Negotiations and that big stick
The commenter known as “unknown blogger” wrote in the previous thread:
“Impotent.” “Weak.” “They must have cut a deal.” [quoting those who criticize the Blair government’s public handling of the affair].
Tsk, tsk. Such a tremendous amount of disappointment around here that this thing was resolved without the typical neo-con diplomatic skill set, namely tough posturing and threats of attack.
Unknown blogger or UB—generally a worthy opponent, by the way, and often the impetus for provocative and informative discussions—is making some fundamental errors here, I believe.
Perhaps UB is correct about a small subset of people; I wouldn’t doubt it. But I think he (unknown? are you a “he?”) demonstrates a misunderstanding of much of the criticism of Blair and the British Navy, as well as a mischaracterization of the neocon mindset and the process of diplomatic negotiations itself.
Much of the anger on the right wasn’t just about the negotiations, but rather the fact that the sailors were left unprotected and vulnerable to this sort of abduction in the first place. After all, it’s not as though the possibility hadn’t been rehearsed through a similar (although somewhat less serious) incident in 2004. It’s not as though there weren’t recent warnings that more of the same might be forthcoming. The “impotence” and “weakness” refers at least in part to the fact that these sailors were left defenseless, showing a lack of preparedness on the part of the British government and the Navy.
For sailors to avoid being sitting ducks it’s not actually necessary for them to fire a shot. It’s just necessary that the Iranians—or whomever the potential enemy might be—need to know that they are able to, and that the rules of engagement allow them to. It’s somewhat analogous to having an effective burglar alarm or bodyguard—it’s not that it makes an attack impossible, but it does make it less likely, because of the perpetrator’s knowledge of the strong possibility of serious and immediate consequences.
So, part of the outrage—and one I share, by the way—is that the hands of the Navy had been tied so tightly by restrictive rules of engagement that they were easily able to be exploited for whatever purpose the Iranians had in mind.
That brings us to the next point. What purpose did the Iranians have in mind? I’m no mind reader, but it’s clear that this incident played out on several levels at once. First, there was the sailors and their fate, and the already-mentioned way they were allowed to be vulnerable to seizure. Next, there was the public posturing, both for the Western public and leaders, and for the locals and the rest of the Arab and Muslm world. And third, there were the hidden goings-on about which we can only speculate, and which may represent a great deal more of the tale than we know.
The first level is the one on which we can pretty much all agree: it is a wonderful thing to see the hostages return. But my position is that, unless the rules of engagement are changed significantly and those changes are communicated in some way to the Iranians (either publicly or privately), then the Brits run the risk of future incidents of this type or of related ones, in which the sensitivity with which troops are forced to operate is used against them for propaganda value.
Which leads us to the second level, that of propaganda. As I’ve written before, this is a winning situation for the Iranians, both for internal consumption and external. They are made to look first strong and then magnanimous, and the Brits are made to look weak and impotent (yes, UB, just as the others have said). In the end, the incident itself is made to look as though talk has triumphed and won the day. See, folks? All we have to do is be nice to one another and it’ll all work out; no need to listen to anyone who says otherwise.
Which brings us to the third level: what may have gone on behind the scenes. I don’t pretend to be privy to that one, either, but one thing of which I’m virtually sure is that there was a behind-the-scenes. And in this case I’d wager it was where the real back-and-forth that led to the release lay.
It is a valid question—actually, a vital one, although unanswerable at this point—to ask whether the backstory involved a deal, a threat, or both. Because if it was a deal rather than a threat, than the Iranians have learned something else about the West, and that is that kidnapping and blackmail and other such techniques work, at least with the Blair government. This is information they will store away for the future, of that you can be sure.
There’s another way in which behind-the-scenes maneuvering may play out to the Iranians’ advantage, and that is on the propaganda level. If, for example, a threat was involved, but it was not heard by the world, then the Iranians still get to look brave and the West craven.
Make no mistake about it, such a perception would be worth a great deal to the Iranians, even if it’s a mistaken one on the part of the world.
Another related perception that comes from the hidden nature of whatever negotiations and/or threats went on is the perception that, as UB himself has stated:
…this thing was resolved without the typical neo-con diplomatic skill set [sic], namely tough posturing and threats of attack.
