| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| Iran, When? |
| 2004-10-06 |
| Months before the liberation of Iraq I wrote that we were about to have our great national debate on the war against the terror masters, and it was going to be the wrong debate. Wrong because it was going to focus obsessively on Iraq, thereby making it impossible to raise the fundamental strategic issues. Alas, that forecast was correct, and we're still stuck in the strategic quagmire we created. Up to our throats. So let's try again to get it right. Like Afghanistan before it, Iraq is only one theater in a regional war. We were attacked by a network of terrorist organizations supported by several countries, of whom the most important were Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. President Bush's original analysis was correct, as was his strategy: We must not distinguish between the terrorists and their national supporters. Hence we need different strategies for different enemies, but we need to defeat all of them. Afghanistan was the classic example, because the Taliban regime was at once home to, and sponsor of, al Qaeda. Al Qaeda attacked us on 9/11, and we responded against the terrorist organization and against the regime that supported it. Once the Taliban had been destroyed, and al Qaeda had been shattered, President Bush launched a political strategy: support the creation of a free Afghanistan, implant the basic institutions of democratic civil society, work toward free elections so that Afghans could freely govern themselves. |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #21 When? No later than Christmas a plan of action will be at least underway of the eventual downfall moth eaten mullahs. |
| Posted by: Mark Espinola 2004-10-06 10:12:44 PM |
| #20 What Mike said plus a robust enough ABM system to protect the US from a state, with 20 launchers combined with sniffing every container that's been with 200 miles of a moslem. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-10-06 3:58:04 PM |
| #19 Folks, it seems an argument has arisen on whether Ledeen should speak out or not. Let's be frank, is the MSM linking to him and asking any admin official to comment on Ledeen? No. Ledeen has spoken about Mullahs since April 2003 and their intentions to see us go down in Iraq. That desire neatly matches that of France, China, and probably Russia. Can't we connect the dots here? IIRC in his writings, he is not advocating a military solution, but rather has focused on getting USG to speak with one voice so that Iranian youth/freedom lovers don't get discouraged. How to help? Money? Computers? Hacking? A little subterfuge here and there? As a last resort (I think the time is coming soon; that's the rub) blast their nuclear facilities. Would I look forward to a world after that? Hell, no. Not with 3 sons of draft age, you can be sure. But what's the alternative? EU negotiations/IAEA inspections under Al Baradei? Kerry supervising nuclear shipments to Iran enabling the Mullahs just like Clinton did with NK? None of it is pretty folks but discouraging discussion from a guy at a thinktank it doesn't help. I would rather guys like David Kay, Paul Bremer, and Richard Lugar shut up for 2 minutes than Ledeen. |
| Posted by: chicago mike 2004-10-06 3:51:15 PM |
| #18 In other words, the nation has not even begun to coalesce around a coherent strategic understanding of what war we're fighting. Which is why I think the contributions of Ledeen and people like VD Hanson are valuable. We need to at least focus the discussion on the larger strategic goals so as to get some kind of national consensus as to which wars are worth fighting and which are not. |
| Posted by: lex 2004-10-06 3:26:29 PM |
| #17 "Give Ledeen this much credit: he's keeping this, the most important issue by far, on the front burner." Yes, I'll give him credit for that, no argument there. But to think the administration can do anything bold about Iran-- or that we can hold any kind of meaningful "national debate" on the subject-- before this damned election is over is not realistic because of the Democrats' behavior. They are demagoguing ***EVERY*** issue, trying to get partisan advantage from everything from our overall, long-term strategic objectives all the way down to minutae like security lapses at a sewer-plant opening ceremony in Baghdad (that bombing a few days ago) and the misdoings of an out-of-control bunch of night-shift MPs at Abu Ghraib. How are we supposed to have any kind of worthwhile discussion of the Iran issue in a climate like this? The answer is, we can't; and that's why I wish Ledeen, and others who share his concerns, would just hold their water until after November 2nd. All this caterwauling about how "Bush is doing it all wrong" just helps the Democrats. And if Kerry wins we'll have much, much, MUCH more to worry about than just Iran: I think all hell's gonna bust loose, everywhere. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2004-10-06 2:51:15 PM |
| #16 Leeden said:...there is only one zero-sum game that interests them, which is the election, and the election is about Iraq, or so they say. This is not a zero sum game. |
| Posted by: John (Q. Citizen) 2004-10-06 1:33:23 PM |
| #15 JFK: Never. |
| Posted by: RWV 2004-10-06 1:19:33 PM |
| #14 Look, if you vote for Kerry, you get appeasement. You vote for Bush, you get pre-emption as a legitimate and credible option. No one can or should say later that he was lied to with your "false promises [the candidate] won't keep." To do otherwise makes the entire election a joke. I doubt many Americans have reached that conclusion. |
| Posted by: lex 2004-10-06 11:50:00 AM |
