The above picture says it all regarding the attempt by Ahmadinejad and his mullah puppet-masters to steal the Presidential election in Iran. Thus far the dithering statements by Obama on this matter are well-parodied by the indispensable Iowahawk here.
If Obama would like to make a speech that truly indicates where America stands, I suggest the following:
“Good evening.
As I speak to you tonight, the fate of a proud and ancient nation hangs in the balance. They have been betrayed by their own government.
The men who rule them fear the very freedom that the Iranian people cherish. They have answered the stirrings of liberty with brute force, killings and mass arrests. The target of this repression is the dissident movement, but in attacking the Iranian dissidents their enemies attack an entire people. By persecuting the dissidents, the Iranian Government wages war against its own people.
I urge the Iranian Government to consider the consequences of their actions. How can they possibly justify using naked force to crush a people who ask for nothing more than the right to lead their own lives in freedom and dignity? Brute force may intimidate, but it cannot form the basis of an enduring society, and the ailing Iranian economy cannot be rebuilt with terror tactics.
Iran needs cooperation between its government and its people, not military oppression. If the Iranian Government will honor the commitments it has made to human rights in international agreements, we in America will gladly do our share to help the shattered Iranian economy, just as we helped the countries of Europe after both World Wars.
But if the forces of tyranny in Iran do not relent, they should prepare themselves for serious consequences. Already, throughout the Free World, citizens have publicly demonstrated their support for the Iranian people. Our government, and those of our allies, have expressed moral revulsion at the police state tactics of Iran’s oppressors. Islamic leaders in Iran have also spoken out, in spite of threats and intimidation. But our reaction cannot stop there.
I want emphatically to state tonight that if the outrages in Iran do not cease, we cannot and will not conduct “business as usual” with the perpetrators and those who aid and abet them. Make no mistake, their crime will cost them dearly in their future dealings with America and free peoples everywhere. I do not make this statement lightly or without serious reflection.
We have been measured and deliberate in our reaction to the tragic events in Iran. We have not acted in haste, and the steps I will outline tonight and others we may take in the days ahead are firm, just, and reasonable. To underscore our fundamental opposition to the repressive actions taken by the Iranian Government against its own people, we are imposing a broad range of economic sanctions against Iran, and we’re proposing to our allies the further restriction of high technology exports to Iran.
These actions are not directed against the Iranian people. They are a warning to the Government of Iran that free men cannot and will not stand idly by in the face of brutal repression. To underscore this point, I’ve written a letter to President Ahmadinejad. In it, I outlined the steps we’re taking and warned of the serious consequences if the Iranian Government continues to use violence against its populace. I’ve urged him to free those in arbitrary detention, to lift martial law, and to restore the internationally recognized rights of the Iranian people to free speech and association.
There is a spirit of solidarity abroad in the world tonight that no physical force can crush. It crosses national boundaries and enters into the hearts of men and women everywhere. In factories, farms, and schools, in cities and towns around the globe, we the people of the Free World stand as one with our Iranaian brothers and sisters. Their cause is ours, and our prayers and hopes go out to them this evening.
Good night.”
I am sure our readers will have no problem determining what speech the above address is based on. The Iranian government, and those Iranian protesters in the streets going up barehanded against armed thugs, are each, in their own way, reminding Americans again how precious our freedom is. If our current government isn’t going to speak out clearly on the slaughter underway in Iran, then ordinary Americans will have to do so.
A great source to keep track of what is happening in Iran is here.
Update I: Apparently even Clinton and Biden are pressuring Obama to take a firmer tone in regard to Iran.
You are aware that the US is responsible for snuffing out democracy in Iran in the first place, that this event led to the 1979 revolution, and that Iranians still hold a grudge about this today, right? You are aware how hollow this rhetoric sounds, given the US’s history of propping up a string of oppressive regimes in the region, right? You are aware that the Iranian opposition groups are urging the US to stay quiet about this, right? You are aware that a strong US condemnation along your lines would be a great gift to Ahmadinejad and Khamenei, right?
You are aware Tony that your one trick pony Obama-Uber-Alles act is tiresome beyond belief, right?
It would be nice, Donald, to actually engage the arguments I made instead of turning to the same tired old personal attack that you make on practically every topic.
You are aware that a strong US condemnation along your lines would be a great gift to Ahmadinejad and Khamenei, right?
Yes, this talking point in defense of Obama has been repeated ad nauseum, but like the charge of Calvinism, it doesn’t become any truer based on repetition.
The funny thing is the Iranian state run media has already tried to pin the protest movement on the American government, but the Iranian people are not the useful dupes that so many of the “just stay quiet” brigade believe them to be.
