“Beware of Neocons Bringing Up Nazi Germany” was the working title of this post but I chucked it in favor of a header more reflective of my mood this morning.
It is indeed disheartening to read this piece in the Weekly Standard by Mr. Kristol, a usually clear headed, incisive thinker, who raises the specter of Hitler’s march into the Rhineland as a simile for our situation with Iran:
IN THE SPRING OF 1936—seventy years ago—Hitler’s Germany occupied the Rhineland. The French prime minister denounced this as “unacceptable.” But France did nothing. As did the British. And the United States.In a talk last year, Christopher Caldwell quoted the great Raymond Aron’s verdict: “To say that something is unacceptable was to say that one accepted it.” Aron further remarked that Blum had in fact seemed proud of France’s putting up no resistance. Indeed, Blum had said, “No one suggested using military force. That is a sign of humanity’s moral progress.” Aron remarked: “This moral progress meant the end of the French system of alliances, and almost certain war.”
William Shirer said basically the same thing in Rise and Fall of the Third Reich which, given the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, is certainly true. But it is also true that trying to compare French reluctance to stop the Germans from re-militarizing what, after all, was their own territory with trying to prevent the Iranians from getting the bomb is a bit of a stretch. It had been 18 years since Versailles and the treaty by that time was seen as a disaster. Even without an integrated Europe, war reparations (suspended by the allies in 1930) along with depression had emasculated the German economy. By 1936, some politicians saw a weak Germany as a drag on their own economies (and a poor buffer against the Soviets). Hitler marching into the Rhineland killed the treaty once and for all, a turn of events that the shortsighted French did not view unkindly.
I understand what Mr. Kristol is struggling to say; that IF France and Great Britain had acted, Hitler would almost certainly have been deposed by the Wehrmacht allowing Europe to avoid World War II. Let’s not quibble with metaphors. Let’s quibble with the notion that taking action against Iran has the real possibility of igniting a war, not stopping one.
If we think we have problems in Iraq now with the Sunni insurgents and al Qaeda terrorists, they are nothing compared with the trouble that several hundred thousand Shia militiamen would cause if we bombed Iran. Muqtada al-Sadr, who has promised to unleash his militia against Americans if we bomb Iranian nuclear sites, is just waiting for an opening like this. At a time when other Shia parties are seeking to marginalize the young firebrand, he would suddenly become a hero to ordinary Iraqis (despite their reservations about Iranian influence in their country). Of course, our military can handle al-Sadr but at what cost? And what if other Shia militias including the Badr Brigade join in? We’d be faced with an entirely new situation on the ground, every hand raised against us, one that the left would spin as a second Tet Offensive.
In short, disaster. Kristol may argue that it would be worth it if we could take out Iran’s nuclear program sooner rather than later despite the fact that the Iranians are years from achieving success in building a bomb but I don’t see the rush. Kristol does:
Given Iranian president Ahmadinejad’s recent statements and actions, it should be obvious that it is not “a sign of humanity’s moral progress”—to use Blum’s phrase—to appease the mullahs. It is not “moral progress” to put off serious planning for military action to a later date, probably in less favorable circumstances, when the Iranian regime has been further emboldened, our friends in the region more disheartened, and allies more confused by years of fruitless diplomacy than they would be by greater clarity and resolution now.
I’m sorry, but I believe this to be utter nonsense. The situation two or three years from now may, in fact, be enormously improved. At the same time, how much will things really change in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, our “friends in the region” who would be “more disheartened” if we go the diplomatic route for the present? And if – an admittedly big if – we can get the Europeans to go along with a sanctions regime that has some real bite, the rickety Iranian economy (more than 20% unemployment) along with a restive populace may moderate the Iranian regime for us. At the very least, we can work like hell to deny the Iranians materials that would assist them in building a bomb. Centrifuges don’t grow on trees. Denying Iran the elements to manufacture them would probably be a good idea.
And how much more “confused” can our allies be than they are now? I daresay holding off on the military option unless it was absolutely necessary would have our friends more apt to assist us in sanctions. As far as Russia and China, I mentioned in another post that they need the west a lot more than they need Iran. Any overt undermining of the sanctions would not be taken lightly by us or our allies. Rhetoric in Iran’s defense is one thing. Actually encouraging the mullahs in their bomb making plans by circumventing sanctions is something else entirely.