Whether or not this is actually the case, the perception is that it was. If UB had revised his sentence to take out the phrase “neocon diplomatic skill set” (I’ll get to that point in a minute), and added the word “public” before the phrase “tough posturing and threats of attack,” then I would agree with his description of how it was indeed resolved.
Because the truth is—and UB himself, as an intelligent person, must know this—we only get to see what goes on in public. None of us has any idea what sort of threats may have gone on in private, but from my experience of negotiations and bargaining, it seems only logical that there were some.
That brings us to my last point, UB’s characterization of the “typical neocon skill set.” I’ve written many times before on this blog about similar mischaracterizations of neocon thought; if interested, just go to the right sidebar and read some of my posts under the “neocons” category. And that’s just a sample.
So for now I’ll just say that neocons aren’t interested in threats per se. They are interested in furthering the spread of liberal democracy (funny word that “liberal,” isn’t it?) around the world, and in doing so by peaceful means if possible. There is no neocon rulebook on hostage negotiations, except that they be done with an eye to the messages they convey to the world at large, and that communicating weakness is not a good thing.
Perhaps UB is confusing neocons with Jacksonians, definitely not the same animal, although there can be some overlap. Jacksonians want action rather than words. They probably would have handled the hostage crisis by making sure the sailors weren’t left in such a vulnerable position by extraordinarily restrictive rules of engagement. Once the crisis had begun, however, Jacksonians would probably have advocated less talk (including threats) and more action—for example, a rescue attempt, or even a bombing raid.
Understand that diplomacy has many levels, and only one of them—the blandest, blankest, and most incomplete—is its public face. Threats are definitely a necessary part of diplomacy (except among friendly countries); in the famous words of Teddy Roosevelt: walk softly and carry a big stick.
Part of the size and heft of that stick is the perception that one might just use it if pressed, and that it’s in the enemy’s best interests to make sure it doesn’t come to that.
We’ve come a long way from Teddy Roosevelt, who you mentioned in the next-to-last paragraph of this post. Can you imagine any Western chief of state today issuing an ultimatum to hostage-takers on the order of, “Perdicarris alive or Rasuli dead?”
Neither can I.
Sorry, this is a bit off topic, yet somewhat on. Maybe it can be addressed in another thread.
Blair called the recent attack on a British convoy an act of terrorism.
Are all fighters in Iraq, not on our side, terrorists? None being treated as POWs for instance. I guess my point would be, people not of the original regime, and not using Al Qeada tactics of blowing up and or killing innocent civilians. I suppose some people could be recently resisting an occupation for whatever reason? Do they have a legitimate status outside of everyone else?
Thanks for anyone who can address this.
Ah Neo, I think you missed the biggest ‘behind the scene’ action taking part here. I found it most interesting indeed that within 24 hours of the announcement that the Nimitz was enroute to join the two other naval aircraft carriers in area that Iran suddenly drew a deep breath and went all magnanimous on us. Or them (UK) I suppose as the case may be. Whatever the semantics of it all, and what threats may or may not have been offered ‘verbally’…..that ship steaming it’s way there is one huge stick in the game. Publicly, tmk, we said not a word…..but the intention was quite clear I think. Iran was quite happy to ‘take on’ the Brits, they do not yet (and hopefully will not for a while yet) feel up to a direct face to face with the US. Unless, sadly until, they manage to get that bomb together they will bluster and preen but back away from a fight with the big boys. The US arsenal is the sole hinderance facing them at this point. God help us.
Thinkaloud asks:
POW is a legal term (international law) given to combatants of a nation that is part of the Geneva Conventions. The government in Iraq is actually friendly so that makes our mission there a police action. Therefore all rights to self defense apply to our soldiers there. It doesn’t matter what the terrorists are actually called, they can legally be killed or captured based on their actions. Keep in mind that I am no JAG, but I have had some training on this.
