[lit-ideas] Re: The Iranian Threat
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 07:59:28 -0700
As to saber rattling, Ahmadinejad threatened to bomb Israel and when he was
head of the Pasdaran both Israel and Britain. I don't know what saber
rattling Bush has been doing. He has said he is taking the diplomatic route
but under questioning said that the military option is not off the table.
You accused me of saber rattling which means to me that you haven't read my
notes, but you pretty much already admitted that; so why am I writing this
one. I'll explain below.
Moving ahead, you mentioned Hitler. Chamberlain went over there with the
military option off the table. It's never a good idea to take that off the
table when dealing with a Hitler-type.
As to "war of aggression," that is what Saddam engaged in. That is what
Hitler engaged in. That is not what the Normandy invasion was about and if
we determine that Iran has nukes, it won't be what we engage in if we stop
Iran militarily.
A while back, perhaps when you were gone we discussed the fact that we
should have stopped Hitler before he got up a head of steam. Perhaps I
posted a quote from one of Niall Ferguson's books. He thinks Hitler could
have been stopped had Britain and France preempted him at some point prior
to 1937. More recently I read a book by Bevin Alexander who blames the U.S.
for Hitler's rise. He doesn't excuse us for our isolationism. He writes
that after WWI we were the most powerful nation in the world and we had the
responsibility for stopping Hitler. No one jumped into any of these
discussions arguing against this. No one thought that the stopping of
Hitler would have been a "war of aggression." Most of us know whether a
nation is being aggressive, invading Poland, Belgium, France, for example.
and can distinguish that from a nation attempting to stop an aggressor.
Of course those who hate us can accuse us of aggression. Why wouldn't they?
And if we stopped Iran before they got their bombs, where is the evidence
that they would have used those bombs to hurt anyone? How could we prove we
weren't being just like Hitler? So what do we do, do we give in to the
Bush-haters, the Islamists who hate us, and those who are our enemies? Do
we grind to a halt knowing that if we do something prudent like stop Iran
from getting the bomb they will say bad things about us?
I think we go ahead and do what's right. Those who hate us don't want us to
do that. Many don't trust us to do that, but should we return to our
isolationism because of that? We who have studied our history have learned
that if we don't do what we need to at the proper time, things only get
worse. We could have stopped Japan if we had acquired some sabers and
rattled them, but we were in no position to stop them. We weren't geared
for war and so they decided to hit the only thing that was remotely ready,
our Navy, and hope we couldn't gear back up in time to prevent them from
conquering the areas they wished to dominate. We think we have learned that
lesson, but we are still inclined to withdraw and pull the covers over our
heads. That is, there is a strong segment of society in America that wishes
to withdraw and leave them (those who get themselves into trouble) to their
own devices. Fortunately we aren't likely to have a government which wants
to do that, Republican or Democrat.
If we were to withdraw from all military action and tell everyone they are
on their own, the world would be very different from the one we know now.
Japan and the nations of Europe would scramble to obtain militaries capable
of defending themselves. Japan would want the bomb for sure because if they
can't depend on the U.S. they are going to need to depend on themselves.
China & North Korea have the bomb so they are going to need one for sure.
And the fear level of China and Korea, both of them, would go way, way up.
So who do we depend on for advice? We are in the position, as a result of
two European Wars which we reluctantly joined, to not have any one we can
rely upon as a comrade in arms, so to speak. Yes, some nations will be
willing to help, but they aren't in a position to do very much. Our
greatest ally in the Iraq war has said we are on our own if Iran needs its
nuclear program stopped militarily. Of course we aren't going to trust the
anti-Americans. We aren't going to trust those who threaten us. The U.N.
has proved to be ineffective due to the Security Council veto. We have to
decide back here in the U.S. through discussion, through debate in Congress,
in our State Department, and in journals, books and discussion groups what
is best to do.
You wrote about me last night, "You pick your conclusions, then your
authorities. That's why so few here give credence to what you say." So if
few give credence to what I say, why should they bother reading me? Shall I
worry about that? Shall I let the fact that they believe this shut me up and
turn me into an intellectual isolationist? I decided I can't be responsible
for what anyone else thinks beyond a certain point. If they say something
about me that is false, and your statement about my picking conclusions,
then authorities is false, I feel I have an obligation to state what is
true. Andreas, Mike and Irene have accused me of this in the past, of
picking authors who agree with my "right-wing" position, but they are at a
disadvantage as I suspect you are in not having read these authors and not
really knowing what their positions are. A while back I listed the authors
of books I had read recently and discussed what their positions might be. I
think one or perhaps two of 15 or 20 could be considered Right Wing.
