« What I've Learned: Long Panels Edition | Main | Hardballin' »
September 27, 2007
Lieberman Helps Destabilize Iraq
The Senate's adoption of the Lieberman/Kyl amendment designating Iran's Revolutionary Guard a "terrorist group" isn't merely embarrassing, it's counterproductive. Designating the Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group -- which in contemporary American terms means they're a target -- makes it all the more important for Iran to keep us tied up and weakened in Iraq. The more we telegraph that we'd like to devote forces to regime change or strikes in Tehran, the stronger Iran's incentive to keep Iraq an unstable morass trapping ever-greater numbers of American troops who can't be easily diverted from a chaotic mission and are geographically vulnerable to Iranian counter-attack.
Additionally, it further ensures Iran's incentive is to keep Iran from becoming stable under American protection and thus a platform from which we can safely launch attacks on the Iranian state. Iran will never allow Iraq to stabilize so long as Iraqi stability degrades the safety of the Iranian regime. And given that Iraq is Shi'ite, Iran is Shi'ite, and America is not, Tehran's got a whole lot more pull there than we do. So not only is the Lieberman/Kyl amendment bad policy vis-a-vis Iran, but it's terrible policy for stabilizing Iraq -- which Lieberman professes to care about. "Professes" being the key word there.
September 27, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
Will the war mongers never figure out that openly declaring "We hate your government and wish to overthrow it." is not an incentive to those regimes to reform?
Posted by: Col Bat Guano | Sep 27, 2007 2:58:53 PM
Will the war mongers never figure out that openly declaring "We hate your government and wish to overthrow it." is not an incentive to those regimes to reform?
If they were that smart, they wouldn't be war mongers. And that just goes to show Hillary's judgment(again!!).
Posted by: Joe Klein's conscience | Sep 27, 2007 3:03:38 PM
Designating the Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group -- which in contemporary American terms means they're a target -- makes it all the more important for Iran to keep us tied up and weakened in Iraq.
Nu? How is this not part of the plan? We need a reason to stay in Iraq, and this gives us a reason to keep the admin's pet war going for as long as possible.
At this point, there's no way the admin and their supporters on the hill are merely incompetent ... they are strategically incompetent. And the question is who benefits?
Interestingly, in spite of all the admin's posturing against Iran, it always seems to be radical elements in Iran. Given the association of former Iran/Contra people with this admin, could this be more than a coincidence?
All I'm sayin' ... don't be surprised if, in a decade or two, we learn that our gummint (and maybe even a "Zionist" organization or two) was infiltrated with Iranian spies ...
Posted by: DAS | Sep 27, 2007 3:04:37 PM
So not only is the Lieberman/Kyl amendment bad policy vis-a-vis Iran, but it's terrible policy for stabilizing Iraq -- which Lieberman professes to care about. "Professes" being the key word there.
Agreed. Lieberman's moving mighty close to some political territory that I would hope he wouldn't want to occupy here.
Posted by: Dilan Esper | Sep 27, 2007 3:24:58 PM
... to keep Iran from becoming stable under American protection ...That one should be "Iraq". Don't start making administration approved typos.
Posted by: KCinDC | Sep 27, 2007 3:47:32 PM
Does it matter at all whether the Revolutionary Guard is or is not a terrorist group? The criticism seems to entirely gloss over that seemingly relevant question.
If it is, then are we to assume that we can never call them that because of the reasons outlined above? Is there some trigger of activity which would change that, even with the possible downsides listed above?
This seems to me to be at best half an analysis.
Posted by: Dave Justus | Sep 27, 2007 3:59:44 PM
The IRG, as far as I can tell isn't a terrorist organization, but rather a paramilitary one.
Posted by: al-Anon | Sep 27, 2007 4:41:50 PM
So if it's bad policy, why did the Democrats vote for it in such numbers? Apparently Hillary Clinton supports this policy along with many of her colleagues? Are they ignorant, not paying attention, or do they simply support this policy? I'm guessing the latter.
On foreign policy as in many other policy ares, the so-called leaders of the Democratic Party only differ with the Bush administration on tactics. They would have invaded Iraq differently and handled the occupation differently. They would be more careful to give the appearance of pursuing diplomacy before attacking Iran. They believe in the American Empire, using the military to secure US access to resources and preserve US hegemony, and continuing the neverending global war on terror.
Posted by: Charles Dunaway | Sep 27, 2007 4:48:53 PM
The goal is war with Iran. This furthers that goal. It isn't complicated.