Well, thinkaloud, what would you call them? “Freedom fighters”? Freedom from what, for what–to go back to Saddam’s rule? “Resisting” the “occupation”? We’re currently there at the request of the legitimately elected Iraqi government…of course, it wasn’t that way at first, but we have been requested to stay…
The violence being perpetrated in Iraq these days is primarily by criminal gangs and AQ in Iraq. I’d call them “terrorists”. I know that’s not a popular word among “progressives,” but then neither is “democracy.”
Oh, and Neo, the quote is “Speak softly and carry a big stick.”
/nitpick
Thinkaloud, it’s been a few years since my last mandatory ‘Geneva Convention” class, but if my rusty memory serves correctly there are basically two classifications. Civilians and/or combatants. If someone is shooting at me, it’s a combatant If they are guarding a hoarde of explosives, liekwise a combatant. Can’t recall ever getting into the specific ‘classes’ you want to assign, i.e terrorist, POW, militant, whatever. If they raise that gun, or bomb, hey, fair game. Shameful how PC’ness has effectively tied the hands of our military when it is all basically so cut and dried. It continues to cost lives needlessly.
I don’t think this makes Iran look strong. They backed down before push came to shove. Even before the stareing contest started.
The reason lefties like Mr. Unknown have so much trouble understanding neocons (or paleocons, or any other kind of cons) is that they’ve convinced themselves that America, and the West in general, are always wrong.
If America is always wrong, then any use of force by America is always unjustified. Which means anyone like us ‘cons wishing for at least the threat of force when dealing with terrorist regimes like Iran, must be evil. Because we’re urging something which Unknown _knows_ with all the certainty of religious faith is utterly _wrong_.
Liberal hate for America means that any defense of America is criminal in their eyes, and any attack on us is not only justified but a positive good.
Iran doesn’t look strong because it isn’t strong. I believe there is a great deal of unrest among the population at large. I’ve seen virtually no stories in English on internal affairs in Iran but some I’ve seen from non-MSM sources indicate student riots against the regime and rural violence directed at the local petty tyrant mullah are common. The mullahs in charge and their front man Amadinajad may be playing a huge game of bluff with the West, counting on Western caution, pusillanimity and divisiveness. This game however, as they may well know, has the possibility of blowing up in their faces.
First of all I’d say that UB is about as “worthy” an opponent as your average bumper sticker — as illustrated, in this instance, by his stunted understanding of the meaning of “neocon”.
Second, I’d say that labels really don’t matter much here in any case — it’s not like we’re somehow supporting our “neocon” or the “lefty-lib” sports teams. What matters are the real consequences of real decisions, attitudes, and actions in the real world. In this case, such realities involve bluff, threat, intimidation, and propaganda on one side, and at least apparent fear, acquiesence and submission on the other. The result has been to provide a terrorist-supporting state of theocratic fascists, vigorously pursuing weapons of the most massive destruction, with a huge propaganda victory, emboldening its supporters both within and outside its borders — including those within our borders. That will have consequences — so you hardly need to be a neocon, however that’s defined, to find such a “resolution” disappointing, to say the least. The addled left, head firmly immersed in sand, is the only segment so little attached to reality that it thinks the result a “good” one.
Tsk, tsk UB – don’t you know, you silly boy, that only neocons know how to interpret neoconservative motive and action? How could be so wrong about them? You should be ashamed.
I mean – you didn’t know that neocons seek liberal democracy through peaceful means? I mean isn’t it obvious?
Jeez, man….
Perhaps NatC could name the dictator who was “convinced” to step down. It certainly won’t be Hitler, TC’s hero and mentor. In fact, I’m still waiting for NatC here to name the dangerous “chicken hawk” that blows up buildings like NatC’s fellow nazi Timothy McVeigh.
“Unless Iran already has nuclear warheads, a direct military confrontation with the United States would most likely provoke a popular uprising against the regime. And retaining power is the one thing that Ayatollah Khamenei and his clerical cohorts actually care about.”
This is from Kenneth Timmerman – a peace-loving neocon. Earlier he refered to Patrick Cockurn as the ‘looney left’ for drawing a link to the capture of the British navy boys(who now appear to have been “collecting intelligence” on Iran at the time) and the U.S capture of two Iranian diplomats previous.
But Kenny boy seems to think the Iranian populace is going to to rise up against the Mullah’s after a U.S attack.