Finally, Kristol draws what I believe to be an erroneous conclusion about our Iraq adventure:
The strategist Eliot Cohen was correct when he told the New York Times last week, “I don’t get a sense that people in the administration are champing at the bit to launch another war in the Persian Gulf.” They’re not. No one is. But it is also the case that a great nation has to be serious about its responsibilities, even if executing other responsibilities has been more difficult than one would have hoped.
“Great nations” should also know not to bite off more than they can chew. Our power is not unlimited. The consequences of an Iran strike have been detailed elsewhere including my own take here. Mr. Kristol, who seems to be advocating a “sooner rather than later” strike against Iran (presumably after sanctions fail) must also know the potential consequences of bombing Iran.
Therefore, one wonders about his last statement regarding our difficulties in Iraq. Can’t we be “serious about [our] responsibilities” while at the same time cognizant of our shortcomings? Seems to me, that was exactly our problem in Iraq. Too few troops, too optimistic about handling the insurgency, too little effort at both reconstruction and training the Iraqi army – and here we are today. Iraq is still something of a mess and time is running out to turn the situation around before the political will to stay and finish the job evaporates completely.
Far be it from me to criticize Mr. Kristol’s intent or question his base assumption that Iran with nukes is a very bad thing and needs to be blocked if at all possible. But I’m coming around to the notion that when you have no good choices, there can be no good outcomes. If this make me a defeatist on Iran so be it.
UPDATE
William Arkin of WaPo has this breathless piece of merde regarding war planning full of ominus sounding acronyms, changing metrics, invasion scenarios, and war games.
Wake me when we start shifting military assets closer to the war zone. Tap me on the shoulder when we start getting overflight permissions from the half dozen or so countries where our planes will have to overfly (places where people will be falling all over themselves to leak that fact to the press). Kick me in the shins when we start shifting half the US Air Force around.
We won’t be able to hide preparations that envision at the very least 700-1000 sorties to take out the known Iranian nuclear sites. And if ground troops are involved, you’re talking about a buildup comparable to Desert Storm – about 4-6 months.
Arkins point – that we should throw an arm around the Iranian’s shoulder and tell them that we are, in fact, planning for war and that they better play ball with the international community and stop enriching uranium is well intentioned but myopic. And his analogy with Iraq is curious. Saddam may have believed we sent 160,000 troops to sit in the desert in order to get suntans but no other rational human being did. Everyone on the planet knew we were going to invade.
The problem with all the talk of “war planning” is that it makes us weaker, not stronger. We have time for alternatives to war. If decision time were six months away I’d say go ahead, sit down with Iranian representatives and show them what we can do if you think that will help. But such is not the case and talking about war plans now only plays into the mullah’s propaganda campaign at home and abroad.
We have a good three years to get our stuff together – build a coalition, initiate meaningful sanctions, and plan for the worst. The leaks in recent weeks about our military options have served their purpose of warning the Iranians that we mean business. Arkin suggests we go public by having Rumsefeld say that yes, we are planning for war with Iran. I think this wrongheaded and may in fact have the opposite effect Mr. Arkin visualizes.
For now, the Administration is playing it just right.
12:42 pm
Your usual cogent and persuasive post Rick. Keep up the good work.
1:07 pm
utter nonsense? I didn’t see that at all. I didn’t see him rushing to bomb anyone. What I read was that we should have a plan for military action in the case diplomacy fails. Yes, we have time for diplomacy to work, but lets also keep in mind the sanity of Iran’s leader. No one wants to rush this thing, but it would be stupid not to have a plan. Thats all I think he was saying. I don’t have much faith in the U.N., Russia, or China, much less Iran. We need a strong statement if diplomacy is going to work, and it will take the U.N. willing to back up its claims. This may be years down the road, after many, many times of Iran failing the demands of the U.N. and the U.N. doing nothing about it…just like Iraq…but I see it coming.
1:44 pm
Mr Kristol this , Mr kristol that, lets call a pnacer a pnacer, and if you do that you are left with the conclusion that he wants only one thing, and that is to take the next step and go to war with Iran.
2:02 pm
I agree Rick. This is unlike the Mr. Kristol we usually hear from. He’s probably the most intellectually honest conservative today, but this piece he wrote is utter nonsense. The unsupported assumptions he makes are mind boggling.
2:10 pm
I’m just curious, your last comment about being a defeatist on Iran is troubling. I agree with your cautious approach and analysis. “Nuke ‘em first†isn’t an option, nor do I think The White House is seriously considering it.
But, your approach swings to the other extreme that by trying to stop them by force would incite a terrorist riot across the world. Is that outcome worse than the realistic possibility of a nuke going off in some major city within the next ten years?
