« Varieties of Salafism | Main | Fishy »
Which Is It?
It seems like just last week Bill Kristol was editorializing in The Weekly Standard that we need to go to war with Syria and leave this Iran business aside. But today I see that in the current Standard Reuel Marc Gerecht thinks we should, "Realize that the only option that passes the pinch test--that realistically offers a good chance of delaying Iran's nuclear-weapons production by years--is a preemptive military strike against all of the facilities that American, European, Israeli, and (in private) IAEA intelligence suspect are associated with weapons production." Are we supposed to do both?
December 28, 2004 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345160fd69e200d83422090753ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Which Is It?:
» Strategy and Tactics from Obsidian Wings
Reuel Gerecht, writing in the Weekly Standard, is a puzzle. [Read More]
Tracked on Dec 29, 2004 11:37:25 AM
» Strategy and Tactics from Obsidian Wings
Reuel Gerecht, writing in the Weekly Standard, is a puzzle. [Read More]
Tracked on Dec 29, 2004 11:38:43 AM
Comments
I've always found it difficult to believe that the Iranians weren't behind the Lockerbie bombing, given what had happened recently before.
And that was much more plain of an accident than a joint U.S.-Israeli bombing run would be. I think the chances of the proverbial nuclear bomb hidden in a bale of marijuana in an American harbor would only have to increase after what would, as Gerecht admits, be an incomplete attack against Iran's nuclear infrastructure.
Posted by: Jonathan | Dec 28, 2004 6:40:47 PM
that would be a big waste of a lot of nice marijuana. damn shame.
Posted by: Goldberg | Dec 28, 2004 6:43:03 PM
"Are we supposed to do both?"
Of course, silly.
Posted by: Bill Kristol | Dec 28, 2004 7:22:58 PM
So two conservative writers have two different opinions on Iran. Wow.
Stop the presses, already.
Posted by: Joey | Dec 28, 2004 7:29:43 PM
I wonder if the Iranians need the money they currently get for selling their oil? Cutting off oil would be a nice response to being bombed by the people who thought they knew where Saddam kept his weapons of mass destruction.
Posted by: masaccio | Dec 28, 2004 7:33:09 PM
Watching the neocons debating the next target of World War IV is like watching a dog unable to make its mind up to eat the T-Bone first or the lamb shanks.
It's all red meat in the end!
Posted by: oodja | Dec 28, 2004 8:01:44 PM
It seems like just last week Bill Kristol was editorializing in The Weekly Standard that we need to go to war with Syria and leave this Iran business aside.
Syria is (ahem) EASY and a tasty morsel, plus it would push the sweep of local Israeli opponents to 2/3rds complete AND, as a bonus, would distract people from Iraq.
that realistically offers a good chance of delaying Iran's nuclear-weapons production by years
Realistically, sheesh. These guys wouldn't know what 'realistically' was if it crawled up their ass and DIED.
Anyways, c'mon, Matthew, if the Iranians acquire a working bomb, they will immediately nuke New York within the week (yes, no deterrence in Mullahworld) and then bin Laden will conquer the world the following weekend. We cannot invade, so we have to break out the bombers, since, of course, bombers have such an OUTSTANDING record of knocking critical manufacturing facilities offline. I mean, if we hadn't destroyed all the German manufacturing facilities from the air, the Krauts might not have folded up until 1947 (or at all!) instead of crapping out in '43. Christ, Hanoi might still be Communist! That's why 'hawkish' (on account they love the army so much they wuz in for 30,40 years apiece!) 'conservatives' know that 'realistically', bombing is our only hope!
Blink. Blink.
Poor, sad 'hawks', starving to death midway between easy and easier! Maybe we could invade Andorra or Monaco or something to boost their self-esteem.
ash
['Reading this stuff would be ever so much less painful if I got a lobotomy, right?']
Posted by: ash | Dec 28, 2004 8:07:37 PM
Both! It'll be a blast and I'm sure they'll be able to pull it off without a hitch.
Maybe the idea is we invade and occupy Syria, while merely bombing Iran?
(Hate to go all Godwin on you but the neocons increasingly remind me of a certain delusional leader at the end of a war who was moving around divisions that no longer existed on maps and planning counter-attacks).
Posted by: Brian | Dec 28, 2004 8:08:56 PM
I think the chances of the proverbial nuclear bomb hidden in a bale of marijuana in an American harbor would only have to increase after what would, as Gerecht admits, be an incomplete attack against Iran's nuclear infrastructure.
Iran's theocrats have exhibited an increasingly admirable (with the passage of time) talent for self-preservation. Just think, they're now almost where the Red Chinese were at the time of Mao's death.
Anyway, with this in mind, they wouldn't do anything so stupid as to give America a casus belli atomici. The theocrats' smartest bet is to buy time, lay low, back down when they have to, harden their facilities, bribe the Euros, do their part to spread mischief and see that Washington remains preoccupied with the mess in Iraq, and, last but not least, cultivate their ties with the aforementioned Red Chinese. One day, Allah willing, we'll wake up to learn that Iran has a kick ass nuclear deterrent complete with ICBMs and maybe even a shiny, new, Shanghai-built missile-bearing sub or two.