This is an ‘expert’ on Iran, remember.
TC,
Are There no historical precedents for where we have brought democracy to authoritarian nations thru war? Was it a bad thing?
Can you negotiate a dictatorship into a democracy?
Oh, so NOW NatC is DEFENDING the Iranian uprising. Wasn’t it just a few posts ago you were calling them “terrorists attacking civillians”(or just the people and groups receiving support from us). Now, I know the Nazis(like TC) rely on short attention spans, but THIS is rediculous. Not to mention, if this IS the case, wouldn’t this be a case of “the will of the people”(so sacrosanct around here) that should be supported? Because if, according to NatC, WE don’t have any “legitimate” reason to effect regime change in Iran, what right do these “naysayers” have to overthrow the “legitimately elected” government, that you(NatC) now advocate? Hypocracy, or just your typical case of NatC talking out of both sieds of his mouth AGAIN?(I wonder if he can do that and chew bubble gum AND rub the top of his head at the same time?)
Trying to figure out what your garbling about there is no easy task, Lee – but I figure it’s something like what Harry’s on about.
Either way – ‘regime change’ isn’t in my book of realistic foreign policy goals.
Just doesn’t strike me as above the board, if you know what I’s saying….
TC:
“Either way – ‘regime change’ isn’t in my book of realistic foreign policy goals.
Well, idealy no. But its not a perfect world is it?
That still doesnt answer the question.
Forgive me, but you’re not being very substantive here.
Thanks for input on defining “terrorists or Pows”.
Stumbley, I do not mean to imply they are freedom fighters necessarily. But labeling everyone “terrorists” and calling things “terrorist actions” as Blair did, of people who are fighting against us in Iraq does not tell me if someone is a hardened long time Al -Qeada member, or a disenchanted former American supporter (which is possible).
Does it matter? Well the fact that we once helped Saddam fight Iran should not indicate we are as bad as Saddam was. Likewise, not everyone in Iraq is probably a terrorist. If they are, the word loses it’s meaning and simply defines anyone who fights, and nothing particularly awful like torture, beheadings of civilians, and chlorine gas bombs in shopping markets.
I guess I’m trying to understand if anyone in Iraq operates under a moral code, similar to what one would expect, and not everyone should be classified as barbarian just because they are willing to fight against us, and they aren’t all killing babies every chance they get.
NNC,
I have “audited” your blog before but never posted.
Couple things. You should consider changing the 1st sentence in your “About Me” frame to read: “I WAS a lifelong democrat…” as it is obvious you are no longer, or are perhaps are, but in name only.
First things first…
Capn B…Shrub is no Teddy Roosevelt, and the Raisuli did not have Iran’s army or the backing of China and Russia.
Think…Careful, You are attempting to make a fine distinction between Jihadis and terrorists. This will undoubtedly short circuit the brains of many neocons. Their CPUs just can not process that quickly. Remember, Pottery Barn rules: You break it, you bought it.
Wheels…If this is indeed a “police action” perhaps you should try looking under guidelines for policing a civil war for your “labels”. These are MUTUAL combatants. The Sunni would just rather risk genocide than bow down to the Shia government we installed for them.
stumbly…You are indeed correct, it is “speak”. Your knowledge of American history is good, your knowledge of Arabian history needs work. Those “gangs” as you refer to them are mainly tribes with family, religious, and political ties that go back 1000 years or more. Do not make the mistake of thinking they are just rabble. They outlasted Saddam together. They know how to survive.
Sally…do you want a draft? That is what war with Iran means. Plain and simple. They have 450,000 frontline troops on the ground right now (that does not even include the Iraqi Mahdi, Sunni and other militia we would have to engage simultaneously). Total Iranian mobilization strength is about 18 million men. Think about that while you consider just how overextended and broke we are with our 350 thousand someodd guys and gals over there. Then there is always China and Russia to worry about. Yes negotiation is preferred right now.
Comments?
Gee, NatC, my posting above is pretty self-explanitory to anybody with an education above the Nazi grade(equivalent to 2nd grade in American educational system). Too “hard” for you to figure out, huh? Not surprising at all.
