Damn Dirty Hippies

Sometimes, I think, liberals have trouble recognizing the possibility that public opinion might be on our side in a controversy. Check out, for example, the results of the Foreign Affairs / Public Agenda poll regarding the use of force against Iran:

In dealing with Iran, 44 percent prefer diplomacy to establish better relations and 28 percent favor economic sanctions. Support for military action is in the single digits and so is even threatening military action. This preference for non-military solutions cuts across party identification. Republicans are more likely to favor sanctions than improved diplomatic relations, but they still prefer non-military options (68 percent of Republicans, compared to 78 percent of Democrats).

Under the circumstances, there's absolutely no reason for Democrats to feel that it's necessary to include gratuitous threats of military action in their public comments on this subject.

What's more, as you'd expect, this isn't some idiosyncratic opinion about Iran that people have developed. Just as 9/11 and what appeared to be a surprisingly easy victory over the Taliban made a lot of people much more willing to believe in the efficacy of military solutions during the 2002-2003 period, the public has become much more generically skeptical that military action is the best way to combat nuclear proliferation:

The skepticism about the use of force applies in general terms as well. A plurality of the public, 43 percent, says attacking countries that develop weapons of mass destruction would enhance national security "not at all"—a 14-point jump in six months. Those who say it would enhance security "a great deal" dropped 19 points, to 17 percent.

All-in-all, it's a good public opinion context for this whole Pelosi-in-Damascus fight to play out in.

4/8/07 11:10PM del.icio.us this incoming links

Comments

look, i agree with you, matthew, but it's hard to avoid noting that: a.) people don't always vote the way they talk to opinion pollsters; b.) democrats viscerally know that what cnn has been trying to do to pelosi this week is a likely possibility at any time.

so you can see why they get a little chickenshit sometimes....

Posted by: howard on April 8, 2007 11:27 PM

Part of the reason CNN, FoxNews, etc. can pull this shit is because they can get away with it. If Democrats came out in full force against this bullshit whenever it popped up, the media would have to think twice.

Posted by: Reality Man on April 8, 2007 11:34 PM

This is interesting, but it seems to me like the question Democrats have been forced to answer is not so much "what should we do?" but "don't you think these guys are *bad?" I think republicans use the second question to preempt the first, so when someone proposes diplomacy Joh Bolton goes on tv and says that they really understand the nature of the enemy. As such, the controversy is more about the nature of the Syrians (or whoever) than the right course of action. I know this sounds pretty Lakoffish, but since we (the public) never seems to get to the actual strategy/policy questions we're screwed.

Posted by: berger on April 8, 2007 11:36 PM

Diplomacy only works when the parties involved have something to negotiate, and both are willing to compromise about some of the issues. This works fine we we negotiate with reasonable countries, like Canada, or EU members. It worked reasonably well with the old USSR, because their leadership wasn't willing to die in their attempts to take over the world. It works less well when dealing with people who consider agreements to be temporary truces on the way to final victory - which is how Hamas/Hezbollah deal with Israel, and how Iran deals with the outside world.

What can we offer Iran that would interest them in dropping the two things we find most troubling:

-- funding terror groups (like Hamas and Hezbollah)
-- funding terror groups in Iraq, like the Mahdi army
-- building nuclear weapons

Good luck finding a way to negotiate usefully for those - I see absolutely nothing we could offer that would make Iran change its behavior on any of those.

Posted by: James Robertson on April 8, 2007 11:59 PM

james, it sounds to me like you're fully qualified to go to work for dick cheney. haven't learned a thing since april, 2003, have you?

Posted by: howard on April 9, 2007 01:09 AM

83% of the people polled were DFHs! Who knew that many hippies survived the 70's? It must be contagious.

For James Robertson: If you are correct than the Libyan negotiated change in position, and the the North Korean agreement must be cast aside since diplomacy never works. And don't forget to undo the Kennedy/Soviet agreement on Cuba - it too must be undone.

But of course you are not correct, you just don't like trying to avoid military action. How does it feel being a 8%er?

Will that 8% be in the leading wave of the US attack on Iran (including Robertson, of course)? All if favor of war step right over here, raise your right hand and take the military induction oath - to serve as long as it is the pleasure of the Bush presidency and any GOP candidate that might happen to win the 08 elections. Step right up folks, you too can get your brain damaged along with the 33% of US troops in Iraq that reportedly already have (if your brain isn't already gone).

Posted by: JimPortlandOR on April 9, 2007 01:16 AM

It works less well when dealing with people who consider agreements to be temporary truces on the way to final victory - which is how Hamas/Hezbollah deal with Israel, and how Iran deals with the outside world.

How is this at all true of Iran and Hezbollah, at least in a way that is not trivially true of any political entity? Do you know anything about their composition or history?

