Bomb Iran: Israeli Remix

"ISRAEL will almost surely attack Iran’s nuclear sites in the next four to seven months — and the leaders in Washington and even Tehran should hope that the attack will be successful enough to cause at least a significant delay in the Iranian production schedule, if not complete destruction, of that country’s nuclear program. Because if the attack fails, the Middle East will almost certainly face a nuclear war — either through a subsequent pre-emptive Israeli nuclear strike or a nuclear exchange shortly after Iran gets the bomb." ~Benny Morris

The insanity over Iran continues. The argument over war makes at least two leaps of logic that Joe Klein brilliantly points out here: (1) that Iran would use a nuke against Israel immediately after acquiring one and (2) that diplomacy will not work. Their basic underlying assumption is that the leaders of Iran are batshit insane. True, President Ahmadenijad may say some crazy things, but the real power lies with Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. So let's assume that he's somewhat rational:

(1) Iran has several good reasons not to nuke Israel. Fallout from a detonation within Israel would likely contaminate parts of surrounding Muslim nations--Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, the Palestinian territories--and millions of fellow Muslims would be affected. A nuclear strike would destroy or contaminate the al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, the third-holiest Islamic site.

(2) Diplomacy and economic sanctions do have an effect against Iran according to the National Intelligence Estimate released last November.

War with Iran, conducted either by Israel or by the U.S., is not the answer. Innocent Iranians would die in an attack; one of the enrichment sites is in the middle of a city of more than one million. A pre-emptive strike would inflame Iranian public opinion against the striker, and bolster Iran's hardline regime. There's no way either nation could be sure that they've destroyed all of Iran's uranium-enrichment sites. Iran will accelerate their nuclear program, and would now have a good reason to use a nuclear weapon when they get one.

Obama Understands Iraq

In an op-ed in yesterday's New York Times, Obama lays out his opinions on and his plans for Iraq, and he gets it exactly right. Some excerpts:

Only by redeploying our troops can we press the Iraqis to reach comprehensive political accommodation and achieve a successful transition to Iraqis’ taking responsibility for the security and stability of their country. Instead of seizing the moment and encouraging Iraqis to step up, the Bush administration and Senator McCain are refusing to embrace this transition — despite their previous commitments to respect the will of Iraq’s sovereign government. They call any timetable for the removal of American troops “surrender,” even though we would be turning Iraq over to a sovereign Iraqi government.

But this is not a strategy for success — it is a strategy for staying that runs contrary to the will of the Iraqi people, the American people and the security interests of the United States....

We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months...After this redeployment, a residual force in Iraq would perform limited missions: going after any remnants of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces. That would not be a precipitous withdrawal....

As president, I would pursue a new strategy, and begin by providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan. We need more troops, more helicopters, better intelligence-gathering and more nonmilitary assistance to accomplish the mission there. I would not hold our military, our resources and our foreign policy hostage to a misguided desire to maintain permanent bases in Iraq.

He also credits the surge with reducing violence; conservatives have been attacking him for not doing so.

Joe Klein, of Time magazine, has one complaint: "[Obama is] clinging to his 16 month [sic] timetable." I don't interpret it that way. In the editorial, Obama writes that "[i]n carrying out this strategy, we would inevitably need to make tactical adjustments. As I have often said, I would consult with commanders on the ground and the Iraqi government to ensure that our troops were redeployed safely, and our interests protected." To me, that sounds like he hopes he can withdraw the troops in 16 months, but that could change as events unfold.

Personally, I continue to be amazed that for all of McCain's foreign policy experience, Obama seems to understand the outside world much better.

Headlines: 23 June 2008

• Obama Camp Closely Linked with Ethanol: I'm going to have to disagree with Obama on this one. Subsidizing corn-based ethanol does little for the environment/sustainability/energy independence (Ethanol still causes pollution and the fertilizers used to grow corn are largely petroleum-based.) and raises food prices.
• Mugabe Rival Quits Zimbabwe Runoff, Citing Attacks: It's now entirely up to the international community to act.
• Is Israel Preparing to Bomb Iran?: It looks that way, but they shouldn't. Because when you engage in diplomacy instead of militarism, you get results like...
• ...North Korea invites media to nuclear plant blast: The six-party talks have resulted in the dismantling of the Yongbyon nuclear reactor.
• How George Carlin Changed Comedy: The irreverent stand-up comic is dead at 71.
• Getting to Know Jim Webb: Joe Klein says that veep "speculation is usually a waste of time. It is what political reporters do instead of reporting during the dead weeks after the primaries." What? My last two weeks of work isn't real journalism?
• The Warrior-Poets celebrate their 100th post:

Headlines: 20 May 2008 (and Older)

• 'W,' Oliver Stone's Bush Biopic
  

  A little crass.
  

