My first question to Duckworth and Cegelis (and Roskam) when they debate
I'd ask them all to comment on Harvard's historian of the first World War Niall Ferguson's grim column about another great war he sees coming with Iran.
A war that drags in China.
The devastating nuclear exchange of August 2007 represented not only the failure of diplomacy, it marked the end of the oil age. Some even said it marked the twilight of the West. Certainly, that was one way of interpreting the subsequent spread of the conflict as Iraq's Shi'ite population overran the remaining American bases in their country and the Chinese threatened to intervene on the side of Teheran.If Krol's right, and war is the issue, this is the war I sure want to here them talk about.
Yet the historian is bound to ask whether or not the true significance of the 2007-2011 war was to vindicate the Bush administration's original principle of pre-emption. For, if that principle had been adhered to in 2006, Iran's nuclear bid might have been thwarted at minimal cost. And the Great Gulf War might never have happened.
cross posted as at Bill Baar's West Side as Niall Ferguson: The origins of the Great War of 2007 - and how it could have been prevented
11 comments:
I don't see the war being as big an issue, especially come November. To residents of the district, the key issue is jobs and all things related like pensions, small business support and the rising cost of healthcare that business have to face. As much as I hate to say it, the war is almost a distriction at this point.
But on the war, Cegelis has been consistent from the start, and I believe her position against it will be hard to challenge by the GOP, and contrasts well with Roskam's support for it.
Duckworth has the most credibility on the issues obviously, but her position is the one most easiy twisted by the GOP as we've already seen in some of the conservative media. Her campaign will be called a cynical explotation of her wounds, her opposition will be twisted ala Kerry into a "she volunteered for it before she was against it" type attack, and her lack of support for the war now will be called disengenuous and unpatriotic for her lack of supporting the Commander in Chief. I'm not saying any of this is right, but Roskam has ties to Rove, and we all know just how low Rove is capable of going.
thanks anon,
My problem, after reading Ferguson (no friend of Bush by the way) is maybe this war should be the issue.
It's interesting the Europeans are all talking Iran while we're absorbed here with Alito and NSA spying.
There getting a taste of how fearful it can be when America withdraws into itself.
This could be the legacy of 45 years of near treason by US Presidents and Congresses in failing to enforce immigration laws and protect our border; doing absolutely nothing to make the US independent of foreign oil; doing away with American traditions and Judeo-Christian heritage on the altar of secularism and political correctness.
Unlike Iraq, a war which was and, due to horrible leadership, has been a national embarrassment, a pre-emptive strike to neutralize Iran's nuclear ambitions with missle strikes would be a proper use of preemptive force (which by the way is not a Bush theory, every one supports preemptive strikes if there really is a threat to national security).
The only things that have prevented Iraq from being a total disaster have been the bravery and astuteness of the American troops and the amazing will of the Iraqi people in the face of horrible leadership from Washington.
I'm a little skeptical about a number of different things:
First off, most of the Shia in Iraq are not big followers of the religious leadership comming out of Iran, and certainly not with this bunch of religious zealots currently in charge.
In fact, they come from a much different viewpoint within the Shia, and there's a fair amount of evidence that Iran's religious element under the influnence of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad doesn't sell very well in Iraq.
Secondly, there's the "China Card" in all of this. Let's say that indeed, the Chinese do actually threaten to intervene on the side of Teheran. Not to sound arrogant, but "Yeah, so...."
What are they going to do? Attack Taiwan? India? Japan? Not going to cooperate with us on North Korea?
Looking at this from a China perspective, I'm really hard pressed to see why ever the Chinese would even be remotely interested in siding up with the current Iranian leadership, because as soon as they do so, their trade with the US literally drops off a cliff.
And bluntly, that's something they just can't afford. That kills there economic growth, which creates serious internal unrest, and THAT'S the killer issue they just can't afford. For the US, it's a big time pain in the butt, but for China, it's the type of problem that can lead directly to internal unrest, which takes then potentially into a regime change environment.
Personally, I tend to think it's overblown, and at the rate Ahmadinejad is causing headaches internally within Iran, he's already planted the seeds for his own downfall.
I have a few other disagreements with Prof. Ferguson's article, and anonymous' ridiculous idea that air or missile strikes could do the job.
First, the Iranian's learned from the Israeli strike on Iraq's reactor long-ago not to concentrate everything at one site -- they are widely dispersed, and hardened underground.
To destroy their capability would require seizing the sites, holding them, blowing them up and then withdrawing. I doubt the Israeli's have that capability, so only the US or a US led coalition could do that.
It needs to be done.