Consider my recommendations in my previous note. Robin Wright for example
is definitely not a right-winger. She is considered in Edward Said's camp
in regard to Middle-Eastern studies, but I can read and enjoy her books
because she has integrity and doesn't let any prejudices get in the way of
honesty - at least not in the books I've read. Mohammad Mohaddessin is an
Iranian and clearly doesn't fit the left-right mode. He isn't an author I
knew anything about before I read him. I read him because he had lived
through the first few years of the Khomeini revolution.
Ilan Berman is more difficult to classify. He is one of the many analysts
I've read but I'm not sure what his political position is. He enumerates
the terrorist-type activities Iran has engaged in. He describes the
Hezbollah (developed by Iran), the weapons it has and the activities it has
engaged in. He doesn't propose military action, but he says Iran's getting
nukes is unthinkable. He proposes diplomatic and economic actions but says
we need to hurry because they may be only a couple of years a way by one
estimate. His book was published in 2003.
Bevin Alexander is also difficult to classify. He is a military historian
and in his book How American Got it Right, the U.S. March to Military and
Political Supremacy he does a quick run through American history discussing
the things we did right and did wrong from a military standpoint. He chose
his title because he thinks we did more things right than wrong throughout
our history. I mentioned his arguing that we got Hitler wrong. He doesn't
excuse us for being isolationist at the time. We were wrong for not
stopping Hitler when we were the only ones in a position to do so. When he
gets to modern times he doesn't discuss whether we should invade Iran. He
writes "In all likelihood we will have to enter renegade states that don't
want us there or failed states, like Somalia, that cannot prevent terrorist
cells from locating there. This may inspire qualms and misgivings among
some of our Western European allies. But the emphasis in the future will
probably be on rooting out terrorists rather than on overthrowing tyrants
like Saddam Hussein. Consequently, the grounds for dispute between America
and Europe should lessen dramatically in the years ahead." Perhaps
someone might think that anyone who considers military options as Alexander
does must be on the Right, but Zinni could have written that.
So I have resolved to spend as little time as possible defending myself from
inaccurate or misleading attacks. I'll correct inaccurate and misleading
statements but if someone is bent upon Lawrence-bashing then I'll leave them
to it and return to my library. I think our administration has no recourse
but to do something similar. They should correct inaccurate and misleading
attacks but should not allow themselves to be crippled by them. They have a
responsibility for doing what is right in regard to national security and in
regard to meeting our obligations for security world-wide. I'm sure I can
communicate much better than Bush but I haven't deterred you, Mike, Omar and
Irene from Lawrence-bashing. It's going to happen. We can't be government
by it.
Lawrence
-----Original Message-----
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of John McCreery
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 1:45 AM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: The Iranian Threat
Lawrence,
Let us take it as given that,
> This belligerence is a function of their ideology. They are
ideologically
> opposed to infidels and to Muslims who don't share their Militant
> Fundamentalism.
The question is how you deal with such people. And I, for one, am no
great believer in "Be nice and they'll be nice, too." In one familiar
analogy, Mahmud Ahmadinejad is Hitler, and firm steps to squash him
might be in order. He might on the other hand be a Stalin or Mao, in
which case the sentences written above could be rewritten as,
> This belligerence is a function of their ideology. They are
ideologically
> opposed to capitalists and to socialists who do not share their Stalinist
(or Maoist)
> views.
Quite so, but this did not prevent MAD from being an effective
strategy that prevented nuclear war for half a century. Nor does it, a
priori, discredit the likely effectiveness of a strategy of
containment, a la George Kennan.
What we do know for sure is that saber-rattling a la George Bush or
Lawrence Helm is pecursor to a war of aggression that will be, however
effective the initial air campaign, not a terribly good idea for all
of the reasons that Zbigniew Brezinksi so clearly articulates.
To persuade me otherwise, you would have to demonstrate more than
Muslim animosity, which I am perfectly willing to grant you. You would
have to demonstrate not only that Mahmud Ahmadinejad is a Hitler
wannabe but that he is, at the moment you propose to start this war, a
clear and present danger and that you or those you support have some
sort of coherent plan for what happens next, after the bombs start
falling, the Straits of Hormuz are blocked, the global economy tanks,
and billions of Muslims know absolutely that their lives are worth
nothing if America is panicking and threatening to use nuclear weapons
itself.
Until then I will take your arguments to be what I take those of
George Bush to be, at best paranoid ramblings, at worst a tissue of
lies that your fears make you too willing to accept at face value.
Sorry 'bout that. What is is what is.
John
--
John McCreery
The Word Works, Ltd.
55-13-202 Miyagaya, Nishi-ku
Yokohama 220-0006, JAPAN
Other related posts:
