Posted on 12/14/2006 10:58:43 AM PST by Tolik
One of the many bizarre recommendations in the recently released report from the bipartisan Iraq Study Group is the call to talk with Iran. A formal dialogue with the present Iranian leadership is, for a number of reasons, as misguided as it is amoral.
Our guides in these scary times of facing aggressive dictatorships still should be Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt, not the British prime minister Stanley Baldwin and Joe Kennedy, the U.S. ambassador to Britain, who leading up to 1939 thought good could come out of talking with the Nazis.
First, the Iranian leadership goes beyond the usual boilerplate anti-Israel, anti-Semitic claptrap of the region. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has serially denied the Holocaust while promising the absolute destruction of Israel. Various mullahs have characterized Israel as a "one-bomb state," implying a single Iranian nuclear bomb could destroy it. The vicious hatred is so institutionalized in Iran's state-run media that a science-fiction TV series there depicts the evil alien queen as Jewish.
Why should we give stature to and empower a theocracy that apes the hatred of the Third Reich? .....
(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...
Let me know if you want in or out.
Links: FR Index of his articles: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=victordavishanson
His website: http://victorhanson.com/
NRO archive: http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson-archive.asp
New Link! http://victordavishanson.pajamasmedia.com/
Someone should tattoo this on the back of the hands of all the Dem Senators rushing over Syria. Once again VDH simply nails it.
Worth noting.
Angry Reader
Editor's Note: In this section we entertain letters from the critics. Some readers are angry, some are not so angry, and others merely frustrated.December 8, 2006Mr. Hanson, have you ever written anything positive about Muslims or Islam, or is it always going to be Israel and the U.S. right, Islam always wrong?
Hanson: How odd to suggest that when the now demonized policy, which I supported, of staying on after the removal of Saddam Hussein to allow elections for the Iraqis was most certainly based on the utopian idea that Muslims themselves were quite capable of consensual government as we see in Turkey or Indonesia.
So it is up to Arab Muslims to prove that ideal was also true of the Arab Middle East, and show that Palestine and Iraq can stabilize and conduct democracy under the rule of law.
Another piece of advise to you, as a moderate Muslim in the West: the present U.S. policy was about as good as the Middle East was going to get, this engagement that saw billions spent in Afghanistan and Iraq for democracy, and real American pressure exerted on behalf on the people of Lebanon, Egypt, and the Gulf States to have a say in their governments.
So we are at a great crossroads: when the world's only superpower puts its money and lives behind the idea of consensual government for Arab Muslims, will they tweak and fidget about the infidel's hubris, or use the opening for their own purposes of reform?
And a word of warning as well: if Iraq should fail, and if there should be another 9/11 traced to a terrorist-sponsoring Arab nation, and celebrated once more by the proverbial Arab Street, then for the next half century the United States will write off all notion of reform and liberalization and just deal, as we see with the return of the realists, with the Middle East as it is. And that means tough, obliterating retaliatory strikes to each terrorist provocation, without much concern for illiberal conditions on the ground that so enhance the opportunistic terrorists. It is the Muslim world's call, not ours.
http://victorhanson.com/articles/hansonblog121006.html
More troops or more action or both?
The ripples from the Iraq Study Group still emanate. They are like castor oil: the left thinks this nasty elixir must be swallowed to find a cure; the right believes that its bad taste proves it is no nostrum. For the latter group, there is an honest difference of opinion over sending more troops into Iraq. The arguments on both sides are well known.
Aside from whether we have the political will to deploy more soldiers, even those who support such an increase must at least brief us on the new tactics that will ensure we can secure the country—otherwise we just breed more Iraqi dependency and keep suffering losses to IEDs and suicide bombers.
Over two years ago I wrote the following in June 2004 on the topic for the New Republic, and see no reason now to change my mind:
In our current postmodern world, we tend to deprecate the efficacy of arms, trusting instead that wise and reasonable people can adjudicate the situation on the ground according to Enlightenment principles of diplomacy and reason. But thugs like Moqtadar Al Sadr’s Mahdi Army and Saddam Hussein’s remnant killers beg to differ. They may eventually submit to a fair and honest brokered peace—but only when the alternative is an Abrams tank or Cobra gunship, rather than a stern rebuke from L. Paul Bremer. More important, neutrals and well-meaning moderates in Iraq often put their ideological preferences on hold as they wait to see who will, in fact, win. The promise of consensual government, gender equality, and the rule of law may indeed save the Iraqi people and improve our own security—but only when those who wish none of it learn that trying to stop it will get them killed.