Posted by: Toadmonster on April 9, 2007 02:34 AM

Part of me wishes that neocons could have at least started their movement with a more intelligent form of communist theory instead of all that Trotskyite romanticization bullcrap. The moralizing without morality idiocy we get from them is too stupid to be funny anymore. I wonder what Eisenhower would have said to someone who told him he was immoral and stupid and naive for talking to our enemies. I'm guessing punch the neocon dumbass in the face and then say something about the military-industrial complex.

Posted by: Reality Man on April 9, 2007 02:48 AM

Will fat matt please stop making opauqe references to this alledged mass of conservatives calling for the immediate initiation of militarily hostilities and name any noteworthy conservative advocating any such thing?

how quick is he to step up to the plate when it doesnt have any food on it I wonder.

Posted by: pimp hand strikes! on April 9, 2007 05:13 AM

"For James Robertson: If you are correct than the Libyan negotiated change in position, and the the North Korean agreement must be cast aside since diplomacy never works. And don't forget to undo the Kennedy/Soviet agreement on Cuba - it too must be undone."

You might want to look at when Libya folded - it was after we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, and at a point where Khadafi was wondering whether he was next. With North Korea, I don't think we (the US) have a lot of leverage, militarily or otherwise. The Chinese, on the other hand, have lots of leverage, and any movement in North Korea has more to do with Chinese pressure than with anything else - which is why it was smart to insist that any talks with the regime include China.

What you ignore is that force is not necessarily something you have to pull out of the bag with a regime like Libya - or Iran - but the credible threat of it has to be in the background. That's how Libya folded, and it's how (via China) any pressure was brought to bear on North Korea. In the latter case, the credible threat probably involved Chinese economic pressure.

The other thing the Left seems to think is that military force is either WWII style "all in" or nothing. That's not really true, and it hasn't been true in the history of the US. Iran could be pressed pretty hard simply by making sure that gasoline shipments don't enter the country - and slightly harder by destroying (or threatening to destroy) their small number of gasoline refineries. No need to invade, or stand up a large army on their border; the navy and air force would suffice for that kind of threat.

If the US went into a negotiation with Iran with those options in the pocket, there's a possibility that something worthwhile might result. Let's take Matt's theory though - let's assume we opened talks with all military options off the table. What do we have to offer that would make Iran give up the things we want them to give up?

Posted by: James Robertson on April 9, 2007 07:41 AM

Lovely, except the Bush administration seems to have no intention of opening negotiations with Iran.

Posted by: daveNYC on April 9, 2007 08:03 AM

"Lovely, except the Bush administration seems to have no intention of opening negotiations with Iran."

Which doesn't answer my question: What possible compromise is there with Iran? What are either they, or we, willing to give up to achieve our goals?

The reason the administration hasn't opened talks is that they see no purpose - in the absence of goals, there's nothing to negotiate. This is the critical flaw in Matt's reasoning - it's not that Diplomacy is useless; he sets up a straw man. What's useless is Diplomacy where there's no possibility of compromise.

Posted by: James Robertson on April 9, 2007 08:51 AM

Heh, not far from Noam Chomsky's argument that if America were sufficiently democratic, there would be no chance of attacking Iran.

Posted by: Gary Sugar on April 9, 2007 11:27 AM

because their leadership wasn't willing to die in their attempts to take over the world.

Please to be providing evidence that the Iranian elites are "willing to die" and are trying to "take over the world." (Note: the fact that there are a relatively tiny number of Islamic suicide bombers does not constitute a shred of evidence about the rationality of the Iranian government.)

Posted by: Scott Lemieux on April 9, 2007 12:42 PM

why am i not surprised that despite all kinds of evidence to the contrary, james robertson is one of these people who believes that libya folded on account of our invasion of iraq? you would have thought they'd all be tired of trotting out this pathetic argument by now, but no.

meanwhile, of course, robertson also suffers the confusion that "diplomacy" and "compromise" are synonyms. like i say, he'd be great for cheney's office, which needs someone to replace feith....

Posted by: howard on April 9, 2007 02:09 PM

I was speaking about the goals of the USSR by way of analogizing. Based on the statements of the Iranian regime, they follow a messianic version of Shia doctrine - one which actively encourages chaos as a way of bringing forth the "hidden imam". They've said quite clearly what their goals are; perhaps you've missed their numerous statements about the coming destruction of Israel, the US, and the West?

I'll ask again, since neither Matt nor anyone else has bothered to even try to answer: What possible compromise is there with Iran? What could we offer them that would have them agree to stop supporting Hamas and Hezbollah, stop funding Shia death squads in Iraq, and stop pursuing nukes?

I won't hold my breath; thus far, no one has even tried to answer. In particular, Matt hasn't answered, either in this thread, or in further posts on the subject. Anyone can call for Diplomacy, but it's only meaningful if you have a game plan. The left's constant cry is that there was no good plan for post war Iraq, and that argument has some merit. However, you also need a plan before you open negotiations. What would that be?

Posted by: James Robertson on April 9, 2007 06:40 PM

Thanks
Best regards
mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mirc yukle
forum
forum
mirc
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet