Roger L. Simon: I have a question for Senator Reed

The NYT has a fascinating article (militarily and politically) on the use of EFPs against our troops in Iran. These lethal armor-piercing weapons seem most probably to have come from Iran. Even some of the anti-war Democrats agree, including Senator Reed of Rhode Island:

Senator Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat who opposed Mr. Bush's troop reinforcement plan, said he believed that the Bush administration was using the E.F.P. issue to distract attention from the difficulties in Iraq. But he said he was persuaded that the weapons were coming from Iran, in part from extensive talks with American and British commanders during trips to Iraq.

"They want to keep us under pressure in Iraq without causing a major power reaction by us or a major meltdown within Iraq, which puts a failing state on their borders," Mr. Reed said of the Iranians.

Well, Senator Reed, I have a question: You no doubt recall that Iran was at war with Iraq for most of the 1980s. In fact, according to Wikipedia, "Iraq offered a cessation of hostilities in 1982, but Iran's insistence from July 1982 onward to destroy the Iraqi government prolonged the conflict for another six years of static warfare. " Is that that consistent with fearing a "failed state" on your border or is that more likely consistent with wanting to take over that state on your border?

I don't expect Senator Reed to answer that question. [Perhaps he could ask Cong. Silvestri?-ed. Yes, perhaps.] But I would have liked the NYT to have asked something similar. It is logical, after all. But they choose to wrap up their article with this predictable quote:

"The fact that Iran may be supplying lethal equipment is all the more reason to deal with them," Lee H. Hamilton, a co-chairman of the panel, said in an interview. "We do think it fortifies the case for engaging Iran."

Comments

Comments require registration through TypeKey. Abusive remarks may be deleted. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Roger Simon.

Take it from someone from Indiana, Lee Hamilton is not the sahrpest knife in the drawer. Never was. Now he is a professional committee jumkie.

Once upon a time if our troops were being killed by someone...we tended to look upon that someone as an enemy. But that no more.

Now we make excuses for them...meanwhile they kidnap the sailors of our allies and still we talk.

I don't think a mass invasion of Iran is a good idea, however, it would be refreshing if people stopped pretending the Iranian regime is made up of normal people. Just like anybody else. You can sit down and have a chat with them because they are reasonable. etc. This is not true. There is nothing reasonable about these people. I wonder what they will have to do before the Reeds and Hamiltons of the world see that?

I'd settle for semi-randomly (from their perspective) pounding them. Hit the oil fields in the south one month. Next month, stray across the border and hit some of that traffic. If they don't like it, they can stop being so provocative themselves.

The New York Times is right, and yet is too stupid to know it. We do need to engage with Iran - as two swordsmen engage at the beginning of a duel.

Actually we were engaged by Iran, via their illegal embassy takeover of 1979, and continue to be prodded and poked and jabbed by Hezbollah and Hamas and al-Sadr and the aforesaid EFPs. It's clear that we have already 'engaged with Iran', though Lee H. Hamilton is too oblivious of facts to notice (he thinks it means appeasement). What we really need to do is determine what our next blow will be, and when to deliver it.

Time to go cowboy on these clowns.
I like to see an armored division do a little driving tour through Iran. Mabe do some 60 ton donuts on an Iranian nuclear military complex. Then just drive away, leaving trash behind us. Shouldn't take more than a month.
Let the Mullahs explain the whole thing to their kids.

To hear Sean Penn and George Clooney, they believe Iran to be some kind of paradise.

The reasons why they haven't offered to "engage" Iran themselves on our behalf remains a mystery.

I am not saying we should nuke someone, I am saying that is what the mullahs will have to do before people like Reed realize they are being played.

Oops, sorry Terrye, I missed the context. Sometimes I wonder, though, if even an Iranian nuke attack would move Reed and his ilk. They'd say it was our fault for provoking them.

to destroy the Iraqi government prolonged the conflict for another six years of static warfare. " Is that that consistent with fearing a "failed state" on your border or is that more likely consistent with wanting to take over that state on your border?

