Obama's French Lesson

[mardi gras skin]

We have no reserve capability for an all-out assault, and nobody wants to just lob a handful of cruise missiles from a few hundred miles away and then pretend it's taken care of.

Not true. We have plenty of force to end any immediate Iranian threat. We just don't have enough force capability to put Iran back together again once the threat has been dealt with.

[Predicto]

We should just have a Krauthammer subforum on ES, given how often people repost his columns here. You would think that the guy was the next Mark Twain, rather than just a totally discredited neo-con cheerleader.

[Ax]

Lets assume, for argument's sake, that you are right and we need to launch a military strike against Iran. Where do we get the troops to fight in Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan? Or, do you think we should "pull a Clinton" and go with a few pinpoint airstrikes?

Not a few. A few hundred, or more. No troops.

Uh, the American people voted Democrats into a supermajority in the Senate, a massive majority in the House, and Obama stomped McCain in the electoral college.

Democrats would be remiss to not employ the policies that they successfully ran on.

I suggest Republicans like yourself lube up.

If you could ever pull your head out of your ignorant partisan ass long enough to take a deep breath, you'd notice I never used a party affiliation. Every President during my lifetime has rammed one bailout, or stimulus, or tax increase up our ass whenever they damn well pleased. If you think the current bunch is any different then you're a bigger idiot than you portray.

I know you find it necessary to paint everyone who doesn't get weak in the knees over your guy, as a Republican.

Once again, you are wrong.

[The Brave Little Toaster Oven]

I learned somethin' today. This country was founded by some of the smartest thinkers the world has ever seen. And they knew one thing: that a truly great country can go to war, and at the same time, act like it doesn't want to. You people who are for the war, you need the protesters. Because they make the country look like it's made of sane, caring individuals. And you people who are anti-war, you need these flag-wavers, because, if our whole country was made up of nothing but soft ***** protesters, we'd get taken down in a second. That's why the founding fathers decided we should have both. It's called 'having your cake and eating it too'

[Midnight Judges]

If you could ever pull your head out of your ignorant partisan ass long enough to take a deep breath, you'd notice I never used a party affiliation. Every President during my lifetime has rammed one bailout, or stimulus, or tax increase up our ass whenever they damn well pleased. If you think the current bunch is any different then you're a bigger idiot than you portray.

I know you find it necessary to paint everyone who doesn't get weak in the knees over your guy, as a Republican.

Once again, you are wrong.

Man! Republicans sure do get offended whan you call them Republicans these days. It's like a dirty word or something.

[Ax]

Man! Republicans sure do get offended whan you call them Republicans these days. It's like a dirty word or something.

Not man enough you admit you were wrong about my post huh?

Typical of you.

And thanks for the tube of lube. I know you don't need it since you're naturally all wet and weak in the knees.

[NavyDave]

Man! Republicans sure do get offended whan you call them Republicans these days. It's like a dirty word or something.

No that would be Liberal Extremists.

[twa]

Mjah, are you seriously proposing we would have invaded Iran if we didn't Iraq?

[nonniey]

Did anyone actually read the article? Lot of talk about going to war or not with Iran in the responses. Yet the Article was about how weak the President is in diplomacy, generally, not about Iran specifically. The primary defense was to attack the messenger. However, despite the writer being the infamous Krauthammer, the fact is Sarcozy was furious about the weak stance our President took. When the French think your weak, your weak.

Oh since several posters will not accept of accusations weakness from conservatives how about this from liberals: "A White House That Acts With All Deliberate Deliberation

Helen Thomas is 89 years old and requires some assistance to get to and from the daily White House briefing. Yet her backbone has proved stronger than that of the president she covers........."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/01/AR2009100104303_pf.html

[Midnight Judges]

When the French think your weak, your weak.

I think this statement speaks for itself.

[nonniey]

I think this statement speaks for itself.

Wow! Has hell frozen over?

