we engaged another army. Possibly, too, they're aware that if you shock and awe an entire population, a whole lot more people get dead.
If you're suggesting that the Bubbas are rooting for more carnage next time, you're tapped into a vein of Bubba-hood that I haven't seen. As if that means anything, granted.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | April 13, 2006 at 11:27 AM
If you're suggesting that the Bubbas are rooting for more carnage next time, you're tapped into a vein of Bubba-hood that I haven't seen.
i haven't noticed a lot of complaints from the Bubbas about the numbers of Iraqis we've killed so far. and yes, i know that's not the same as rooting for more.
Posted by: cleek | April 13, 2006 at 11:32 AM
I sometimes worry that we will get used to the levels of mendacity that we've seen from this administration: that we will stop remembering that it is not normal for administrations to lie to Congress on a regular basis, to suppress all dissenting points of view, or to try to game the system so that their preferred outcome prevails.
The Bush admin must be pretty imcompetant in their quest to "suppress all dissenting points of view" since NPR and the Bill Moyers Network, still exist and are paid in part by taxpayer money. Not to mention ABC, CBS, NBC, Newsweek, Time, AOL, various major newspapers, that are 90% negative towards to any and all Bush policies. Social Security reform discussion was suppressed by the major media, for instance. Seen Mark Steyn's take on Iran in major media? Not too likely.
Oh, and isn't "to try to game the system so that their preferred outcome prevails" politicians' job description?
Posted by: DaveC | April 13, 2006 at 11:37 AM
Have you ever seen anything like Michael Yon or Michael Totten's reporting from the Kurdish part of Iraq on the evening news or a magazine? If not, and I've never seen it, what is the reason? Is is that Bush is suppressing this information or could it possibly be the top honchos in major media? (Think in terms of Ted Turner's comments on the state of affairs in North Korea here.)
Posted by: DaveC | April 13, 2006 at 11:44 AM
DaveC: Social Security reform discussion was suppressed by the major media, for instance.
And not by the President who refused to have anyone in the room with him to "discuss" social security who wasn't already a Bush supporter?
Hilzoy: I sometimes worry that we will get used to the levels of mendacity that we've seen from this administration: that we will stop remembering that it is not normal for administrations to lie to Congress on a regular basis, to suppress all dissenting points of view, or to try to game the system so that their preferred outcome prevails.
DaveC: Oh, and isn't "to try to game the system so that their preferred outcome prevails" politicians' job description?
Too late, Hilzoy. At least as far as the DaveCs of the US are concerned...
Posted by: Jesurgislac | April 13, 2006 at 11:51 AM
I haven't yet seen a really good liberal approach to the Iran problem. I don't have one, and I can't really formulate one that doesn't start with not screwing the pooch in Iraq, which may be a little too little too late.
Iran is run my messianic loonies who are dedicated to getting nukes, and they are about five years away from that goal. A nuclear armed theocratic oil state with declared intentions to nuke Israel and relentless hostility to the United States seems to me sufficiently bad for the US and the world that preemption is justified if no other good options exist. That said, I don't know of any good options that don't involve counterfactuals or outright fantasy.
Posted by: togolosh | April 13, 2006 at 12:05 PM
"The Bush admin must be pretty imcompetant in their quest to 'suppress all dissenting points of view' since NPR and the Bill Moyers Network, still exist and are paid in part by taxpayer money."
DaveC, the assertion is about people still working within the military/governmental establishment.
What's your explanation for implicitly calling Maj. Gen. John Batiste, Gen. Anthony Zinni, Lt. Gen. Wallace Gregson, Maj. Gen. John Riggs, Lieut. General Greg Newbold, and so many other officers liars? Should we believe you over them based on your greater military experience as a general under Sec. Rumsfeld? Or why?
Incidentally, Bill Moyers isn't actually on PBS any more. But let's not let facts get in the way of what we'd like to believe, because the truth is scary and unpleasant.
"Have you ever seen anything like Michael Yon or Michael Totten's reporting from the Kurdish part of Iraq on the evening news or a magazine?"