Well, I think it was due to the hatred they had of a Sunni based government next door to them... if the Shiites retain power, the Iranians will be happy. I am of the opinion that they have two dogs in the Iraq fight. First, I think they're supplying Shiite militias with weaponry and resources to kill Sunnis. Second, I think they're supplying whatever chaos they can in order to decrease any effectiveness on the part of the US, and further to embarrass us by our continued inability to impose peace.

Attacking them may seem intelligent, and probably would be if we were dealing with a typical nation. However, we're dealing with a nation that is neck deep in a pool of religious dogma. Any attack on Iran would likely be seen as very bad from the POV of most people in the Middle East (well, the Shiite ones anyway), it would also solidify support behind the government of Iran, Iranians may dislike their President, but they will dislike American bullets and bombs even more. Further, it would be unlikely to stem the support in Iraq, in all likelihood it would increase the support and probably start including lots more bodies to go with the guns.

They don't have to like the US. They just have to fear us. Given the current wishy washy nature of the country, I don't see that happening, though.

"any attack on Iran would ... also solidify support behind the government of Iran, Iranians may dislike their President, but they will dislike American bullets and bombs even more."

The Shi'a are in the minority in the Arab World, and they compose only about 15% of Muslims worldwide. They're in the majority in Iraq, Iran, Bahrain and, maybe, Yemen. I'm not certain about that.

But we can't be sure that the distrust among Sunnis for the Shi'a in general, combined with their distrust of Persians in particular wouldn't result in some quiet support in the region for military action against Iran. My guess is, it's inevitable in any case.

when the supreme leader of iran NO LONGER leads a hundred thousand iranians in a chant of "death to america", THEN AND ONLY THEN should we talk to them.

to get to that point will require unconditional surrender of the mullahcracy - either to us or their own people.

a preemptive attack might spur both: we just need to whack them with enough missiles over two weeks in order to destroy their nuke assets navy, air force, army, oil refineries and tunnels and bridges and power plants.

10,000 missiles in two weeks. that's less than 1000/day. and we do not invade or occupy. we walk away. and let the iranians pick up the pieces.

Should anyone still listen to Dem's macho posturing? How long ago did they vote to invade Iraq? Now they want to retreat before the next election. How long ago did they say Rumsfeld tried to fight the war cheap by not sending enough troops? Now they want to stop reenforcement and actually want to retreat. Why should Iran or anyone else care about what America says? We don't have credibilities. Dems say and do whatever to win the next election. They wanted to send more troops before 2006 because we did not have enough troops. They want to end the war before 2008 because they know nobody would trust them in a war. They are worse than al Quada who at least believe in what they say, and follow thru with actions. In other words, OBL has more principles than Reid and Pelosi.

This was discussed briefly a few days ago. If my memory serves me correctly, Steven Mitchell argued for something similar.

While I am not quite at the bomb Iran back to the Stone Age camp, I do believe that we must sonehow engage Iran in a manner that cannot be defined as appeasement. What that is I don't know.

dclydew is right that we are dealing with people that most of us would deem as irrational - much being driven by Islam.

These people are taught to hate - hate Israel, hate America. The Islamists are the face of evil today with their death cult. The latest example is the use of children in suicide bombings.

I believe we are in a fight with radical Islam and this is not a small cancer on the skin of Islam. It runs to the very heart of this "religion".

The fundamental tenets of Islam involve this world if not more than the next. (Google Dar Har and Dar Islam.) It seeks to dominate society, convert at the point of the sword or be killed or make second class citizens of non-believers at best. There is no freedom.

We need to understand as a nation the consequences, including unintended consequences, of any kind of attack on Iran. It's a very dangerous game. You can dispose of a regime, but you leave a power vaccuum. There are plenty of examples in history where this happened only to find a different than expected outcome.

Nevertheless, I do believe Bush has the stones to do so. Let's hope your political prediction does not come true.

They hit us (see 15 Brit sailors, quds in Iraq, etc) we hit them harder. Take out the navy, or an Army base, or a nuke site.

I am of the opinion that the past three hundred years of history in the area support the assertion. Every action taken by the US, Britain, Russia (and later the USSR) all involved exactly the sort of thing I asserted above. Study the history Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and how they react to external threats, then see if my assertion has any support or not.

We can learn from history, or we can let our zeal and patriotism lead us to a repeat of history. If we want a MidEast that's functionally different than the current one, I think we must look at what we (and every other westeren nation) have done wrong in dealing with the Mid East.