[The Brave Little Toaster Oven]

Wow! Has hell frozen over?

I was thinking the same thing...it must be sarcasm or something? :whoknows:

[mjah]

Not true. We have plenty of force to end any immediate Iranian threat. We just don't have enough force capability to put Iran back together again once the threat has been dealt with.

Having learned from -- and predicted -- the past 5 years of turmoil and difficulty in Iraq, I'm acutely aware of the fact that ending an Iranian threat via all-out assault (which is the notion we're discussing right now) can't be separated from putting the nation back together again when it's all over. They aren't two different things, because the second part is the only thing that secures the success of the first part.

We break it, we buy it. Leaving it broken means turning our back on a potentially larger risk later. There's no such thing as a smash-and-grab job in a country that big; half-assing it means the risk remains and potentially gets bigger.

So no, we don't have the force to truly end the Iranian nuclear threat by military means right now. If a US Army general wants to come forward and make a case that we could wage a third simultaneous land-war-scale military effort in the Middle East, I'd be interested to read it. But I've never heard one make such a claim, and I think I know why.

If you're just talking about hurling handfuls of cruise missiles into the country from ships and then calling it a day, then you and I are discussing different things here (see my previous post).

Mjah, are you seriously proposing we would have invaded Iran if we didn't Iraq?

I hope that was supposed to be a winking smiley.

Obviously I wasn't suggesting any either-or scenario like the one you've floated. False choices like that appear around here enough already. I have no desire to add to that pile!

[Wrong Direction]

The Iran threat is real, and Krauthammer isn't advocating war with Iran. Why do people insist on creating straw man arguments when making their points? The threat is four fold:

1. Nuclear support for terrorists.

2. Nuclear deterrent if we decide to try to stop them from helping terrorists.

3. Nuclear arms race in the middle east with Egypt and Saudi Arabia, and Iraq if/when we leave their country.

4. A potentially imperialistic Iran.

These are all large destabilizing effects of a nuclear Iran. Those of you who may not think this is a threat should state why.

Obama's supposed to be against nuclear proliferation (and I don't doubt it, for the record). However, don't India and Pakistan teach us something?

Obama must be willing to demand inspectors at ALL nuclear sites, not just this newly identified site so we can verify that this is not a nuclear weapons program (it is, which is why Iran won't do this).

When Iran hedges, Obama must be willing to impose immediate and harsh economic sanctions, even w/o the support of Russia and China. History tells us that this too won't work, because Iran values the strategic gains from having nuclear weapons over the long run more than they fear the short term economic ruin which could potentially result from harsh sanctions.

As Krauthammer pointed out, Iran is buying time. If the steps above don't work and work quickly, Obama MUST approve strategic strikes to their nuclear sites. This is not a declaration of war, would be cheap and would not require ground troops, but it clearly raises the stakes.

At no point in any articles that I've seen has anyone advocated actually invading Iran.

As others have pointed out, Obama is in a high stakes game of poker. His current posture may or may not be indicative of his intentions. All I know is the threat from Iran is real, and if they are allowed to actually obtain nukes, this will totally invalidate anything Obama wants to do with respect to nuclear non-proliferation. Indeed, Iran is the biggest impediment to Obama's nuclear non-proliferation goals. If they get nukes, exactly the opposite of what Obama wants will happen.

I hope he's willing to do what it takes to keep them from getting nukes. If he doesn't, Israel likely will have no other option but to bomb the nuclear sites, and that would be even worse.

[Madison Redskin]

As Krauthammer pointed out, Iran is buying time. If the steps above don't work and work quickly, Obama MUST approve strategic strikes to their nuclear sites. This is not a declaration of war, would be cheap and would not require ground troops, but it clearly raises the stakes.

What you, and others, are ignoring is that Iran has been cooperating with the U.S. in Iraq. Many Iraqi militants receive their marching orders directly from Tehran. If Iran wanted to do so right now, they could order large-scale attacks on coalition forces in Iraq and could cause trouble in Lebanon and Israel.

