If you visualize, you can almost figure out who gets to stand where in the Atlantic circle-jerk:
I’m looking forward to reading Jeffrey Goldberg’s piece elsewhere at The Atlantic on Iran, its pursuit of nuclear technology, Israel’s likely response, and America’s options. In general I find his long form reportage an invaluable source of information and analysis, and I very much dissent from the uncharitable assessments of his past work offered by some of his critics. Indeed I am confident that if they read more of his work they’d change their assessment.
I do think it’s fair to say that in important respects the Iraq War turned out differently than Mr. Goldberg anticipated. In this he is hardly alone. And although this point occurred to me in his defense, I think it’s also an insight that should inform the current debate about Iran: there is always a substantial disconnect between what even our most informed analysts think is going to happen in a geopolitical conflict, and what actually happens if that very conflict actually occurs.
Why, yes. It probably is fair to say things turned out a touch differently than predicted.
All I can really add to this is DougJ’s timeless and prescient quip:
I’m watching Monica Crowley and Pat Buchanan on the McLaughlin group and so help me God, I am praying for a dirty bomb in Georgetown.
These people will destroy us all.
beltane
The Atlantic Borg collective would be almost bearable if they stopped referencing each other altogether. Silence is golden; it is certainly more golden than overt shilling and brown-nosing.
neill
The Atlantic monotone always sounds to me like HAL in 2001.
Open the god damn pod door, HAL…
dmsilev
“I do think it’s fair to say that in important respects the Iraq War turned out differently than Mr. Goldberg anticipated.”
It doesn’t quite have the same flow as Hirohito’s “the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan’s advantage”, but definitely a worthy entry into the Massive Understatement Of The Century contest.
dms
cleek
in hindsight, predicting the future is hard. on the other hand, this new sober analysis of Iran’s future capabilities says… !
—
on the other hand, i like his bleg for examples of people being wrong about Iraq. dude’s mailbox gonna overflow.
Morbo
Ah yes, a Sully break week, which basically means I’ll go straight to Buzzfeed without the lamestream media filter.
Midnight Marauder
Totally nailed that it was by Conor Friedersdorf.
The tell?
The naivety is just unparalleled.
Morbo
Oh, and speaking of people who were not yet writers for the Atlantic writing hilariously poor predictions about Iraq…
middlewest
It’s important to remember that supporters of the Iraq invasion claimed that Saddam Hussein could engage in one the largest military build-ups on the planet with zero retaliation from Iran. So yeah, remember to never take these guys seriously on Middle East affairs ever again.
stuckinred
This should help things
General Stuck
I guess like Dougj said the other day, that for those who either didn’t oppose the Iraq war, or didn’t oppose it very much, what these asshats say and calling them on it now is important. For the rest of us, it is pissing in the wind and a big yawn, while Obama is president, because he is not going to launch an attack, that first will not work, and second, will not work and would likely shut off the oil to a large degree and get a lot of people killed for something that will not work. Even Bush wouldn’t do that. And after Iraq, it will be awhile before the public will swallow another war, unless it is started by a country that attacks us in a significant way. And only that country that did the attacking. And Bibi is mostly all mouth, and won’t because he is mostly all mouth, and wouldn’t because Obama won’t support him.
Goldberg, this idiot, and the rest of the neo cons wings are clipped for the time being. And I would note that Fallows opposed the Iraq war.
Mike in NC
@dmsilev:
Ah, ya beat me with the Hirohito line!
PaminBB
In a similar vein, I have been hearing that Pakistan is a bit damp lately.
But John, you omitted an important project involving the readers: “I’m hoping to gather a bunch of examples of analysis made prior to the Iraq War that proved incorrect in hindsight.”
Shouldn’t the question be to identify the analyses that proved correct in hindsight?
me
Things that turned out differently than expected:
The Titanic
The Hindenburg
Napoleon’s invasion of Russia
Hitler’s invasion of Russia
The Tacoma Narrows Bridge
cmorenc
Even more scary than the fact that things rarely turn out the way war hawks (e.g. neocons) in the United States foresee and predict they will is the fact that NEITHER DO they usually turn out anything like the way their antagonistically aggressive opponents in foreign lands predict they will either. This multiplies the possibilities for future events to spin dangerously out of control if either of these factions controls power in their respective countries or regions.