| #13 2b, Kerry stated his Iran policy very clearly: give the moolahs nuclear fuel, and shut down the B61-11 bunker-buster. He went far out of his way to raise the bunker-buster issue and talked about it at length, with a rare display of what looked like real passion and conviction. Kerry has signalled to at least 62 million Americans that, as regards Iran, he's committed to the peacenik approach he favored during the 80s vs the SU. Crystal clear. No one who votes for Kerry can say that he is not agreeing with this approach toward the most urgent foreign-policy challenge we face. |
| Posted by: lex 2004-10-06 11:46:34 AM |
| #12 Give Ledeen this much credit: he's keeping this, the most important issue by far, on the front burner. Many of his peers (on all sides) would just as soon talk about stem cells or gays or we-didn't-have-enough-troops. For example, look at how far off course A Sullivan has veered. He's so unfocused and skittish, he's barely worth reading anymore. At least Ledeen has his priorities right. |
| Posted by: lex 2004-10-06 11:43:28 AM |
| #11 If Kerry wins, then I will grant that he has a mandate from the voters to "engage" and appease. umm...I disagree. Cause in the debates, both Kerry and Edwards promised to "hunt down the terrorists to the last man". You are right that it is abundantly clear that Kerry has no intention in doing anything other than appeasement and withdrawl. Anyone who believes otherwise is a fool - I agree. But that's not the same as saying he "has a mandate", when his campaign is based on false promises he won't keep. |
| Posted by: 2b 2004-10-06 11:42:10 AM |
| #10 Bush doesnt have to go making the case for regime change in Iran now. I can see the political rationales mentioned above. But that doesnt explain why the administration isnt doing more to spread info on things like the Iranian dissidence Ledeen mentions. To begin to put Iranian actions into context. Never too early to start that. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-10-06 11:36:11 AM |
| #9 The election for me anyway is indeed all about Iran. In voting for Bush I am clearly stating my preference for aggressive deterrence instead of Kerry's "persuasion" and "engagement", ie appeasement. I seriously doubt that most other voters do not also recognize this distinction. If Kerry wins, then I will grant that he has a mandate from the voters to "engage" and appease. If Bush wins, then he has a mandate to deter Iran with a serious, credible threat of force. To say otherwise is to deny that Bush won in the first place-- which is probably what many left-wing Dem Bush-haters will do regardless. |
| Posted by: lex 2004-10-06 11:32:03 AM |
| #8 Mrs D - No less than Arnaud De Bourchgrave said (back in July): "A U.S. House of Representatives resolution last May 6 authorized 'all appropriate means' to end Iranian nuclear weapons development. The Senate is yet to vote on the resolution. But it leaves no doubt it is a green light for offensive military strikes against Iran’s three nuclear facilities." Can one of you RB'ers with a link to Congressional legislation identify the House Bill he refers to - and take a quick peek to see if the Senate has voted? |
| Posted by: .com 2004-10-06 11:31:52 AM |
| #7 Ledeen is correct. We need to debate before the election or the LLL will say Bush has no mandate to take action. Remember that against Saddam Bush had only a truce in a war with 12 years of violations of UN Resolutions to justify taking action. And still the only way he could get the Democrats to go along was to schedule the vote just before the mid term elections. He can't wait two years to act on Iran, and he doesn't, whether you like it or not, have the credibility to take us into a pre-emptive war with Iran. The LLLs won't act till there's a mushroom cloud in CONUS, so he neds to build consensus now. The obvious flip side is that appearing the warmonger may cost him the election. It's a risk he ought to take and that's what Ledeen is saying. Otherwise, he has no capital to support the war and gets left holding the bag. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2004-10-06 11:18:05 AM |
| #6 Amen, Dave. Looks like Ledeen is (solely) for Ledeen - and one of those assholes who constantly reminds people how prescient they are, occasionally. If only they also fessed up on all the opinion pieces where they were substantially wrong. He just dropped 20 rungs, IMHO. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-10-06 11:05:59 AM |
| #5 Not sure that an overt US hand in Iran is such a good idea. Not everyone there is too young to recall the shah. Let the Israelis take out Iran's nukes. |
| Posted by: lex 2004-10-06 11:00:40 AM |
| #4 Lets get this f-ing election over, Bush back in, and give a Thanksgiving surprise to Khatami and his gang of thieves... |
| Posted by: BigEd 2004-10-06 10:59:01 AM |
| #3 ...and a debate about whether we should go after this island or some other island. I share Ledeen's concerns. The Mad Mullahs need whacking, and they've needed it, in my opinion, every day for the last 25 years. But Jeez Louise, would it really be asking too much to ask Michael Ledeen to just stuff a sock in it or something til after the election???? Every bit of FUD that gets sown now, well-intended or otherwise, just makes it that much more likely that John Kerry will end up as president-- and if he does, you can kiss any action against Iran goodbye for good. Give it a break, Michael; let's resume the debate AFTER the election. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2004-10-06 6:51:04 AM |
| #2 Imagine an America in the 40's where instead of unity, the MSM drums up a debate about the whether the war shoud continue after each island of the campaign in the Pacific. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2004-10-06 4:09:28 AM |
| #1 hmmmm...I don't know....sounds like a big dose of "if they only had listened to me, the world would be milk and roses". |
| Posted by: 2b 2004-10-06 12:43:04 AM |