To say that bombing Iran would be "cheap," is a pretty myopic view of the costs. Sure, the bombs our planes would drop would cost just a few million dollars and we might only lose a few planes and pilots, but the collateral damage of such raids would be felt from Baghdad, to Basra, to the West Bank. Do you really think it would be a good idea to open additional fronts, when we can't handle the two current ones?

[Wrong Direction]

What you, and others, are ignoring is that Iran has been cooperating with the U.S. in Iraq. Many Iraqi militants receive their marching orders directly from Tehran. If Iran wanted to do so right now, they could order large-scale attacks on coalition forces in Iraq and could cause trouble in Lebanon and Israel.

To say that bombing Iran would be "cheap," is a pretty myopic view of the costs. Sure, the bombs our planes would drop would cost just a few million dollars and we might only lose a few planes and pilots, but the collateral damage of such raids would be felt from Baghdad, to Basra, to the West Bank. Do you really think it would be a good idea to open additional fronts, when we can't handle the two current ones?

I get where you're going with this, and there are certainly tradeoffs that are ugly...but what's uglier, a nuclear Iran or the potential for Iran to try to destabilize things in Iraq?

There's no doubt an action-rereaction thing going on here. Still, the ultimate wrong place to step back is in the area of nuclear proliferation. It's a game changer...forever.

[mardi gras skin]

So no, we don't have the force to truly end the Iranian nuclear threat by military means right now.

This is where you lose me. We DO have the force to truly end the Iranian nuclear threat by military means. Will it create other problems? Sure, absolutely. But you reach too far when you say we can't end an Iranian nuclear threat. That just isn't true.

[twa]

This is where you lose me. We DO have the force to truly end the Iranian nuclear threat by military means. Will it create other problems? Sure, absolutely. But you reach too far when you say we can't end an Iranian nuclear threat. That just isn't true.

It's part of his purple;) shtick to fault the Iraq war and W for Iran's actions.

But he's not offering a false choice .

Curious that we removed the supposed threats to Iran(Saddam/Taliban),yet now are the alleged threat;)...while at the same time floating the idea our resulting weakness:) by doing so emboldened them.

[sacase]

What you, and others, are ignoring is that Iran has been cooperating with the U.S. in Iraq. Many Iraqi militants receive their marching orders directly from Tehran. If Iran wanted to do so right now, they could order large-scale attacks on coalition forces in Iraq and could cause trouble in Lebanon and Israel.

To say that bombing Iran would be "cheap," is a pretty myopic view of the costs. Sure, the bombs our planes would drop would cost just a few million dollars and we might only lose a few planes and pilots, but the collateral damage of such raids would be felt from Baghdad, to Basra, to the West Bank. Do you really think it would be a good idea to open additional fronts, when we can't handle the two current ones?

If you call cooperating with us in Iraq, giving extreamists bombs to kill our troops them I guess you are right.

[Baculus]

The Iran threat is real, and Krauthammer isn't advocating war with Iran.

Do you seriously think Krauthammer doesn't support military action against Iran? The srawman is your attempt to divert attention from the aggressive posture of some conservatives.

Here is an article where Krauthammar specifically advocates striking against Iran:

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=2086

Here is another which discusses this aggressive posture:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/153-expansion-a-intervention/26148.html

Why do people insist on creating straw man arguments when making their points?

I believe you need to reexamine your argument.

The threat is four fold:

1. Nuclear support for terrorists.

2. Nuclear deterrent if we decide to try to stop them from helping terrorists.

3. Nuclear arms race in the middle east with Egypt and Saudi Arabia, and Iraq if/when we leave their country.

4. A potentially imperialistic Iran.

Notice how these were all arguments used to support the invasion of Iraq? This is more fear-mongering and reminiscent of Dulles' Domino Theory in Southeast Asia during the Cold War.