In a rational world, this crisis should be played out along the lines of the Cuban Missile Crisis. What we don’t know is how “rational†the other team is at this point. We know from historical hindsight that the Soviet Union was much more rational in their approach to a nuclear war. Can we say the same about Iran or a terrorist organization with a nuke?
Current day Iran has been trouble for years thanks to Jimmy Carter. The worse-case scenario would be for Iran to develop an arsenal of nukes and the reliable means to deliver them. Their status in regional and world affairs would explode exponentially. An Iranian conventional military buildup would soon follow. Within years, they would be moving into Iraq (with or without a US presents). Would they be rational enough not to use tactical nukes to capture Iraq?
I agree with a deliberate and cautious approach to handling Iran, but the worst-case scenario in my opinion is much, much worse that a ten fold increase in Islamic terrorism.
If you saw your peculiar acting, farm neighbor carry bags of ammonium-nitrate fertilizer, and gallons of diesel fuel into his barn from a rented moving van, would you call the police or close your blinds?
4:31 pm
No one is suggesting an IRaq type operation in Iran. I would think we have a bad now worse late situation, in which we simply by virtue of raw firepower take out the weapons sites, and the mullahs, and repeat as required. If the Iranians themselves wish to make a new govt better, good for them.
Either way, we can expect them to attack us here.
It’s time for the William Sherman Insititute of Foreign Policy
” Every attempt to make war easy and safe will result in humiliation and disaster. ”
“If the people raise a great howl against my barbarity and cruelty, I will answer that war is war, and not popularity seeking. ”
It should be crystal clear by now, that nothing but brute force will make any difference in stopping the Iranians.
Nothing.
Nothing will deter those people from use, at the earliest opportunity.
We need to do WHATEVER IT TAKES.
No limit.
That is the essence of Bill Kristol’s position.
http://vwt.d2g.com:8081/2006/04/the_leader_in_the_war_against_1.html#more
6:46 pm
The he’s gonna bomb Iran with nuc’s is a left wing propaganda statement that loser’s latched on to. Go back and see who started this rant, some news weenie with an unknown contact in the pentagon. My, the traitors always have and ‘unknown’ contact in high places, actully they had a nightmare from watching some nutty TV show and are now living out the nightmare. As a former (22Years) member of the military it’s just good planning to keep plans of attack up to date for every country in the world. I don’t remember the dim-wits whining and crying while we were flying around the country ( I was in a B-47 bomber unit at the time) with a nuc on board (to scatter the bombers at many different bases) when Kennedy was president. We were seriously ready to nuc Cuba and the Soviet Union. I think the USSR backed down on that one when they saw we were really serious.
Heard today that Slick Willie is raving mad. He has been replaced as the biggest liar to ever cross into D.C. by Dusty Harry Reid. At least Slick was good at lying, Dusty Harry lies about things that were recorded on dozens of tapes just hours ago.
6:25 am
If you negotiate big, important things with a difficult, dangerous country that you do not want to fight it has always made good sense to let the adversary think you do in fact want to fight. On the other hand, if you have accepted the necessity to fight and intend to do so it makes damn good sense to let the other side think fighting is still a distant option…....
If the West values its future it better hope Dubya is thinking along these lines. He likely already has the friendly half of the Saudi Royal family on his side. What more could any self respecting POTUS ask for ?
6:36 am
Kristol and friends thought Iraq would be relatively easy. Toppling Saddam was. Nothing else has been.
The thought of a nuclear Iran scares me to death. But you’re reached the correct conclusion, Rick. America, as great as she is, will be unable to extinguish the nuclear ambitions of Asian nations, North Korea being the most recent example. I’m old enough to remember when nuclear proliferation was a relatively abstract notion. We’re here, baby. It’s a brave new world.
6:54 am
Political reality 101: right or wrong, there’s precious little support for a preemptive miltary action against Iran. It’s Iraq fatigue. That won’t necessarily stop the neocons but it should.
Second, I distrust the current Bush Administration regulars to effectively wage war in Iran, given the religious, economic and political complexities in the region.
9:20 am
Clauswitz once wrote “war is simply a continuation of political intercourse, with the addition of other means.”
To “rattle your sabres” is an appropriate option in discussions with Iran. But it should not be the overriding alternative.
Clauswitz also wrote “Policy is the guiding intelligence and war only the instrument, not vice versa.”
Is there a disconnect here?
