Kevin Drum takes me to task for diminishing the import of the leaked Iran plans.
But what’s important isn’t the existence of the contingency plans. Rather, it’s the fairly obvious fact that the Bush administration is publicizing them as part of a very public PR campaign in favor of a strike against Iran. The problem is that even if this is a bluff, it’s one that has a profound effect on both Iran and the American public. As James Fallows says:
By giving public warnings, the United States and Israel “create ‘excess demand’ for military action,” as our war-game leader Sam Gardiner recently put it, and constrain their own negotiating choices.
In other words, if the PR campaign is too successful, then Bush will have boxed himself in. Eventually he’ll feel obligated to bomb Iran solely because he’s now under pressure to make good on his threats and doesn’t want to look like he’s backing down. World Wars have started over less.
So Seymour Hersh is now the favored go-to leak of the Bush Administration?
It’s not like Bush doesn’t have problems but blaming him for the actions of someone who’s vehemently opposed to him seems just silly. And yes, I do think that that too much bluster (Hi, Trent! Hi, Tom!) is exactly the wrong approach to be taking right now. I think that it weakens us internally, stirs our opponents and sends an air of unseriousness. This is a case where we should be speaking very softly, and testing the heft of our biggest sticks.
“I think that it weakens us internally, stirs our opponents and sends an air of unseriousness. This is a case where we should be speaking very softly, and testing the heft of our biggest sticks.”
Dead on right and very well said.
Marc,
Why do you assume that these are leaks by the Bush administration? You know from past experience that its enemies in the CIA and State Department leak like sieves.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5402
I’m not saying that the leaks you refer to can only be from the Bush administration’s enemies in the permanent bureaucracy, just that it is possible and, at this point, is too early to tell which side is responsible for what leak. You are making an unwarranted assumption that it is only the Bush administration.
You know that I am no fan of the Bush administration. Consider the possibility of a “race to the bottom”.
What I found fascinating in Drum’s Washington Monthly article was one paragraph from this link in it:
http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2006/04/goldilocks_and_.html
Good grief, Tom.
First, I explictly said that it was unlikely that the Administration was deliberately leaking – to Seymour Hirsch? And then you cite William Arkin – who I’ve blogged about at WoC as a strongly antiwar military correspondent – as valiation for your position?
It might make sense if one looks at those making the most strident arguments for War Right Now as secretly working for Moveon…
…but seriously, take a moment and reflect. Whose interests are served by beating our shields right now? And what concrete evidence is there that any more than that is happening? Where are the 50 – 100K extra troops in Iraq to either do smash & grab into Iran or ro simply manage the explosion in Iraq if we bomb Iran?
When the logistics to support them gets moving, let us all know.
A.L.
Plus in the same article Arkin notes that Iran is as much as a decade away from a bomb. Essentially he is saying administration know Iran isnt within months of going nuclear but is going to attack anyway. I dont see how you can believe half his reporting but ignore the other.
A comment…
LAST I heard, the “administration” hasn’t as much as made an expiring chichuaha’s yelp regarding preparations to take on Iran militarily. There have been the endless procession of both anonymous and named-but-referring-to-anonymous ‘sources’, fibrulating and hyperventillating regarding the likely U.S. action – ranging, not unexpectedly and in fact almost predictably comically – from massive invasion plans (crafted by dark secret departments) to all out nukleer war – preemptive of course – all the while decrying our Warishness, and how Diplomacy has Never Been Given its Due Chance in This Administration.
The very phrase *Bush Administration* makes it sound evil: it sounds like a 1984 entity, with tendrils of nebulous but profound insidiousness ensnaring all Good and Righteous Freedom Loving (insert favorite minority – or majority – here). The Bush Administration is vacuously and repeatedly ascribed as all but making baby’s blood Matzo’s… that not a single thing the people within have done, or will do, is not in some way allied to the fortunes of Haliburton, Karl Rove, Cheney, Bush himself and all the rest. Mr. DoD secretary Rumsfeld is – drumroll – carrying on secret meetings and *drawing up plans* for every contingency … in _preparation for war_, don’t you know.
