Winslowalrob Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/georgepacker August 31, 2007 Test Marketing If there were a threat level on the possibility of war with Iran, it might have just gone up to orange. Barnett Rubin, the highly respected Afghanistan expert at New York University, has written an account of a conversation with a friend who has connections to someone at a neoconservative institution in Washington. Rubin can’t confirm his friend’s story; neither can I. But it’s worth a heads-up: They [the source’s institution] have “instructions” (yes, that was the word used) from the Office of the Vice-President to roll out a campaign for war with Iran in the week after Labor Day; it will be coordinated with the American Enterprise Institute, the Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard, Commentary, Fox, and the usual suspects. It will be heavy sustained assault on the airwaves, designed to knock public sentiment into a position from which a war can be maintained. Evidently they don’t think they’ll ever get majority support for this—they want something like 35-40 percent support, which in their book is “plenty.” True? I don’t know. Plausible? Absolutely. It follows the pattern of the P.R. campaign that started around this time in 2002 and led to the Iraq war. The President’s rhetoric on Iran has been nothing short of bellicose lately, warning of “the shadow of a nuclear holocaust.” And the Iranian government’s behavior—detaining British servicemen and arresting American passport holders, pushing ahead with uranium enrichment, and, by many reliable accounts, increasing its funding and training for anti-American militias in Iraq—seems intentionally provocative. Perhaps President Ahmedinejad and the mullahs feel that they win either way: they humiliate the superpower if it doesn’t take the bait, and they shore up their deeply unpopular regime at home if it does. Preëmptive war requires calculations (and, often, miscalculations) on two sides, not just one, as Saddam learned in 2003. When tensions are this high between two countries and powerful factions in both act as if hostilities are in their interest, war is likely to follow. It’s one thing for the American Enterprise Institute, the Weekly Standard, et al to champion a war they support. It’s another to jump like circus animals at the crack of the White House whip. If the propaganda campaign predicted by Rubin’s friend is launched, less subservient news organizations should ask certain questions, and keep asking them: Does the Administration expect the Iranian regime to fall in the event of an attack? If yes, what will replace it? If no (and it will not), why would the Administration deliberately set about to strengthen the regime’s hold on power? What will the Administration do to protect highly vulnerable American lives and interests in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world against the Iranian reprisals that will follow? What if Iran strikes against Israel? What will be the strategy when the Iranian nuclear program, damaged but not destroyed, resumes? How will the Administration handle the international alarm and opprobrium that would be an attack’s inevitable fallout? If this really is a return to the early fall of 2002 all over again, then I’m fairly sure that no one at the top of the Administration is worrying about the answers. Postscript: Barnett Rubin just called me. His source spoke with a neocon think-tanker who corroborated the story of the propaganda campaign and had this to say about it: “I am a Republican. I am a conservative. But I’m not a raging lunatic. This is lunatic.” Permalink E-Mail Print Feeds Digg Del.icio.us Reddit I would LOVE to see the arguments for why this is a good idea. And by love to see the argument, I mean that I am terrified of people seriously attempting to make this argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 You want arguments in favor of striking Iran,or just the argument for a PR campaign for supporting it? You might find this article interesting. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/02/wiran102.xml&page=2 The latest polls show that just one in five Americans would support the bombing of Iran now, but about half would do so if their government considered it necessary: clearly a position from which Mr Bush could build a case for war. Three out of four voters want to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. added You might find this piece more to your liking :whoknows: http://marjoriecohn.com/2007/09/bush-plans-war-on-iran.html As Noam Chomsky said, "The most effective barrier to a White House decision to launch a war [on Iran] is the kind of organized popular opposition that frightened the political-military leadership enough in 1968 that they were reluctant to send more troops to Vietnam." Is it simply a choice of either extreme ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winslowalrob Posted September 2, 2007 Author Share Posted September 2, 2007 Obviously the support is there if Americans thought it "was necessary." Am I the only one that thinks taking on Iran at this moment is stupid? If so, then I guess the American people deserve what they are going to get... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 I wasn't aware it was subject to a vote. Obviously from the quote I gave it is not necessary in the publics eyes at this time,and there will never be a "good"time for taking on Iran. We all usually get what we deserve to a large degree,whether they are a result of our action or inaction is debatable. When you loose the dogs of war there are there are always consequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winslowalrob Posted September 2, 2007 Author Share Posted September 2, 2007 I wasn't aware it was subject to a vote.Obviously from the quote I gave it is not necessary in the publics eyes at this time,and there will never be a "good"time for taking on Iran. We all usually get what we deserve to a large degree,whether they are a result of our action or inaction is debatable. When you loose the dogs of war there are there are always consequences. Twa, I will quote some lines from the same story that you quoted yours: "The Pentagon has made contact with a Kurdish group called the Party for Free Life in Kurdistan, which has been conducting cross-border operations in Iran, and with Azeri and Baluchi tribesmen in northern and south-eastern Iran, who oppose the theocratic regime. By using military special forces, rather than the CIA, the administration does not have to sign a Presidential Finding, required for covert intelligence activity, or report to oversight committees in Congress." "But there are grave doubts that bombing would work. Davoud Salhuddin, a US dissident and Muslim convert living in Iran, said: "The US will not have the ability to change the regime here. Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei has been preparing himself for a US attack for the past 30 years. If they attack Iran, the problem of terrorism that they are trying to solve will get 100 times bigger than it is now… Americans will not feel safe in their own homes." The other problem is that the CIA, apparently, does not have enough intelligence to guarantee that the nuclear programme could be permanently crippled, and little way of knowing after the event how much time they have bought with a raid. International estimates of how long it would take Iran to get a bomb vary between a year and 10 years." "Just as crucially, US government officials say that the CIA has failed to come up with a "smoking gun" that would persuade the international community to back military action. Last autumn, the CIA told the White House that while it believes Iran is running a clandestine nuclear weapons programme, it does not have conclusive proof. Radioactivity detection devices placed near suspect facilities did not find the expected results. Stung by criticism of their performance over Saddam Hussein's weapons programmes, CIA bosses warned Mr Bush and Mr Cheney that this did not prove that Iran had successfully concealed the programme from inspectors." Do you not agree that attacking Iran at this juncture would be a terrible idea? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 Twa, I will quote some lines from the same story that you quoted yours:Do you not agree that attacking Iran at this juncture would be a terrible idea? I am not in favor of it,but do not consider it a terrible idea...at this time I still hold out hope for changes in Iran. However I would support it IF it occurs,and consider it a very real possibility within the next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winslowalrob Posted September 2, 2007 Author Share Posted September 2, 2007 I am not in favor of it,but do not consider it a terrible idea...at this time I still hold out hope for changes in Iran.However I would support it IF it occurs,and consider it a very real possibility within the next year. Fair enough. What about the media blitz though? Do you not think that is moronic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 Fair enough. What about the media blitz though? Do you not think that is moronic? Why moronic?...It either puts more pressure on our allies and Iran to avert a attack with sanctions/change of course or generates unneeded support. It COULD be a waste of time ,but moronic?...no. Added Was this action moronic as well? http://lieberman.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=278654 Iran over its proxy attacks on American soldiers in Iraq. The amendment details the publicly available evidence put forward over the past year by General David Petraeus, commanding general of Multi-National Force Iraq, and others about Iran’s violent and destabilizing activities in Iraq. The amendment states that “the murder of members of the United States Armed Forces by a foreign government or its agents is an intolerable act of hostility against the United States,” and demands the government of Iran “take immediate action” to end all forms of support it is providing to Iraqi militias and insurgents. The amendment also mandates a regular report on Iran’s anti-coalition activity in Iraq. “For many months, our military commanders and diplomats have warned us that the Iranian government has been training, equipping, arming, and funding proxies in Iraq who are murdering our troops,” said Senator Lieberman. “This amendment is a common sense, common ground statement of the Senate to Tehran: we know what you are doing, and you must stop.” “American officials attest that the government in Teheran seeks to bleed the United States and render unsuccessful our efforts to bring about a stable and self-governing in Iraq,” said Senator McCain. “This amendment will send a clear signal: Iran’s activities in Iraq are wrong, and they must end immediately.” “The Iranians are attempting to thwart our policies in the Middle East by actively supporting terrorists who are killing our troops in Iraq,” said Senator Kyl. “It is time we acknowledge this hostility against us, and this amendment tells the Iranians we will not tolerate any actions which threaten our troops or allies.” “The evidence is increasingly clear the Iranian government is working to destabilize the Iraqi government,” said Senator Graham. “It is long past time for Congress to speak out about this destructive behavior by Iran. We need one voice, and I expect it will be a unified bipartisan voice, speaking out and condemning these actions by the Iranian government.” “The United States will not tolerate Iran’s hostile attempts to sabotage our efforts in the Middle East region,” said Senator Coleman. “On my last trip to Iraq, our Minnesota troops in Southern Iraq showed me Iranian-made explosives that were used against them on convoy missions. This crucial amendment makes it clear to the Iranian government, and any other government in the region that seeks to harm our soldiers, that providing any form of support to Iraqi insurgents will not be tolerated and must cease immediately.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winslowalrob Posted September 2, 2007 Author Share Posted September 2, 2007 Why moronic?...It either puts more pressure on our allies and Iran to avert a attack with sanctions/change of course or generates unneeded support.It COULD be a waste of time ,but moronic?...no. You are right, while I loathe the strategy of attacking Iran itself, a media blitz is actually a pretty standard and effective strategy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.