Morning’s Minion:
Why not compose a list of foreign countries which meet the following criteria:
1. Located in the Near East, North Africa, or Central Asia;
2. Whether sovereign or not, constitutionalist in their political practice with scant interruption during the years running from 1953 to 1979;
3. Not yet accused of ‘war crimes’ by ‘Morning’s Minion’.
—
When you are done, why not construct a list of foreign countries whose political practice has been, during the post-war period, consistently constitutionalist while having a literacy rate which averaged under 20%.
I don’t engage you Tony because your comments are non-serious. You are a political partisan who will say literally anything to defend or advance the policies of Obama.
Now if I were to ignore the fact that all of your comments might as well have “copyright of the DNC” stamped on them, I would respond as follows:
“You are aware that the US is responsible for snuffing out democracy in Iran in the first place, that this event led to the 1979 revolution, and that Iranians still hold a grudge about this today, right?”
My guess is that the Iranians in the street today care quite a bit more about Ahmadinajed and the mullahs than they do about the dumping of Mossadeq in 1953. Also, only someone very unfamiliar with Iranian history could contend that Mossadeq was a democrat with a straight face.
“You are aware how hollow this rhetoric sounds, given the US’s history of propping up a string of oppressive regimes in the region, right?”
Tony, the US just fought a war to topple the most oppressive regime in that area and to install a functioning democracy. You opposed that effort tooth and nail. Please make up your mind.
“You are aware that the Iranian opposition groups are urging the US to stay quiet about this, right?”
Actually Tony quite a few Iranian opposition groups here and abroad are calling for the US to speak out.
“You are aware that a strong US condemnation along your lines would be a great gift to Ahmadinejad and Khamenei, right?”
As Paul has already noted Tony, they are blaming us for meddling anyway. Better to let the Iranian people know that we stand with them and not with the tyrants who currently have the guns, especially when there is a chance that they may not have the guns much longer.
As much as I often disagree with MM on a host of domestic and economic issues he is 100% right on this issue and he is just not spouting Obama/DNC propaganda. Patrick Buchanan has supported the Obama strategy of dealing with Iran – is he a wild eyed leftist.
http://www.takimag.com/article/outlasting_the_ayatollahs/
However, you neo-cons aren’t happy unless you are helping people of other nations by bombing them back into the stoneage.
The problem, Donald (and Paul) too, is that you arrograntly view the world through the lens of the United States and its politics. Everything must be fitted into your neat little partisan baskets.
Well, let me break it to you — this is not about the US. This is not about Iranians wanting to live like Americans, or to have the same political system of Americans. It is about Iranians — most of whom remain committed to the principles of the Shia revolution — standing up to injustice in their own country and on their own terms. When you arrograntly make references to the “free world”, this is exactly the kind of blinkered rhetoric that will backfire.
And as for your pathetic attempts to turn this into a partisan squabble, nobody serious thinks the US administration should be taking intemperate statements at this point. I said nobody serious — the neocons have been. And they were proven so right about Iraq, were they not? Of couse, many neocons like Marty Peretz actually want Ahmadinejad to win, as it gives then an excuse to blow the bugles of war. They need their Iranian devil. That’s all they can understand.
The reality of course, is far more nuanced. It quite possibly represents a power struggle between Khamenei and Rafsanjani– the latter being obscenely rich and lilke probably obscenely corrupt. Remember, Mousavi is a firm believer in the islamic state, and was quite likely behind the founding of hezbollah. So, please, let the Iranians fight their own injustices on their own turf in their own way.
Of course Ahmadi and Khamenei are blaming the US — that’s their trump card. It would be foolish to give legitimacy to that charge.
And who cares whether Moassadeq was considered a “Democrat” by US standards? He was the elected leader of Iran and was overthrown to protect western oil interests. In turn, Pahlavi oversaw one of the most brutal regimes in the area, using torture techniques that would shock even Dick Cheney. The result was the revolution.
Finally, as Daniel Larison notes, if Obama gave the kind of speech you spell out above, you and your neocon friends would be mocking him for being incredibly naive. It’s always politics with you, it’s always US-centric. Well, I’m sorry, but this isn’t about you. Butt out.
The problem, Donald (and Paul) too, is that you arrograntly view the world through the lens of the United States and its politics.
Umm, the basis for my rebuttal is an understanding of the Iranian people, based in part by several Iranian commenters who have pressed for Obama to be more vocal. Not sure how that is viewing things through an American lens.
The rest of your comment is just – and there’s no polite way to put it – dumb. Seriously, it’s the kind of stuff I might read from an angry teenager on the walls of a DC area pub.
However, you neo-cons aren’t happy unless you are helping people of other nations by bombing them back into the stoneage.
Aside from the fact that few if any of us would identify as neo-cons, it’s a rather strange allegation. We’re rooting for the revolutionaries precisely because we don’t want to engage in a shooting war. I’m not exactly seeing the connection behind hoping that a people successfully overthrows a tyrannical oligarchy and wanting to “bomb them back into the stoneage.” But if Pat Buchanan said it it must be true.