Al Queada didn't learn about their enemy from the history of Pearl Harbor and we se where its gotten them...

Fact: The Iranians are in a defacto war with us, usually by proxy, but occasionally involving their own troops. They were before Iraq. Iraq has just heated it up. The Iranians already cross borders and attack us.

Fact: The biggest military argument against invasion of Iran is the interior, both because of the cities and the logistics of the mountain ranges.

Fact: The biggest political argument against invasion of Iran is that the populace will unite, making the occupation seem like Iraq is a walk in the park.

Fact: The vast majority of Iranian oil is on the coast, in relatively flat terrain, in a lightly populated area.

Fact: Iran threatens to shut down the straits using their terrorist-enabling navy.

Fact: The mullahs maintain their stranglehold on the country in large part by selling the oil.

Given all of the above, and the recent provocations especially, a serious, useful move would be to invade the oil fields. Set up a guarded border, don't let *anyone* but the military and oil guys through. Anything crossing the border from Iran is shot on sight.

That will be the exact same situation we have now, except the mullahs just lost their navy, oil, and a major smuggling route. They can't be grabbing British sailors if those sailors aren't having to inspect ships.

Any dispossed Iranians can leave us their names for later reimbursement. The oil can be sold and put into a frozen account for the Iranian people when they finally get a decent government. (The longer they have to wait, the more interest they make.)

On the other hand, we pay restitution to Iranian-sponsered terror victims out of the fund. Every time we find evidence of Iranian interference in Iraq, we take money out of the fund. The formula is at our discretion and is flexible. If they don't like the way we do it, they back off.

They Iranians get the oil fields back when we get to do on-site inspections and completely dismantle and cart off every single piece of equipment or resource remotely related to nuclear power--or when the mullahs lose power, of course.

I have heard this tired argument before. It makes no distinction between conquering a nation (for the purpose of owning it lock, stock, & barrel--the story of most military actions in history), and invading it to overthrow the jailers who run the place.

You pretend that Iraq supports your case, but it does not. If the people of Iraq thought as you do, there would be a widespread insurgency--which is not happening in that country.

We would not see people signing up to join the army & police forces; we would not have the cooperation of so many people in finding Al Qaeda hideouts.

We would probably not have the massive turnout of voters, despite very real physical danger to them.

Troops returning from Iraq would be telling us that the press has the story right. They would not be saying that the press has distorted reality beyond all recognition.

Either you believe there is no distinction between conquering to own and conquering to toss out dictators and to enable people to forge a compromise government--or you believe that such a distinction is visible only to elites such as ourselves (snort!).

Your predictable failure to address this renders your argument as useless as the rest of the babbling of the anti-war crowd.

I suspect that the Euros and Chinese can be bought-off by giving them a field or two. We could offer to do security for a price if they don't want to do that themselves. (The French are particularly brutal at occupation.) With the field would come responsibility for running the relevant trust fund.

Not a bad idea! If this issue with the Brits doesn't come to a conclusion soon, I think that may be a valuable option. However, I think we'll need to reduce exposure of our troops on the Iraqi side before we try this... otherwise, instead of aiming at our boys guarding the oil, they'll take their frustration out on our boys trying to pacify Baghdad.

However, whacking their oil fields would probably make them sit up and take notice. Perhaps that combined with humanitarian food/supply drops throughout as much of Iran as we can reach. Once the oil fields are out of reach, the citizens will be in bad shape. If we aren't attacking them and they're not starving from lack of money, then they may not be as keen to back a regime which they already dislike. On the down side, this does seem similar to what the Russians did in Afghanistan in the mid-late 1800's.

However, something other than trying to be friendly will be in order if those British Soldiers don't head home soon. You plan sounds better than others that I've heard.

Your predictable failure to address this renders your argument as useless as the rest of the babbling of the anti-war crowd

I would ask that you retract that, as I am not anti-war. I have not participated in any anti-war activities, nor do I support the current bill that ties pork and deadlines to troop funding.