About the only such war that turned out pretty much the way their very patient proponents foresaw it would was the North Vietnamese side in the Vietnam War. Iraq pretty much didn’t turn out the way Saddam Hussein expected it to or George Bush (Jr.) I doubt a military confrontation with the United States or Israel will turn out nearly so well as even the most cautious hopes of hard-liners within Iran do, and certainly not anything like neocons and hard-liners in Israel do.
demo woman
I hate to remind everyone but the date is August 16. Everyone knows we don’t try to sell wars until September.
By the anniversary of Sept. 11, they will paint Iran as the money behind Al Qaeda.
cleek
@Morbo:
jesus… that was awesome.
stuckinred
@me: Altamont
Napoleon
At least Fallows in The Atlantic was almost spot on with his predictions for Iraq.
morzer
@demo woman:
Well, it does take some time for them to apply the lotion to each other. You can’t expect the Atlantic Neocon Wankerium to crank into action dry.
Chris
Haaretz says that the “Ground Zero mosque” will be moved.
haaretz.com/news/international/muslim-leaders-to-abandon-plans-for-ground-zero-community-center-1.30…
Omnes Omnibus
@me: Sting’s career.
Culture of Truth
“And although this point occurred to me in his defense, I think it’s also an insight that should inform the current debate about Iran…”
He was very before wrong so don’t be so quick to dismiss him now.
Aren’t there aslyums for people who think like this?
beltane
@Chris: It would be funny if were moved closer to the actual Ground Zero. The nitwits would be too stupid to notice.
cleek
@Chris:
i hope not.
after all this, to give in to wingnut screeching ?
fuck.
DougJ
@Omnes Omnibus:
You touch on a troubling subject that too many people ignore…at our civilization’s peril.
Omnes Omnibus
@Culture of Truth: That is using “even a blind squirrel” reasoning.
morzer
@cleek:
It would be intensely discouraging, to see hate-peddling and hysteria defeat good intentions.
GambitRF
I do think it’s fair to say that in important respects the Ford Theatre’s production of My American Cousin ended differently than Mrs. Lincoln anticipated.
Napoleon
@Chris:
Right, they have the story and not the NY Times.
Zifnab
The thing that kills me is that I’m not worried about Republicans voting for an attack on Iran. It’s strange, but it’s a bit comforting knowing where they stand.
What bothers me more than anything is looking at the AUMF vote and seeing all those Democrats on the list. The bottom line is that you can’t launch a war like this without the Senate’s permission. And yet the Senate always seems first in line to blow several trillion dollars on a war in the Middle East.
Can we get some savvy anti-war group to head this off at the pass now? Maybe start circulating a petition that openly condemns using military action against Iran in 2010 while the idea still sounds insanely unpopular, so that we can head off the Wurlitzer in 2012 when this shit goes into high gear?
Tone in DC
And Bibi is mostly all mouth, and won’t because he is mostly all mouth, and wouldn’t because Obama won’t support him.
*******************************************************
I only hope that the US and Israel are smart enough to avoid war with Iran.
Hob
What the fuck is Friedersdorf talking about? Everyone’s beef with Goldberg is not about what he predicted would happen, it’s about what he claimed had already happened. The Iraq-Al Qaeda “connection” wasn’t in some hazy quantum-mechanical state, it was demonstrably bullshit and Goldberg used bullshit sources to push it. Reporters can’t be expected to predict the future, but they really ought to be able to correctly predict the past.
freelancer
This post is proof that the frontpagers are just jealous of TBogg’s “Moore Award Nomination.”
andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/08/moore.html
How dare you disrupt the comity of the pundit class. Moar civility please!
Michael
Is there anybody that is more worthless than a paid pundit? It isn’t like any of them actually have any real experience at anything.
Omnes Omnibus
@DougJ: I have to call ’em like I see ’em without letting issues like “popularity,” “relevance,” and musicality interfere. I will not be silenced. Don’t mourn, organize.
me
@freelancer:
The Moore Award must be for “Most Compelling Proposal”.
cleek
@Michael:
a Blue Dog Senator.
demo woman
@Chris: From what I read online, Haaretz is better than Drudge in their reporting.