You understand the Iranian people, Paul, because you have heard “several Iranian commenters”? That’s the best yet. I suppose you believed that the Iraqis would welcome the US occupying army with flowers because Ahmad Chalabi told you so? Unbelievable. You need to get out more.
“Everything must be fitted into your neat little partisan baskets.”
Interesting case of projection there Tony. I defy anyone to find a more partisan hack than you on Saint Blogs.
“It is about Iranians — most of whom remain committed to the principles of the Shia revolution — standing up to injustice in their own country and on their own terms.”
Pardon me while I stifle a deep laugh. The principles of the Shia Revolution that have saddled them with a government far more corrupt and barbaric than anything they knew under the Shah. My guess is that most Iranians would prefer to consign the rule of the mullahs to the ashheap of history as fast as they can. However, there are always plenty of useful idiots in the West eager to laud any third world tyranny, no matter how squalid, if it mouths anti-American platitudes.
“And as for your pathetic attempts to turn this into a partisan squabble, nobody serious thinks the US administration should be taking intemperate statements at this point.”
Standing with the Iranian people is not intemperate Tony, and if your Messiah in the White House were doing so you would be lauding him to the hilt. Assuming that he does a 180 on Iran in the next few days, and I think he will probably be forced to by events, it should be humorous to have you explain why Obama was right to reverse his policy.
“They need their Iranian devil. That’s all they can understand.”
Yep, Tony, it’s those evil JOOOOISH Neo-Cons who are the enemy and not Ahmadinejed and the mullahs. Got it.
“Remember, Mousavi is a firm believer in the islamic state, and was quite likely behind the founding of hezbollah.”
By Iranian standards Mousavi is a reformer now. In any case I defer to what the Iranian people in the streets demand. It was their election that was stolen. I also suspect that Mousavi is merely a vehicle by which most Iranians can attack a widely-despised regime.
“And who cares whether Moassadeq was considered a “Democrat” by US standards?”
Obviously not you Tony. He is merely a stick that you can wield in order to defend the dithering of Obama.
“Finally, as Daniel Larison notes, if Obama gave the kind of speech you spell out above, you and your neocon friends would be mocking him for being incredibly naive. It’s always politics with you, it’s always US-centric. Well, I’m sorry, but this isn’t about you. Butt out.”
Actually Tony, I have stated on this blog that I support Obama’s current policy both in Iraq and Afghanistan. If he changed his policy on Iran I would cheer the change. After he changes his policy, no doubt you will join me in the cheers.
who cares whether Moassadeq was considered a “Democrat” by US standards? He was the elected leader of Iran and was overthrown to protect western oil interests.
At the time of his overthrow Moassadeq had suspended parliament and was ruling via “emergency powers.” Any claim he had as a democratically elected leader had already evaporated.
Tony, my point was simply that the I’m not basing my objection to your point to some silly “Americanist” reading, but from what I have read directly from Iranians. That they might not represent all Iranian thought on the matter goes without saying. However, I think mere common sense dictates that the bulk of the Iranian people are not fooled – or are far less fooled by the propaganda being pushed by their leaders and the puppet press.
BA:
So what if Moassadeq was a ‘true democratic leader” or not. The U.S. has no business medling in the elections or governance of other nations. There has not been one time that we have done it that it has not resulted in worse blow back or evils then those we were trying to prevent.
By the way, are you saying that it is alright for a country to be governed by a tyrant so long as it is our tyrant (e.g., the Shah, Samosa, Pinochet, Sadam (at one time our guy), etc.?
Don:
Thanks for proving your strongest forte is engaging in straw man attacks. I would have been disappointed if you had not resorted to calling those who oppose the disasterous neo-con foreign policy of the past 8 years as anti-semites. It sure beats arguing the facts. Why don’t you drag out your old issue of the National Review so you can list all those anti-semite isolationist conservative Republicans who argued that the U.S. should not invade Iraq and that doing so would be disasterous to the U.S. and the Republican party – their prediction sure turned out to be wrong – right.
Finally, who gives a rat’s *** what Iranian groups here or abroad are calling for the U.S. government to do. The U.S. government should not base its foreign policy upon what the Israel Lobby, the Persian Lobby, the Albanian Lobby, the Polish Lobby, the Irish Lobby etc. wants – that has been the root of our foreign policy problems and disasters of the past century. America foreign policy has not been defined by what is best for America but by what is best for other groups or peoples throughout the world. I’m tired of us sticking our noses into hornet’s nests at other peoples request and then complaining when we get stung.
he U.S. has no business medling in the elections or governance of other nations. There has not been one time that we have done it that it has not resulted in worse blow back or evils then those we were trying to prevent.
The Japanese, South Koreans and Germans, to name a few, might have some quibbles with that sentiment.
Awakaman, no thank you for attempting to deny the undeniable, that “neo-cons” is often thrown about, especially in paleocon fever-swamps, as a short-hand for Jews.
