The Guns of November

Newsweek ^ | July 9, 2008 | Michael Hirsch

[Schnucki]

In "The Guns of August," her much-quoted history of the start of World War I, Barbara Tuchman wrote that European leaders were "appalled upon the brink" by their own martial posturing and "attempted to back away" from the devastating conflict that was about to start. But at the eleventh hour "the pull of military schedules dragged them forward." A tipping point had been reached in which war had gained its own grim momentum. Cooler heads could no longer prevail. John F. Kennedy, drawing on his own searing experience during the Cuban missile crisis, several times referred to the influence of "The Guns of August" in private. In his famous speech in the spring of 1963 calling for a comprehensive test-ban treaty, JFK pressed for a more energetic diplomacy of peace in order to prevent heads of state from reaching such tipping points toward war.

But we seem to keep arriving at them anyway. The news of Iran's test Wednesday and the seemingly unstoppable nature of its nuclear program made me wonder whether we are close to another such tipping point. And whether it's too late to turn back. Tehran's test-firing of nine long- and medium-range missiles was intended to "demonstrate our resolve and might against enemies who in recent weeks have threatened Iran with harsh language," said Gen. Hossein Salami, the Air Force commander of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards, on state TV. That was a reference to recent reports that Israel has been war-gaming an attack on Iran. "Our hands are always on the trigger and our missiles are ready for launch," Salami added. Coupled with recent Israeli signals--including former defense minister Shaul Mofaz's statement last month that Israel would have "no choice" but to attack Iran if it doesn't halt its nuclear program--the standoff has grown notably more warlike

[1rudeboy]

The Guns of August is a great book, and I recommend it.

[sandbox]

The analysis of where we stand is correct, but the conclusion that the US negotiate with Iran doesn’t follow. Negotiate about what? The leaders of Iran are Islamofascist non-rational state actors.

Two ideas I have read:
1. US or Israel to completely destroy one facility, as an example to Iran of what will happen.
2. NATO or coalition to stop all refined gas imports to Iran, until they stop nuclear program.

[Dixie Yooper]

John F. Kennedy, drawing on his own searing experience during the Cuban missile crisis, several times referred to the influence of "The Guns of August" in private.

Searing experience? He hadn't been President for 2 years yet? If he had searing experience, he would have referred to the influence of "The Prince" instead of "The Guns of August".

[SECURE AMERICA]

(But we seem to keep arriving at them anyway. The news of Iran's test Wednesday and the seemingly unstoppable nature of its nuclear program made me wonder whether we are close to another such tipping point. And whether it's too late to turn back. )

It does not matter where WE are our, what WE think or what WE want.
The Islamofacists will expand the war as they see fit. Their goal of destroying civilization and returning it to their glory days of the 7th century may require a nuclear exchange with say Iran and Israel. If the Mullahs believe this is so, then it will happen regardless of diplomacy or wishing or hand ring or whomever is President of the US...

[sandbox]

ping.
This is what our rational and logical opinion columnists can’t seem to comprehend. The Iranian leadership appears as suicidal as those who committed the 911, London Subway, and many other jihad attacks.

[HIDEK6]

Gen. Hossein Salami

So, do they call him "Hogie" for short?

[Pietro]

Barbara Tuchman was a great historian and I recommend anything she’s written, particuarly “A Distant Mirror” about the calamotous 13th century—very, very good.

[Tallguy]

I’m not sure that the WW1 analogy holds only because the disparity of strength between the antagonists. Iran is way outmatched by almost any measure you care to use. I’m not saying that Iran couldn’t do some considerable damage. Rocketing US bases in Iraq; doing the same to Saudi oil fields, dropping a Shahab onto Tel Aviv; closing the Strait of Hormuz — all are real possibilities. I just don’t think that they could sustain the military effort for long.

[Excellence]

Remember that the goal here is to trigger the return of the Mahdi, and the way to do this is to throw the world into chaos. That Iran set off multiple rockets is a good indication of their eventual strategy. One mass launch, multiple targets; it would be impossible to knock them all down. It would result in retaliation from perhaps exclusively two sources - the U.S. and Israel. Either way, Iran's religious leaders get what they want - chaos. Whether that triggers the return of their Mahdi is another question.