12.20.08
This option may yet look viable to Western decision-makers
Michael Ledeen is one of those bracingly plain-spoken observers who tries to give good sense an airing despite the cacophony. In this Pajamas Media post, he looks at the implications of The Chicago Marxist’s promise to Israel to protect it under a nuclear umbrella (which is tantamount to accepting an Iranian nuke), and concludes that such a move, and Iran’s strategic response, may force TCM to consider the one option that should have been pursued – well, probably way back in the Dutch era: regime change.
MR. Dings said,
December 20, 2008 at 11:20 pm
We won’t be trying that regime change thing, at least ostensibly, for a while again, I hope. There is a thought or two out there that Cheney-Bush strengthened Iran by invading Iraq, forcing regime change there but giving Iran a foothold unlike it had never had before in Iraq. Let’s make this a world problem, and let’s do this in due time, and not rush into it. If it makes you feel any better, all indications are that the naive and inexperienced Obama is going to be led around by the nose by the Pentagon. So, you can expect more thrills and chills, starting with Afghanistan.
MR. Dings said,
December 20, 2008 at 11:31 pm
Oh yeah, kinda like Dutch’s (illegal and unconstitutional?) efforts at regime change in Nicaragua. That worked, eh? They have not bothered us since except for some words like this that can never hurt us, but will we bother to try, at least with them, again? We now have bigger fish to fear in our hemisphere:
With the 2008 economic downturn he said that capitalism is in its death throes and the Bolivarian Alternative for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA) is the most advanced, Christian and fairest project. He also said God was punishing the United States with the financial crisis for trying to impose its economic principles on poor countries. “It’s incredible that in the most powerful country in the world, which spends billions of dollars on brutal wars … people do not have enough money to stay in their homes.”
Don’t that make US mad? Again.
MR. Dings said,
December 21, 2008 at 5:06 am
I admit it’s only fingering the blame here, like we’ve been doing with the American-induced (not inspired) worldwide economic mess, which again shames me to be an American, though still free to be me if I eschew certain behaviors (or get caught with the evidence thereof) which are considered harmful to myself and hence the state, I guess, though we were raised on freedom or the idea of it, at least taught to die for it and now enough of us still march to just that word (and ban French fries and burn Dixie Chick records), whether a true threat is involved or not and actually surrender their freedom of even thought and certainly surrender certain civilian civilities to become soldiers to hopefully kill, not die for it, (if maimed, pray the VA has been reformed), but at least our armed forces, for now (until we have to reinstitute the draft since the Pentagon is calling for 60,000 beating young hearts to start thumping more seriously on Afghanistan and our incoming commander in chief cannot possibly have the knowledge and experience (though Chicago-style fundraising is kind of a paramilitary operation in its own right) remain voluntary, but one observer sees it thus:
“To coerce Iran into ceasing its uranium enrichment program, the Bush administration has relied on U.N. sanctions, the efforts of a European negotiating team, and stern presidential warnings. The mismanged Iraq War has undercut all these efforts. After seeing the United States go to the United Nations with allegedly irrefutable evidence that Iraq possessed chemical and biological weapons and had a covert nuclear program, foreign governments and publics are understandably skeptical about the veracity of Bush administration statements on Iran. The Iraq experience makes many countries reluctant to support meaningful sanctions not only because they doubt administration statements but because they are afraid President Bush will interpret any Security Council resolution condeming Iran as an authorization for war. With so much of the U.S. military tied up in Iraq, the Iranians do not believe America has the resources to attack them and then deal with the consequences. They know that an attack on Iran would have little support in the United States–it is doubtful that Congress would authorize it–and none internationally. Not even the British would go along with a military strike on Iran.”
–from “Unintended Consequences: How the War in Iraq Strengthened America’s Enemies by Peter Galbraith (yes he’s John Kenneth’s son, the Keynesian and an institutionalist, a leading proponent of 20th-century American liberalism and progressivism. His books on economic topics were bestsellers in the 1950s and the 1960s.
know you won’t like his political pedigree), AB, MA, JD, Commonwealth School, Harvard College, Oxford University, and Georgetown University Law Center, served on the staff of the United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee from 1979 to 1993, where he published many reports about Iraq and took a special interest in Kurdistan. In 1993, he was appointed the first U.S. Ambassador to Croatia by President Bill Clinton. In 1995, he was the co-mediator and principal architect of the Erdut Agreement that ended the war in Croatia by providing for the peaceful reintegration of Serb-held Eastern Slavonia. He later served with the United Nations in East Timor, where he was head of the UNTAET political section and Cabinet Member for Political Affairs and Timor Sea in East Timor’s first Transitional Government. He was East Timor’s lead negotiator for maritime boundaries with Australia and produced two agreements, including the 2002 Timor Sea Treaty, that effectively quadrupled East Timor’s share of the petroleum resources between the two countries. He taught at the National War College (1999, 2001-2003).
Bentnotesmanhisself said,
December 21, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Thought you’d trot out the Galbraith tome.
By the way, our help to the anti-Sandinista resistance in the 1980s helped end the Cold War and create the space for freedom and prosperity to gain a foothold in Central America.
Bentnotesmanhisself said,
December 21, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Galbraith does not address the screaminly primary aspect of the Iran situation – even if the “world community” wouldbe skeptical, and even if the U.S. citizenry would not support any kind of force against Iran, what do we do when they get their nuclear arsenal? And surely a smart guy like Galbraith isn’t saying “Bush was wrong about Saddam having a ready-to-go WMD arsenal, ergo, anybody who says Iran is single-mindedly pursuing one is wrong,” is he?
MR. Dings said,
December 21, 2008 at 7:53 pm
More quotes from Galbraith are forthcoming because he really does not want to see a nuclear Iran either and blames Bush for talking tough but walking too softly. Gotta dash off to holiday fete at present.
MR. Dings said,
December 21, 2008 at 7:56 pm
His daddy’s “Great Crash of 1929″ which has been a perennial best seller since its publication (still on college reading lists), although Keynsian, deserves a reread in these days where what has gone around appears to have come around.
http://www.amazon.com/Great-Crash-1929-Kenneth-Galbraith/dp/0395859999
Of course, Galbraith notes, every financial bubble since 1929 has been compared to the Great Crash, which is why this book has never been out of print since it became a bestseller in 1955.