I just heard Muravchik on the radio last week saying we need to increase the troop levels in Iraq. The guy is crazy
In today’s New Yorker, Sy Hersh quotes Murvachick as saying neoconservatives “need to pave the way intellectually now and be prepared to defend the action when it comes.”
It seems pretty clear that Muravchik’s ramblings are part of some domestic psyops effort to influence the political envrionment.
Interestingly, Hersh reports of a CIA assessment that offers no clear evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program, so what in the hell would the US bomb anyway?
Comment by Ratoe — Monday, November 20, 2024 @ 10:14 am
I notice that he is listed as a “resident scholar”. Scholar of what, I’d like to know. I don’t see how it could possibly be political science or international relations. . .
Comment by Jan — Monday, November 20, 2024 @ 12:51 pm
So, Muravchik sees two options:
We can prepare to live with a nuclear-armed Iran, or we can use force to prevent it.
But as Steven’s last paragraph notes, there is actually an option 3, and it is, in fact, the option Muravchik is advocating: Bomb, and then still have to live with a nuclear-armed Iran.
Comment by Matthew — Monday, November 20, 2024 @ 6:28 pm
Of course, if we took out their pitifully inadequate oil-refining capability, they might collapse of their own weight, or at least have a lot less money to spend supporting wars by proxy because they’d have to repress people at home all the harder.
You and the fellow quoting Sy Hersch (because his track record of prediction is excellent) remind me of people who thought the Soviet union ahd a more stable society than we do. Tehran’s writ does not run in 4-7 of it’s own provinces, but becuase it is an unfree society we don’t get reportage on that, so it seems stronger than it is. They’re losing a lot more than 3,000 troops per five year period holding their own country.
Though of course one Iranian soldier is worth less than one American, I figured someone out to consider that over ehre..
I really am not sure what you are getting at. Regardless of whatever problems that Iran’s government may or may not have, it is rather difficult to argue that it would be less of a task to deal with than Iraq has been, and that has been far from a smashing success.
One would think that the Iraqi example would dissuade one from making the argument about how easy it would be to topple Iran’s government or to somehow have it be an easy task.
Destroying existing states and then replacing them with new and functioning one isn’t easy, so I am not sure at what you are getting at.
In regards to the Soviets–it isn’t as if a military strike would have hastened its demise (save in a nuclear dust cloud, with us along with it). It had to go its own route to collapse.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Monday, November 20, 2024 @ 8:41 pm
Here’s the fundamental problem: the choice is either the messy oversight process or letting presidents do whatever they want to do, on the proviso that they know best.
I ask in all seriousness: which is the more democratic option (or, for that matter, the more conservative in the sense of small government conservatism?)
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Monday, November 20, 2024 @ 8:43 pm
[…] We might even succeed in toppling it simply by taking out it’s pitifully small oil refining capability. Doing such a thing would at least cripple it’s ability to provide for it’s dependents in the Lebanon, Syria, and elsewhere, much less hold down it’s own restless population. Don’t forget that Tehran’s writ travels less far than Baghdad’s does in it’s own country. Can we still afford to think Syria and Iran want to “talk” after this?Iraq the Model correctly says the Syrians are “not so much” interested in talking. Bombing, invading, or blockading (as I argued at some length last year), Iran may be our best bet if we cannot more completely subvert it from within. Our alternatives seem to me consist of a decision to lie back and do our best to get past it and hope the problem resolves itself (or someone else resolves it for us), or at least denuclearize and chasten, maybe topple, Tehran ourselves. For those like our own Dr. Steven Taylor, Poliblogger, who in all seriousness, think Iraq with it’s small expenditures and remarkably low loss of life is “a clear failure”, I respond by asking if a nuclear Iran being punished only after using it’s nuke (I do not think Iran can be deterred once it is nuclear, as I am convinced that the mullahs believe their own propaganda) is not far worse. Iraq is not much of a stretch by even Cold War standards. We are fighting an ideological conflict much like the Cold War here. The decrease in support for combat operations abroad has much to do with how little sense of direct threat most of our citizens feel at this point, which is good. Further, as I argue above, we need not commit to a functioning Iran the way we had to in Sunni dominated Iraq, bordered as it is by Syria, Palestinians (in Jordan), Iran and Saudi Arabia. If Pakistan, India, Russia and the House of Saud want to fight it out over the new order in Iran, I’ll refer them to how well that worked for everyone in Afghanistan, except, again, as I mentioned above, Iran won’t be proving much of a threat to us nor Europe in the meanwhile, cf Kurdistan. As for Iraq, Tehran out of the way will mean an end to probably half the supplies going to the Shiite and Sunni problems we face in Iraq as well. It’s not as though Damascus has the resources to project force out of itself without Iranian cash. As for their threats to the Persian Gulf and especially the Straights of Hormuz, well, we’ve fought that war a coupe of times since the 1980s already and did rather well. I doubt the third time will be the charm for Iran’s Nay of Air force, though their rocketry will obviously present a serious problem. […]
I just heard Muravchik on the radio last week saying we need to increase the troop levels in Iraq. The guy is crazy
In today’s New Yorker, Sy Hersh quotes Murvachick as saying neoconservatives “need to pave the way intellectually now and be prepared to defend the action when it comes.”