Well.
I for one would want Mr. Rumsfeld tossed out on his ear if he wasn’t daily meeting with the DoD spooks who plan for every contingency. I would hope there are a LOT of secret meetings, and that there are a LOT of people wrapped up in trying constructively to determine the true nature of Iran’s _apparant bluff_. Saddam bluffed, and was busted. What if Iran isn’t really bluffing?
Nosiree – I’ve just about had it with the Hyperventillating Left. They can’t see the forest for all the trees: if (and probably when) push comes to shove, we’re gonna be doing some field clearing.
—-
Now, as to whether we try to topple Iran by nipping off its money-pump (oil) … I think it is pointless. Pundits aplenty will tell us that 40% (or 60%?) of Iran’s GDP is related to the production, pooling, pumping, and shipping of crude oil, and that worse the whole damned country depends on its neighbors for producing gasoline. I’m sorry, I have a hard time believing that: here we are in the SF Bay Area, and there are no LESS than 5 independent refineries around this Bay full of what, 3.5 million people?
You cut off Iran’s chief export, and guess what: Iran says, “Oh, OK. Well. We’re just going to have to go it without all the outside help.”
The regime won’t collapse – and in fact is looking for this kind of leadership. The Oil Ticks (that would be us – sucking it, get it?) of the world will go instantly into a conniption: some idjits think that Gasoline would rise – drumroll / suck in your breath – to $3.50 or [oooh, oooh] $4.00 a gallon. Bulshoy.
The precarious supply-and-demand and JIT logistics of world crude delivery is such that the cessation of Iran’s output would cause crude to instantly jump to $150-$200 a barrel. For it isn’t just the REAL loss of production (what, about 5%?) but it is the PERCEIVED THREAT of way, way more restrictions. The ACTUAL THREAT of retaliatory strikes by Iran on Bahrain’s teeny-tiny-but-ever-so-important oil terminal, or the Gwajar field station in Saudi Arabia … or perhaps their main oil terminals. Or the retaliation of a low-tech nuke being sent to the Suez canal, ruining it for the conceivable near-future. Or the focussed and nearly impossible to thwart guerilla attacks on Russo-European supply lines. Them’s Chechens in thar hills, you know.
This is what is real: the West, America in particular, but to no less degree, all of Europe (less Norway and Britain, and if you will Russia), and most-all of Asia, and virtually all of South and Central America have the oil-supply hose sucked so deeply into their economies that the mere *real and unresolved threat of pandemonium* will be enough to send their – and in turn – the whole world’s economy into a mad, mad tailspin. Try $10/gallon, folks – AND – rationing, AND no imports of most anything ‘cuz its too unsafe to let in big ol’ ships full of Cars and Bombs, Steel and Bombs, Stowaways and Bombs, Lightbulbs and Bombs.
Come on someone – take the challenge – get a grip and address the REAL world economics for a change, not just the ‘play world’ that you want to believe. Challenge this at its core: _what do you really think the world Oil consumption elasticity is, cf. the ‘going price’ of it_?
OK – here’s a hint: we can do without Japanese cars (Detroit would be ecstatic), we can do without Polish lightbulbs, without European plastics, without Taiwanese cheapass shoes, bags, garments. We can do without gazillions of foreign items – giving remarkable opportunity here to go “do them”. But.
But the truth is hard: we can’t do it without MORE oil. The gazillions of foreign products that we consume must also be brought into the equation-of-state regarding our ability to “do without” (to make within). If we import some $1,000,000,000,000 (trillion) dollars worth of “stuff” annually from around the world, and if 80% of that “stuff” is itself in one form or another dependent on OIL to produce … then it will take no LESS than that amount of additional OIL here to get the same industries agoing full steam.
And where, ol’ Goats, is that going to come from? Texas? Mexistan? Canukistan? Nigeria? Venefvckinzuela?