Obama's supposed to be against nuclear proliferation (and I don't doubt it, for the record). However, don't India and Pakistan teach us something?

Both of those countries were nuclear armed far before Obama's election. So what are those countries supposed to teach us?

Obama must be willing to demand inspectors at ALL nuclear sites, not just this newly identified site so we can verify that this is not a nuclear weapons program (it is, which is why Iran won't do this).

When Iran hedges, Obama must be willing to impose immediate and harsh economic sanctions, even w/o the support of Russia and China.

I am not sure if harsh sanctions will help at all. They have not helped in the past, it has not helped against Cuba, and it will allow Iran's ruling mullahs to circle the wagons against the West.

History tells us that this too won't work, because Iran values the strategic gains from having nuclear weapons over the long run more than they fear the short term economic ruin which could potentially result from harsh sanctions.

History tell us that your suggestions will not work either.

We are doing something that is actually a-historical -- trying to negotiate with the Iranians.

As Krauthammer pointed out, Iran is buying time. If the steps above don't work and work quickly, Obama MUST approve strategic strikes to their nuclear sites. This is not a declaration of war, would be cheap and would not require ground troops, but it clearly raises the stakes.

Yes, that would be a defacto declaration of war, and military strikes would be foolish. I repeat that again: military strikes at this time would be foolish.

At no point in any articles that I've seen has anyone advocated actually invading Iran.

It wouldn't take a military invasion to commit a strategic blunder such as an aerial assault on that country.

[Prosperity]

Iran and its nukes may be the biggest overblown threat of our time.

That regime is weakened from what happened this summer, and the only thing that will give it any cred in the eyes of its people again is the international community doing something stupid.

yerp...

[SparkleMotion]

Mousavi and the reform movement are opposed to sanctions because they think it will hurt them the most. Would you armchair generals care to tell us what new sanctions would accomplish?

Obama needs to keep up the good work on the diplomacy front and resist the urge to sink into the warmongering that's coming out of Congress right now.

[jpyaks3]

The Iran threat is real, and Krauthammer isn't advocating war with Iran. Why do people insist on creating straw man arguments when making their points? The threat is four fold:

1. Nuclear support for terrorists.

2. Nuclear deterrent if we decide to try to stop them from helping terrorists.

3. Nuclear arms race in the middle east with Egypt and Saudi Arabia, and Iraq if/when we leave their country.

4. A potentially imperialistic Iran.

These are all large destabilizing effects of a nuclear Iran. Those of you who may not think this is a threat should state why.

First off there will be no nuclear support for terrorists. That is simply not going to happen, Iran won't spend tons of political and real capital to build a nuclear weapon just to hand it off to some terrorist group. It is simply fear mongering that is keeping this theory alive, it just makes no sense whatsoever to hand it off to a terrorist group, if the group ever used it it would immediately be tracked back to Iran and Tehran would be leveled. There is no strategic gain from giving a nuclear weapon that you spent billions and billions to get off to a terrorist group.

We currently have little or no recourse towards Iran supplying monetary support for groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas as well as any other groups that Iran decides to support, a nuclear weapon would not change this at all.

It is also extremely unlikely that Iran would use the weapon in an offensive manner as the Iranian regime is not suicidal and has acted mostly in a rational sense. They know the consequences of a nuclear strike and they will not be the first to go in a nuclear exchange.

Your 3rd and 4th points go hand in hand as I believe it is undeniable that Iran has great views of itself in the region as both a hegemon and as a balancing force of Israel. I think a nuclear weapon would go to re enforce this view but I think little would actually change in Iran's actions. Iran is already attempting to influence its neighbors in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, it also has a monetary network to advance its interest in several other states in the region. This isn't going to change anytime soon, Iran is already a major power in the region. A nuclear weapon would cement something that is already pretty much known, but it wouldn't change anything except Israels perceived leverage over Iran.