9:06 am
One has to remember here that Bil Kristol (and his brother, Irving) are members in good standing of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) and have been aggressively lobbying American Presidents for years in service to a rather fixed ideology that mimics the old “Manifest Destiny” concept of American foreign policy and a sort of updated Gilded Age vesrion of domestic policy that believes in a more or less Social Darwinism as the fundament for both.
One should also factor into their thinking the reality that Kristol—along with a goodly number of other PNAC neoconservatives—have been flatout wrong in every single piece of advice they have offered and every single eventuality they have forcast as an outcome of going to war in Iraq.
In the words of an old soldier who was on Meet The Press recently: “Why should we believe them?”
2:41 pm
[...] VINCE AUT MORIRE VODKAPUNDIT WALLO WORLD WHAT ATTITUDE PROBLEM? WIDE AWAKES WIZBANG WUZZADEM BILMON: A VERY SILLY PERSON SHOULD’VE FIRED RUMSFELD - AND THE GENERALS - LONG AGO RUMSFELD: LONG PAST TIME FOR A CHANGERANDOM THOUGHTS ON IRAN: HOW ABOUT A QUID PRO QUO? THE COUNCIL HAS SPOKEN DISHEARTENING WORDS FROM BILL KRISTOL IRAN: EVERYBODY PLEASE RELAX AND TAKE A DEEP BREATH FLIGHT 93 PASSENGERS MAY HAVE MADE IT INTO THE COCKPIT BEFORE CRASH CARNIVAL OF THE CLUELESS #40: THE SPRING FEVER EDITION FITZY “CORRECTS THE RECORD” 5 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT DIEBOLD STRIKES AGAIN! BIG TROUBLE FOR BUSH A MILLION REASONS TO CELEBRATE CIA VS. THE WHITE HOUSE: MISSING THE “BIG STORY” THE IRANIANS RESPOND: “YOU’RE BLUFFING…WE THINK” WHY I STILL LOVE THE POST AFTER ALL THESE YEARS THE MEDIA AND THE LEFT GO NUCLEAR LOST: THE TRUTH ABOUT SADDAM AND NIGER URANIUM LOOKING FOR HATE IN ALL THE WRONG PLACES INCOMPETENCE PILED ON TOP OF INCOHERENCE FLOGGING DEAD HORSES THE COUNCIL HAS SPOKEN: THE “TWO FOR ONE”EDITION A SMALL RAY OF HOPE IN IRAQ KISSING US WITH CONTEMPT “24″ (53) ABLE DANGER (10) Bird Flu (5) Blogging (77) Books (7) CARNIVAL OF THE CLUELESS (65) CHICAGO BEARS (9) CIA VS. THE WHITE HOUSE (7) Cindy Sheehan (11) Ethics (52) General (272) Government (32) History (51) IMMIGRATION REFORM (5) Iran (19) KATRINA (26) Katrina Timeline (4) Marvin Moonbat (14) Media (77) Middle East (24) Moonbats (44) Open House (1) Politics (159) Science (14) Space (12) Supreme Court (19) War on Terror (104) WATCHER’S COUNCIL (40) WORLD POLITICS (39) WORLD SERIES (14) Admin Login Register Valid XHTML XFN [...]
2:07 pm
Arkin has it wrong. He may even be part of an Administration attempt to get the Iranians believe their could be war, as probably was the purpose of the leaks to Hersh.
The reasons Iranians do not believe that a war is imminent is not because Rumsfeld is not saying there is war planning. The reason is that Iranians have looked at the alternative war scenarios and concluded they are unfavorable to the Americans. Broadly there are three scenarios:
1) Airstrikes. Won’t end Iran’s nuclear program. May delay it by a few years. But those who rule Iran are willing to wait a few years. After all it is a country with a history over three thousand years, what does ten more years matter?
2) Ground troops. In three years of war with 5 million Iraqi Sunnis the Americans have suffered 2,300 casualties. Iran has 70 million Shias. Also Iran now has a blueprint for fighting Americans from their observations of the Iraq war. To “pacify” a population an Army needs brutal methods (ask Saddam how he was able to keep the peace). As long as the American army is constrained in their methods by public opinion at home, they will not be able to use such methods and will keep suffering casualties at the rate they are suffering in Iraq (scaled up due to Iran’s larger population).
3) Nuclear strikes. This may be able to delay or permanently stop Iran’s nuclear program without immediate significant American casualties. However this can remove the inhibition against using nuclear weapons by all countries, something which has lasted over 50 years. A world in which it becomes acceptable to use nuclear weapons is a world that will die.