Huh...Bill Kristol thinks that he knows better than the Joint Chiefs about what's REALLY going on with Iran.
Pretty sure we've been down this road with him before. Pretty sure it ended badly, but not for too many Republicans in power, just the sons and daughters of their base. Of those of us who signed up based on a lie.
Bill Kristol continues to be a war monger, 100% willing to sacrafice other people's children.
He was, like, one of the main founders of the Bulwark. His type of "Never Trump" Republicanism is at the heart of this publication. Sooo . . . not to be a dick, but why are you here, then?
Poor Sununu - he does not know which side to chose? But, does he know that neither side will want to select him! What is Nikki going to do? She wants to speak at the MAGA/GOP Convention this summer! Her spot is in question, too. That head guy will want to punish both of them for going against him? Stay tuned!
I expected Cohen to finish his noting the inflection point with "Israel's direct attack on Iranian soil (its embassy)". A direct attack is an act of war. The first ever between these two belligerents. Iran's attack was a response.
It was Israel's attack that was an inflection point.
And Israel's attack was in response to Iranian-backed groups direct attacks on Israeli soil. Including attacks by Hezballah that have led to almost 100k Israelis being displaced from the north of Israel. There's always a preceding event when discussing any "new" happening in the Middle East.
But you're correct in that the attack on Israel didn't come out of nowhere. None of Iran's "malign activities" have. I'd argue none of Iran's asymmetric violence, to include its sponsorship of daily attacks on US troops in the (first) Iraq War that killed around 1,000.
But it's also true that even those actions are part of a pattern that also did not develop in a vaccum; Iran wants to exert leadership over a Shi'a coalition including Iraq, Syria & Lebanon as a counter to the US-led coalition Tehran feels is unjustly "boxing them in."
This isn't exactly new, but Iran's brazenness has grown . . . but over 20 years, not just a few months. There *is*, I will acknowledge, a misconception being fostered by some that Iran's "malign" behavior began on Oct 8--or the day that old weak wimp Biden took office. Similar to the claims we heard about a decade ago that Iran seemingly became a problem only under Obama. That old refrain doesn't help and also just doesn't stand up to reality. This isn't new and it's not the "fault" of either Biden or Israel.
Contrary to myth, a consulate--or embassy--is not a nation's "soil."
The Israeli attack was certainly a breach of protocol, but not the equivalent of bombing Tehran (which is exactly what Iran tried to do to Tel Aviv).
And before Iran struck somebody's actual soil, its proxies were lobbing missiles & rockets at Israel. And I'm not even talking about Hamas here. Hezballah, the Houthis . . . people who ordinarily shouldn't care about the squabble between Jews & Arabs in what was formerly British Palestine.
If outside entities like Hezbollah, the Houthi regime, and the Islamic Republic are so concerned about Palestinians, perhaps they shouldn't jump-start wars between them and Israel.
You are correct. I misread the newsletter I got that from. But they have sovereignty over the embassy. It's still an escalation on the part of Israel, no?
I agree that a "deteriorating geopolitical environment" is happening in slow motion before our eyes. Could it be that, to young people, diplomacy is starting to look like weakness and bravado is starting to look like security? If the U.S. is clinging to an outdated strategy of containment and caution, maybe the "spidey sense" of reasonable young Dems is telling them that something's not right.
Listening to Public radio: they think this was a scam. When our National Security-Military makes a mistake we hear moaning. Now that Iran fails to land a glove on Israel-we hear-“it was a set up”. Damned if you do-damned if you don’t. And this while we still have to deal with Trump’s explanation. No unity. Many agendas.
Spot-on. I was discussing w/ a buddy the marvel of Israel's missile defenses but we both came to the same point that when tech works and there's virtually no bloodshed, the ill-informed think war is a piece of cake and, ipso facto, all the warnings & concerns about Iran--or Russia or China--are overblown. Just excuses for the evil "military industrial complex." It's such drivel. The elite talking heads of the left-leaning type LOVE to malign "low information" voters mesmerized by Trump. Well, there are plenty of public radio types who have *zero* information when it comes to the nature of war & national security, but love to sprout their own conspiracy theories (i.e., it's the evil defense corporations, it's the evil "neocons" . . . examples of whom are always Jewish . . . playing into another conspiracy--it's Israel and the "Israel Lobby").