Sure. How about ABC's program to find positive news about Iraq to broadcast, based upon viewer suggestions?
Oh, wait, right-wing blogs haven't written about it? Maybe that's their commitment to only finding negative news... about the "MSM"?
"Seen Mark Steyn's take on Iran in major media? Not too likely."
Has the Internet been broken? Not too likely. The suppressors of Mark Steyn must be pretty incompetant in their quest to suppress him, eh?
"If not, and I've never seen it, what is the reason?"
Because you don't read that much? Would you like a list of cites of Michael Yon appearing in the "MSM"? I don't have Nexis access, so that would be easier for someone who does, but I've read many dozens of pieces by him in the dread MSM. You. Are. Flat. Wrong. And a Nexis search should show hundreds of cites of him.
Ask him yourself. Or say this list doesn't exist. Let's see, he's in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, the Seattle Times, Good Morning, America, Boston Herald, Detroit News, NY Post, AP, yeah, he's really suppressed, all right.
And I've read countless MSM pieces by Mike Totten. Ask him if he's had any problem selling pieces because The MSM Doesn't Want His POV. Go on, ask him. I just frigging linked to a piece by him a couple of comments ago.
Hey, I have an idea! Let's quote which Michael Yon has to say about being censored from a few days ago, why don't we?
here:
That's how Michael Yon backs you up, DaveC. And I just cited and linked to our combat leaders on Iraq and Bush/Rumsfeld's leadership.Want to talk Iraqi bloggers again?
Posted by: Gary Farber | April 13, 2006 at 12:16 PM
I think the liberal approach is to destroy Iran if they try to attack Israel. Worked pretty well with Russia.
Posted by: Tim | April 13, 2006 at 12:16 PM
By the way, DaveC, if you know anyone who could help me get my views as suppressed by the MainStream Media as badly as Steyn and Yon and Mike Totten are, I'd really appreciate it. I could use the visibility and cash.
I'll settle for one tenth of any of their's, though.
Posted by: Gary Farber | April 13, 2006 at 12:17 PM
"Social Security reform discussion was suppressed by the major media, for instance."
I missed that line. If you check Nexis, you'll find thousands of major media articles on Bush's proposals. Thousands.
Saying otherwise is just insane. It has no connection to reality. The subject was discussed up and down the wazoo last year in every newspaper, news magazine, and tv and radio news show in America. This is just undeniable fact. I don't know what to say to a denial of reality that claims otherwise. It's simple checkable fact. It's not a matter of opinion. Fact. Checkable. Provable.
Posted by: Gary Farber | April 13, 2006 at 12:23 PM
As for Mark Steyn on (inter alia) Iran, does the Chicago Sun-Times count as "major media"?
Posted by: Matthew B. | April 13, 2006 at 12:25 PM
"I think the liberal approach is to destroy Iran if they try to attack Israel."
Ok, so just for the record, you are all ok with counter-genocide? Im not totally sure I'm even that ruthless.
Even presuming the threat is real (which I don't think is obvious) there is an additional wrinkle which could make things worse. Iran might have some leaders who believe that Allah will protect them. (Think about some of the things Bush says and worrisome you find them and then realize that the mullahs actually are in a theocratic government before you pooh-pooh this idea).
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | April 13, 2006 at 12:33 PM
What DaveC is on about is that Steyn's column was dropped recently by both the British Sunday Telegraph and the Spectator.
Everyone come see the inherent repression of the system!
Of course, columns are dropped by publications all the time. Steyn's currently being oppressed by appearing in the Atlantic, Chicago Sun-Times, San Diego Times-Union, NY Sun, Irish Times, Richmond Times Dispatch, Washington Times, New Criterion, Jerusalem Post, Irish Times, and so on and so forth.
Come see the repression inherent in the system.
I'll wait for DaveC to decry the awful censorship of Robert Scheer being dropped by the LA Times, and Michael Kinsley's being canned by them, or of a jillion similar cases I can name of non-right-wing people getting dropped by some publication.