A year ago, we waged a brilliant three-week campaign, then mysteriously forgot the source of our success. Military audacity, lethality, unpredictability, imperviousness to cheap criticism, and iron resolve, coupled with the message of freedom, convinced neutrals to join us and enemies not yet conquered to remain in the shadows. But our failure to shoot looters, to arrest early insurrectionists like Sadr, and to subdue cities like Tikrit or Falluja only earned us contempt—and not just from those who would kill us, but from others who would have joined us as well.
The misplaced restraint of the past year is not true morality, but a sort of weird immorality that seeks to avoid ethical censure in the short term—the ever-present, 24-hour pulpit of global television that inflates a half-dozen inadvertent civilian casualties into Dresden and Hiroshima. But, in the long term, such complacency has left more moderate Iraqis to be targeted by ever more emboldened murderers. For their part, American troops have discovered that they are safer on the assault when they can fire first and kill killers, rather than simply patrol and react, hoping their newly armored Humvees and fortified flak vests will deflect projectiles.
This is the context for the current insistence on more troops. America’s failure to promptly retake Falluja or rid Najaf of militiamen demands more soldiers to garrison the ever more Fallujas and Najafs that will now surely arise. In contrast, audacity is a force multiplier. A Sadr in chains or in paradise is worth more, in terms of deterrence, than an entire infantry division.
Only a total imbecile (or a Democrat) could take the "let's talk to Iran, hat in hand" recommendation seriously.
There seems to be a desperation around here to cling to ignorance of how Counter Insurgency differs from Conventional War. This is one of the political aspects of the problem that Conventional Military thinkers find so hard to deal with.
For example Al Sadr. Al Sadr is a clever little thug. He walks right up to the line but he does not cross it. He is typical of the sorts of messy little problems that crop up in a Counter Insurgency. NOT exactly an enemy not exactly an ally. So how you deal with him is troublesome.
Since Malki and Al Sadr are both Shia, Malki cannot squish him without splitting his own power base. So he keeps trying to negotiate with the twit. Frankly, I think with the terrorists mostly broken now is the time to break the militias. Maliki is simply making a mistake here. What we need was the excuse and Al-Sadr's threats to launch a coup would of been the perfect excuse we needed to kill him and break his "Mahdi Army".
Unfortunately as usual the Arab way kicks in again. Talk,talk,talk,talk,talk,talk and more talk. Someone needs to sit Maliki down and speak truth to him.
Here how Counter Insurgency done the Dinocon way would look.
-
Americans: Yo, all you Iraqis. Now we know you all have been oppressed and terrorized by Saddam and his goons for about 40 years so we came over here to show you a better way. So gather round and we are going to teach you this thing called Democracy. We want to teach you this cause we figure if we get can get enough of you following this ideology you will not follow the ideology that preaches it is a good thing to fly airplanes into buildings full of our Civilians.
Now the first things you need to learn is this part about the Rule of Law. Study the sub chapters on Innocent until prove Guilty, Trial by Jury, Right to Legal Representation and really important, the chapter on outlawing Cruel and Unusual Punishment. Ok, now while you do that, we are going to arbitrarily round up and kill any Iraqis who we think maybe have ever talked mean about us.
What? No we are not going to bother with any of that messy Democracy stuff cause we are at war. And according to our Holloweird Movie guide to Military Action flicks any time you are at war you can waste anyone who pisses you off for what ever reason you want any way you want to do it. According to Hollyweird, we don't need nothing like proof or nothing we can just go wack that little Al Sadr freak cause he pisses us off. Evidence? We don't need no stinkin' evidence. Our action movie heros never bother with any evidence. In the Movie we watch on TV says we are just suppose to go kill him because he pisses us off so that what we want to do here. Now quit talking back and learn our lessons on Democracy.
Iraqi 1. Hey Mahmoud, why are we helping these clowns?
Iraqi 2. What do you mean Achmed, they got rid of Saddam!
Iraqi 1. They did? Looks to me like they just took his place.
Iraqi 2. Well ya so?
Iraqi 1. Well at least the old thugs were from around here. These guys are not only from out of town they are not even Muslims. We may has well have Muslim thugs if we got to have thugs.
Iraqi 2. You right, time to join the Jihad!
That is what this "Counter Insurgency doctrine as learned from watching TV dramas" would produce. It is utter stupidity.
It's like trying to bluff after showing a weak hand. We have no real leverage on Iran. They hold the levers of Iraqi chaos in theirs. We need their help. They need nothing but time to gain strength.
For us to ask them for help while demanding that they cease their nuclear weapons program is not only a waste of time, it's pathetic.
I enjoy reading VDH... wish he would fix/improve his "private papers" website.
As it is of Syria, which is one reason the ISG report will never be taken seriously by anyone with more than a passing knowledge of the region. Chaos in Iraq serves Iran very nicely and it has since the Medes and Chaldeans zapped Babylon. This stuff isn't new.
What is new is an Iran that can export revolution under a nuclear umbrella. The Soviet Union enjoyed the same advantage with a destructive effect that Africa in particular may never recover from. Saudi radicals dismayed that Iran has already co-opted "their" territory in Lebanon are most definitely not our friends but are still happily fomenting trouble in their northern neighbor anyway. They should be careful what they're praying for.
The first principle in negotiation is to have something to talk about. The second is for each side to have something to offer that will get it part of what it desires. Where one side is happy with the status quo there is nothing to talk about. The ISG appears to think that by declaring Iran and Syria concerned that they actually will become so. If there is something even more naive than empty wishful thinking this is what it would look like. And it is questionable whether Iran and Syria/Saudi Arabia have something to offer in any case. It turns out that their radicals are more stuck with the situation than the Americans, because should they stop their own support of the violence the other side gains an advantage.
It was not the presence of the United States that led to this - the situation has been going on for more than a millennium prior to the U.S.'s existence. It was one of the risks inherent in freeing the Shi'ite Iraqis from their Sunni oppressors. Now both sides are dancing to a foreign tune. Only the Iraqis can stop this, and the race is now between their ability to do so and the impatience and factionalism of Congress. That part of the ISG report that actually addresses this is an affirmation of Bush's policies, an irony few in the MSM seem capable of appreciating.
Ronald Reagan was the only person that knew how to talk to Iran so that they'd listen. Dhimmi Carter sure didn't.
Yup.
Many, many more Americans will die in the long run if we "stop the war" prematurely.
A compelling observation, still relevant to future strategies. These lice will never love us, but they sure as hell can be led to respect and fear us.
"...And a word of warning as well: if Iraq should fail, and if there should be another 9/11 traced to a terrorist-sponsoring Arab nation, and celebrated once more by the proverbial Arab Street, then for the next half century the United States will write off all notion of reform and liberalization and just deal, as we see with the return of the realists, with the Middle East as it is. And that means tough, obliterating retaliatory strikes to each terrorist provocation, without much concern for illiberal conditions on the ground that so enhance the opportunistic terrorists. It is the Muslim world's call, not ours..."
Reality bites, doesn't it? When Amanutjob in Iran makes his Nuclear threats, it's news for about 24 hours.
Then the latest revelation about some ugly-celebrity-wannabe not wearing underpants becomes the news, but Amanutjob's still making bombs.
I'm not so sure that the 'Muslim-World' gets to make the next call. One 9/11 was enough. To invite another, anywhere, is sheer folly.
Now, count the number of mosques in your neighbourhoods, note their locations, then stay well armed and safe...................FRegards
We can see it happens in sports as well - wrestling, boxing, team sports - a better player/team has an unquestionable dominance, but somehow is unable to squeeze out a last inch, punch, whatever to finish off the opponent that just hangs out there hopeless. But in a while this hopeless opponent becomes encouraged and not so hopeless anymore and just might steel a victory.
Iran is debatable, just because of its size, but there was nothing, absolutely nothing that precluded US to take Syria right after Iraq. There were plenty of causes. Somehow everybody forget that this whole exercise is about the message: don't mess with us (and our friends). The message was heard as evidenced by Qaddafi and Cedar revolution. But we allowed it to slip away again.
It was always relatively easy to kill a human. But in one point to create mayhem on a large scale required a comparable power and eventually a well developed industry - I am talking about Germany, Japan, USSR. Our technological development and global shrinking lowered the entry cost so much, that a determined individual or a group can well accomplish now more than only the powers of old could. Mayhem on the cheap. Welcome into 21 century. One of the solutions is an attitude adjustment: make all bandits and what is crucial their supporters pay so much that everybody else will get a message.
Not that it can remove the danger completely. Ruthless outlaws will be with us forever. But they should remain outlaws, and nobody pretending to be respectful should want to be associated with them. That's what was in the original message.
GOOD post!
VDH and gonzo bump!
Sorry for the delay in replying to you.
It's been a real mess here, lately.
But, things are back to normal, now...
whatever that is. ;o)
Well said.
Now both sides are dancing to a foreign tune. Only the Iraqis can stop this, and the race is now between their ability to do so and the impatience and factionalism of Congress. That part of the ISG report that actually addresses this is an affirmation of Bush's policies, an irony few in the MSM seem capable of appreciating.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.