And, yes, then there's the MAGA approach to foreign affairs . . . which is just one incoherent reactionary temper-tantrum.
Israel attacked Iran in Damascus without telling the United States. That should be the headline. And Joe Biden came to their defense anyway!
Stop escalating with Iran. This wasn’t a serious attack by Iran it was telegraphed. The US is 100000000000% doing the right thing by avoiding attacking Iran. Netanyahu wanted the US to strike Iran back in 2012. He cares nothing for consequences to US troops.
Nobody has a problem with Israel bombing the Iranian EMBASSY compound in Syria?
Things are going to start getting extra messy if embassies and other diplomatic structures are considered fair game in military conflicts.
Israel literally attacked what is legally considered Iranian soil in Syria. Iran responded in kind, except they announced everything in advance to make their missiles easier to shoot down. And Iran considers the matter settled now.
Ball is in Israel's court. But what exactly did they expect Iran to do when faced with such a brazen attack on its sovereignty? We all know that Israel and the United States would have mounted an exponentially larger response.
Chris Sununu highlights what is at the heart of the polling that you discuss here. Trump would be truly offensive if he seemed truly aberrant. But to young people - who have always lived in a world full of Trumpicans - there is no memory of how people COULD behave, Democrat OR Republican. I did not like a lot of Reagan/ Bush policies. But they did not behave like assholes 24/7, like young people would assume all politicians do (with a very few exceptions). Especially poilticians who are older white males (which I am too). So "grab 'em by the pussy" was a long time ago.
I have a theory as to why young people--at least a good chunk of them--support Trump or at least can hold their noses & vote for him.
I don't know how many people, yourself included, would like to hear it, however . . . The nastiness of today's politics, of which Trump is just the logical extreme, has its roots somewhere. There still are decent elected, or want-to-be elected, officials AND I fully recognize that there is no true equivalent to Trump on the far Left. I don't think anyone feels the need to take a shower after attending an Elizabeth Warren rally!
And, of course, our politics have been nasty before . . . one senator caned another in the lead-up to the Civil War!!
Trump may not have an equivalent as personally grotesque and politically vulgar in the Democratic Party, but his "everyone out for themselves" worldview resonates VERY deeply among the political Left--at least the far Left. Many call themselves "progressives" and talk about a kinder world . . . but they're just as enraged as MAGA die hards, While it's probably true that their constant vigilance for "toxic masculinity" will ensure a future Leftist populist never boasts of grabbing anyone by the pussy, do not minimize their rage factor.
Point being that as the Reagan/Bush generation & type of Republicans vanish, along with the simple aging out of Biden-type Democrats, we will get as new "leaders" two generations (at least) of folks reared on an education that is philosophically rooted in post-modernism & critical theory, both of which declare the US to be a fundamentally--"structurally"--racist, misogynistic, & unjust country and society.
Agree or disagree w/ their policies--and even go as far as to say their policies were or were not good for minorities & historically marginalized groups--the Reagans, Bushes (both of them), Gerald Fords of the GOP and their Democratic equivalents believed American to be a fundamentally good place and a force for good in the world . . . and thus deserving of half-way decent public servants and a genuine effort to truly make our country a "more perfect union."
Thirty or 40 years of education that laughs & scoffs at the above sentiment produces widespread cynicism, rage, bitterness, anxiety, and conspiratorial thinking.
And so . . . voila! You get today's anything-goes / "both sides do it" / "whataboutism" culture. One day there may be a Leftist Trump who--while he keeps his hands to himself--is just as enraged, unhinged, and supportive of violence. But in the meantime we have Trump on the Right. Not all of his support is from old white men. He gets a share of anyone driven by grievance & resentment. This includes African-American & Hispanic men. Thankfully, not too many . . . but statistically more, it appears, than Reagan, Bush or Ford ever did!
I don't have a Pollyanna-ish view of this nation or our past and I don't want a whitewashed--figuratively & literally--version of history taught to our kids. Don't get me wrong. But I also don't want such deplorable cynicism being taught instead of civics. I thought we won the Cold War, so its pretty abhorrent that variations of Marxism permeate education schools.