It's just awful how these right-wing folks are so oppressed by being published in so many prominent places. As I said, please, please, please, brer Rabbit, oppress me like that.
Posted by: Gary Farber | April 13, 2006 at 12:37 PM
"San Diego Times-Union"
What is that? I know I don't read the local paper but I don't recognize the name. Is that the Union-Tribune?
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | April 13, 2006 at 12:42 PM
Steyn:
Though we must scratch the Sunday Telegraph and the Spectator, it's just horrible how he's being suppressed!Incidentally, need I point out that the Spectator is as far-right a publication as it gets in Britain without being an organ of the fascist press, and the Telegraph is known as the "Torygraph"?
DaveC's complaint is that the most right-wing publications in Britain are... secretly controlled by the left?
Well, it makes as much sense as anything else's he's said.
Posted by: Gary Farber | April 13, 2006 at 12:43 PM
"Is that the Union-Tribune?"
Yes. Sorry, I bobbled.
Posted by: Gary Farber | April 13, 2006 at 12:44 PM
Sebastian,
""I think the liberal approach is to destroy Iran if they try to attack Israel."
Ok, so just for the record, you are all ok with counter-genocide?"
I am pretty sure that there are ways of destroying a government short of committing genocide on its people. For example, we destroyed Germany and Japan in WWII without killing off the German and Japanese peoples.
"Iran might have some leaders who believe that Allah will protect them. (Think about some of the things Bush says and worrisome you find them and then realize that the mullahs actually are in a theocratic government before you pooh-pooh this idea)."
I'll admit they have a 25 year head start on this country in that regard.
Posted by: Dantheman | April 13, 2006 at 12:50 PM
Ok, so just for the record, you are all ok with counter-genocide? Im not totally sure I'm even that ruthless.
It's only my opinion, but I'm completely comfortable with destruction being visited on any country that uses nukes unprovoked. Whether it would have to be genocide is doubtful; the important part would be to guarantee the utter destruction of anyone in the country resembling a leader. The one thing I am sure about is that the 50 or 60 year olds who end up making the decisions in any large organization, be it a government, religion, corporation, or what have you, are not suicidally messianic. They might be perfectly willing for millions of other people to die, but they will not risk their own privilege for ideology, let alone their lives. You just have to make it clear to them who's going to get it. If you have some historical case where this actually happened, I would be interested to hear about it.
Posted by: Tim | April 13, 2006 at 12:53 PM
I'm trying to wrap my head around the "Iran is run [by] messianic loonies" argument. It's one that I see pop up a lot these days, and it seems truly unhelpful.
From the reading I've done, Khomeini revived a submerged version of apocalyptic Shi'ism in order to whip up revolutionary fervor and to legitimize his power. However, he then had to establish a government that would survive him, so he had to temper the acocalyptic promise with the legitimacy and continuity of juridical rule.
Those two visions of Shi'ism are remain in tension today and could maybe (maybe) be personified by Ahmadinejad and Khamenei. But there are other pressure groups within the government, like the corrupt pragmatist Rafsanjani who seems to remain a pivotal decision-maker and influence-broker.
Ahmadinejad's public statements are, sure, deeply wierd and troubling, but the moment we all accept that the "Iranian regime" is just nuts, that it will act suicidally, that it responds irrationally by any measure, then we've basically accepted military strikes. If we don't accept the above, then we might be willing to think about carrots and sticks that would make sense to factions within the Iranian goverment that could be empowered...
[Long outburst! But I keep seeing this argument in various forms: "Look! Irrational, suicidal Twelver Shi'ism! We must bomb!"]
Posted by: Jackmormon | April 13, 2006 at 12:55 PM
"They might be perfectly willing for millions of other people to die, but they will not risk their own privilege for ideology, let alone their lives. You just have to make it clear to them who's going to get it. If you have some historical case where this actually happened, I would be interested to hear about it."
Oh look Godwin's Law.....
:)
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | April 13, 2006 at 12:56 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.