The real worry about Iran gaining a nuclear weapon is your 4th point which would set off a nuclear arms race, it would be difficult for Arab states to restrain themselves from setting off into a nuclear race and this would be the biggest problem created with a nuclear Iran, states like Saudi Arabia and Egypt with potentially unstable political situations with nuclear weapons would present potentially disastrous problems. However, states like these are heavily reliant on the United States in economic, military and political support. Egypt who is one of the top 3 recipients of United States aid would put that in jeopardy and would stand to lose both a ton of money and arms. It would simply be too costly to start a nuclear program in an economic and military sense. They would risk a whole lot more then they would gain with a nuclear weapon. They know they have the protection of the United States so that would alleviate some fears of a nuclear Iran.

If Saudi Arabia tried to go nuclear they would find themselves alienated from their protector in the United States as well as acting contrary to their stated goals and positions that they have held for years (nuclear free Middle East). Saudi Arabia declined to purchase intermediate range missiles when Saddam was in power and had weapons systems that could reach Riyadh. One can assume that Saudi Arabia would once again decline to act on a much more provocative and costly measure of trying to obtain nuclear weapons.

Nuclear weapons are very difficult to get and take years and often decades to obtain. Any state that attempts to gain nuclear weapons would be subject to the United States scorn and massive political problems within the region and as a result of the sharp decrease in United States aid that would occur. It is simply not politically, economically, or militarily intelligent for either of the other major powers in the region to try and obtain nuclear weapons and risk all the benefits of their partnership with the United States simply to offset Iran.

Iran was able to avoid these costs because they had no United States support from the beginning, they were receiving not monetary aid, no political aid, no military aid throughout the process of obtaining a nuclear weapon. Their costs were much much lower then a state that is deeply reliant on the United States such as Saudi Arabia or Egypt. A nuclear arms race in the Middle East is not the likely outcome of a nuclear Iran.

Now I think it would be desirable if Iran did not obtain a nuclear weapon, however, I do not think that a nuclear Iran will change a whole lot in the region, it will cement some positions but it is not a game changer like others have said. If Israel can act responsibly (responsibly would be not attacking Iran) in response to a nuclear Iran then I think there will not be any major changes. The costs of an Israeli or American attack in Iran would greatly outweigh the risks. If the attack were not entirely successful Iran would work to quickly throw together a nuclear weapon which would cut the timeline down significantly and make the likelihood of Iran actually using a nuclear weapon aggressively increase tenfold. I think right now Obama is taking the correct course of action in working diplomatically to discourage the Iranians from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

[Ax]

Sanctions, like negotiations, will accomplish nothing. Except buy them more time to strengthen their position, and weaken ours.

So, we either have to back off completely, and allow them to go nuclear, or, use whatever is considered the best military option available to try to stop them. And yes, there is no guarantee we can stop them militarily. But, it's the only option that has any chance to do so.

Negotiation can only work if Iran is assured that the world is willing to use force. There is no reason at all for them to believe we will.

We need to change that, yesterday.

[jpyaks3]

Sanctions, like negotiations, will accomplish nothing. Except buy them more time to strengthen their position, and weaken ours.

So, we either have to back off completely, and allow them to go nuclear, or, use whatever is considered the best military option available to try to stop them. And yes, there is no guarantee we can stop them militarily. But, it's the only option that has any chance to do so.

Negotiation can only work if Iran is assured that the world is willing to use force. There is no reason at all for them to believe we will.

We need to change that, yesterday.

I honestly think that military action would do more harm then a nuclear Iran. I think a military action would greatly strengthen the weakened regime in Tehran while allowing them to go full bore into getting a nuclear weapon. Iran learned from Iraq and their nuclear program and their nuclear program will be much tougher to hit effectively. Iran can open up and cause havoc in Iraq and Afghanistan if they wanted to as well as ramping up funding and arms to Hezbollah and Hamas. I think a nuclear Iran is a net negative but a military strike on Iran has the potential to turn out a whole lot worse.