MSM made the mosque location, a bigger story than it should be. 70% of Americans could care less if that building is empty causing a problem for the entire block. The only good that would come from a move is maybe I won’t have to see Peter King on TV.
Omnes Omnibus
@Michael:
Pam Geller (I assume she does her thing for the rush that the hate gives her).
sherparick
Nothing can be predicted about war except that thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of people will die and you can expect it to go on for decades. And I also safely predict that at end of that decade the U.S. will be a weaker, relatively poorer, authoritarian, and more unequal country than now. All for a policy advocated by the so called super-patriots amongst us.
martha
@michael: A TV weatherman?
Zifnab
@morzer: Depends on how many crazy threats the site has been getting. I’m not really interested in watching some wacko try and Timothy McVeigh the building just to prove he’s a Real American ™.
It’s absurd, because this is a group that has functionally be an ally of the US up until the wingnut hysteria bomb exploded. I’d love to see them build the center just to show those crazy wingnuts that they aren’t afraid. But I’m not really interested in reading “Eight men, three women, and fourteen children gunned down by deranged lunatic wielding a street-legal assault weapon and screaming about terror babies” just to show those dirty Republicans.
The community center needed more public support to counteract the insanity.
James Hare
Living in the Washington area, I hope nobody dirty bombs us. It would be inconvenient to have to avoid contaminated areas. It may be hard to believe, but the assholes are a very very small minority around here. Our elected officials are as bad as the rest of them, but most of the folks who live here have their hearts in the right place. There are millions living and working here and the political classes and their hangers-on are less than 1% of our total population.
DougJ
@Omnes Omnibus:
Ever seen the Behind the Music on him: “For a while, I lost track of where Sting ended and Gordon began”. What a wanker.
BGinCHI
“and what actually happens if that very conflict actually occurs.”
Passive voice much?
It “occurred”? Like the life cycle of the bee?
No, it happened in part because it was allowed to and abetted.
Assholes.
Omnes Omnibus
@DougJ: There is always this classic.
Michael
When I read Goldberg, I think about this…:
drkrick
OT: James Kilpatrick finally died. What are the odds that he’s primarily eulogized as the cuddly old man eviscerating Shana Alexander’s arguments on 60 Minutes with scant mention of his role as the architect of “Massive Resistance” to school integration in the ’50’s, a project that’s still screwing up public education in parts of Virginia.
morzer
@Zifnab:
I think that any wingnut who wants to kill Muslims isn’t going to be stopped just because a cultural center isn’t built. To my mind, not building Cordoba House because of this sort of fear is just a way of pushing the problem away a little – it won’t solve it, but it will encourage the bigots and haters, and they’ll start to push harder elsewhere once this victory gives them a boost.
bobbo
You know, we shouldn’t let the fact that everyone who wanted war with Iraq was wrong about everything make us skeptical; because if we become skeptical, then we won’t believe all of those same wrong people when they warn us about the grave, existential threat posed by Iran.
Crashman
@Chris: Park51’s twitter account says the Haaretz story is completly untrue./a
DougJ
@Omnes Omnibus:
Very funny. I like this take down of Bono even better.
David Hunt
Yes. The Atlantic, the editorial staffs of the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal, the National Review, the Weekly Standard…
srv
@Hob:
eemom thinks you should still be more open minded.
It was just a tempest in a teapot.
Cacti
You meanies!
It’s just impolite for you to point out that he made shit up.
Mnemosyne
@Zifnab:
Here’s the question that occurs to me: is Congress allowed to declare war on their own, or does it have to be requested by the executive? The AUMF was proposed by the Bush administration (that’s why it was an “authorization” on the part of Congress) but can Congress basically tell the president that he has to attack a country?
That’s more my worry, because I really cannot picture Obama willingly bombing Iran for anything short of a massive terrorist attack inside the US that the Iranian government publicly takes responsibility for.
Mickey Dugan
But where, Conor, is his commonfuckingsense?
Not to mention basic history and logic.
Enough with the boogeyman nightmares, and show us the evidence.
In 1962, Adlai Stevenson could show the world real photographs of missile bases in Cuba. The photos were captured with 1960s technology – film cameras, U2s, shooting over jungle cover and being fired upon.
Fast-forward 40 years…
Assclowns like Jeffrey Goldberg have us pretending that technology and intelligence-gathering actually regressed and went backwards.