As for the facts, that is precisely what I have been arguing. Time to have your eyes checked.
Awakaman, we won in Iraq. Even Obama admits that, much to his chagrin.
Isolationism didn’t work back in the Thirties Awakaman and it will not work now. Our oceans offer us scant protection from either nuclear weapons or terrorist attacks, and it is idiotic to pretend otherwise.
BTW, I don’t think anyone here has advocated for a forceful American interference in this matter. What is being suggested is that President Obama say something meaningful to show support for the Iranian dissidents, something which European leaders like Sarkzoy have already done. This is not exactly a neocon desire for needless meddling, unless the Europeans are all neocons now.
“Standing with the Iranian people is not intemperate Tony…”
I stand with the Iranian people. As a believer in the gospel of non-violence, my heart stirs when I see waves of peaceful protestors walking in total silence. I admire the great Persian culture and I am intrigued by Shia mysticism. But I would not arrogantly claim that the Iranians must adopt a western-style democracy. I would not arrogantly claim that the Iranians, who are risking their lives on the streets, will appreciate the kind of condescension you would wish to convey to them, about the “free world” standing behind them, when they look at the “free world” and see hypocrisy.
What should Obama do? I’ll tell you. Pope John Paul understood the virtues of confession and apology. He expressed his regret over and over again for the sins of the Church in the past. Obama should do the same. He should say that he regrets the US overthrow of an Iranian leader to secure the flow of oil, he regrets US support for the shah, he regrets the military support given to Iraq during the 1980s, he regrets the one-sided approach to the Israeli-Palestinian issue, he regrets the invasion of Iraq, torture, and the camp at Guantanamo. He should the extend an olive branch to Iran and seek peace. That’s what he should do, but it’s not going to happen (oh, sorry, I wasn’t supposed to criticize Obama, was I? :))
Blame America first, last and always eh, Tony? Your Leftist European provincialism is stunning. That is also why Obama is ultimately going to break your heart. The US is not going to be transformed into Sweden or even the UK. The US will remain true to its history, and the Obama debacle will be a cautionary tale for Americans for generations to come.
By the way, are you saying that it is alright for a country to be governed by a tyrant so long as it is our tyrant
No. I just don’t think a choice between tyrants should be portrayed as a choice between a tyrant and a democrat.
I suppose I’m deeply naive, MM, but I find it hard to credit the idea that the Iranian protestors holding up signs with slogans written in English for photographers to see are standing there thinking, “Boy, I sure hope that Obama apologizes for the US supporting the Shah and for toppling the dictatorship in Iraq — but restrains himself from saying it would be unacceptable for the Revolutionary Guard to slaughter us.”
…the Iranian protestors holding up signs with slogans written in English for photographers to see are standing there thinking..
Important observation, Darwin. Not that the world doesn’t utilize English to a fair degree, but I can think of no other motivation in this case than for the protesters to be communicating to the West as well. I originally thought it best for the President remain tight lipped for a while too, and I still lean that way. However, I heard one criticism of Obama’s handling that did give me pause. Iowahawk picked up on it too. It’s not that Obama has been tight lipped that’s so much a problem, it’s that he hasn’t been tight lipped and characterized the whole affair as dialogue. Well sorry, people don’t die in dialogue – and characterizing it as such is basically saying that we stand behind you Ahmadinejad.
Yeah, I don’t think it would be wise or appropriate for Obama to come out in support of Mousavi or to call for the abolution of the current regime — but I think that a more general recognition of the yearning being expressed in these protests for the democratic process to work, and an emphasis on how the international community would respond to violent repression, would be appropriate. Without endorsing the protesters goals explicitly, their right to protest without being slaughtered would be loudly supported.
It’s a fine line, but one that needs to be walked.
In turn, Pahlavi oversaw one of the most brutal regimes in the area, using torture techniques that would shock even Dick Cheney. The result was the revolution.
I think if you examine the reports issued by Freedom House during the period running from 1973 through 1978, you will note that their assessment of the quantum of civil liberties and political participation in Iran put it proximate to the median of the Near East and North Africa, and not at all out of the ordinary for a non-occidental country. Pakistan, Morocco, Egypt, Turkey, Lebanon, Kuwait, Bahrain, Cyprus, and Israel qualified as more liberal. The government in the region given to exceptional cruelty was not that of Iran but rather Iraq.
Authoritarian government was and is the default mode in the Near East. Attributing same to the acts of the United States government (‘propping up’, &c.) may be a pleasing evasion for the chatterati of the region but is false and should not be given credence by the current President or anyone else.
The Government of Iran had passable relations with Israel for 31 years; they ceased to maintain such relations for no reason more compelling than their own ideological frenzies. There is no need for the President to apologize for that; it is their problem, not ours.
