No Experts Here!

Maybe it makes sense to hint that the US might use military force, even though it makes no sense to actually do so or to make a specific threat.

seem to me to feel that military strikes would be counterproductive and that threatening them is useless at best, harmful at worst.

But its campaign season and contributions from AIPAC and the arms industry will help buy a few more commercial spots in Iowa and New Hampshire.

That is mainly snark, but to be honest I just don't know what motivates leadership in either party anymore. Things just seem going more and more out of control and I think it would be a lot easier to just stop caring.

I don't think there's much to fear. War's almost always run in predictable ways.

The issue should not be why some Democrats are leaving military action on the table, but why is Bush taking diplomacy off the table, even though it is far more promising? We know the answer, of course - it's because he's an incompetent fool who's happy to trash his country to feel good or position himself politically.

I've never liked Kenny Baer all that much, but Matthew is managing to make him seem sympathetic by repeatedly claiming falsely that folks who aren't even remotely speaking to Baer's point are doing so.

Who is Ken Baer anyway? What exactly does he do?

Look at his column. full of high handed declarations.

"no credible expert on Iran, nonproliferation, or any combination of the two who would advise them to do so"

"If I had the time to Google, one would find"

(This guy is a speechwriter? "If I had time, one would find"? Why wouldn't HE find?)

"the keyboard commentariat needs to come to grips with the realities of diplomacy"

As handed down to us by one Ken Baer?

"Maybe it makes sense to hint that the US might use military force" ?
Will anyone anywhere not assume that the US will be ready, always, to use military force as its "last recourse".
The only reason to mention it upfront is as a threat and if the last six years have taught us nothing else it should be that acting the bully is not the most productive strategary for the US. Is that Kim on the phone?
Isn't the problem when, as Gatchaman points out, AIPAC or someone like asks the question? There are other answers to be given but any "serious" contender must, for practical purposes, say no.
We can only hope that the rest of the world figures that fact into their calculations and that BushCheney don't make it moot in terms of Iran.

Another way to look at it is that Kenneth Baer is living in the past--the political world before Bush and the Republicans cynically rammed the Iraq force authorization through the Senate on the eve of midterm elections in October 2002. At that point, a lot of Democratic senators were unwilling to cut Bush off at the knees and deny him the force authorization he sought, because they wanted him to employ the threat of force in a game of brinksmanship with Saddam Hussein--without actually having to use it.

But now we know Bush was hellbent on invading Iraq, and that his protestations to the contrary were barefaced lies. So everyone who a) wants to avoid war with Iran, and b) is quicker on the uptake than Kenneth Baer wants now to preemptively deauthorize the use of force against Iran--at least its use by this mendacious, malfeasant president.

I've never liked Kenny Baer all that much, but Matthew is managing to make him seem sympathetic by repeatedly claiming falsely that folks who aren't even remotely speaking to Baer's point are doing so.

Petey, you're being ridiculous. The plain reading of all the things I've cited is that people don't think the US government should be running around saying "all options are on the table." It seems to me that you've become determined to just disagree with whatever I happen to post on foreign policy.

Petey: sure, none of the people Matt cites use the word "table" in their analyses, but they all clearly think our current rhetorical posture--and accompanying actions--sends a counterproductive message to Iran.

"The reason why Obama, Clinton, and Edwards are all refusing to take the military option off the table is because there is no credible expert on Iran..."

That's complete BS! The reason is simple: They must act in a way consistent with what the interests that want war expect.

Such "interests" include, but are not limited to, supporters of (Likud) Israel. They know that if there's ever a chance for the U.S. to attack Iran it will be in the next several months. After that, chances drop radically. So there's an all out full court press to get this done.

Get ready for more war -- buy crude oil futures.

Baer--an abomination who should probably barred from all major cities--is certainly right about one thing: saying that we take a military option off the table doesn't take it off the table. In some fashion, Iraq is not only a indication of various candidates' foreign policy instincts, but also the means by which candidates can (or can be be made to) limit the likelihood of war with Iran.

Petey I'm sure again will tell us that Matt is imagining the administration is having a drumbeat for a war with Iran.