Hey, prodigal, my “tribes”(Native American) had long-standing family, religious, and political ties, too. Never used our children as weapons or shields, though. Some “tradition”.
Lee,
Maybe thats why you lost. Sorry dude. You put it out there.
We(Native Americans) never allied ourselves with terrorists(Al Qaeda) just because we were “out of power”(i.e. outvoted), as opposed to being jack-booted totalitarians to “achieve power” over the majority. “Survived” Saddam? They SUPPORTED him(he WAS one of ‘them”, remember?
Comments?
Were not just talking about Sunni here Lee.
The Mahdi and Sadrists were well organized when Saddam was in power, which is why they are dangerous now, and why they don’t want to just give into the Maliki government. Also, remember, not all Sunni were Baathists.
My point was, they ARE willing to blow up their kids to prevent the Shia government from keeping power.
To be perfectly honest, I don’t care if they kill each other to the last man. But make no mistake, they are going to kill each other. I just have a problem with our people being stuck in the middle.
Also, one more thing to consider with regards to attacking Iran. Do you REALLY trust the Maliki government, being Shia and all, not to stab us in the back if we engage with Iran?
Well, prodigal, if that’s what it takes to “win”, why are they(the Sunni tribes) still LOSING? If they prefer “genocide” to “sharing power”, I say give them what they want. That’s THEIR decision. We(natives) “lost’ because we chose “life” over “death”, for ourseves, our women, and ESPECIALLY our children. It’s called “being civilized” and showing “respect” for life(even for your enemies). Something seemingly lacking in the “honorable” tribes of the Sunni triangle.
But, prodigal, you’re right about one thing: it isn’t just the Sunni, it seems this is the “tradition” of any Islamic tribe, wether culturally African, Asian, Indonesian, European, or even American for that matter.
RRIIIGGGHHHTTT. Showing respect for life by being party to a genocide. Thats just great Lee.
That must be that whole DEATH=LIFE thing Orwell was talking about. Thanks for playing.
Win Lose, these are words for childrens games Lee. There is no such thing in war. Everybody loses. We have nothing to gain here. Right now our people are being killed by BOTH sides and are on the verge of starting WWIII by engaging with Iran. The Iraqis are killing us because we are keeping them from killing one another. They will continue to do so until we are gone. Then they will go back to killing each other until they are tired of killing. Maybe then they will be ready for help. Right now I would rather just get out of the way and let them figure it out for themselves for a while.
And why was it so important to go to Yugoslavia and “stop them from killing each other” there, if all these “civil” wars should be allowed to take their course without us being “in the middle” of people bound and determined to kill each other? Surely not to prevent the violence from “spilling over” into other regions, as these thing tend to do? The “solution” in the Balkans can’t possibly work in Iraq? More “hypocracy”?
Yet you yourself use the “childish” word “lost” to describe the inability of my people to use children as weapons. So, by implication, your(white) people must have “won”, in direct contradiction to your previous posting. It’s your conflicting “rationalizations” that seem “childish” or “naive” to me, prodigal.
Yes negotiation is preferred right now.
Other things being equal, negotiation is always to be preferred. But then, other things are rarely equal — sometimes “negotiation” is just a euphemism for surrender. And if a draft scares you so much that you’d rather “negotiate” incremental surrender, then you should at least recognize and face what you’re doing. And maybe start learning how to face Mecca as well.
Myself, I don’t think a draft is necessary — yet. But I’m virtually certain it will be, if we continue to back away from the increasingly bold provocations of the islamists, whatever they call themselves and whatever form they take. Pusillanimity won’t work forever.
Sorry, dude, you put it out there.
Yugoslavia makes my point Lee. They were at each other for 3 years before we even showed up.
We settled that down in a couple months because they were exhausted. That is why there were so few NATO dead. They were all ready to quit.
The Iraqis haven’t had their “grudge match” yet. They will not rest until they do.
Let them take the starch out each other for a while. When they are ready for the worlds help they will let us know. They are not ready for peace yet. All we are doing is prolonging the inevitable and getting our people killed.
“To be perfectly honest, I don’t care if they kill each other to the last man.”