Nor is their any reason to apologize for whatever limited co-operation the United States government had with Iraq during the period running from 1985 to 1988. The Iranian cause was not so self-evidently just that it should have trumped reasons of state.
You can’t have it both ways. You cannot have the United States crusading for “democracy” around the world, and cozying up to dictatorial regimes at the same time. I accept the point well that one must often deal with unjust rulers, as that’s the nature of the world, and it has always been Catholic practice. One can even do this and still stress the virtues of human dignity, but to elevate the promotion of “freedom” to some kind of divinely-mandated principle (hello Wilson, Dulles, Reagan, Bush) is another matter entirely. It is arrogant, it is tone-deaf, it lacks nuance, and it is dualistic in a derivately Calvinist way (shout out to Paul here!).
Though I do find it a little ironic that supporting Saddam Hussein in the 1980s (possibly the worst of the worst) was seen as OK, but supporting Obama today is verboten.
I do draw the line with war – it might have been OK to deal with Saddam on the level of statecraft, but it was serious cooperation with evil to support his military endeavors (just as it was evil to overthrow him in later years).
But consequentialism looms large in American culture. It will not be overcome until people recognize the great evil perpetuated by the war criminal Harry Truman against the people of Japan. And yet, most Americans, across the partisan spectrum, argue that this was fine, appealing to consequences (future lives saved). But that is beside the point — an intrinsically evil act is an intrinsically evil act, period, and the direct targeting of non-combatants is as evil as it gets.
I tried to search out the word “Carter” here. Forgive me if I miss it, it was Jimmy Carter who seems to be why Iran is a problem. We abandoned the Shah. It seems with Carter and unwittingly his bookend Obama, there are some glaring foreign policy errors.
MM,
Yet even without taking the modern Western understanding of political freedom as a divinely-mandated principle, I can see little wrong with hoping to see less bad forces win out. Is it really so very bad to want to see the mullahcracy in Iran be mitigated or swept away? Can you bring yourself to want to see something better for the Iranians, who clearly want such a thing, even if it puts you in company with the dreaded neo-cons?
Also, at the risk of going off on a tangent, I’m struck by your comment:
I do draw the line with war – it might have been OK to deal with Saddam on the level of statecraft, but it was serious cooperation with evil to support his military endeavors (just as it was evil to overthrow him in later years).
Do you seriously think that overthrowing the Baathist dictatorship in Iraq via war (which was pretty clearly the only way it was going away — whether war with an outside power or some sort of civil or revolutionary war) was something that was clearly evil? I can see holding that because the Bush administration was foolish enough to base the Iraq War on preemption of supposed WMDs that it was therefore an unjust war, but I honestly can’t see the claim that removing Hussein’s dictatorship (which as you state was one of the worst in a bad region, when it comes to human rights and oppression) via war would be necessarily and objectively evil.
Do you really hold that the objective of removing Hussein’s dictatorship was necessarily an insufficient causus belli for anyone, anytime? Or just an insufficient one for Bush at that time, for the stated reasons?
Darwin,
Read what I said above. I think the stirring of the Iranian people is wonderful, and the passive resistance appeals top me, but (i) the US sticking its nose where it is not wanted will make things worse (just as Peretz needs Ahmadinejad, Ahmadinejad needs somebody like Bush); (ii) it would be arrogant to tell the Iranians that they deserve western-style “freedom” — the Iranians want to stamp out the abuses of the Shia state, but they are by no means secularists in the western sense. And that’s fine.
On your second question — you know well that the just war criteria set exacting standards, and if the criteria are not met, the war is evil. And just because a regime is odious does not mean it should be overthrown by force, especially given the destructive power of modern weaponry. Think of the implications — what would you say if Ahmadinejad threatened to invade the US to prevent a million abortions a year?
The United States needs to stay out of this one, pure and simple. They shouldn’t be meddling in affairs they don’t understand, in a culture they don’t understand under conditions they don’t understand.
Let the Iranians sort this one out. Its their show. We will only make it worse, like we have in so many other conflicts.
you know well that the just war criteria set exacting standards, and if the criteria are not met, the war is evil. And just because a regime is odious does not mean it should be overthrown by force, especially given the destructive power of modern weaponry.
Actually, the standards as laid out in the catechism do not strike me as necessarily that exacting, unless one weights them with a certain set of assumptions. The Baathist regime was clearly one that could only be removed by war, it’s violence was continuous and immediate, other means of removing it had long ago been exhausted. The only possible hold would be the claim that the evils of war would be worse than the evils of the regime itself — which is probably where we part ways. The Church does not require functional pacifism, and indeed through must of its history it has been quite open to war for rather less cause than getting rid of a regime as odious as that of Hussein.
Still, it’s instructive to know where we stand on the topic. I suppose one of the interesting side points is that since you believe the removal of Hussein to be an unjust and evil act, you necessarily would have to see it as legitimate to defend Hussein’s regime by force. In another place, this would put us exchanging shots rather than words. Though it would hardly be the first time that serious Catholics found themselves across a battlefield from each other.