I do hold that we went about this war in a very foolish manner. I do hold that we still fail to understand the drastic differences between the mentality of the Mideast and the West. I further hold that this administration has done a piss poor job of selling the war, running the war and trying to manage things here at home. I don't disagree that the media and the Democrats have made this difficult. However, the Bush Administration has done as much, if not more damage to itself.

I was 100% behind our invasion of Afghanistan. However, our inability to understand the new face of war, how insurgencies work and how tribal systems work led to complete fuckups in that country. The Taliban disappeared into the populace and we somehow thought that meant we won (even though any study of wars since the 1950's would tell us otherwise).

Our invasion of Iraq, though well intentioned, was poorly sold, poorly researched and poorly planned. I feel that as a tax paying American, I have a right to critique and criticize our nations leaders when they fuck up with my money, my troops and my name. Rumsfeld made some bad decisions. Bush made some bad decisions. Whoever the hell was smoking the CIA crackpipe made some horrific decisions. In the end, we can and should be honest about these things (otherwise they;ll happen again).

However, all that aside, we are now engaged in something which we must win. We cannot simply pull out as the Dems want. We also can't pretend like two weeks of a troop surge proves that things are improving. As Gen Petraeus has pointed out a number of times, this is not an engagement of days, weeks or months, but one of years. Years that we must stay, because of errors made in the beginning of the war. It doesn't matter who made the errors at this point, we're morally chained to the success of a democratic government in Iraq and the pacification of its populace (things that our nation should probably not be doing... but alas, there's no choice now).

I'm anti-stupidity, anti-nationalist maybe even a little anti-Bush (mostly based on his boneheaded decisions outside of the war and his boneheaded associates), but I'm not anti-war. Your accusation seems to speak much more about your clouded world view, than my hippie leanings.

Note that I can't claim credit for the oil field only occupation idea. It's been bantered about enough that I suspect our government has considered it carefully.

I didn't forget the "stealing the oil" crowd. That's where the trust fund comes in. And since that won't satisfy the "stealing the oil" crowd anyway, might as well make the Iranians pay people they owe while we are about it.

If we have to bribe the U.N. and the EU with Iranian oil money, though, I have no objection. It should offset nicely the bribes that the Iranians use themselves. I've also got no problem with not so subtle hints to the Iranians that we'll consider turning over the fields to the French, Russians, or Chinese (or all three), if they don't back off. I'm even happy with a joint occupation by anyone in the U.N. security council that wants a slice. The Iranians *made* this issue about oil--not only theirs but the world's. So take that one off the table, set up the fund, and let the usual suspects howl about that instead of making up other conspiracy theories. Besides, the "stealing the oil" crowd doesn't mind oil getting stolen as long as the U.S.A isn't doing the stealing.

Or as the saying goes, "If I'm gonna get whipped anyway, I might as well be guilty of the crime."

"However, I think we'll need to reduce exposure of our troops on the Iraqi side before we try this... otherwise, instead of aiming at our boys guarding the oil, they'll take their frustration out on our boys trying to pacify Baghdad."

Yes, that would be the first thing they would try. Therefore, such a move must be clearly explained to the country, with the stated intention that any activity along the Iraqi border will be met with force, including response over the border. We aren't occupying that territory, though. We are doing search and destroy. If some particular site across the border is militarily useful, we occupy that--same as the oil fields. To the extent that Iran doesn't respect the border, we don't either.

I know it's a big enough border that we can't police it entirely. We can make the Iranians wish they hadn't got caught.

I believe neither point. Further, I don't believe that this has anything to do with the facts on the ground. Your choices are limited to two wrong suppositions and your reasoning behind them seems clouded.

Insurgencies are rarely "most" of a nation. In fact, as here in the US revolution, its usually a minority of the population that instigates, fights and supports an insurgency. We saw this in Afghanistan during the USSR/mujahadeen fighting. We saw in there during the wars of the 17 and 1800's.

Your position may be one that you find reasonable. However, my disinclination to support one of your two myopic options has little to do with being anti-war and more to do with a fundamental disagreement with you assumptions.

DD:
My calling you anti-war was a conclusion, and it was not relevant to my argument. Obviously I've wounded your feelings. I don't particularly care.

Simply ignoring the distinction I made does not make it vanish. You claim it isn't relevant and then cite absolutely nothing to support that claim.