In other words, if its beat into peoples' heads as youngsters that this is a inherently unjust country with a dog-eat-dog / zero sum society . . . then you will of course get leftists like AOC. But you will ALSO get support for the Donald Trumps of the world and their nasty, volatile politics.
Sununu's rationalization that he s merely following the "51% of the polling" is weak, weak, weak. All patriots oppose Trump. Even if the polling were accurate, everyone else is doing it" is a childish rationale.
Ah, here comes the neocons. Eliot Cohen opinion article from WSJ in 2001: "Iraq Can't Resist Us
The Gulf War was a cakewalk. The enemy is even weaker now."
In 2017, he seemed to accept that the Iraq war was a "mistake" (let's not consider the millions of Iraqis who were killed or forced to leave the country or the thousands of dead and maimed US troops):
"and for the most part, he owns up to recent U.S. failures. In Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States was “unprepared, intellectually and organizationally.” It made “fundamental misjudgments,” and the military adapted only haltingly and intermittently to the new forms of conflict it faced. Ultimately, Cohen concludes, the Iraq War, which he once staunchly supported, was “a mistake.” False intelligence about weapons of mass destruction damaged U.S. credibility, as did the abuses at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere. More broadly, the war strained civil-military relations, caused tensions with key U.S. allies and left the United States weaker rather than stronger."
Really? I just listened to him on shield of the republic like 6 months ago and he was still defending Iraq. Eric had finally agreed that it was a mistake.
I don’t think Eliot and eric realize how bad they are for American foreign policy. It’s not that they aren’t smart but their judgement was so spectacularly awful and…nothing happened to them. They didn’t lose their job. They weren’t kicked out of the intellectual fp game. They just continue to say and do the same things and people wonder why Americans don’t trust fp.
As an Afghanistan and Iraq vet myself, let me say I'm very moved by your family's committment and sacrifice. And it's quite understandable--that's putting it lightly & not the right word--that you are not a "war hawk." Nor am I. I'm so glad to agree that the ball is now in Team MAGA's court and that it's time for them to pass the long-overdue Israel, Ukraine, and Taiwan aid bill.
I don't *think* anyone is seriously proposing US ground troops go toe-to-toe w/Iranian forces--not that any type of US airpower is risk-free. Bombing Iran--not that I'm advocating that necessarily or that I think we're close--involves confronting their air defenses and they're respectable.
IMHO, Israel is a special friend of the US; the current Israeli *government,* however, is like your friend who always insists on driving drunk (and when you try to be the least bit stern responds back that you don't love him enough!). Not sure how much you know about Israel, but you'd probably like their people. They have their crazies, too but since almost everyone serves in uniform, their people are much more clear-eyed about war & peace than Americans. People & elected leaders are not afraid of being called "unpatriotic" for criticizing/questioning their gov't or security establishment, as they--the people--have already risked their lives for the nation. And men stay in the reserves until 40.
Everyone has skin in the game. In the US, I think it's now *less* than 1% of the population that serves or is the immediate family of someone in uniform. It's a lot easier for politicians & talking heads to come up with grandiose foreign policy pronouncements when the servicemembers are just numbers, not family or friends.
(To be clear, however, some of the elites' sons *do* serve and even some of the elites have; Eliot Cohen was a reservist called to active duty and his son was an Army officer, I believe.)
Vietnam and Iraq are examples of what happens when "tough" but reasonable foreign policy goes off the rails. A lesson to learn from both sad wars is how to tow that line. We're not going to invade Iran, obviously, and its currently impossible for the people to overthrow the regime.
So, whether the Left, Right, or Center likes this or not, the reality is that we must "keep Iran in check." That means a long, patient struggle with a lot of action in the shadows. We can't be pacifists, as you point out, but I'd argue we should aim to be "owls" instead of hawks or doves.
Thank you again--sincerely--for your family's sacrifice to our great country.
If you're really wanting a war, take heart. The NY Times: "Benny Gantz, a centrist minister and one of three voting members of the war cabinet, said that Israel should exact a price from Iran, but only 'in a way and at a time that suits us.' Itamar Ben-Gvir, a far-right minister, then criticized Mr. Gantz for his perceived moderation, arguing that Israel should deter Iran by going 'crazy.'"