Think of the implications — what would you say if Ahmadinejad threatened to invade the US to prevent a million abortions a year?
This is a point which is silly, bordering on the juvenile. You yourself have frequently made the argument that the US government is not directly responsible for abortions in the way that Iraq’s government was responsible for its atrocities (or the way Bush was responsible for the Iraq War, though I consider that a just act rather than an atrocity). Quite obviously, invading the US would thus not be able to directly thwart abortions in the sense that invading Iraq was able to directly remove the Baathist regime and its barbarities. Indeed, Ahmadinejad would only be able to stop abortions instantly by implementing the sort of public executions and reign of terror which is far to common in Iran already.
Also, I think its quite arguable that there’s a higher threshold of justification when it comes to overthrowing an openly democratic republic (which can thus, obviously, be changed through peaceful means) than there is to a military dictatorship which can by definition only be overthrown by some sort of military action, if only a bloodless coup.
Rumors going around that there could be a massive crackdown by the government of Iran tomorrow.
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/06/18/tomorrow-tiananmen-in-tehran/
May God watch over those brave protesters.
If only enough of the Revolutionary Guard will refuse to fire on their own people…
Darwin:
Ratzinger once mused that the very existence of a just war can be questioned in the modern age, given the destructive power of the weaponry. I think that is probably right — at the very least, it sets the bar extremely high. Too often, people today view war like a giant thrilling video game, courtesy of cable TV and “embedded” journalists, oblivious to the human misery. See Guadium Et Spes 80 on this point. Also recall also John Paul’s heartfelt plea in Centesimus Annus:
“Never again war! No, never again war, which destroys the lives of innocent people, teaches how to kill, throws into upheaval even the lives of those who do the killing and leaves behind a trail of resentment and hatred, thus making it all the more difficult to find a just solution of the very problems which provoked the war.”
As for Iraq, I could challege: (i) disproportionate evils, as you note, but also (ii) last resort – we all know the war was preemptive; (iii) Saddam’s genocidal actions had ended in the early 1990s, meaning there was no immediate threat to the world community (and the WMD excuse was fabricated); (iv) competent authority– I follow the Vatican in that, in the modern world, the UN is the only entity that can make these kinds of decisions. No, at the time of invadion, Saddam was just another tinpot dictator, one of many.
Mother Jones may say WMDs in Iran was fabricated. This is easy to say now. Many Democrats were talking about what a threat Saddam was as well.
I would also add to MM’s list (v) Iraq’s military never recovered from the first Gulf War, it toppled over in a matter of weeks, and Iraq’s entire economic and social infrastructure – without which a country cannot wage war – had been disintegrating under the pressure of sanctions for over a decade.
Iraq was a sitting duck. It was weaker than the Ukraine in that game of Risk that Newman and Kramer played on Seinfeld.
I’d also add that the media is obviously hospitable to Liberals. It has been widely reported in some media that WMDs were spirited out of Iraq.
http://www.nysun.com/foreign/iraqs-wmd-secreted-in-syria-sada-says/26514/
“The man who served as the no. 2 official in Saddam Hussein’s air force says Iraq moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria before the war by loading the weapons into civilian aircraft in which the passenger seats were removed.
The Iraqi general, Georges Sada, makes the charges in a new book, “Saddam’s Secrets,” released this week. He detailed the transfers in an interview yesterday with The New York Sun.”
Democrat citations on Saddam and WMDs: http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/who-is-lying-about-iraq
Al Qaeda has been a main foe in Iraq. So, those connections are apparent as well.
Ed Morrissey is right on target with this post at Hot Air:
“However, the people of Iran also clearly understand this. The crisis has moved beyond Mousavi, and Khamenei knows that. The people in the street may shout Mousavi’s name, but their protests have evolved into a protest against being ruled and not governed. Mousavi could choose to join that fight, or he could choose to remain within the ruling system, but the people on the street now may choose to fight absolute rule without him. Khamenei can’t back down without losing his conceit of infallibility in temporal matters, and if the Iranians refuse to return to the yoke of tyranny, then this will get ugly very, very quickly.”
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/06/19/khamenei-rigging-what-rigging/
Larison, the “true conservative” (unlike the phonies, you know who you are:
“All of this comes back to the problem of Republican denial about why they lost power. They are supremely confident about their views on national security and foreign policy, and they cannot conceive that a majority of the country would reject them because of the policies they advocated and enacted. Worse still, they remain wedded to the hectoring, moralistic and aggressive approach of the last administration, in which sanctions and condemnation are the only “soft” tools they understand. They are so wedded to this approach that that they think this is not only the best kind of foreign policy, but that anything other than this is fecklessness and surrender. To a disturbingly great extent, replacing the current leadership may not have much of an effect on shoddy foreign policy thinking on the right, because the rot is so deep and widespread, but it is particularly important that Republicans in positions of responsibility at least attempt to play the role of credible, informed opposition, which may sometimes mean acknowledging that the President has handled an issue correctly. It will also mean building up the credibility and knowledge to challenge and resist the President if he embarks on misguided or irresponsible courses in the years to come.”