Baer was a "senior advisor" to Lieberman in his 2004 campaign. Isn't that in itself disqualifying by this point?

Ah, I suspect Petey's position will by that though he's Officially Against a War with Iran (TM), it makes political sense for Democratic candidates to talk as martially as possible on Iran, for Democratic Houses of Congress to legislate as martially as possible on Iran, and for Democratic voters to stop oppressing pro-war people, who after all are decent people with good reasons for their beliefs and who knows it might all go very well, with their anti-Iran war bitching. And if we end up with a war Iran, so be it; given the Republicans' posture they'll be hard pressed to use Iran against Dems if the war goes badly.

And then, to ward against any claim of moral lacking, he'll point out that politics ain't beanbag.

"The plain reading of all the things I've cited is that people don't think the US government should be running around saying "all options are on the table."

I just plainly disagree with your "plain reading".

I'm of the opinion that the folks you are quoting would not have a problem with the "all options are on the table" formulation.

And your focus here has largely not been what the US government (aka the current WH) should be running around saying, but what Democratic candidates should be saying.

"It seems to me that you've become determined to just disagree with whatever I happen to post on foreign policy."

While I do think you've come loose of your moorings on foreign policy, there may also be some significant selection bias at work here. I tend to comment more often on threads where I'm in disagreement with you. On the threads where you're correct, there are already enough folks going "fuck, yeah".

No troops here!

Does the "all options" formulation include a security guarantee option?

"there may also be some significant selection bias at work here"

For example, your last foreign policy post prior to your Baer jihad, Regrettably, a Second Israel Post in a Single Day seems perfectly correct to me, and I made no comment.

It seems to me that you've become determined to just disagree with whatever I happen to post on foreign policy.

This has been pretty obvious for a while.

I'm sure Petey doesn't want me commenting on the matter, but I don't understand why Matthew thinks that Petey is "determined to" disagree. That makes it sound like Matthew thinks that Petey would disagree no matter what Matthew posted. But why jump to that conclusion? Why not just acknowledge that Petey does disagree with Matthew on foreign policy sometimes? I mean, I'm sure I disagree with Matthew on foreign policy more than Petey does, but I don't think that I am "determined" to disagree.

Or maybe I'm just reading too much into "determined to".

Al sez: I don't think...

For once we agree...

It's pretty perfect that Al and Petey are more or less on the same page on this issue.

the dems are so afraid of karl rove painting them in a box that they fall into the trap of dealing with iran with hostility and bad faith because to do otherwise would be soft, even if it ended up accomplishing what's in the american people's best interest. the dems cannot talk openly and honestly about israel either, because they fear da lobby. talking with israel is essential to negotiating with iran about hezbollah and nuclear weapons, amerisrael's primary two preoccupations. so presidential candidate edwards went over to israel and made a speech threatening iran. i imagine he then urinated on a copy of 'palestine: peace not apartheid', went out on a home destruction run with the IDF, and visited Sharon's hospital, you know, to extinguish any and all doubts.

so the dems are asking intelligent, informed people of the anti-war sentiment, those ones who predicted most of the current state of affairs in iraq, to 'just trust us', despite acting like they're getting their talking points on iran from benjamin netanyahu. "oy vey"

It's become clear at this point that Petey's position that "mainstream" experts all believe in "leaving all options on the table" is the correct one is unfalsifiable. If specifically ruling out options doesn't falsify it, what could? If Pollack use the phrase "we should take some options of the table," Petey would say that if you looked at the context Pollack is using "table" in a different metaphorical way and he really agrees with him deep down.

I mean, I'm sure I disagree with Matthew on foreign policy more than Petey does, but I don't think that I am "determined" to disagree.

It's a Kaus problem. Your disagreements are generally predicted by some set of beliefs that you claim to have.

It's pretty perfect that Al and Petey are more or less on the same page on this issue.

And neither of them are Lee Siegel.

Matthew, I know this isn't Unfogged, but your rapidly writing 5 posts on the same topic is sort of preventing a coherent conversation from developing here...