It didn’t matter that we have satellite technology; infrared ground penetrating technology; that Iraq was under a No-Fly Zone; a nation that is mostly a desert, not a jungle, with few clouds or visual obstacles; and IAEA and UNSCOM inspectors on the ground.
In Jeffrey Goldberg’s deluded brain, real evidence was beside the point, and junk CorelDraw cartoons of non-existent killer “mobile weapons laboratories” and balsa-wood drones held together with bungey-cords were reason to invade a country and start a war.
That’s not intelligence. That’s a Village Idiot.
Nearly a decade later and he’s repeating the same horseshit, selling Iran’s nuke program as ex-cathedra fact in the first paragraph despite all evidence to the contrary.
Like Bill Kristol, Jeffrey Goldberg is an assholewarpig.
celticdragonchick
@me:
You can add the Russo-Japan War of 1905 to that.
The American Revolution probably as well.
fasteddie9318
@Hob:
Fixy
celticdragonchick
@morzer:
I’m beginning to think that just based on safety reasons, the group may need to change their building plans. As Zifnab noted above, the Cordoba Center could be a real tempting target for somebody the same way the Tolerance museum was last year when a neo Nazi shot it up.
dmsilev
@Mnemosyne: In principle, the President could, as CINC, order the military not to do anything. I would imagine that if such a scenario came to pass in practice, Congress would be drawing up impeachment charges within about an hour.
dms
Omnes Omnibus
@DougJ: I loved that show.
Paris
Goldberg’s latest opinion summary was entirely based on anonymous sources that we’re supposed to trust because of his great track record. Unfortunately, Goldberg’s a hack liar so the trust part is lacking a bit.
morzer
@celticdragonchick:
I don’t think changing those plans will change anything. If a wingnut is determined to kill Muslims, he’ll just try elsewhere.
Turbulence
@General Stuck: I guess like Dougj said the other day, that for those who either didn’t oppose the Iraq war, or didn’t oppose it very much, what these asshats say and calling them on it now is important. For the rest of us, it is pissing in the wind and a big yawn, while Obama is president, because he is not going to launch an attack, that first will not work, and second, will not work and would likely shut off the oil to a large degree and get a lot of people killed for something that will not work. Even Bush wouldn’t do that.
First, you’re wrong. I opposed the Iraq war. A lot. And calling this warmonger on his warmonger matters to me. Both because it is the right thing to do and because I want to prevent another pointless war that ends up exterminating another million brown people.
Secondly, it is obvious to everyone that the US is not going to launch a first strike at Iran. Everyone knows that. I’ve written that repeatedly in the other threads. Your attempts to frame that as the relevant issue are just a distraction.
The real issue is whether the Israelis will convince Obama to tell the USAF not to take down Israeli combat aircraft that are doing the actual bombing. Getting the USAF to avoid firing on some planes for the few minutes they need to transit through Iraq is easy; much much easier than ordering an attack against Iran. And once the Israelis attack and the Iranians respond, the US will be totally “justified” in striking back against Iran. I’m sure the excuse we’ll use will be something about protecting the global economy by preemptively seizing Iranian territory in the Gulf; we’ll do that if the Iranians respond to an Israeli strike in any manner less solicitous than offering Netanyahu a blowjob. After all, we can’t sit by and risk the global economy to the actions of a bunch of crazy people. That are not Wall St bankers that is.
And after Iraq, it will be awhile before the public will swallow another war, unless it is started by a country that attacks us in a significant way. And only that country that did the attacking. And Bibi is mostly all mouth, and won’t because he is mostly all mouth, and wouldn’t because Obama won’t support him.
This is a joke. Americans will happily swallow another war. Don’t you get it? Americans like war. A lot. Most people never have to see a bodybag come home so it does really cost them anything. And besides, Americans don’t think of aerial bombardment and cruise missile attacks as “war” anyway.
People like to talk about how various Israeli governments are all talk and no action. It seems like there are a lot of dead Lebanese folk and dead Palestinians who would dispute these claims. But they can’t because the “all mouth” Israelis exterminated them.
Goldberg, this idiot, and the rest of the neo cons wings are clipped for the time being. And I would note that Fallows opposed the Iraq war.
If the neo cons have had their wings clipped and if Obama won’t support their craziness, then why exactly has Obama completely failed to seriously negotiate with Iran? I linked to a piece by Stephen Walt in an earlier thread that lays out the evidence showing that Obama has never made a serious effort to cut a deal with the Iranians. If the neo cons really have no influence, why is Obama’s negotiating posture with Iran identical to their’s?
xephyr
I’ve beem watching Monica Crowley long enough to know what makes her tick… and it isn’t anything you’d want running around loose indoors either.
General Stuck
@Turbulence:
No they don’t, And the rest of your nonsense should be saved until the wingers get back the WH. When it will be actually relevant. You want to get all fired up with anti war fever and waste your time with paying these idiots the attention they crave, then have at it. I have better things to worry about.. Things that may actually come to pass.
And negotiate with Iran. Well, I think they are in back channels, and have been for a while. Iran wants an Islamic Bomb and they will not be denied, for likely several reasons, a Shia Islamic Bomb, which is important to note, and not because of Israel.
edit – Oh, and eemom was perfectly right. Tempest in a Libtard Teapot, you fucking bunch of blood thirsty Hyenas.
Turbulence
@General Stuck: No they don’t, And the rest of your nonsense should be saved until the wingers get back the WH. When it will be actually relevant. You want to get all fired up with anti war fever and waste your time with paying these idiots the attention they crave, then have at it. I have better things to worry about.. Things that may actually come to pass.
Look, I took what you wrote seriously and responded to your statements piece by piece. I didn’t insult you. Apparently, that sort of behavior is beyond your limited abilities since you haven’t addressed any of my arguments. Instead, all I get is name calling, and not even interesting name calling. Thanks for wasting my time.
WTF are you talking about with paying idiots the attention they crave? Do you really think Goldberg gives a frack about BJ? Do you think he’s here reading comments and getting off on the fact that I say he’s a warmonger? Seriously?
You’re right about one thing: I am kind of fired up about being anti-war. Ever since I watched my country start a pointless war that exterminated a million people, I take this shit seriously. Because I think a million fucking dead people deserve, you know, at least some token effort on our part to prevent another million people from dying horribly as well.
And negotiate with Iran. Well, I think they are in back channels, and have been for a while.
There’s no reason to believe that there are serious backchannel talks. That’s just wish fulfillment. The point remains: looking at the White House’s Iran policy, there is no way it could possibly lead to a negotiated settlement. There is no causal mechanism there as Walt explains here. It literally makes no sense. This is the negotiating posture that Bill Kristol would want if he was smart enough to realize that this is the best way to get sanctions support.
Iran wants an Islamic Bomb and they will not be denied, for likely several reasons, a Shia Islamic Bomb, which is important to note, and not because of Israel.
Do you have any cites to support this or is this more of your crazy wish fulfillment? WTF does a “Shia Islamic Bomb” even mean?
I mean, this is nuts. There is nuclear power in their neighborhood that is openly threatening them. I’m pretty damn sure that has something to do with a desire for nuclear weapons.
General Stuck
@Turbulence: LOL. So delicate a flower. I didn’t insult you, I dismissed you. If that is an insult to you, then so be it. And if you think Iran doesn’t want a nuclear weapon, then I have a bridge to sell you. Do you think they are going to admit it? LOL again.
You might have missed the part where Iran is a Theocracy, so the term “Islamic Bomb” is perfectly reasonable to describe it, and I am hardly the only one to use that term.
But by all means, carry on with the angst over Obama not seriously negotiating with Iran and it’s mullahs. And the neo cons pounding there pud though completely impotent at the moment. Gives me a chuckle.
Mnemosyne
@Turbulence:
I think that’s a much, much more contentious issue than the slam-dunk “yes” you seem to think it is. You may not have noticed, but our relations with Israel are not very good right now since we keep telling them that, no, we’re not going to look the other way while they continue to build illegal settlements, and every time Bibi or one of his pals tries to talk tough about the US doing whatever Israel wants them to do, they end up having to back down.
If Israel couldn’t get George W. Bush to let them attack Iran, what makes you think they’re going to be able to convince Obama to let them do it?
Turbulence
@General Stuck:
I didn’t insult you, I dismissed you.
No, you just failed to address any of my arguments. Because you don’t know what you’re talking about.