So a centrist minister wants to "exact a price" when it's convenient and a far-right minister advocates leadership's complete mental breakdown and some military lunacy to match. Split that difference and you get a modestly fast retaliation just short of leveling Tehran.
If these were last night's hopeful indications (as The Times wrote), I'd not care to read the frightful ones.
A retaliation to Iran's retaliation that by all all accounts was mostly ineffective anyway. Now we see why the Israel-Palestine conflict is so intractable. Same dynamic.
The Iranians aren't Palestinian last time I checked. They joined--and escalated--a conflict that logically they have no business in. Not to be a smartass, but the conflict between the Jews and Arabs of what was once British Mandatory Palestine is tough enough without Persians joining in! It's not their war!
It's going to be all but impossible to reach any settlement between Israelis and Palestinians as long as outsiders like Iran sponsor radical, violent groups that openly--proudly--declare their opposition to any settlement between Israelis and Palestinians!
I never claimed that the Iranians are Palestinians, but you knew that. Retaliation begets retaliation which beget retaliation, and it never ends. so you get intractable conflicts like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict regardless of proxies. We see it again, with Republicans saying Israel should retaliate against Iran's (as some one else said) squirt gun retaliation against an Israeli attack which you say was retaliation for a an Iranian proxy attack. It is all wrong-headed and counter-productive. If Israel and (in the most current case) Hamas want a solution, they would find a solution. Strong factions on both sides take the most extreme interpretation of from the river to the sea (which by the way originally appeared in the 1972 Likud party platform.
Ha, wonderfully written BTW. You make quite the point w/ your impressive use of language.
I've mentioned this in other posts, but one thing very different between Israel & the US is that (almost) all Israelis serve in the military. As a result, (most) of their people are less starry-eyed about war than most Americans. In the All-Volunteer Force era, most Americans seem to lean towards absolutist views on war & peace--i.e., "kill 'em all & let God sort 'em out" (at no cost to us) or that any conflict is a likely bloodsucking quagmire at best, a world war at worst.
Reasonable people can disagree on what the US and/or Israel should do next. That said, "going crazy" by design is also, by definition, *not reasonable.* Ironically, the failure of Iran's weekend attack may drive them to restart a nuclear weapon project, even as some more hawkish Americans & Israelis start talking as if they currently have the bomb or are its doorstep. Iran doesn't and isn't--but could get to a theoretically working (but untested) bomb soon.
Just when you thought we'd learned everything from Iraq, it would be epic tragedy to get in a shooting war w/ Iran over a hypothetical. An Israeli response "in a way and at a time that suits us" sounds like a sober-minded approach to inflicting a punishment to (hopefully) ensure Iran realizes there will *always* be consequences for its aggression. It's true that Israel's once supposedly awesome deterrent effect has been degraded. Putting aside any moral questions about Gaza, Israel's response there can be seen as part of an effort to rejuvenate the deterrent. Now something must be done to get Iran to respect said rejuvenated deterrent.
I'd normally say its a straw man argument to say the only alternative is a "neocon" all-out war against Iran; that is, the choices are *not* black & white--a muscular, but smart, approach to Iran is possible. I hope I'm not proved wrong.
But never mind that in this case the Iranian "aggression" was against the Israeli aggression of attacking their embassy in Syria. This ever-escalating back and forth is at the root of what make the Israeli-Palestinian conflict so intractable.
Regarding the photo above Philip Rotner's column: We used to call that a "duck's ass". Very fitting in this case.
Huh...Bill Kristol thinks that he knows better than the Joint Chiefs about what's REALLY going on with Iran.
Pretty sure we've been down this road with him before. Pretty sure it ended badly, but not for too many Republicans in power, just the sons and daughters of their base. Of those of us who signed up based on a lie.
Bill Kristol continues to be a war monger, 100% willing to sacrafice other people's children.
He was, like, one of the main founders of the Bulwark. His type of "Never Trump" Republicanism is at the heart of this publication. Sooo . . . not to be a dick, but why are you here, then?
Because I was here before he took over the column. At least Charlie Sykes owned what he did in WI.
"There’s lots of Republicans out there ..."
