The evident conviction that the latest "intelligence" reports on Iran represent a substantial decline in the likelihood of military confrontation is one of the stupidest beliefs to bubble out of the swamp of American politics in quite some time. The fact that many so-called progressives and antiwar activists accept it as a given that without "intelligence," the administration will be meaningfully disinclined to act aggressively is belied by both history and the current rhetoric coming out of the executive branch. As Arthur notes once again, the practical value of "intelligence" is precisely zero. It's a propoganda point. It has no intrinsic value. Its relevance to the actions of states is irrelevance.
You will note that the president's response to this recent report has not been to moderate his rhetoric, but to harden it, "World War III" talk notwithstanding. Personally, I feel we are closer to escalation into Iran than we have ever been before. The nuclear issue provided, at least, an ongoing debating point, but now there is only Iran, the "State Sponsor of Terror" in the words of our favorite Democrats, who fell over themselves in their recent NPR radio debate to assure us that whether or not Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons, it remained "a threat" that must be "taken seriously." Soon, as the "surge" declines and refugees begin returning to Iraq to find themselves dispossessed, violence will again spike upward, and during that terrible period some ginned-up act of provocation by the "terrorists" in Iran's terror-sponsoring elite military corps will provide a pretext for aerial bombardment. The report motivated our putative allies to begin questioning the necessity and harshness of sanctions and isolation. Ah, once again, the savior of the West must go it alone.
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
Dupes, Dopes
Labels:
Iranian hijinks
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
And if you're wrong?
Wars are political decisions. Evidence and "intelligence" are pawns in the game, and have no sustainable impact. Of itself, intelligence will neither start nor prevent a war. But to assert that nothing matters beyond the initiating presidential circle jerk, as you and Arthur seem to suggest, strikes me as wishful thinking; an analytical framework not dissimilar from the blinkered vision that led us into Iraq in the first place.
Simply put: a tree in the road may not stop you from getting to Phoenix, but it'll sure as shit slow you down. You might even have to spend a night at the Motel 6.
Thank you. It's so fucking obvious--the Kyl-Lieberman fiasco (drawn up just after Bush saw this draft, in August) targets the Revolutionary Guard.
I've long argued with others claiming the U.S government is a terrorist organization by saying that in order to have worthwhile discourse we should cut out the normative aspect and tighten up our definitions, with the most frequently used ones excluding states by their very nature from being terrorists (although they may certainly support them). By declaring another state's military to be a terrorist organization the yahoos in D.C certainly are doing their best to blur the lines and support the arguments of the Chomsky crowd.
Y'know, it sure isn't clear that this NIE brings any Iran schemes to a halt, but by the same token it hardly accelerates the rush to do something really stupid. If nothing else, it suggests that there's some kind of internal wrangle going on in the DC Kremlin, that "minds" aren't completely made up. This is not the pattern we saw in the run-up to the Iraq disaster. It's hard to see how this is bad.
On a tangential note, while I'm don't follow Greenwald with any regularity, I can't comprehend how anyone can bash his logorrhea, and then go on to praise Silber. Talk about dogmatic slumbers....
-- sglover
While I agree with glover, I can see IOZ's point, though maybe not quite how he makes it. Given the apparent desire for large portions (at least) of the administration to let the bombs fly, we must ask why they haven't flown yet. There are several possible answers. While I personally buy Glover's implied answer (internal struggle), one could argue that the administration, while not beleiving that a semi-plausible rationale is necessary, felt that one was desirable, and was waiting for such a rationale to mature. Now that the nuclear rationale is out the window, the administration could basically say, ah, screw it, no point in waiting for a plausible rationale that isn't coming, let's just latch onto the first bullshit, implausible rationale that comes up, and let the bombs fly.
Post a Comment