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
….There are a bunch of you every century, I guess.
Check your history, prodigal. Muslims and Christians have been killing each other in the Balkans for over 400 years. What stopped them in the 18th-19th centuries was “force of arms”(Hapsburg dynasty). What stopped them in the 20th century was “force of arms”(Tito regime). And the ONLY thing stopping them now is “force of arms”(NATO and Russian Federation). Read the Qur’an. The Muslims will NEVER “tire” of implementing “god’s will” on earth. How does this make your “point”, exactly?
stumbley, your compassion for the Iraqi people is admirable, perhaps you should join the military so you can experience their warmth and beauty up close and personal. Between you an Lee I am sure your overwhelming concern will have them all dead in no time.
Lee wants to save them by slaughtering them. What is your plan?
BTW, it is both customary and respectful to give a citations or link to credit those you plagiarize from.
Agreed ROEs suck re Brits left in position of vulnerability. The stick – the USS Nimitz steaming for the Gulf according to Kenneth Timmerman.
RBT
Lee, the exhausted themselves in three years of active war before we got their. Their grudges were pretty much all played out. The beefs between these people is what is keeping them from uniting for democracy and peace.
Its like trying to break up a bar fight between 2 guys who just absolutely will not stop. Sometimes you just have to push them outside and let them go at it for a little while and then step in when they are taking a break. Otherwise you end up the one with the broken nose, and they end up going at it anyway.
“They” haven’t “exhausted” themselves in 1400 years. What part of that don’t you understand, prodigal?(your “Orwellian” rewrite of Balkan history notwithstanding).One reason the Balkans are “quiet” now is muslims are going to Iraq to fight(along with the funding and arms, by the way). Bosnians, Chechens, Indonesians, Sudanese, even Americans going to Iraq to fight “the great satan” and keeping the “House of Islam” intact, rather than “killing each other” where they live and where the “atrocities” committed against them happened.(sending arms to fight in the Balkans at this point would be like the Japanese committing troops to an invasion of California while the 7th fleet is in Tokyo Bay) So much for your “civil war”, or how “exhausted” the jihadists are.
And “tough guy” here(prodigal) “pushes” people fighting out of the bar, but won’t “push” them apart because he “might get hurt”? So you don’t “make” people stop fighting, you just “make” them do it somewhere else?
By the way, it’s customary to spell correctly, prodigal.
We quelled the war in yugoslavia in 3 months Lee.
We have been in Iraq 4 YEARS and we haven’t even secured Baghdad Lee, nevermind the rest of Iraq. The Commanders are throwing our numbers like 10 to 12 years before Iraq is secure. That is nuts.
Who is being naive here, THEY DONT WANT PEACE YET LEE. What part of that don’t you understand? Do you really think keeping our people in an eternal war is going to solve this? In the meantime our boarders are wide open, we are broke, our troops are working on 3,4 and 5 tours. How much longer do we keep sending them back. How long do you think these guys can stay lucky? This can not go on indefinitely.
You are talking alot but all I am hearing is fight fight fight kill kill kill. You got a solution in there anywhere?
From now on lets try to keep the barbs and flames out if we can. If you would rather sling insults, I can do that to, but that is not why I am here. Lets wait until we are finished talking before we strart insulting each other, deal?
Then, prodigal, don’t start insulting before you’re finished “talking”. No deal, loser.(oh, how “childish” of me) Insults or not, I’m not going to let your mischaracterizations, lack of knowledge, or lies to go unchallenged. If Stumbley needs to enlist because he supports the war, why aren’t you in the Border Patrol? My tax returns have gone unclaimed since 2002; what are YOU doing about us being “broke”? And “we” haven’t quelled ANYTHING in the Balkans(if they’re so “exhausted” there, why do we still need to be THERE, as opposed to Iraq, where they are so obviously “needed”) “We” crushed the Nazi regime(sorry, TC) in 3 and 1\2 years, but we still have troops THERE(what was that, 60+ years ago?). If “they” don’t want “peace” yet, then “fight” them until they “do”(fight fight fight kill kill kill, UNTIL…..).
Poor “Teddy” must be turning over in his grave.