$10 a gallon?
Bet that it hits $15.
_Which is the reason I constantly advocate the idea of a preemptive progressive *alternate energy tax* … increasing on cent a week, for 10 years_. 50% of the extra funds would be sunk into buying more oil than we need, and sinking it into the ground in depleted oil well super-sites. The other 50% would be earmarked for any and every type of alterative-energy process that leverages our nearly limitless coal, that reenergizes the nuclear-power sector, that heavily underwrites mega-solar projects, and that gets our fvckin’ people OFF their couches. Oh yah … it also rapidly and so smoothly that it won’t hardly be noticed … causes people to really – REALLY – conserve the ol’ gas at the pump. The only companies that would bitch would be the airlines. We’d fly less. Boohoo.
_GoatGuy_
I have another view: recently Iran released reports of “super-weapons” and the like. This talking about nukes may be a measure to remind Iran who’s got the biggest stick in the world.
Marc & Mark,
I don’t care much what Arkin’s political leanings are as long as he is reliable. Seymour Hersh has been caught lying and fabricating stuff, so I won’t believe anything Hersh says absent confirmation from another source. Arkin clearly differentiates between his opinions and his allegations of fact, so I can discount, or place less weight on, his opinions. I am not aware of him lying or making things up.
Arkin or his sources could be wrong, but IMO it is far more likely that the Pentagon is working on plans for invading Iran, as well on bombing it, than it is that only bombing plans are being prepared. I don’t trust Hersh. Arkin is likely reporting on something real, and I will certainly pay attention to anything further he has to say on this.
Mark – “I don’t see how you can believe half his reporting but ignore the other” – I know that makes your head hurt, and have no sympathy.
As for Marc’s assertions about force levels and logistics, he assumes a visible pre-attack buildup which would give the mullahs plenty of warning that we’re coming at ’em. Feel free to assume military incompetence, but expect that to have consequences on the weight given your opinions.
As a practical matter, we can’t invade Iran until we clean out the mullahs’ wholly controlled Shiite militias in Iraq. And we’ve told the mullahs that we intend to eliminate those militias – that was on Strategy Page.
A.L.
Lets get this straight, are you saying that the next time some one makes a prediction. It has happen imediately or it is wrong?
Tom says we are going to invade Iran, after we bomb them, and Iran’s retaliation hurts so much we have to invade. That sequence takes time.
Are you saying that his prediction has to happen by May 1st or Tom is wrong?
If that is the case, why did you say we don’t have the logistics yet too invade them?
That is like saying that the Republicans will clean up in the Senate in Nov 2006 because they hold both Houses of Congress on May 2nd.
It sounds like you use what ever comes into your head first as a grounds for disagreement, when someone says something you disgree with.
What a bad President this guy has been I can not wait for his four years to be done, would reccommed anyone out there to see the movie Loose Change 911 on Google Video opened my eyes up alot.
Tom, you’re getting ridiculous.
First, if Arkin is reliable as you say – your handwaving “I know that makes your head hurt, and have no sympathy.” is a nonanswer. Oh, I’m sorry – it must be incorrect because you can refer back to an old post of your own to support your case.
If I refer back to an old post of mine suggesting that the moon is made of green cheese, is that authoritative? It’s be nice to have some support that isn’t self-referential to bolster your arguments.
And I just love your self-proclaimed air of military infallibility; the equivalent of the stick of the French Marshals.
Riddle me this O Military Wizard – what major military action has the US undertaken without a visible force buildup in the last 50 years? Grenada doesn’t count. And assuming that thge Magic Logistics Fairys could make one happen without it, what is your proposal for managing the fallout within Iraq?
Trent seems to suggest that this will happen in Biblical, as opposed to historic, or political time. Which seems odd, since both of you are convinced, just convinced, that they will have a deliverable bomb by summer or fall at the latest – and the whole invasion thing becomes much more problematic once that’s the case.
Guys, I’m a hawk here and you’re not making any sense to me. In fact, I’ll suggest that these kind of strident, ungrounded, self-referential arguments are damaging the cause of aligning people behind a strong position on Iran.
A.L.
Out of George W. Bush representing the United States of America and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad representing the Islamic Republic of Iran, who gains and who loses by apocalyptic nuclear talk about Iran? I don’t know.
But who thinks they gain, and who thinks they lose? That’s an easy one. George W. Bush isn’t saying boo to a goose, but Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is blazing with holy light and making all sorts of implied threats. The players believe that cooling it favours America and visions of nuclear doom favour Iran.
I think that the anti-Bush journalist Seymour Hirsch is just saying whatever seems to be least helpful to George W. Bush / the United States of America. I don’t think Seymour Hirsch is trying to make Iran win, because I don’t know of any evidence that he cares about Iran. I don’t think Seymour Hirsch is motivated by the truth, because I don’t know of any evidence that he cares deeply about the truth. He is just doing what Bush-haters do.
I think Armed Liberal is right, and this is a non-story.
Off-topic: in Trent Telenko’s thread The Media’s Latest Lie – A “Civil War” in Iraq (link), I posted late for the view that there is indeed civil war in Iraq, and I quoted Michael Yom (link) who has a pointed story that supports my side. Wednesday, April 5th, 2006:
“Last week, in America, a radio producer for a large syndicated program in the United States called me requesting that I go on the show, a show that has hosted me many times and where I’ve been referred to as, “Our man in Iraq.” But when I said Iraq is in a civil war, that same producer slammed down the phone and, in so doing, demonstrated how much he reveres truth.
The many faces of suppression are interesting. The first time I said something the producer did not agree with, he slammed down the phone. That’s why I do not accept advertisement. That same syndication had regarded my opinion highly when I was saying what they wanted to hear. They were not happy per se for truth. The truth was that we were making much progress in Iraq, and that is what they wanted to hear. But I knew the honeymoon would end the day the truth was at variance to their narrowly defined message.”
The story is better is you read the whole thing, and put it in the context of the things people were saying in the thread.
Because I posted late, that is after I had Michael Yom to back me up, my post apparently needed the approval of the author of the thread to be published. So far it doesn’t seem to have received it.
“Mark – “I don’t see how you can believe half his reporting but ignore the other” – I know that makes your head hurt, and have no sympathy.”
Is Arken a reliable source or not?
And please, for the sake of all our sanity, try not to answer ‘only when he agrees with you’.
What is interesting is Kevin Drum’s reaction, nothing else.
EVEN Drum can’t bring himself to contemplate using military force in ANY circumstance. If Iran nuked LA Drum would be all for apologizing for ticking off Iran, because it would all be our fault.
Even if all of Drum’s friends were dead.
What this tells us is that Dems, even ones with half a brain, are useless when it comes to national security.
Because they “believe” in non-violence and diplomacy to the point of sheer idiocy.
Larger point: Bush has no intention of doing anything but provoking Iran to nuke us first. Because it will allow him freedom of action and destroy the Democratic Party as a credible force.
A nuclear attack on the US, with the Dems crying impeachment over listening in to phone calls made to Al Qaeda, and protecting Iran’s right to nukes?
Political suicide for Dems. Not one Dem is running off to the right and saying we SHOULD strike first. Hell most of America would say Iran deserves a good nuking on general principal at this point.
Goat guy,
It would be nice if there was a clear path out of oil for transportation. There is not. Thus a mass of money thrown at the problem will mostly be wasted. Things in that field must mature quite a bit more before decision time.
If the question was electricity the answer is much easier. Bigger wind turbines, cheaper solar cells, distributed storage. We haven’t started the distributed storage seeriously yet. However, solar and wind are on track.
All things considered – the lowest cost path may be to fight a war until the technology matures.
#7 Tom,
Total agreement. When we do Iran it will be come as you are. There will be no obvious build-up.