The professor's article has a few holes:
Saddam is gone, and with him what once was the world's fourth largest army; so is Assad Sr. whose son doesn't hold a candle to him; Qadaffi has renounced WMD's; Arafat is gone.
It's very questionable that the world supply of oil is rapidly being exausted, the problem is reliable supply from new producer/exporters, and decrepit or nonexistent infastructure.
The fertility rate for the Islamic world has grown over the last decades, but for a century little else has. What notable advances have been made in the Islamic world in education, economics, literature, music and the arts, technology and living standards?
By every measure they have been stagnant for a century. The bulk of their population is dirt poor, ignorant and unskilled -- being fed hatred of the infidel who supposedly is to blame for their plight.
The radical religious zealots answer is to go back in time to the 1700's.
Much of this was also caused by Bill Clinton's timidity in confronting terrorism in the 90's.
Iran is better off than most, and ther is great unrest among the young populace for change.
Turkey is a strong anti-radical bulwark, and Israel has a strong, modern military (and an arsenal of 70-100 nukes).
There were WMD's found in Iraq but the press has not reported it widely.
With respect to taking action in Iran, Europe seems to have some backbone this time, along with a new pro-west German Chancellor.
I doubt China would jeopardize it's MFN trading status with the US over Iran, they worry just as much about religious radicalism as we do (they do a better job of stamping it out).
If Netanyahu comes back in power I believe it will be a good thing. Don't forget, it was Bill Clinton who sent his political sleaze doctors to Israel to help defeat him the last time.
The oil age should -- and will -- diminish this century, through new technology.
The article was interesting, but given the situation in the world it is only one of many that you could spin.
A Kadima win would be the best outcome for the world.
Also, the birth rate in Muslim countries has been shrinking for the past 2 decades. While still much higher than Europe and East Asia, it is much lower than in the 70's and early 80's.
I posted this same topic over at SoapBlog Chicago.
Look at the responses. Everyone of those neo-isolationist comments should be read off to these candidates and they should be asked if they agree with things like this, Iran is already a democracy. You just don't like who they elected.
It's not a Democracy, Iran's run by Tyrants and they are a grave threat to the US, and one way or the other, the Tyrants need to be removed.
I want to know if Cegelis, Duckworth, (and Roskam) agree, or if they think Bush is a war monger waging wars for oil and will try and tie his hands on Iran.
Making the wheels turn, you are greatly underestimating China's importance to our economy. We can't simply stop trading with them. Most of the durable goods you buy are most likely imported from there.
True China needs us, but thanks to the "Wal-Martization" of our country we are reliant on them as well. You love your low prices don't you. And by "you" I mean the U.S. consumer in general.
The thirst for low prices has led to a reliance on foreign made goods and immigrant labor. Those of you who want to kick out all the immigrants and seal the borders will likely beg them to come back when the price of a can of green beans reaches $5.00.
Conservatives have quite the dichotomy with immigration. They love cheap labor, but hate the immigrants who supply it.
Bush tied his own hands on Iran. Our drugstore-cowboy-in-chief put them on the defensive with his "Axis of evil speech," (yeah, always a good idea to pit the west against population that is teetering on the brink of modernization - now they've circled the wagons around the clerics). And because we're in up to our necks in Iraq, we've no political power to do more than wag our finger at Iran.
Nice going, ace.
cbm:
Nice try at trying to change the topic of conversation. Too bad, it's not working.
There's both "buyers" and "sellers" in this business. We are "buyers", China is "sellers". The "Buyers" tend to have more options, and that's no different in this case.
If China takes actions that will lose them export market share in the US, guess what, there's plenty of other "sellers" out there who will rush to the front to provide those same services - at a somewhat higher cost, no doubt, but that's some pain for the US, LOTS & LOTS of pain for China.
Just as a thought:
1. If less US trade for China
2. Then more NAFTA/CAFTA trade
3. Means a lot less (if not total shutdown) of "outsourcing"/"offshoring" efforts to places like China, and a dramatic change in the consequent political issues.
What are the political consequences of that happening?
Also, there's a very large player that Niall Ferguson seems to be missing - called Russia. Remember, they share an extended border with Iran, and they are unlikely to be at all happy with a religious zealot like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad pushing other government's hot buttons like they are candy.
This guy creates a nuke exchange with Israel (and I'm certainly no fan of Bennie, but he'd have to respond), and all of Iran's neighbors also get to pay a price as well.
Realize, this is Putin's chance to stand up & get involved with Iran to get them to stay within the rules. After Putin's Ukraine mess over natural gas, he needs to find a way to smooth over his relations with the EU nations. If the EU nations are that concerned over Iran, well, he's got his opening.
Just another thought to be considered.
Post a Comment