I think a lot of the debate is missing the point. This crisis wasn’t solved by diplomacy and nice-nice alone, and this crisis wasn’t resolved by bellicose rumblings exclusively, either.
What we saw here was what one sees in a huge array of cases, a mixture of both. Did we blow anything up or even overfly Tehran? No. We didn’t need to. Not because the Iranians got a big dose of fuzzy-warm feelings, but because diplomacy provided a way out, while, carriers were assembling in the Gulf in the event that diplomacy failed.
It was, much like the vast majority of similar situations, a mix of both soft power and hard power coercion that pulled the deal off in the end. To decry a lack of aggressiveness is to ignore the gathering of forces in the Gulf. To decry a lack of diplomacy is to ignore the back-channel negotiations and public posturing that allowed Iran to back down.
If, owing to some partisan bias, one fails to see both elements at work, then one simply isn’t observing enough of the situation to learn anything and is only becoming more dangerous in one’s ignorance.
BRD
Prodigal (son/daughter – equal opportunity):
Balkans are so unrestive that, until recently, they were a joke in good standing.
Jeeves: “There are slight rumblings in The Balkans again, Sir”.
Wooster: “Jolly Good, What!”
As far as the Iraqis are concerned, like the Balkans we have Ethnic Cleansing on our hands. What makes it different – and difficult – is that the people being cleansed were running the joint until Dear Uncle Saddam took a well deserved gut shot.
So we have the spectacle of the ex-killers being hunted down and killed by the next iteration of killers. If we weren’t there (and the Sunnis realize this deep down) you would be seeing a REAL blood bath with the Sunnis contributing the blood.
Remember this is a tribal society were justice takes the form of blood vendettas. If you’re of Italian descent, think Sicily and Mafia. And now The Sopranos.
As far as Iran goes, they are out on a limb. The society is falling apart – in some cases literally – and the prehistoric mullahs don’t have a clue (they reject things like engineering in their “schools” in favor of grouping singing from the koran) that they need at a minimum the nineteenth century.
We’ll all breathe a sigh of relief while The Israeli Bomb drops on select targets in Iran…if they survive that long. In contrast to North Korea, the IBomb will work as planned.
Have a Nice Day, Prod.
Pingback:GM's Corner
Thanks BRD, for finally taking a shot at addressing the point at least.
But I’m not so sure “the gathering forces” were that much of an element (where did you read about that? I can’t find it.).
But that’s pretty much standard practice whenever there is a situation of concern like that. Plus we already have virtually all of our deployable our armed forces right next door.
But if you think Iran got a PR coup out of this outcome, what do you think they would have got had Britain called in airstrikes, and the subsequent video footage of dead children being pulled out of smoking rubble?
My remarks were really directed at the sense of “coitus interruptus” by folks around here that they couldn’t get their war on, and the name-calling directed towards our formerly-known-as-brave-and-steadfast partner in the Coalition of the Willing.
Can we talk a bit about the “Rules of Engagement”?
It keeps getting tossed around here, but I already posted a link from a British officer saying something to the effect that they had every right to defend themselves, they were just in an impossible situation.
Can someone point me to a (legitimate) link that says otherwise?
What exactly were they supposed to do? Open fire with pistols from rubber boats on 2 Iranian gunboats, to avoid making the British look “impotent”?
Let’s not forget that Britain is not at war with Iran, so they are not officially “the enemy.” Indeed, the first move Britain made was to freeze all bilateral trade with Iran, so they are hardly even on a war footing with each other.
The other option the crew had, I guess, was to call in howitzer strikes from their ship hundreds of yards away, which would certainly have gotten the crew killed as welll as probably some on the Indian ship they were inspecting. Not a very pleasant outcome either is it?
Fair enough Lee. If thats the way you want it.
Wipe your chin, you are drooling again (kill kill kill).
Way to SAVE those poor Iraqis Lee. Lets see, what again is your main FEAR of muslims, they will kill anything that does not convert? So you are saying we should do the same thing? My you are a genius aren’t you. Excellent way to problem solve. Like looking for a gas leak with a lighted match, a simple solution, but in the end it will blow up in your face.