A.L. is it possible you don’t see the depots building reserves of supplies and eqpt. because the stuff is mixed in with “normal” Iraq rqmts.?
Suppose the US army says OK Iraqis – it is mostly up to you. We are going to be busy for a couple of months. It might work.
As has been pointed out: the reduction of the militias has begun. And the squeeze is on the Iranian money supply.
points
1. It does seem odd the admin would use Hersch to put something out, hes normally the spokesperson for a certain type of CIA POV – BUT- hes not so smart that its impossible for someone else to game him.
2. People interpret putting this out as something that boxes in the admin, and maybe is designed to do so. Im not so sure. Unlike the leftie “its cool for Iran to have nukes” and the folks here who see conventional war as inevitable, i think that diplomacy-sanctions-economic war-subversion-revolution have a very real chance of working. This leak is, maybe, NOT directed at Iran, or at the American people – its directed at Russia and China, and to a lesser extent the Euros. Its saying look, our patience wont last forever (though we’re careful not to say how long it will last) if you DONT want more instability, youd better support what we’re trying to do.
bq. Trent seems to suggest that this will happen in Biblical, as opposed to historic, or political time. Which seems odd, since both of you are convinced, just convinced, that they will have a deliverable bomb by summer or fall at the latest – and the whole invasion thing becomes much more problematic once that’s the case.
A.L.,
To quote a dead president, “There you go again.”
To use “Biblical time” = “not in my lifetime” = “not going to happen.” So you can dismiss it and the person who said it.
The problem with that label is that is not what Tom said. It is what _you projected_ upon what he said.
Tom Holsinger has been talking the Bush Administration through out. The Bush Administration ends in 2008.
This is from Tom’s THE UNITED STATES WILL ATTACK IRAN Post on March 17, 2006
bq. The safest way to eliminate Iran’s nuclear threat, given the at least significant possibility they already have nuclear weapons, is to eliminate their regime as fast as possible, and that means invasion combined with “counter-force” and “decapitation” bombing.
bq. But that invasion is the safest way to achieve this goal does not mean that the Bush administration will do it that way – there are vast institutional and political obstacles to the staggeringly large ground force commitment such would require, notably a massive call-up of almost all ground force reserves for two or more years even if an invasion commences on a “come as you are” surprise attack from a standing start (which would be wise against an enemy who has nuclear weapons).
bq. We’ll probably stumble into an invasion after lesser means of eliminating Iran’s mullah regime fail, which means giving them a fair chance of using nuclear weapons on our forces in Iraq, Saudi Arabia’s oil ports, and Israel.
bq. But we’ll get there. Ambassador Bolton’s statement has committed us to that.
As can be seen above, Tom Holsinger was not talking “biblical time.”
A.L., you have a bad tendency to play liberal “class opponent” dismissal games when you are dealing with realities you find unpleasant.
It is one of the reasons why conservatives don’t take liberal hawks at all seriously on issues of national security.
_This is a case where we should be speaking very softly, and testing the heft of our biggest sticks._
Idealy, I would agree with you. But this administration has the habit of making decisions, and then informing congress later (or making the case for war later). That makes me very nervous. The power to declare war is with the congress to prevent a single moron (or even a small group of morons) from single-handedly starting war.
In that case, I support what Hirsch is doing. At least we’re talking about it, we’re having the conversation. Is that such a bad thing? And don’t tell me that Iran is *shocked* by this development…. I’m sure they have an idea that something is going on.
to David Blue: Where has Seymore Hirsch been shown to be fabricating/lying in articles? Please give references.
to Jim Rockford: Again, R’s are in control of *everything*. If we get nuked by a suitcase, it’s their fault. I’ve said it before and I’ve said it again: bad national security is a *bipartisan issue*. Beating up a few guys on guantanamo doesn’t change that.
Socialism is the biggest handicap of the left.
It makes them stupid. And mean spirited.
The right of course is mired in moral certainty. Which makes them stupid. And mean spirited.