Posted by: P.B. Almeida | Dec 28, 2004 8:20:22 PM
The biggest crime of the Iraq debacle is the limitations it put on projection of power in areas where it may be truly critical. Isn't the Iranian nuclear concern far greater than the non-existant (or vastly overstated) Saddam threat? The same could be said for North Korea. Those wanting to protect our country, and those thinking it worth protection, should be livid over how Bush has hamstrung future policy options, both military and diplomatic, because of the Iraq invasion.
Posted by: steve duncan | Dec 28, 2004 9:14:43 PM
"that would be a big waste of a lot of nice marijuana. damn shame."
Like pesticides, radiation only increases the potency. The increase in harshness is compensated by having your pot glow in the dark! Cool! Chernobyl bud was so rad.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Dec 28, 2004 9:30:02 PM
"I've always found it difficult to believe that the Iranians weren't behind the Lockerbie bombing,"
Right--the Libyans confessed, but why believe them?
Posted by: rea | Dec 28, 2004 9:31:42 PM
Poor, sad 'hawks', starving to death midway between easy and easier! Maybe we could invade Andorra or Monaco or something to boost their self-esteem.
Too far, and the neighbors might object. Grenada's been done, but I suggest somewhere else in the Caribbean. Maybe Antigua and Barbuda?
Posted by: cmdicely | Dec 28, 2004 9:48:04 PM
Rea--did the U.S. shoot down an Iranian or a Libyan airliner shortly before?
Posted by: Jonathan | Dec 28, 2004 9:59:35 PM
My question about all of this is whose military the Weekly Standard proposes we use. The military of the United States is pretty well preoccupied with the engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan at the moment (unless they want to bring up the D-word again).
Posted by: Dimmy Karras | Dec 28, 2004 10:26:00 PM
Note: California home grown is still the best smoke.
However, it seems that the Iranians have us juse where they wanted us- with the help of Chalabi (their agent?). The US Army is overcommited, so it can't harm them, their regional rival and major enemy is prostrate, and their nuke program is so dispersed an hidden that it is essentially immune from air attack. Not bad for some 13th Century religious fanatics.
Posted by: Michael C | Dec 28, 2004 10:28:52 PM
Seriously, someone tell the pair of them to enlist. Along with James and Lachlan Murdoch.
Posted by: Alice Marshall | Dec 28, 2004 11:25:42 PM
Were the body politic wise, Bill Kristol's warmongering would stigmatize him, and his judgment debased in future policy debates; but, spell my name right Bil Crystal, his knowledge makes him a substantial problem for enemies of war.
Now that we've killed 100,000 Iraqis Bill Kristol would have us kill 100,000 Syrians, because 3,000 Americans were killed by Saudis.
Bill Kristol: yell "attack Saudi Arabia" or shut the fuck up and stop being a pussy. Warmongerer.
This passes for wisdom? Shame on Matthew Yglesias for advertising this warmongering which causes needless death while treating human lives as subjects of a debating game by dilettant statesmen like Doug Feith.
Like Jon Stewart said, stop hurting our world.
Posted by: epistemology | Dec 28, 2004 11:35:32 PM
Well, they gave up on Mutual Assured Destruction so Raygun could have his Star Wars. Since Star Wars doesn't work, and they won't admit that MAD was a viable policy, this is what they have left, or, um, have right (in the compassionat conservate sense), or, um, are mad.
Posted by: wolf | Dec 28, 2004 11:36:29 PM
Alice Marshall has it right. The services are using lots of guys on the high side of middle age. If neo-cons are truly so enamored of their schemes, they should volunteer to see them through personally. Until then -- hey, they've slid from intellectual dishonesty to moral bankruptcy to, now, real decadence. I'm still astonished that Kristol, of all people, should bash Rumsfeld for the Mesopotamian fiasco, within a week of urging on a wider war in Syria. How shameless can you get? Nobody owes these creatures a millisecond of credence.
Posted by: sglover | Dec 29, 2004 9:50:05 AM
"...maybe even a shiny, new, Shanghai-built missile-bearing sub or two."
Built by Israel, to boot. What goes around comes around.
Posted by: George | Dec 29, 2004 10:37:31 AM
"Isn't the Iranian nuclear concern far greater than the non-existant (or vastly overstated) Saddam threat?"
No, actually, it is about the same - zero - as long as the U.S. doesn't do anything stupid.
One of the things most frequently overlooked by the war mongers and their cheerleaders is that any halfway sane government (and Saddam, despite his severely disordered personality, was sane, as are the Iranians) would know better than to attack the USA. Even if Saddam's fictitious WMD's had existed, he would never have used them against the US (or Israel, for that matter) because he knew damned well that would mean instant annihilation. The same could be said for the Iranians. As for the notion that they would give or sell them to an Osama bin Laden, give me a break! That one does not pass the giggle test, and never did.
In fact, aside from the fact that every state has a right to determine its own form of government, and to be left alone as long as they don't get into another states' business (it's called self determination), Iran has been slowly moving toward a more democratic system - until the Bush administration started mucking about with them, that is.
I have rarely seen an American adminitration more fond of hoisting themselves on their own pitard (aka shooting themselves in the foot) than the Bush Jr. gang is.
Posted by: Shirin | Dec 29, 2004 4:41:18 PM
"as long as the U.S. doesn't do anything stupid."
tee hee. George Bush? Do something stupid?
Posted by: smurfyhoser | Dec 29, 2004 10:34:53 PM
penis enlargement pills
acne treatment
weight loss
VigRX pills
Posted by: mescane | Oct 14, 2006 8:20:12 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