These people - Bush, Cheney, Lieberman, Dave Justus in the thread above, are evil monsters. May they die quick but natural deaths, and burn in the fires of hell for all eternity.
Posted by: LarryM | Sep 27, 2007 4:49:26 PM
All you have done is give what you believe are possible negative consequences for deeming the guard a terrorist organization. You have not discussed the actions that led the guard to wear this crown.
Posted by: El Viajero | Sep 27, 2007 4:55:16 PM
Great point about the Sunnis on Hard Ball.
Did you forget to pack your razor on your trip to New York? =)
Posted by: Ethan Sommer | Sep 27, 2007 6:01:16 PM
El Viajero instruct us as to the good points of the coming war with Iran which the Em-Es-Em hasn't been telling us.
Posted by: Pooh | Sep 27, 2007 7:33:43 PM
Good points, Ezra. And, it should be noted, that the rules the US apply when deciding if they will allow a nation to have nukes or not, have never been openly declared. Why didn't the states try to keep India and Pakistan from developing nuclear weapons? Both nations aren't really beacons of stability and democracy. Especially Pakistan isn't more trustworthy than Iran nowadays. Let's face it: The US can't claim any ethical high ground when playing the global cop. Contrary to its propaganda statements, it's decisions and stances are actually totally based on self interest. The rest of the world has already noticed that a long time ago, and so it has become increasingly difficult for America to find allies for its oh-so-righteous cruzades.
Posted by: Gray | Sep 28, 2007 6:00:43 AM
And Iran need do nothing overt itself; all it has to do is get the Iraqi Shiites to dial up the resistance.
Posted by: bob h | Sep 28, 2007 7:49:22 AM
The reason Hillary has never admitted her authorization vote was a mistake is that she agreed with the thinking behind it and at least initially (three or four years?)the war in Iraq itself; the exact danger of her not admitting this is her present vote on Lieberman-Kyl which repeats and compounds her initial error; but now the stakes are even higher; if Bush goes to war, we will hear some years later how her vote was not a mistake and how she did not authorize Bush's third (and maybe last) war. It will not be so useful to hear then.
Posted by: della Rovere | Sep 28, 2007 8:59:06 AM
Gray: there really IS a simple test for determining whther or not the Adminstration deems any particular nation "OK" with possessing nuclear weapons. Just look at the two cases of Iran and Pakistan.
One country has made visceral anti-Americanism ("Great Satan", etc.) a fundamantal basis of its foreign and domestic policy for years. One country hasn't.
You figure it out.
Posted by: Jay C | Sep 28, 2007 9:09:27 AM
Is everyone sure it's a good idea to start labeling sovereign nation state military forces as "terrorist groups"? I mean, I know the notions of laws of war are antiquated and meaningless and all and were produced by all those stupid idiots who suffered through two world wars.
For example, it might not be a good precedent to set, as it would not take long for any other nation to declare members of any U.S. military branch as members of a "terrorist" group, as well as any employees of the CIA.
Posted by: El_Cid | Sep 28, 2007 9:15:16 AM
To clarify, that would be the same CIA named as a material agent in a UN-sponsored 'truth commission' in Guatemala's genocide against its Mayan Indian population.
But I'm sure that those nations who thought laws of war might be necessary were cowards who failed to condemn the evils and horrors of their enemies.
Posted by: El_Cid | Sep 28, 2007 9:18:31 AM
Regarding nukes in South Asia: while Iran is more anti-American in rhetoric than Pakistan, Pakistan, while often ostensibly "helpful" to us (and more importantly to American business), has done many things that have hurt us in the long term (c.f. Gray's comment). Also, let us not forget the whole situation is a domino effect -- China has nukes while India (having a border dispute with China) hasn't even a reliable protector to respond on its behalf in case China decides to nuke it. So India gets nukes. So Pakistan must get nukes to respond to India. So Iran needs nukes because it's half-way surrounded by nuclear powers (Russia, Pakistan) and not too far from Israel.
South Asia was long a nuke proliferation powder keg waiting to happen. Really, though, if somehow India was assured that in case their little border dispute with China would go nuclear, someone would nuke China back to the stone age, so that MAD deterence would exist on China, maybe the powder keg could have been avoided.
But the US, at least, seemed to forget that China and India even bordered each other. So I guess the real problem is that our foreign policy establishment never took geography?
Although, Gray ... I must wonder about your, er, quasi-neo-con outlook ... how is it that the US gets to make the decision of who gets to go nuclear or not?
Posted by: DAS | Sep 28, 2007 10:05:53 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