• Klein on Obama:
  

  A general-election campaign between John McCain and Barack Obama doesn't need any hype. It won't be boring. The question is whether we, politicians and press alike, will grant this election — and electorate — the respect that it deserves.
  

• Make wearing a flag pin the 28th Amendment
  

  And the award for Best Use of Sarcasm goes to...
  

• The Fall of Conservatism
  

  The pendulum swings left? Long, but interesting.
  

• Obama and
  Ahma-gonna-kill-myself-if-the-primary-season-doesn't-end-soon-ijad
  

  Obama said that he would meet with the leadership of Iran, but he never said he'd meet with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. So why does McCain and everyone on the Right say he did? And when is that McCain-Obama foreign policy debate going to be?
  

• Underplayed Story of the Day
  

  Remember when the EPA denied the state of California to legislate its own fuel-efficiency standards? Well, it turns out that, like everything else in the Bush Administration, the decision was based on sound science, and not politics.
  

• Obama Is Expected to Hit a Milestone in Today's Votes
  

  After primaries in Kentucky & Oregon, Obama will have the majority of pledged delegates, which will hopefully trigger a superdelegate-slide in his direction.

Fear and Trembling

From Joe Klein:

[Attacking Moqtada al-Sadr] would have been extremely foolish. The U.S. would have been inserting itself into a part of Iraq that we don't know very well—the south—and taking sides against what is probably the most popular mass movement in Shi'ite Iraq. But the Petraeus battle plan apparently includes an anti-Sadrist move, which may mean a spurt of violence as widespread and vicious as the worst of the Sunni insurgency. Is that why the general wants a "pause" in the U.S. withdrawal this summer?

What could possibly be the rationale for this? Perhaps it is that Sadr's Mahdi Army is the most potent force opposed to long-term U.S. bases in Iraq—and that a permanent presence has been the Bush Administration's true goal in this war. I suspect the central question in Iraq now is not whether things will get better but whether the drive for a long-term, neocolonialist presence will make the situation irretrievably worse.

Conservatism vs. Liberalism

Sorry there hasn't been much blogging lately. My dog ate my posts.

There has been something of an ongoing feud between Joe Klein, of Time magazine, and conservative pundits that started with this article, where Klein said:

This is a chronic disease among Democrats, who tend to talk more about what's wrong with America than what's right. When Ronald Reagan touted "Morning in America" in the 1980s, Dick Gephardt famously countered that it was near midnight "and getting darker all the time." This is ironic and weirdly self-defeating, since the liberal message of national improvement is profoundly more optimistic, and patriotic, than the innate conservative pessimism about the perfectibility of human nature. Obama's hopemongering is about as American as a message can get — although, in the end, it is mostly about our ability to transcend our imperfections rather than the effortless brilliance of our diversity, informality and freedom-propelled creativity.

Gasp! Part two:

Conservative skepticism has its place; it can be a valuable corrective when government goes flabby and corrupt or engages in wild neo-colonialist fantasies abroad[...]But, historically, those who believed in the perfectability of our nation[...]have been right far more often than they've been wrong. Those who have stood in the path of progress have been wrong far more often than they've been right. And those who spent the past seven years as propagandists for the one of the worst, and needlessly blood-soaked, presidencies in American history, have such a fabulous record of self-righteous wrong-headedness that they needn't be taken seriously at all.

You have to admire the phrase 'self-righteous wrong-headedness,' even if you disagree with its implication here. Part Three:

In our lives, we have seen conservatives use racism as a political tool, war as a witless quest for domination, patriotism as a scourge, government as an instrument of greed, religion and "morality" as camouflage for spreading fear, ignorance and bigotry.

The latest installment:

It is, as I said, very sad that the Clinton campaign would have anything to do with spreading this sort of innuendo [Yes, some Clinton supporters are still trying to make an issue out of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, even though Barack Obama addressed it in the best speech a politician has given in my lifetime.]...and entirely predictable that the Republican Party would. When I talked about "spreading the poison" that's what I meant: a purposeful distraction from what should be real issues in this campaign--two wars, serious economic problems, the need to shift to alternative energy sources for national security and environmental reasons. On his radio show last week, Hugh Hewitt disagreed with me that those were the real issues. He made his agenda clear: Obama's positions on Jeremiah Wright, gun control and homosexuality were what mattered to "real" Americans. Now that's cynicism, of the rankest sort. Let's hope it's not the election we get.

So the problem is two-fold:

1. Republicans have abandoned the decent purpose of conservatism--to counter the liberal tendency to fix everything through government intervention--as George W. Bush has presided over the largest expansion of government, especially executive, power since the Nixon administration.
2. Conservative pundits are hopelessly out of touch with mainstream America. I may be ensconced in the liberal, ivory tower of academia, but homosexuality and a few comments a candidate's pastor made this one time are more important than war, national security, and energy independence? Give me a break.