How did 2nd person singular of the verb 'to be' (is) take the place of 2nd person plural (are). To be or not to be, that are the question.
Is no one going to correct the faulty reporting, above, on Siena's polling? It's minor, but, c'mon, man.
Poor Sununu - he does not know which side to chose? But, does he know that neither side will want to select him! What is Nikki going to do? She wants to speak at the MAGA/GOP Convention this summer! Her spot is in question, too. That head guy will want to punish both of them for going against him? Stay tuned!
I expected Cohen to finish his noting the inflection point with "Israel's direct attack on Iranian soil (its embassy)". A direct attack is an act of war. The first ever between these two belligerents. Iran's attack was a response.
It was Israel's attack that was an inflection point.
And Israel's attack was in response to Iranian-backed groups direct attacks on Israeli soil. Including attacks by Hezballah that have led to almost 100k Israelis being displaced from the north of Israel. There's always a preceding event when discussing any "new" happening in the Middle East.
But you're correct in that the attack on Israel didn't come out of nowhere. None of Iran's "malign activities" have. I'd argue none of Iran's asymmetric violence, to include its sponsorship of daily attacks on US troops in the (first) Iraq War that killed around 1,000.
But it's also true that even those actions are part of a pattern that also did not develop in a vaccum; Iran wants to exert leadership over a Shi'a coalition including Iraq, Syria & Lebanon as a counter to the US-led coalition Tehran feels is unjustly "boxing them in."
This isn't exactly new, but Iran's brazenness has grown . . . but over 20 years, not just a few months. There *is*, I will acknowledge, a misconception being fostered by some that Iran's "malign" behavior began on Oct 8--or the day that old weak wimp Biden took office. Similar to the claims we heard about a decade ago that Iran seemingly became a problem only under Obama. That old refrain doesn't help and also just doesn't stand up to reality. This isn't new and it's not the "fault" of either Biden or Israel.
Israel's attack on Iran was the first on Iranian soil, ever. Yes or no?
Contrary to myth, a consulate--or embassy--is not a nation's "soil."
The Israeli attack was certainly a breach of protocol, but not the equivalent of bombing Tehran (which is exactly what Iran tried to do to Tel Aviv).
And before Iran struck somebody's actual soil, its proxies were lobbing missiles & rockets at Israel. And I'm not even talking about Hamas here. Hezballah, the Houthis . . . people who ordinarily shouldn't care about the squabble between Jews & Arabs in what was formerly British Palestine.
If outside entities like Hezbollah, the Houthi regime, and the Islamic Republic are so concerned about Palestinians, perhaps they shouldn't jump-start wars between them and Israel.
You are correct. I misread the newsletter I got that from. But they have sovereignty over the embassy. It's still an escalation on the part of Israel, no?
I agree that a "deteriorating geopolitical environment" is happening in slow motion before our eyes. Could it be that, to young people, diplomacy is starting to look like weakness and bravado is starting to look like security? If the U.S. is clinging to an outdated strategy of containment and caution, maybe the "spidey sense" of reasonable young Dems is telling them that something's not right.
I couldn’t agree more Kari Lake truly does need gods guidance!
Listening to Public radio: they think this was a scam. When our National Security-Military makes a mistake we hear moaning. Now that Iran fails to land a glove on Israel-we hear-“it was a set up”. Damned if you do-damned if you don’t. And this while we still have to deal with Trump’s explanation. No unity. Many agendas.
Spot-on. I was discussing w/ a buddy the marvel of Israel's missile defenses but we both came to the same point that when tech works and there's virtually no bloodshed, the ill-informed think war is a piece of cake and, ipso facto, all the warnings & concerns about Iran--or Russia or China--are overblown. Just excuses for the evil "military industrial complex." It's such drivel. The elite talking heads of the left-leaning type LOVE to malign "low information" voters mesmerized by Trump. Well, there are plenty of public radio types who have *zero* information when it comes to the nature of war & national security, but love to sprout their own conspiracy theories (i.e., it's the evil defense corporations, it's the evil "neocons" . . . examples of whom are always Jewish . . . playing into another conspiracy--it's Israel and the "Israel Lobby").
And, yes, then there's the MAGA approach to foreign affairs . . . which is just one incoherent reactionary temper-tantrum.