It seems pretty clear that Muravchik’s ramblings are part of some domestic psyops effort to influence the political envrionment.
Interestingly, Hersh reports of a CIA assessment that offers no clear evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program, so what in the hell would the US bomb anyway?
Hersh’s article is worth a read: http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/061127fa_fact
Comment by Ratoe — Monday, November 20, 2024 @ 10:14 am
I notice that he is listed as a “resident scholar”. Scholar of what, I’d like to know. I don’t see how it could possibly be political science or international relations. . .
Comment by Jan — Monday, November 20, 2024 @ 12:51 pm
So, Muravchik sees two options:
We can prepare to live with a nuclear-armed Iran, or we can use force to prevent it.
But as Steven’s last paragraph notes, there is actually an option 3, and it is, in fact, the option Muravchik is advocating: Bomb, and then still have to live with a nuclear-armed Iran.
Comment by Matthew — Monday, November 20, 2024 @ 6:28 pm
Of course, if we took out their pitifully inadequate oil-refining capability, they might collapse of their own weight, or at least have a lot less money to spend supporting wars by proxy because they’d have to repress people at home all the harder.
You and the fellow quoting Sy Hersch (because his track record of prediction is excellent) remind me of people who thought the Soviet union ahd a more stable society than we do. Tehran’s writ does not run in 4-7 of it’s own provinces, but becuase it is an unfree society we don’t get reportage on that, so it seems stronger than it is. They’re losing a lot more than 3,000 troops per five year period holding their own country.
Though of course one Iranian soldier is worth less than one American, I figured someone out to consider that over ehre..
Comment by Honza Prchal — Monday, November 20, 2024 @ 7:02 pm
Honza,
I really am not sure what you are getting at. Regardless of whatever problems that Iran’s government may or may not have, it is rather difficult to argue that it would be less of a task to deal with than Iraq has been, and that has been far from a smashing success.
One would think that the Iraqi example would dissuade one from making the argument about how easy it would be to topple Iran’s government or to somehow have it be an easy task.
Destroying existing states and then replacing them with new and functioning one isn’t easy, so I am not sure at what you are getting at.
In regards to the Soviets–it isn’t as if a military strike would have hastened its demise (save in a nuclear dust cloud, with us along with it). It had to go its own route to collapse.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Monday, November 20, 2024 @ 8:41 pm
Here’s the fundamental problem: the choice is either the messy oversight process or letting presidents do whatever they want to do, on the proviso that they know best.
I ask in all seriousness: which is the more democratic option (or, for that matter, the more conservative in the sense of small government conservatism?)
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Monday, November 20, 2024 @ 8:43 pm
[…] We might even succeed in toppling it simply by taking out it’s pitifully small oil refining capability. Doing such a thing would at least cripple it’s ability to provide for it’s dependents in the Lebanon, Syria, and elsewhere, much less hold down it’s own restless population. Don’t forget that Tehran’s writ travels less far than Baghdad’s does in it’s own country. Can we still afford to think Syria and Iran want to “talk” after this?Iraq the Model correctly says the Syrians are “not so much” interested in talking. Bombing, invading, or blockading (as I argued at some length last year), Iran may be our best bet if we cannot more completely subvert it from within. Our alternatives seem to me consist of a decision to lie back and do our best to get past it and hope the problem resolves itself (or someone else resolves it for us), or at least denuclearize and chasten, maybe topple, Tehran ourselves. For those like our own Dr. Steven Taylor, Poliblogger, who in all seriousness, think Iraq with it’s small expenditures and remarkably low loss of life is “a clear failure”, I respond by asking if a nuclear Iran being punished only after using it’s nuke (I do not think Iran can be deterred once it is nuclear, as I am convinced that the mullahs believe their own propaganda) is not far worse. Iraq is not much of a stretch by even Cold War standards. We are fighting an ideological conflict much like the Cold War here. The decrease in support for combat operations abroad has much to do with how little sense of direct threat most of our citizens feel at this point, which is good. Further, as I argue above, we need not commit to a functioning Iran the way we had to in Sunni dominated Iraq, bordered as it is by Syria, Palestinians (in Jordan), Iran and Saudi Arabia. If Pakistan, India, Russia and the House of Saud want to fight it out over the new order in Iran, I’ll refer them to how well that worked for everyone in Afghanistan, except, again, as I mentioned above, Iran won’t be proving much of a threat to us nor Europe in the meanwhile, cf Kurdistan. As for Iraq, Tehran out of the way will mean an end to probably half the supplies going to the Shiite and Sunni problems we face in Iraq as well. It’s not as though Damascus has the resources to project force out of itself without Iranian cash. As for their threats to the Persian Gulf and especially the Straights of Hormuz, well, we’ve fought that war a coupe of times since the 1980s already and did rather well. I doubt the third time will be the charm for Iran’s Nay of Air force, though their rocketry will obviously present a serious problem. […]
Pingback by Pros and Cons » The Ultimate Foreign Minister — Tuesday, November 21, 2024 @ 12:11 pm