If this were 2003...
This would absolutely, positively, without a doubt mean we were going to war with Iran.
But it's 2006, and there's a sliver of a chance that history has taught this administration something. Maybe.
Bush's speech today reads almost exactly like his warmongering against Iraq in 2003--just substitute "Iran" for "Iraq." There's the painful recollections of 9/11, the dubious connecting of dots between al-Qaeda and other Middle East regimes we happen not to like, the threat of nuclear weapons, and talk of "continuing to work closely with our allies to find a diplomatic solution," the subtle, unilateral undertones of which we already know too well.
There's absolutely no hint of a suggestion that Iraq is going badly. Instead, Iraq has been "transformed into an ally in the war on terror," and "millions of Shia [in Iraq] have defied terrorist threats to vote in free elections, and have shown their desire to live in freedom," even though a million marched in the streets to defend Hezbollah and Nasrallah, and Nuri al-Maliki, the Prime Minister, is a member of the Dawa Party, which has historically been a radical Shiite militant group supportive of the Iranian Islamic Revolution. With friends like these...
The segments about Iran are astonishing in their implications. Shia terrorists are "just as dangerous, and just as hostile to America, and just as determined to establish its brand of hegemony across the broader Middle East." Even more forceful: "The Shia extremists have achieved something that al Qaeda has so far failed to do: In 1979, they took control of a major power, the nation of Iran, subjugating its proud people to a regime of tyranny, and using that nation's resources to fund the spread of terror and pursue their radical agenda." So, a regime that we have sustained rocky but ultimately bloodless relations with for almost 27 years has now outdone even al-Qaeda in its fiendishness? I would think that whatever Iran has done, they have "failed to do" (as if they ever planned it) what al-Qaeda has most certainly accomplished: executed a terrorist attack on American soil. In Bush's words, however, Iran is "attacking Israel and America by proxy" by funding Hezbollah. That all adds up to this: "The Iranian regime and its terrorist proxies have demonstrated their willingness to kill Americans -- and now the Iranian regime is pursuing nuclear weapons." Can anyone say "Cobra III"?
I was not able to listen to the speech, but the written version of it, from the looks of it, is rhetorically brilliant. Which is to say: It certainly says all the right things, but skimps heavily on strategy. It has everything to make commentators at the National Review get all happy in their pants: Historical allusions to the Nazis. (And Lenin this time! Namely, "What is to be Done?") Heavy emphasis on scary Islamic concepts like "global caliphate." Refusal to "appease" or "negotiate" with terrorists. A sneering suspicion of the media. (I.e. the terrorists will wage a "media war" in which they try to deceive Americans into abandoning the Bush government. Don't fall for it, citizens! Be ever vigilant!) A smiling nod at the NSA warrantless wiretapping program. Manichean depictions of the armies of light and darkness lining up across the battlefield of the Middle East.
But as I mentioned, a big speech on ideas is not the same thing as a speech of big ideas. The "five points" from the new "National Strategy for Combatting Terrorism" retread old ground. The plentiful bin Laden, Zawahiri, Nasrallah, and Ahmadinejad quotes provide some flavor but point to nothing we didn't already know. The only really important question is what the Bush team is trying to do with Iran. They have seriously exaggerated its threat, which should not surprise us, but they do so now at the risk of repeating the Iraq mistake. I can't imagine the public could be seriously swayed to undertaking another war, although public opinion ultimately matters little, or only to the extent to which it can be manipulated into believing certain connections exist. I don't want to underplay the amount of serious conversation that must be taking place right now concerning attacking Iran. No doubt it's a very real and very precarious argument among the White House's best and brightest. At least in this case there must be more thought being given to the fact that Iran poses no real threat at present. In the case of Iraq, of course it didn't matter at the end of the day whether Saddam still had weapons or not, but if we had happened to find some, we would have been "heroes;" if we didn't find any, well, "all the intelligence pointed to it." Iran would be the first truly pre-emptive strike of the Bush Doctrine.
The other major point I would mention is that while Bush & Co. are having a blast painting everyone they don't like with the simplistic "just as bad as al-Qaeda" brush, the actual situation is patently confusing as hell to anyone who takes two seconds to examine it. As I mentioned above, Iraq has a Prime Minister that for all intents and purposes has a history of Iranian Shiite sympathies, and the Shiite majority of Iraq overwhelmingly supports Hezbollah. So, the democratic, voting majority of one of our democratic pet projects has a thing for a political party of one of our other petri-dish experiments (Lebanon), but we label that point of mutual interest a "terrorist group." Also, there is absolutely no mention of Palestine, Egypt, or Saudi Arabia, the first of which also suffers from that paradox that stupefies the Bush team, the combination of democracy and the election of "terrorist" groups (Hamas). Egypt and Saudi Arabia remain our buddies, despite their own histories of rights abuses, as well as the fact that Saudi Arabia contributed the most terrorists to the Sept 11 plot and continues to produce the most homegrown terrorists.
The simple answer is that Egypt and Saudi Arabia do our bidding and welcome our capital investments. Iraq and Iran were/are regimes that most certainly do not want us dipping into their oil supplies. It's an old and hackneyed explanation for Bush administration critics, but it makes the most "big tent" sense. In any case, it's undeniable that American economic interests and all the pacifying perqs they bring drive a significant portion of our foreign policy and form the basis for the neoconservative vision of the American empire outlined by the Project for the New American Century.