Israel attacked Iran in Damascus without telling the United States. That should be the headline. And Joe Biden came to their defense anyway!
Stop escalating with Iran. This wasn’t a serious attack by Iran it was telegraphed. The US is 100000000000% doing the right thing by avoiding attacking Iran. Netanyahu wanted the US to strike Iran back in 2012. He cares nothing for consequences to US troops.
Nobody has a problem with Israel bombing the Iranian EMBASSY compound in Syria?
Things are going to start getting extra messy if embassies and other diplomatic structures are considered fair game in military conflicts.
Israel literally attacked what is legally considered Iranian soil in Syria. Iran responded in kind, except they announced everything in advance to make their missiles easier to shoot down. And Iran considers the matter settled now.
Ball is in Israel's court. But what exactly did they expect Iran to do when faced with such a brazen attack on its sovereignty? We all know that Israel and the United States would have mounted an exponentially larger response.
Chris Sununu highlights what is at the heart of the polling that you discuss here. Trump would be truly offensive if he seemed truly aberrant. But to young people - who have always lived in a world full of Trumpicans - there is no memory of how people COULD behave, Democrat OR Republican. I did not like a lot of Reagan/ Bush policies. But they did not behave like assholes 24/7, like young people would assume all politicians do (with a very few exceptions). Especially poilticians who are older white males (which I am too). So "grab 'em by the pussy" was a long time ago.
I have a theory as to why young people--at least a good chunk of them--support Trump or at least can hold their noses & vote for him.
I don't know how many people, yourself included, would like to hear it, however . . . The nastiness of today's politics, of which Trump is just the logical extreme, has its roots somewhere. There still are decent elected, or want-to-be elected, officials AND I fully recognize that there is no true equivalent to Trump on the far Left. I don't think anyone feels the need to take a shower after attending an Elizabeth Warren rally!
And, of course, our politics have been nasty before . . . one senator caned another in the lead-up to the Civil War!!
Trump may not have an equivalent as personally grotesque and politically vulgar in the Democratic Party, but his "everyone out for themselves" worldview resonates VERY deeply among the political Left--at least the far Left. Many call themselves "progressives" and talk about a kinder world . . . but they're just as enraged as MAGA die hards, While it's probably true that their constant vigilance for "toxic masculinity" will ensure a future Leftist populist never boasts of grabbing anyone by the pussy, do not minimize their rage factor.
Point being that as the Reagan/Bush generation & type of Republicans vanish, along with the simple aging out of Biden-type Democrats, we will get as new "leaders" two generations (at least) of folks reared on an education that is philosophically rooted in post-modernism & critical theory, both of which declare the US to be a fundamentally--"structurally"--racist, misogynistic, & unjust country and society.
Agree or disagree w/ their policies--and even go as far as to say their policies were or were not good for minorities & historically marginalized groups--the Reagans, Bushes (both of them), Gerald Fords of the GOP and their Democratic equivalents believed American to be a fundamentally good place and a force for good in the world . . . and thus deserving of half-way decent public servants and a genuine effort to truly make our country a "more perfect union."
Thirty or 40 years of education that laughs & scoffs at the above sentiment produces widespread cynicism, rage, bitterness, anxiety, and conspiratorial thinking.
And so . . . voila! You get today's anything-goes / "both sides do it" / "whataboutism" culture. One day there may be a Leftist Trump who--while he keeps his hands to himself--is just as enraged, unhinged, and supportive of violence. But in the meantime we have Trump on the Right. Not all of his support is from old white men. He gets a share of anyone driven by grievance & resentment. This includes African-American & Hispanic men. Thankfully, not too many . . . but statistically more, it appears, than Reagan, Bush or Ford ever did!
I don't have a Pollyanna-ish view of this nation or our past and I don't want a whitewashed--figuratively & literally--version of history taught to our kids. Don't get me wrong. But I also don't want such deplorable cynicism being taught instead of civics. I thought we won the Cold War, so its pretty abhorrent that variations of Marxism permeate education schools.
In other words, if its beat into peoples' heads as youngsters that this is a inherently unjust country with a dog-eat-dog / zero sum society . . . then you will of course get leftists like AOC. But you will ALSO get support for the Donald Trumps of the world and their nasty, volatile politics.