Maybe it makes sense to hint that the US might use military force, even though it makes no sense to actually do so or to make a specific threat.

You know, I've changed my mind on this one in the space of two hours. When I read Baer's piece, I said, duh, of course you don't take options off the table.

But it seems to me, upon reflection, if you don't actually have access to those options, which any idiot can see, you actually make things worse. It's like trying to bluff in a game of five card stud where all the cards are dealt face up.

Gawd knows I hate this, but...I think perhaps some of this is mildly unfair to Petey and possibly Baer. It's one thing to "eschew military threats in favor of engagement" and another to explicitly address the issue by saying that we will not attack.

Matthew, I know this isn't Unfogged, but your rapidly writing 5 posts on the same topic is sort of preventing a coherent conversation from developing here...

Leave Matt alone; he's got meth to smoke.

"It's become clear at this point that Petey's position that "mainstream" experts all believe in "leaving all options on the table" is the correct one is unfalsifiable."

Clear or not, that's not my position here.

My position is that the "leaving all options on the table" formulation is not tied to the current WH's radical foreign policy, but instead is part of mainstream Democratic foreign policy.

Kenny Baer is the one saying what "all experts believe".

I will say in Petey's defense... I think the examples posted here are of credible national security experts who object to the Bush team's crypto-saber-rattling rhetoric. Which is not quite the same thing as supporting an explicit statement along the lines of, "The U.S. will not now or ever launch a military strike on Iran (caveats: given the currently available information, unless circumstances drastically change)."

I'll reiterate my test: are any of the candidates willing to take a military strike on China "off the table"? Isn't this just a rhetorical principle?

Or: what SomeCallMeTim said...

My position is that the "leaving all options on the table" formulation is not tied to the current WH's radical foreign policy, but instead is part of mainstream Democratic foreign policy.

But "leaving all options on the table" functions as a barely-veiled threat of military force. It's saber-rattling, nothing more.

It's one thing to "eschew military threats in favor of engagement" and another to explicitly address the issue by saying that we will not attack.

I read Yglesias as wanting the former, not necessarily the latter. Since lots of saber-rattling politicians going on about "options on the table" is, in fact, a form of military threat, Democratic office-seekers would need to drop the "all options on the table" language in order to eschew military threats in the first place.

There's a false dichotomy being bandied around here. It does not follow that rejecting the "all options are on the table" language requires one to explicitly state that military options are "off the table."

A Democratic candidate can say "Launching airstrikes against Iran would be a bad idea." If pressed as to whether (s)he would rule out the use of military force entirely, the response is along the lines of "the situation may change in the future, but at this point in time it would be a serious mistake."

In contrast to the "all options are on the table" mantra, Democratic candidates should make it clear that they are opposed to escalating tensions with Iran right now, but also make it clear that they are not dirty hippie straw-men who would never bomb anyone under any circumstances. I don't think this should be terribly difficult to manage.

Following on LaFollette, shouldn't Democratic candidates be flipping this whole thing around, by pointing out that it is the Bush administration that has "taken options off the table," specifically, diplomacy? And that this has weakened the U.S. position, by taking an element of national power out of the toolbox before going to work on the problem?

I think it's been pointed out somewhere in the many strands of this discussion that any President is going to retain the prerogative to use appropriate means to solve a problem, as determined according to the circumstances and good policy thinking. That kind of goes without saying, no?

So the issue becomes, how are we supposed to get things done in the world when we're tying one of our hands behind our back before we even get started? Whenever someone asks a Democratic candidate if war is "off the table," the answer should be that the Democrats believe in putting things back on the table which the current administration has arbitrarily taken off, without any regard to the situation on the ground, because of muddled thinking and blind adherence to ideology, and that the failures of that approach are self-evident.

Ken Baer is a hapless AIPAC knekht who would sell his own grandmother out to the S.S. if his PNAC paymasters told him it would be "good for the jews." Nothing he says should be taken seriously.

The question at hand is whether or not Kenneth Pollack agrees that "all options should be on the table" towards Iran or not. Most of this stuff about how military strikes are counterproductive are irrelevant.

I did a quick Google search, and came up with this from 04/05/06 (http://www.cfr.org/publication/10388/irans_
nuclear_program_symposium.html)

HAASS: Ken, with a neighboring country you were one of those who advocated the use of military force under certain circumstances. Do you feel that way about Iran, too?

POLLACK: I would not want to take it off the table, and I think that it is a mistake to, from—

Now that was 8 months ago. Have Pollack's views changed since then? I suppose you could argue it has, but you'd need a much better argument than the one Matt Yglesias has. The easiest way would be to just ask Pollack.

Useless at best?? Please. The threat of military strike should be on the table against any country actively opposing us militarily, directly or indirectly. It should be on the table against countries whose leaders publicly declare that they would like to see us wiped out by force.

This is nation-state 101, you don't invite people who threaten you and your values to take their best shot because you're too nice.

The chief loss in Iraq is the credible threat of force. You can make a very good case that, without the Iraq war, a robust military presence on Iran's other border would mean we'd be having a very different discussion with them now on the nuclear issue.

The table is groaning with all the goodies on it. It is a veritable warmonger's Thanksgiving that such as Baer want us to serve up.

But there is a kernel of truth in the hawk argument. The old double sanction policy that used to govern the U.S. relationship with Iran is broken. And it is easy to forecast scenarios that would bring about some really nasty military encounter between American forces and Iran.

So what should be put on the table (let's take off the GI Joe stew) is: how can the U.S. accomodate the reality that Iran has a strong position in the Middle East? I think that reality is tied up with getting U.S. troops out of Iraq. The Iraqi government has done us the favor of giving us the answer to this dilemma - that government, for which Americans are dying and killing, has affirmed, over and over, that Iran is an ally, both militarily and economically.

This does give the U.S. a go between to promote peace, recognition, and even economic ties with Iran. This is obviously the best way to get what we want - an Iran with a stake in a stable Middle Eastern situation, and the build up of such leverage as to allow human rights NGOs some power in trying to confront the government about its abuses. So - why not use Jaafari (who was in Teheran last week, praising the Iranians) or Talabani (the President of Iraq, remember? who was in Iran last month, trying to firm up economic relations between the two countries, with particular reference to Kurdistan) or other Iraqis to help us get back in touch with Iran.

Opposing the military option while still trying to keep Iran "in the box", as someone put it in TAPPED, is not a reality based option. It is the postponement of a conflict in a structure leading, inevitably, to conflict. Let's change the structure.

This is nation-state 101, you don't invite people who threaten you and your values to take their best shot because you're too nice

Dude, how many charisma points do you have? And how much did you pay for your chain mail?

Look, it's notorious dirty hippie peacenick, Chuck Hagel taking options off of tables:

“I do not expect any kind of military solution on the Iran issue,” Hagel told a news conference. … “I think to further comment on it would be complete speculation, but I would say that a military strike against Iran, a military option, is not a viable, feasible, responsible option,” he added.

The irony of all this is that what's not "on the table" is the option of negotiation.

The main point of MY's post is not to debate the merit of Baer's arguments (to repeat, he was a senior adviser to Lieberman 2004 and therefore all his argument have null merit), but to demonstrate their dishonesty.

People also need to note the following:

It's not a SECOND aircraft carrier - it's the FOURTH aircraft carrier.

We have the Enterprise in the Gulf, and the Stennis is heading there.

We have the Eisenhower off the coast of Africa, in range to be moved to the Gulf in a matter of a couple weeks.

And now we have the Reagan on course for the Gulf - with the Navy saying "the West Pacific" - and a Hawaiian paper noting two destroyers "headed for the Gulf" are joining the Reagan.

In short, folks, we have FOUR aircraft carrier battle groups and TWO strike groups either in the Gulf or due to arrive there within a month or so.

Look for a military strike on Iran within the next ninety days.

Richard Steven Hack:

For the reasons you cite, among many others, I'm inclined to agree that the likelihood is high (better than even odds) of an attack on Iran within 90 days.

If so, an interesting question is what will be the casus belli. I see a couple plausible scenarios. Consider these possible pretexts for war:

1. "Hot pursuit" by U.S. troops into Iranian territory prompting confrontation with Iranian troops.