The argument of the pro-war side (which I do not think you are on) rests on the basic idea that we are not conquering in the imperial sense but rather tossing out a dictator so that a representative compromise can be forged instead. This has been stated hundreds and thousands of times (perhaps millions of times)--yet to you it is irrelevant.

Well, if you ignore the premise, you are just not arguing in good faith. You're just making yourself feel good.

I thought the "pro-war" side was about stopping Saddam's WMDs from falling into the hands of terrorists? Or was it to enforce UN Resolutions? Or was it to bring democracy? Or could it be that there are a number of reasons that people supported/support the war, which may not be exactly the same as your reason de jour?

I supported the invasion of Afghanistan because it was a defensive move (not well executed, but a defensive move nonetheless) responding to the very real attack on our soil. Further, I continue my support for the destruction of Al Queada and any other terrorist group that believes that it can force America's hand.

I did not support the invasion of Iraq, because I thought it would turn focus away from our mission... the destruction of Al Queada and the capture of Bin Laden. Further, I was concerned that we had just wreaked havoc in Afghanistan and moving to a new theatre would simply allow the Taleban to reorganize and resurface. Finally, I was concerned that if there were WMD's that they might get used as a last Hail Mary play, or that the military would melt in the face of our forces and return to plague us as insurgents.

My support for the war, at this point has much more to do with the credibility of our nation, the moral responsibility we are now stuck with and the fact that, if we leave... Iraq will become a safe haven for Al Queada, even if it wasn't before. In fact, I would guess that Bin Laden would prefer Iraq, since it puts him right beside his primary target, The House of Saud.

I support the continued presence of troops in Iraq because we have made a mess and must clean it up, not because I think we'll give them the gift of democracy (I'm with Jefferson on that subject. Democracy isn't a gift, its a hard earned right and history indicates that those who do not earn democracy, fail to appreciate it and usually lose it). I think anyone who believes that we will succeed in giving the Iraqis representative government has slept through most of modern history. If it weren't for the fact that our leaving would precipitate mass murder, totalitarian control of the people by religious nuts and a big housewarming party for Bin Laden... I would support an immediate pull out. As it is, the best we can hope for is to stay there until the Iraqis figure out some way to calm the situation.

Well, if you ignore the premise, you are just not arguing in good faith. You're just making yourself feel good.

I was not ignoring the premise, I was simply pointing out that your two options are not the only options for my position. Note:

OR I am of the opinion that there are other issues at play, such as tribal politics, national pride, religious dogma and an irrational fear of "westerners", for starters which may come into play when the Iranians consider our motivations. I recall an interview with Shirin Ebadi, definitely not a friend of the Iranian government (in fact she had just won the Nobel Peace Prize for her work). When the person doing the interview asked her about US involvement to help liberate the Iranians from their oppression, she was vehement in her disapproval.This was not because she couldn't tell the difference, but rather because she felt that most Iranians (including herself) were responsible for changing their government and outside influence would be met with strong resistance. Maybe she was part of a vast left-wing conspiracy dedicated to keeping her job as an activist... or maybe your either/or set of choices were at least myopic.

dd, my point was that you ignored a major premise of the pro-war platform instead of attempting to argue with it. If you refuse to discuss the basics, all else is wasted.

Al Qaeda is at war with us, with democracy itself, with rule by man, with everything that is not Wahhabist Islam.

Our goal of establishing a democracy in their back yard is most definitely central to this war of ideas. And what is more, Al Qaeda knows this, even if the domestic opponents of the war have refused to acknowledge or even hear the argument.

In five years, every single argument I've heard against the war just talks past this premise (that it is a war of ideas), discarding it as so much trash, unworthy of examination.

Instead, the opponents to the war set up and knock down a literally endless series of straw men.

***
As for finally mentioning one data point in support of your original assertion, congratulations. Next explain how you *know* you can extrapolate from one person to an entire country.

I'm not saying I know what the Iranian population thinks. I'm just asking you to support your claim.

Roger writes, "The NYT has a fascinating article (militarily and politically) on the use of EFPs against our troops in Iran." I hope the last word is not a typo. I look forward to pictures of our troops checking the mad mullahs over for lice.