Sununu's rationalization that he s merely following the "51% of the polling" is weak, weak, weak. All patriots oppose Trump. Even if the polling were accurate, everyone else is doing it" is a childish rationale.
Ah, here comes the neocons. Eliot Cohen opinion article from WSJ in 2001: "Iraq Can't Resist Us
The Gulf War was a cakewalk. The enemy is even weaker now."
In 2017, he seemed to accept that the Iraq war was a "mistake" (let's not consider the millions of Iraqis who were killed or forced to leave the country or the thousands of dead and maimed US troops):
"and for the most part, he owns up to recent U.S. failures. In Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States was “unprepared, intellectually and organizationally.” It made “fundamental misjudgments,” and the military adapted only haltingly and intermittently to the new forms of conflict it faced. Ultimately, Cohen concludes, the Iraq War, which he once staunchly supported, was “a mistake.” False intelligence about weapons of mass destruction damaged U.S. credibility, as did the abuses at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere. More broadly, the war strained civil-military relations, caused tensions with key U.S. allies and left the United States weaker rather than stronger."
https://wapo.st/4aVoKkN (no paywall)
And let's remember, Israel attacked Iran first. They should understand overly aggressive retaliations.
Really? I just listened to him on shield of the republic like 6 months ago and he was still defending Iraq. Eric had finally agreed that it was a mistake.
I don’t think Eliot and eric realize how bad they are for American foreign policy. It’s not that they aren’t smart but their judgement was so spectacularly awful and…nothing happened to them. They didn’t lose their job. They weren’t kicked out of the intellectual fp game. They just continue to say and do the same things and people wonder why Americans don’t trust fp.
"Spectacularly awful" is a perfect sentiment.
Bill, how long has the Middle
East been at war with one
faction of itself or another?
Your memory must be very
cloudy on how we got into
the messes of Gulf War II and
Afghanistan. How'd they turn
out for us?
I'm a Vietnam Gold Star wife.
My grandchildren served in
Iraq and Afghanistan. I am
not a war hawk. I'm not a
pacifist either if we're
attacked. I believe in
supporting our allies up to
a point. Personally, I don't
want to see US boots on the
ground in combat for the rest
of my life.
You should be talking to the
TrumpMaga House reps and
Speaker to get that bill for
aid to Ukraine, Taiwan and
Israel voted on. That's what's
needed now. Not armed
combat.
As an Afghanistan and Iraq vet myself, let me say I'm very moved by your family's committment and sacrifice. And it's quite understandable--that's putting it lightly & not the right word--that you are not a "war hawk." Nor am I. I'm so glad to agree that the ball is now in Team MAGA's court and that it's time for them to pass the long-overdue Israel, Ukraine, and Taiwan aid bill.
I don't *think* anyone is seriously proposing US ground troops go toe-to-toe w/Iranian forces--not that any type of US airpower is risk-free. Bombing Iran--not that I'm advocating that necessarily or that I think we're close--involves confronting their air defenses and they're respectable.
IMHO, Israel is a special friend of the US; the current Israeli *government,* however, is like your friend who always insists on driving drunk (and when you try to be the least bit stern responds back that you don't love him enough!). Not sure how much you know about Israel, but you'd probably like their people. They have their crazies, too but since almost everyone serves in uniform, their people are much more clear-eyed about war & peace than Americans. People & elected leaders are not afraid of being called "unpatriotic" for criticizing/questioning their gov't or security establishment, as they--the people--have already risked their lives for the nation. And men stay in the reserves until 40.
Everyone has skin in the game. In the US, I think it's now *less* than 1% of the population that serves or is the immediate family of someone in uniform. It's a lot easier for politicians & talking heads to come up with grandiose foreign policy pronouncements when the servicemembers are just numbers, not family or friends.
(To be clear, however, some of the elites' sons *do* serve and even some of the elites have; Eliot Cohen was a reservist called to active duty and his son was an Army officer, I believe.)
Vietnam and Iraq are examples of what happens when "tough" but reasonable foreign policy goes off the rails. A lesson to learn from both sad wars is how to tow that line. We're not going to invade Iran, obviously, and its currently impossible for the people to overthrow the regime.