And if you think Iran doesn’t want a nuclear weapon, then I have a bridge to sell you.
Where did I write that? Is this another of your fantastic inventions?
General Stuck
@Turbulence: You didn’t make any arguments, at least with anything other than anecdotes and supposition from this or that past event and applying it to current political circumstances.
My argument is also based on supposition, because we cannot know what is in the mind of Obama or Bibi and the Israeli’s. But some facts. Such an attack is overwhelmingly opposed by both ours and Israeli generals and intelligence services. And about every one else except the neo cons in both countries. I like the supporting elements of my supposition better than yours.
maus
@celticdragonchick:
So the best thing to do is fold up and accept your ill-deserved reputation? Eff that.
Turbulence
@Mnemosyne: I think that’s a much, much more contentious issue than the slam-dunk “yes” you seem to think it is. You may not have noticed, but our relations with Israel are not very good right now since we keep telling them that, no, we’re not going to look the other way while they continue to build illegal settlements, and every time Bibi or one of his pals tries to talk tough about the US doing whatever Israel wants them to do, they end up having to back down.
I don’t think Obama saying yes is a slam dunk. He probably won’t. But the point is that we’re talking about the US doing a hell of a lot less than “invad Iran” — and the easier the action is, the more plausible Obama doing it becomes. Again, I think there’s a 50/50 chance at best that Obama will actually tell the USAF to take a long coffee break. But 50/50 is much much better odds than I’d give for the US invading Iran. And that’s the point: the only reason to frame the discussion in terms of something that we know is not going to happen (i.e., the US launches a first strike against Iran) is if you want to distract attention from the actual issues.
I don’t see why you write “we won’t continue to look the other while they continue to build illegal settlements” — we have done exactly that for decades and there’s no indication that Obama is going to change that policy. He’ll make noise, but so far it is just show. After all, there has been no financial penalty for Israeli settlement construction. And construction continues well apace — they just change the definitions so that settlements in the Arab quarters of Jerusalem are not considered settlements. It certainly seems like Bibi hasn’t had to back down on this regard: he’s getting lots of settlement construction while the US government pretends there is a settlement freeze. And he hasn’t been sanctioned in any way. Seems like he’s doing OK to say the least.
If Israel couldn’t get George W. Bush to let them attack Iran, what makes you think they’re going to be able to convince Obama to let them do it?
GWB planned on being in Iraq for a long long time. If the US actually withdraws most of its forces from Iraq, then then Shiite retaliation against American forces in Iraq becomes much less of an issue. Now, I’m skeptical that we’ll ever withdraw enough forces to actually make retaliation in Iraq a non-issue, but we certainly have reduced our exposure.
Beyond that, GWB was one of Bibi’s fellow travelers — conservatives are always worshipped by the US media (and in turn by American elites) when it comes to military matters. There’s a reason that Obama needs GWB’s SecDef in order to get his rather mild military reforms done. Conservatives can get away with sane military policies that Democrats are too afraid to do.
At the end of the day, I have no idea if Obama will cooperate with an Israeli strike. What I do know is that he is not seriously negotiating and that he faces different political pressures than GWB did in ways that make supporting Israeli action easier, not harder. That’s cause enough for concern.
Turbulence
@General Stuck: Such an attack is overwhelmingly opposed by both ours and Israeli generals and intelligence services.
Cite?
And about every one else except the neo cons in both countries.
Um, I think Republicans at least would get a hard on over military action against Iran. And I think a substantial fraction of the Israeli electorate would love the idea of attacking Iran; attacking other countries in the middle east has traditionally been an electoral winner in Israel.
I mean, it seems like you’re describing some alternate universe where the Republicans have radically different ideas about foreign policy and where the Israeli electorate is totally unrecognizable.
General Stuck
Aside from I believe Goldberb mentioning it in his article, here is a “cite” for you. There are many more easily googled.
As for American Generals and the CIA, of course they aren’t going to come out one way or another as Obama, like all US presidents, never takes military options off the table in a tense situation like with Iran. The usual cabal of winger neo cons like Michael Hayden and others have been running around claiming a US attack is imminent, if you want to believe they have the ear of Obama and his inner circle. But there has been a long list of retired generals who have come out against such an attack. And we have such a contingency plan, but Mullen and others are not at all enthusiastic and hope they are never used. It is Obama’s decision, and nobody knows for sure what he is thinking.
