Top U.S. Military Officer: Iran Is In a Shooting War With America. OK, Where’s the Policy Response?

[giblets]

blah blah the towelheads are all the same and all want to blow themselves up so we should kill em all before they get nukes blah blah

[Hauldren Collider]

I don't think anyone's saying that.

[giblets]

I don't think anyone's saying that.

Apparently someone thinks a whole country is on some sort of suicide bombing mission:

If Iran got nukes, it could attack us anywhere it wanted. Or our allies. A rowboat in the Hudson River would be all it takes. Really, this isn't a country that thinks in terms of its own self-interest, which makes outrageous acts of aggression completely within the realm of possibility.

We're talking about a rogue state with explicit goals to acquire nuclear technology. That alone is enough to make us worry. The Saudis and the Israelis have been pushing us to act harder even when Bush was president.

[Kuciwalker]

blah blah blah I don't think it's clear at all blah blah blah that they are in fact **** ****** *** ****** ** blah blah **** blah better off for not ***** *** blah blah **** retaliating.

COMEDY GOLD.

HC now thinks that South Korea would be better off risking a real shooting war with North Korea rather than allowing NKor to kill, what, 100 South Koreans a year?

[Zevico]

Apparently someone thinks a whole country is on some sort of suicide bombing mission:

The "whole country" doesn't have to be. But when the leaders of said country accuse the West of changing weather patterns so Iran doesn't get rain, and their rivals of witch craft, we have good reason to suspect that they have a tenuous grip on reality. Those are both real stories, by the way.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/8527455/Mahmoud-Ahmadinejad-says-Europe-stealing-Irans-rain.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/05/ahmadinejad-allies-charged-with-sorcery

[Zevico]

This is fascinating. The article begins by stating the author's opposition to a war with Iran, Kuci, and you conclude that the author's policy prescriptions risk war.
Well, they consist of (a) an information campaign (b) further economic pressure (c) a covert sabotage campaign.
Which of these actions risk escalating into a war? All of them were pursued to varying degrees by the Bush Administration. As to (c), google Stuxnet. None actually led to war, or even led to an increased risk of war. (a) and (b) are being pursued, albeit without as much vigour as the author or I might like, by the Obama administration. Ergo, (a), (b) and (c) must lead to war with Iran?

[Hauldren Collider]

Kuci is actually incapable of disagreeing with someone without ridiculing them as well, unless that person is KH or Drake.

[Zevico]

Clearly the proper policy response is a war of choice with Libya.

Indeed. Think of the catharsis. After years of hand-wringing anti-war indignation--finally, a chance to don the flight suit, board the air carrier and (dare I say it?) pose with a nice banner saying "mission accomplished."
How is that mission, anyway? What did Obama say--Days, not weeks? Weeks, not months? Months, not years? The One couldn't possibly be wrong in foretelling the outcome of a civil war in a country with which he is totally unacquainted. Clearly, Obamarelda the Seer knows all and sees all. He didn't get it wrong--the rebellion's uncertain prospects of success were an unknown factor he couldn't possibly have known of when he intervened to avert its demise. Yes, in fact Obama just needs "more time" to fix this self-made problem. Yes, these are the benefits of learning foreign policy on the job.

[Kuciwalker]

Kuci is actually incapable of disagreeing with someone without ridiculing them as well, unless that person is KH or Drake.

I'm civil to all the posters who have shown themselves not to be idiots, not just KH and Drake.

[Kuciwalker]

This is fascinating. The article begins by stating the author's opposition to a war with Iran, Kuci, and you conclude that the author's policy prescriptions risk war.

No. I was responding to HC, not the OP. That said, lines like "A government that will not protect the soldiers it has sent into danger by acting against those who would kill them does not deserve to lead those troops" is exactly the sort of idiotic sentiment that in practice leads us to sending even more soldiers into pointless wars.

[Zevico]

No. I was responding to HC, not the OP. That said, lines like "A government that will not protect the soldiers it has sent into danger by acting against those who would kill them does not deserve to lead those troops" is exactly the sort of idiotic sentiment that in practice leads us to sending even more soldiers into pointless wars.

Acting against those who threaten you is basic self-interest. The author is expressing displeasure at the present policies of the Administration because, in the author's view, they are not protecting American citizens from harm. The issue is whether he is correct or not--an issue which you actually haven't responded to at all.

[Cort Haus]

My point, sir, is that neoconservatism consists of two propositions: "democratic countries tend not to go to war" and "therefore, we should encourage democratic movements to arise."

Two fallacies right there.

Firstly, democratic countries do tend to go to war a hell of a lot and with disastrous consequences, especially when driven by either neo-cons or liberal humanitarian warriors (I can hardly tell the difference, tbh). These architects of slaughter and mayhem don't seem to think of their actions as warlike in precisely the same way as Islamic Fundies believe themselves to be delivering peace on earth once everyone has been persuaded to submit to Allah (and presumably the correct demoninational flavouring of submission).

Secondly, democracy has to be something achieved by the people, not imposed by an elite - and especially not by foreign invaders. There is also the business of some democracies not being considered democratic enough by the Western centres of power (US / NATO / EU) - basically because they are not sufficiently aligned to the West. The level of democracy in such countries may well not be perfect - but neither is it necessarily perfect in those countries that have appointed themselves rulers of world (which is what both the neo-con and liberal-humanitarian-bombers do).

[Kuciwalker]

Acting against those who threaten you is basic self-interest.

Not when the costs massively outweigh the gains. We can eliminate the threat by not walking down this particular dark alley each night. That's cheaper and easier than becoming Batman.

The author is expressing displeasure at the present policies of the Administration because, in the author's view, they are not protecting American citizens from harm. The issue is whether he is correct or not--an issue which you actually haven't responded to at all.

There is precisely one policy at fault for putting American citizens at risk of harm, and that is the policy of having soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Jon Miller]

You forgot Saudia Arabia/etc.

JM

[rah]

You have to consider intent. What does Iran want to accomplish by doing what they're doing.
If they want the Americans out of Iraq, the best course of action would be for them to do nothing. We're on the way out the door.
By attacking, the Iraqi government may feel the need to ask us to stay for awhile longer.

If their goal is to take credit for chasing us out of dodge, that doesn't work if we stay. We know they have no problems lying through their teeth, so it would make sense for them to do nothing and then take credit when we leave naturally.

If they have further motives for influence in Iran, it would be best for them to wait till we were gone to pursue them.