I think we should start over. I made a statement that it was likely (not a sure thing) that Iranians would likely unite to stand against Americans, even if they don't like their current regime. You asked if I had any basis for the assumption, to which I pointed at the past 300 years of history in the region. You claimed this a "tired argument" and then proposed some either /or scenario about what I believed.

I contend that attacking the Iranians will probably, based on the history of the region and the words of someone that wants to see regime change (among other statements, including that of some US generals), unite the Iranians against the US. Not because the Iranians are too stupid to see what we're doing, or because I personally believe that there's no difference between one sort of war and another. Rather, I think that this has more to do with religious indoctrination, national pride, tribal politics and the psychological state of the general populace in the region. What evidence do you have to support any position other than this?

As to my pro or anti war stance, I think that it was pretty clear above, but perhaps I'm wrong.

Toppling Dictators and giving a nation democracy is not something that I find compelling. It's been tried before, but usually it fails because the PEOPLE (the key part of a democracy) don't understand or appreciate the responsibility and work related to maintaining a democracy. Jefferson wrote extensively on the problems with this concept and honestly, I don't think Iraq has disproven my position... in fact, I'd say that the situation in Iraq fits closely with Jefferson's warning.

However, I do support the continued military action for several reasons. The fact that we accidentally stepped into a pile of shit based on poor intelligence, doesn't negate the fact that we still have to clean our boots. We have made a very big mess in Iraq and now we must clean up that mess. If we cannot leave Iraq as a stable nation (democratic or not, I don't care), then it will likely become a failed state run by sectarian leaders, terrorists and a tiny band of sane Kurds in the north. I think that will make the US far more vulnerable in the future (not to mention the damage to our reputation, international leverage and morale). Going into Iraq was probably unwise. Going into Iraq with the 'plan' that we did, was probably very foolish. Running away from Iraq at this point, is probably near suicidal for our nation.

dd:
I read this far and then stopped: "You asked if I had any basis for the assumption, to which I pointed at the past 300 years of history in the region. "

Which I argue doesn't apply to the case. You ignore this entirely and proceed merrily on your way.

Can I ask why you don't think that 300 years of history doesn't apply? People tend to act like people... if people tend to be consistent over a long period of time (like 3 centuries) usually we can predict the most likely response.

Or, are you saying that the Iranians would somehow magically know that we, unlike historical Britain, France, Russia and the US, had altruistic intentions? Keep in mind that the US is seen by much of Iran as the source of many of their problems and has on multiple occasions in the past 60 years or so, tried to install puppet regimes or prop up regimes that were unpopular with the citizens.

I am not saying that your scenario is impossible, it may be that we have thousands of CIA operatives in the country right now, covertly shoring up a grassroots movement to support our attack. However, I think we are at least, as justified, if not more justified in considering historical precedence as a much more likely indicator of what will happen. Iraq, unlike the predictions of the Administration has, thus far, acted in a way that aligns with historical events and with predictions by members of the armed forces that have studied the region and 4th generation warfare.

I understand the neo-con philosophy. I understand why Bush thought that a democratic Iraq would be a good thing. I would like to see every nation as a democracy. Unfortunately, the model made predictions which haven't agreed with the observations. In this case, its usually wise to assume that the model is likely flawed in some way. If another model's predictions do align with observations, then we usually consider it a useful model. Currently, the best model for predictive power has been one based on the history of the region. You can choose to ignore it if you want. However, I'm not sure why you think it a wise idea.

History does not provide us with much evidence at all about how a people will react to invaders whose stated goal is to replace a hated and feared dictator with leadership of the people's choosing.

The events so far in Iraq, which is the only case in history as far as I can recall, suggest that people are generally eager to have a say in their own lives, rather than rallying around the monster who made their lives hell.

Well it appears that we'll just have to disagree with each other. You seem set on the idea that your position is reasonable and I think it may be possible, but appears as quite a long shot. However, since you can't seem to get past that first point, I guess any further conversation on the topic is moot...

I could ask you to "get past" your premises, too, but I tried to engage you in a discussion of them. If you choose to keep your premises sacrosanct and out of harm's way, that's your business.

March 26, 2007: I have a question for Senator Reed

Comments

Post a comment

Email This Post