And then there was this.
Honus
I’d like to take a second to point out that there were a lot “informed analysts” (the late Robert Byrd comes immediately to mind) that predicted that the Iraq war would turn out exactly the way it did. They were shouted down, ridiculed, and ignored.
What’s even more depressing is that the people who were dead-ass wrong are still taken seriously.
Mnemosyne
@Turbulence:
Funny, the Israelis don’t seem to see it that way, and that’s from only 5 months ago. It’s been a continuing point of contention pretty much since the day Obama was sworn in, so to say he’s eager to roll over and do whatever the Israelis want is far-fetched, to say the least.
I’m also not quite understanding your logic when you claim that Bush was less likely to do what Israel wanted because he was closer to them, and Obama’s more distant and fraught relationship shows that he’s more likely to do what they want than Bush was. I don’t see how that makes a lick of sense. When the US Secretary of State is saying publicly that Israel “insulted” the US, how exactly does that translate into the US wanting to appease Israel and not the other way around?
Turbulence
@General Stuck: Aside from I believe Goldberb mentioning it in his article, here is a “cite” for you. There are many more easily googled.
OK, you’re citing Goldberg, a “journalist” who published complete fabrications in the past. That’s not a credible cite. Everything else you’ve got is just unsourced. Only an idiot would assume that every anonymous report is correct. And your Raw Story “cite” is mostly a recap of Goldberg’s article. It also has some info from the Parsi book indicating that some parts of the Israeli government concluded that Iran wasn’t a huge threat 15 years ago…which tells us precisely nothing about people in the Israeli government today.
As for American Generals and the CIA, of course they aren’t going to come out one way or another as Obama, like all US presidents, never takes military options off the table in a tense situation like with Iran.
So, everything you said about American military and intelligence agencies was just made up, right? I mean, you’re now admitting that you had no basis for asserting anything about what American military and intelligence agencies believe, right?
But there has been a long list of retired generals who have come out against such an attack. And we have such a contingency plan, but Mullen and others are not at all enthusiastic and hope they are never used. It is Obama’s decision, and nobody knows for sure what he is thinking.
Show me this list. And then show me evidence that they’re representative of the armed forces leadership, let alone the intelligence establishment in general. Obviously, there are some non-crazy generals. But that doesn’t tell us anything about the average general.
And then there was this.
Oooh! An article from a Rupert Murdoch publication! That sounds credible. But don’t you have anything from Fox News?
Turbulence
@Mnemosyne: I’m also not quite understanding your logic when you claim that Bush was less likely to do what Israel wanted because he was closer to them, and Obama’s more distant and fraught relationship shows that he’s more likely to do what they want than Bush was.
I don’t believe that; it is not my argument. Perhaps my last comment was unclear, so I’ll try again: Bush was a conservative. In the US, the media and elites give conservatives much greater freedom of action on military issues than they give liberals. Bush could get away with some policies without a peep whereas a Democrat doing the exact same thing would face a chorus of criticism in the beltway. So Bush could afford to tell the Israelis “no — and screw you” in a way that Obama might not be able to. Obama is seen as a liberal and thus has to engage in more he-man displays of military machoness for political reasons.
Let me put it to you this way. Remember all that stuff that Bush said about not being in a war with Islam after 9/11? Do you think that Obama could get away with saying the exact same thing today? Heck, do you think he could get away with sending the Cordoba mosque imam on a goodwill tour like Bush did without paying a political price?
For another example, remember when crazy Zell Miller went batshit about Kerry calling US forces occupiers rather than liberators at the RNC? IIRC, plenty of Republicans had done the exact same damn thing, including Bush. But the media went into frenzy mode because it is OK if republicans completely fuck up foreign/military policy; they’re assumed to be powerful he-man who don’t have anything to prove. But Dems feel like they have to constantly prove they’re tough enough, and that translates into reduced freedom of action.
I don’t see how that makes a lick of sense. When the US Secretary of State is saying publicly that Israel “insulted” the US, how exactly does that translate into the US wanting to appease Israel and not the other way around?