Tony, contrary to Mr. Larison, conservatism is not synonymous with head in the sand isolationism. Larison and his fellow paleocons are chiefs with very few followers among American conservatives.
Donald, how do you define an American conservative? I see little emphasis on morality and the social order. I see little evidence of prudence and evolution over utopianism and destruction. These are the traditional markers of conservatism. Instead, I see a weird mix of Enlightenment-era liberalism that calls for “small government” and a radically individualist notion of freedom, combined with an America-centric nationalism that calls for “big government” and an attempt to remodel the world in its own image. What is remotely conservative about that?
Oh, and by the way, the man on the right who actually knows something about the world (as opposed to the current crop of Republican Know-Nothings), Henry Kissinger, thinks Obama is doing the right thing: http://thinkprogress.org/2009/06/18/kissinger-obama-iran/
Joe Klein who is just back from Iran sends the same message — all shades of Iranian opinion see the US as great medddlers who should stay on the sidelines.
Paleo conservatives are neither paleo, nor conservative. Discuss.
Tony, your analysis, as usual, is littered with strawmen and infantile caricatures. Even neocons at this point place significant emphasis on morality and the social order, though they tend to be slightly more utopian than I am comfortable with (and thus why I am not a neocon).
Also, as a member of the progressive left, you have a lot of nerve calling anyone else a utopian. The entire Obama program is a repackaging of the same old Wilson-era attempts at building a perfect (not more perfect) society, something which the Democrats have been building upon ever since.
Oh, and by the way, the man on the right who actually knows something about the world
Haven’t you been complaining this entire thread about the US cozying up to dictators? Isn’t that a hallmark of realist foreign policy? Isn’t Henry Kissinger the paradigmatic figure when it comes to realism? So now Henry Kissinger, who the left universally despised about 30 years ago, is the man who knows something about the world. Talk about convenient flip flops.
I see little emphasis on morality and the social order.
Really? Are you kidding? American conservatives never talk about morality and social order?
That’s an interesting perspective…
But then, who would have thought that we’d see the day when you’d be singing the praises of Henry Kissinger, a man who is probably responsible for more foreign policy decisions you deplore than any other single person.
I’m not sure what you’re getting at, though, with the “US must stay on the sidelines” line of argument. The most that anyone is suggesting is that Obama should speak strongly to the right of the protesters to make themselves heard without being arrested or slaughtered, and perhaps at the outside threaten that consequences would follow if they are arrested and slaughtered.
That sounds pretty far on the sidelines to me.
Though perhaps the greatest tragedy of the last eight years is that many on the left, and MM seems to share in this instinct, now reflexively want to see the nascent democracy in Iraq fail, and to see more oppressive regimes win out or continue in other countries in the Middle East, simply to prove out their conviction that Muslims are incapable of having democratic freedoms, and thus prove Bush wrong. That, and perhaps a desire to keep as many high profile enemies of Israel on the playing board as possible.
It’s unfortunate to see people supporting oppressive regimes simply out of desire to see their political vendettas carried forward.
Tony, I’ll see your Joe Klein and raise you a David Ignatius of the Washington Post.
“President Obama was right to speak carefully about the events in Iran during the first week of protest. But it’s time for him to express his solidarity with the Iranians who are so bravely taking to the streets each day. He can do that without seeming to meddle if he chooses his words wisely.
Obama should invoke the Iranian yearning for justice — which was a powerful theme of the revolution. He should cite Iran’s own rich history of political reform, going back to Cyrus the Great, whose declaration on good governance was chiseled in the Cyrus Cylinder in 539 B.C. He should cite the Iranian constitution of 1906, which established elections and basic freedoms. Democracy is not an American imposition but an Iranian tradition.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/18/AR2009061803369.html
As for Dr. Kissinger, as his opening to Red China might indicate, human rights have never loomed large for him as a diplomatic issue. You quoting the master of RealPolitik is one of the more amusing portions of this thread.
In regard to American Conservatism, you obviously have no understanding of it.
As Reagan eloquently indicated in 1964, a concern for the liberty of those who are not Americans is not some sort of neo-Con deviation from true conservatism, but rather goes to the heart of what it is to be an American conservative.
MM,
You never fail to demonstrate your uncanny ability to employ such perverse application of Ratzinger’s work (indeed, any number of catholic teaching for that matter) in order to advance your own deplorable ends.