But it's 2006, and there's a sliver of a chance that history has taught this administration something. Maybe.
Bush's speech today reads almost exactly like his warmongering against Iraq in 2003--just substitute "Iran" for "Iraq." There's the painful recollections of 9/11, the dubious connecting of dots between al-Qaeda and other Middle East regimes we happen not to like, the threat of nuclear weapons, and talk of "continuing to work closely with our allies to find a diplomatic solution," the subtle, unilateral undertones of which we already know too well.
There's absolutely no hint of a suggestion that Iraq is going badly. Instead, Iraq has been "transformed into an ally in the war on terror," and "millions of Shia [in Iraq] have defied terrorist threats to vote in free elections, and have shown their desire to live in freedom," even though a million marched in the streets to defend Hezbollah and Nasrallah, and Nuri al-Maliki, the Prime Minister, is a member of the Dawa Party, which has historically been a radical Shiite militant group supportive of the Iranian Islamic Revolution. With friends like these...
The segments about Iran are astonishing in their implications. Shia terrorists are "just as dangerous, and just as hostile to America, and just as determined to establish its brand of hegemony across the broader Middle East." Even more forceful: "The Shia extremists have achieved something that al Qaeda has so far failed to do: In 1979, they took control of a major power, the nation of Iran, subjugating its proud people to a regime of tyranny, and using that nation's resources to fund the spread of terror and pursue their radical agenda." So, a regime that we have sustained rocky but ultimately bloodless relations with for almost 27 years has now outdone even al-Qaeda in its fiendishness? I would think that whatever Iran has done, they have "failed to do" (as if they ever planned it) what al-Qaeda has most certainly accomplished: executed a terrorist attack on American soil. In Bush's words, however, Iran is "attacking Israel and America by proxy" by funding Hezbollah. That all adds up to this: "The Iranian regime and its terrorist proxies have demonstrated their willingness to kill Americans -- and now the Iranian regime is pursuing nuclear weapons." Can anyone say "Cobra III"?
I was not able to listen to the speech, but the written version of it, from the looks of it, is rhetorically brilliant. Which is to say: It certainly says all the right things, but skimps heavily on strategy. It has everything to make commentators at the National Review get all happy in their pants: Historical allusions to the Nazis. (And Lenin this time! Namely, "What is to be Done?") Heavy emphasis on scary Islamic concepts like "global caliphate." Refusal to "appease" or "negotiate" with terrorists. A sneering suspicion of the media. (I.e. the terrorists will wage a "media war" in which they try to deceive Americans into abandoning the Bush government. Don't fall for it, citizens! Be ever vigilant!) A smiling nod at the NSA warrantless wiretapping program. Manichean depictions of the armies of light and darkness lining up across the battlefield of the Middle East.
But as I mentioned, a big speech on ideas is not the same thing as a speech of big ideas. The "five points" from the new "National Strategy for Combatting Terrorism" retread old ground. The plentiful bin Laden, Zawahiri, Nasrallah, and Ahmadinejad quotes provide some flavor but point to nothing we didn't already know. The only really important question is what the Bush team is trying to do with Iran. They have seriously exaggerated its threat, which should not surprise us, but they do so now at the risk of repeating the Iraq mistake. I can't imagine the public could be seriously swayed to undertaking another war, although public opinion ultimately matters little, or only to the extent to which it can be manipulated into believing certain connections exist. I don't want to underplay the amount of serious conversation that must be taking place right now concerning attacking Iran. No doubt it's a very real and very precarious argument among the White House's best and brightest. At least in this case there must be more thought being given to the fact that Iran poses no real threat at present. In the case of Iraq, of course it didn't matter at the end of the day whether Saddam still had weapons or not, but if we had happened to find some, we would have been "heroes;" if we didn't find any, well, "all the intelligence pointed to it." Iran would be the first truly pre-emptive strike of the Bush Doctrine.
The other major point I would mention is that while Bush & Co. are having a blast painting everyone they don't like with the simplistic "just as bad as al-Qaeda" brush, the actual situation is patently confusing as hell to anyone who takes two seconds to examine it. As I mentioned above, Iraq has a Prime Minister that for all intents and purposes has a history of Iranian Shiite sympathies, and the Shiite majority of Iraq overwhelmingly supports Hezbollah. So, the democratic, voting majority of one of our democratic pet projects has a thing for a political party of one of our other petri-dish experiments (Lebanon), but we label that point of mutual interest a "terrorist group." Also, there is absolutely no mention of Palestine, Egypt, or Saudi Arabia, the first of which also suffers from that paradox that stupefies the Bush team, the combination of democracy and the election of "terrorist" groups (Hamas). Egypt and Saudi Arabia remain our buddies, despite their own histories of rights abuses, as well as the fact that Saudi Arabia contributed the most terrorists to the Sept 11 plot and continues to produce the most homegrown terrorists.
The simple answer is that Egypt and Saudi Arabia do our bidding and welcome our capital investments. Iraq and Iran were/are regimes that most certainly do not want us dipping into their oil supplies. It's an old and hackneyed explanation for Bush administration critics, but it makes the most "big tent" sense. In any case, it's undeniable that American economic interests and all the pacifying perqs they bring drive a significant portion of our foreign policy and form the basis for the neoconservative vision of the American empire outlined by the Project for the New American Century.
posted by to scranton at 1:31 AM
1 Comments:
I'm buying it...
Post a Comment
<< Home