So, have there been any consequences at all due to this “insult”? Have we cut a single dollar from our, um, “contributions” to Israel as a result of this insult? Of course not. Surely you know that. So this insult isn’t even worth a dollar. We made a big show about being insulted but it didn’t change a damn thing. And that’s because at the end of the day, the US relationship with Israel is largely dictated by Congress. Congress doesn’t care if we get “insulted” — they’re happy to take it. So yeah, I’d say that the fact that we were insulted and did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING proves that we are appeasing Israel.
LanceThruster
The dirty bomb would kill too many innocents but to pray for actual targeted assassinations would seem too specific and put us in league with the forces of violent extremism.
As an atheist (and space guy), I believe the most proper prayer to send heavenward to the omnipotent powers of the cosmos is one asking for a very accurate piece of space debris (man-made or “natural” – your call Gawd[s]), or if said diety/dieties really feel(s) like showing off, multiple projectiles targeting each of the problem causers individually.
I know some cringe at the thought of petitioning God or gods with such a call for smiting (many do not as they call upon their own God[s] to bring down curses upon their enemies), but if their God or gods is/are too busy to do a little sensible screening of these requests, then maybe said diety/dieties is/are too f#cking busy and need to step aside.
“I believe in God. It’s just that my God is a capricious pr!ck” ~ HBO comic
General Stuck
I gave you cites you asked for, why would Goldberg make up that Israeli Generals and Intell don’t support an Iran attack. It is common knowledge that much of Iran’s nuke program is under ground and can’t be destroyed. Only idiots would launch such a potential explosive attack throughout the region for something that can’t be accomplished.
And why would The Times claim that Bush Generals were against such an attack as well, for likely the same reasons. And I watched about all the hearings in Armed Services Committee where those Generals all were not for attacking Iran. Heard it with my own ears, and I gave you a link for three.
And what evidence do you have that Obama or Israel plans to attack Iran? Other than your worry, and what kind of idiot would believe Obama would be listening to neo cons at all and getting all flustered about what they write? You take seriously what Goldberg writes, but pick and choose what to believe in his piece. I didn’t bring this bullshit to this blog. The front pagers did, repeatedly, and folks like you eat it up, but dismiss what you don’t like to get your anti war pron on.
Is the Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff a good enough source for you.
Now you need to offer “cites” of military people and Obama saying it is a good idea, and giving any real indication they are going to attack Iran, other than the standard of it always being on the table. Otherwise, you got nothin’ but fear. And reading the entrails of the Goldbergs of the world.
Doctor Science
I have been commenting on the Atlantic discussion, mostly to stress “the Clausewitz-O’Neill Principle”: wars are begun for domestic political reasons.
Whether Israel attacks Iran depends on Israeli *domestic* politics, not on what Iran actually does or doesn’t — just as the US attack on Iraq bore no particular relationship to what Saddam was up to. War is a performance for a domestic audience.
General Stuck
@Doctor Science:
I liked your comment at Atlantic, and agree with it mostly. Though my impression of Israeli internal politics sounds a lot like the Israeli commenter. The IDF is such an intertwined institution in Israel, it is hard to separate it from the people, as most of their military force are citizen soldiers that only get activated when there is a war, or threat of war. They are not largely a separated entity like they are with our all volunteer military, so it is more of a national organic military that trusts it’s leaders to make judgments on cost benefit that are without mostly, all the economic variables we have here with our MIC and the like, or more precisely on things like whether even such a mission is possible to be successful more in a pure military sense rather than as much about internal politics and other factors. And starting something that could escalate into what they fear most, a pan Arab uprising against them, versus the doubt of stopping, or destroying enough of Iran’s underground facilities, I think will likely win out in the end. But who knows.
frosty
I’ve been reading The Atlantic for decades now … OK, I get that it’s not the same magazine as in the 70s, and I thought that cover article a year or two ago on how well “enhanced interrogation” worked was a bit squirrelly, but help me out here, when did it change?
frosty
@me: Funny how that looks a lot like this list I got from a forwarded email athat originated with “The Dilbert Principle” by Scott Adams.
Examples of Bad Press for Engineers
* Hindenberg.
* Space Shuttle Challenger.
* SPANet(tm)
* Hubble space telescope.
* Apollo 13.
* Titanic.
* Ford Pinto.
* Corvair.