Indeed, though it meant rending the very fabric of moral integrity & one’s own Catholic Faith; in the past, you have went so far as to justify the atrocrious tenets of the Culture of Death in order to advocate the ascendency of your abortionist political demagouge (or, rather, demigod), Obama, even at the cost of compromising Catholic teaching.
As for your “enlightened” opinions, I scant recall a conservative who lauded the Leviathan State and the general perniciousness of ‘BIG GOVERNMENT’.
As for isolationist controversies alluded to earlier, most such folks I recall weren’t really conservatives per se; rather (and even more precisely), these were largely of the ‘America First’, ‘Socialist Party, USA’ brand as well as any number of those eminating from the hotbeds of student leftism.
I can only venture the guess that you hail from the same homeland as these.
* I believe Henry Kissinger is a notorious war criminal (the bombing of Cambodia alone merits that deisgnation) – then again, so was Harry Truman. But I am also well aware that Kissinger knows his foreign policy very very well. We’ve come a long way from Kissinger to know-nothing agenda of the Bush years, still peddled by the shameless neocons (see Krauthammer and Wolfesitz in today’s Washington Post– for shame).
* Yes, morality and the social order are certainly priorities of the American right — though far more so around these Catholic circles that the wider Fox News cicles. But it is attached onto everything I listed above: Enlightenment-era “small government” liberalism plus nationalist “big government” interventionism, a liberal understanding of “freedom”… I do not see these ideas rejected too often around here. Whatever they are, they are not conservative.
* The discussion of “democratic freedoms” in Iraq is exactly an example of what I am talking about. I desire peace and justice in Iraq– I’m not particularly concerned if the form of government is is democratic, dictatorial, monarchist, federal, secular, religious, or breaks up into multiple regimes. Right now, the cost of your precious democracy has been a million deaths and 4.5 million orphans, and five million displaced. Ethnic tension is rampant, and our Chistian brothers and sisters are suffering most. To march into a country — with no knowledge of its history, its culture, its religious traditions, the post-Ottoman colonial legacy, the suspicion of the United States — to deliver “freedom and democracy” through the barrel of a gun is outrageous, arrogant, and dangerous.
* This is also how I view Iran – I am 100 percent behind the Iranian opposition, because they are seeking justice on their own terms, and they are doing with without violence. They are rallying behind a veteran of the theocratic state, and man who wants to return to the good old days of Ruhollah Khomenei, and who campaigned on that very premise. We saw today that Khamenei is lashing out out foreign meddlers. That’s what he wants. Do not play into his hands. This is not about the US. It is about Iran. Time to butt out, people.
* Am I a member of the progressive left? In some sense, yes. I follow the teachings of the Church in that a follower of Christ cannot be merely conservative, seeking a static society, but must also be dynamic, anticipating the eschaton. The very title of Christ — Salvator– was deliberately chosen to convey this dynamic sense, when the obvious Roman world “conservator” was rejected. And Catholic social teaching is rich and powerful, and goes far beyond wither statism of free market liberalism. I am actually more in line with European Christian democracy, which I understand veers sharply left on the American scale– I certainly adhere to the social market of Catholics like Konrad Adenauer. Part of the reason is that I don’t accept the false barrier between “church” and “state” but that’s a whole new topic.
The Iraq Body Count puts the civilian death toll at about 96,000 as we speak, some portion of which are not attributabile to the U.S. Military.
Can you define the term ‘war criminal’? Can you specify how it might include Henry Kissinger, who was, prior to August of 1973, a functionary of the Executive Office of the President with a staff of perhaps 30 and with no authority to command any American soldier bar Alexander Haig and a few others who had been seconded to his offices?
The entire juvenile population of Iraq is perhaps 11 million. Do I take it your contention is that 40% of the youth of Iraq have lost both their mother and their father attributable to American military action?
I am actually more in line with European Christian democracy, which I understand veers sharply left on the American scale– I certainly adhere to the social market of Catholics like Konrad Adenauer.
I suppose that, as Americans, we should feel somewhat flattered that while you’re “not particularly concerned if the form of government is is democratic, dictatorial, monarchist, federal, secular, religious, or breaks up into multiple regimes” in Iraq, you _do_ apparently consider Americans to be sufficiently similar to your continent of origin that you support implementing Adenauer-style Christian-democracy in the US — despite the fact that Adenauer’s political views were very much formed by a particular time and place in European history which is foreign to American history and experience.
What is the distinction that makes oppressive government acceptable in the Middle East, because it’s their culture you know, but demands that US conservatives abandon the 250 years of American political and intellectual heritage which they might rightly claim to “conserve” and instead embrace a post-war (briefly after WWI and briefly again after WWII) intellectual movement which is European in nature?
Perhaps Morning’s Minion would care to explain which of the following are ‘know-nothings’, and why.
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Joseph_Burns
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._David_Welch
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleeza_Rice
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Crocker
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zalmay_Khalilzad
6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Negroponte
7. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_petreaus
8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Abizaid