So, whether the Left, Right, or Center likes this or not, the reality is that we must "keep Iran in check." That means a long, patient struggle with a lot of action in the shadows. We can't be pacifists, as you point out, but I'd argue we should aim to be "owls" instead of hawks or doves.
Thank you again--sincerely--for your family's sacrifice to our great country.
Owls instead of hawks or doves. Very good.
Agree with much of what you said. Thank you for your service.
If you're really wanting a war, take heart. The NY Times: "Benny Gantz, a centrist minister and one of three voting members of the war cabinet, said that Israel should exact a price from Iran, but only 'in a way and at a time that suits us.' Itamar Ben-Gvir, a far-right minister, then criticized Mr. Gantz for his perceived moderation, arguing that Israel should deter Iran by going 'crazy.'"
So a centrist minister wants to "exact a price" when it's convenient and a far-right minister advocates leadership's complete mental breakdown and some military lunacy to match. Split that difference and you get a modestly fast retaliation just short of leveling Tehran.
If these were last night's hopeful indications (as The Times wrote), I'd not care to read the frightful ones.
A retaliation to Iran's retaliation that by all all accounts was mostly ineffective anyway. Now we see why the Israel-Palestine conflict is so intractable. Same dynamic.
The Iranians aren't Palestinian last time I checked. They joined--and escalated--a conflict that logically they have no business in. Not to be a smartass, but the conflict between the Jews and Arabs of what was once British Mandatory Palestine is tough enough without Persians joining in! It's not their war!
It's going to be all but impossible to reach any settlement between Israelis and Palestinians as long as outsiders like Iran sponsor radical, violent groups that openly--proudly--declare their opposition to any settlement between Israelis and Palestinians!
I never claimed that the Iranians are Palestinians, but you knew that. Retaliation begets retaliation which beget retaliation, and it never ends. so you get intractable conflicts like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict regardless of proxies. We see it again, with Republicans saying Israel should retaliate against Iran's (as some one else said) squirt gun retaliation against an Israeli attack which you say was retaliation for a an Iranian proxy attack. It is all wrong-headed and counter-productive. If Israel and (in the most current case) Hamas want a solution, they would find a solution. Strong factions on both sides take the most extreme interpretation of from the river to the sea (which by the way originally appeared in the 1972 Likud party platform.
Ha, wonderfully written BTW. You make quite the point w/ your impressive use of language.
I've mentioned this in other posts, but one thing very different between Israel & the US is that (almost) all Israelis serve in the military. As a result, (most) of their people are less starry-eyed about war than most Americans. In the All-Volunteer Force era, most Americans seem to lean towards absolutist views on war & peace--i.e., "kill 'em all & let God sort 'em out" (at no cost to us) or that any conflict is a likely bloodsucking quagmire at best, a world war at worst.
Reasonable people can disagree on what the US and/or Israel should do next. That said, "going crazy" by design is also, by definition, *not reasonable.* Ironically, the failure of Iran's weekend attack may drive them to restart a nuclear weapon project, even as some more hawkish Americans & Israelis start talking as if they currently have the bomb or are its doorstep. Iran doesn't and isn't--but could get to a theoretically working (but untested) bomb soon.
Just when you thought we'd learned everything from Iraq, it would be epic tragedy to get in a shooting war w/ Iran over a hypothetical. An Israeli response "in a way and at a time that suits us" sounds like a sober-minded approach to inflicting a punishment to (hopefully) ensure Iran realizes there will *always* be consequences for its aggression. It's true that Israel's once supposedly awesome deterrent effect has been degraded. Putting aside any moral questions about Gaza, Israel's response there can be seen as part of an effort to rejuvenate the deterrent. Now something must be done to get Iran to respect said rejuvenated deterrent.
I'd normally say its a straw man argument to say the only alternative is a "neocon" all-out war against Iran; that is, the choices are *not* black & white--a muscular, but smart, approach to Iran is possible. I hope I'm not proved wrong.
But never mind that in this case the Iranian "aggression" was against the Israeli aggression of attacking their embassy in Syria. This ever-escalating back and forth is at the root of what make the Israeli-Palestinian conflict so intractable.
So much for better dead than red /s