2. A Persian Gulf “incident,” a la Tonkin Gulf, 1964.

3. Israeli surprise attack on Iranian nuclear sites, a la Osirak, Iraq, 1981, with U.S. “support” destroying Iranian air and naval forces and key government facilities.

All require no Congressional authorization, no pre-selling to the public, and they all necessarily happen without notice (i.e., fait accompli).

And, they have the added virtue of being immediately followed by a likely spontaneous suspension of disbelief by the media and the public, and a massive wave of Democratic patriotic support – hence, no political fallout.

In fact, the country will probably rally around the president in this time of crisis (and Bush needs it bad). Polls could show 45+ support for attack and 40+ Bush approval.

Seems more plausible than absurd.

Kevin Drum's got my back...

What ought to be on the dinner table is a full bore alignment with Iran, premised on their agreeing to comprehensive peace with Israel, an end to the nukes program, an end to sanctions and some sort of accord in Lebanon, allowing us to disengage from Saudi Arabia. Of course they seem to have put this on the coffee table, only for us to sweep it right off the endtable.

Ugh, four aircraft carriers? That's horrible. Stop Bush =(!

And while I know I shouldn't rub it in, I guess I will a little bit...

-----

Hey,

You with your monomaniacal non-reality based coverage of Democratic reactions to the WH insanity:

In your face!

Sincerely,
- Petey.

PS. Y'll come back now, when you've got a more focussed position to expound...

They're not going to end nuke program.

Especially with SA saying today there's no reason they shouldn't look to develop an nuke energy program too.

Let Iran have its nuke energy program with IAEA inspections pursuant to NPA.

I should be clear: ending the nuclear weapons program, adhering to international treaties they've signed, etc. etc.

I'm not especially sure their having a weapon would be that big a deal, but it would be a pretty big diplomatic climbdown. Anyway the point is that this debate is utterly bizarre: We should be negotiating the terms of our alliance with Iran, not listening to Bush say stuff Pace is publicly disavowing.

Agreed on weapons program -- if, in fact, they have one. I'm aware of no public info supporting the allegation.

And agreed on treaties -- as long as they're consistent with NPA.

Agreed if they had nuke weapon -- wouldn't necessarily mean war. They're susceptible to MAD too. Could actually be stabilizing.

Agreed on negotiating full out alliance.

Agreed point is bizarre. Iran situation, along with Iraq, is become farce.

Nonetheless, see my comment of February 15, 2007 06:13 PM.

Since when are Kenneth Pollack or, even worse, Ken Baer, foreign policy "experts"? You want to rely on "mainstream" foreign policy "experts" to tell you what to do in the middle east? Have we learned nothing from the Iraq war?

Actually, maybe they are "experts". It's so damn obvious to any ordinary person why it's stupid to threaten Iran or tangle with them militarily that you have to be an "expert" not to see it.

And Ken Pollack, a liberal? Come on. He's not a liberal, he just plays one on TV.

Good comment.Thanks admin.

Good comment.Thanks admin.

Thanks
Best regards
mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mirc yukle
mirch
mırch
mirc turk
turk mirc
mırcturk
turkmırc
mırc turk
turk mırc
turkiyemirc
türkiyemirc
turkiye mirc
türkiye mirc
mircturkiye
mirctürkiye
mirc turkiye
mircturk
turkmırc
muhabbet
forum
forum
turkforum
turkiyeforum
mirc
turkmirc
toplist
site ekle
pagerank
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet
chat
sohbet odaları
bedava sohbet
bedava chat
türk
karar

perde

jaluzi perde

stor perde

dikey perde

iso belgesi

iphone kılıfı

süper site

kozmetik

kolonyalı mendil

kolonyalı mendil

dolum

güvenlik kamerası

kamera

süper

sohbetim

joyturk tekstilkent joytürk mIRC Chat Video poşet imalat ambalaj paketleme iso güvenlik ıslak mendil chat muhabbet chat sohpet sohbet web tasarım

thank you

thanks ;)

mirc

sexshop

sexshop

thank you