History? WE(?) crushed the Nazis? Whats this “WE” stuff my conservative little coward. It took FDR 4 years to talk the republican conservatives into WWII, THEY wouldn’t budge until Pearl Harbor, except to make money of course. Try googling the Ney Commission history boy.
Oh, and, as a Bush supporter, you should not bring up Nazi Germany too often. How well do you know your history?
If TR is spinning in his grave it is because he is disgusted by what passes for a president these days.
4 YEARS, 450 BILLION DOLLARS AND WE STILL HAVE NOT EVEN SECURED BAGHDAD. Haliburton is doing well though. Heck of a job Shrub.
Keep the faith Lee. KILL KILL KILL. That’ll save’m. – You and OBL deserve each other.
iht.com
Insofar as getting one’s war on, and the like, I think that a lot of folks (and it’s a perspective I can certainly identify with), is that Britain’s tone seemed very nearly apologetic, and lacked any hint of steel.
This is a problem for a number of reasons, the main one being is that it dilutes the deterrence effect generated by the presence of forces in region, and weakening that signal tends, in general, to encourage one’s opponent to call the bluff.
UB, it is also worth noting that one could do a lot of things (like has been done with Iran and Libya before) that involve use of force, without bombing civilians. Options like deliberate overflight of airspace, purposeful incursion into territorial waters, attacking oil platforms, sinking the Iranian navy, etc.
prodigal said:
“BTW, it is both customary and respectful to give a citations or link to credit those you plagiarize from.”
Hey, prodigal, sorry. Did I slight you in not providing attribution for your “let them eat cake (wipe each other out, they’re just Wogs anyway)” statement? Or was it the Niemoeller quote you were referring to?
And we’ve laid the “chickenhawk” argument to rest long ago, thanks very much. (Some of us have jobs here at home that protect warfighters in much the same way as being “in theater,” by the way…)
UB,
You wouldn’t happen to have the RoE link handy, would you?
Thanks,
BRD
BRD, thanks for the link.
You go on to write:
“UB, it is also worth noting that one could do a lot of things (like has been done with Iran and Libya before) that involve use of force, without bombing civilians. Options like deliberate overflight of airspace, purposeful incursion into territorial waters, attacking oil platforms, sinking the Iranian navy, etc.”
Well I can see the flyovers and the encroaching on the waters, but by bombing oil platforms and sinking the navy we would just have a war on our hands then, wouldn’t we? A bit much over 15 “detainees” to whom no obvious harm had been done. Do you see Iran as within its rights to do the same to us as a response to the 5 Iranians we are holding?
But more important, where is the evidence that these tactics are more effective (or effective at all) at resolving this type of crisis?
Finally, I guess it’s all a matter of opinion but I don’t think Britain sounded apologetic at all. I think they sounded, well, British.
I know to many people here in the States anyone with a British accent sounds like a priss, but they (the government, at least) always insisted they were in Iraqi waters, and that the Iranian action was illegal. They stayed firm in that position and they got their soldiers back.
timesonline.co.ukThe relevant quote was:
The Royal Navy does train its men in the techniques needed to fight at just such a dangerous stage. “They had all the rights available to act in self-defence under law,” a senior military officer said. But they were in an “almost impossible position”
Link is here.
Neo, I am sorry to complain, but your new site is slow as molasses. 🙂
UB,
Doing something like attacking an oil platform, potting a couple of fighters, or bombing something doesn’t axiomatically precipitate a full-blown war. Escalation is a graduated series of steps that can lead to any one of a number of outcomes.
The salient points, however, of nabbing British uniformed personnel in Iraqi waters (even if in Iranian waters, there’s a huge body of established protocol, law, and practice on this) is a much bigger no-no. Past that, threatening to try uniformed personnel with espionage runs blatantly counter to conventions of a number of varieties.
As far as the Iranians nabbed by the US (and I’m not sure exactly which set you are referring to), there ‘s a much different set of acceptable behaviors for grabbing non-uniformed foreign nationals who are flat out on foreign soil.
If, for instance, Iran had caught 5 US soldiers 200 km into Iran, that would be equivalent to what the captured Iranians were up to.
In this specific case, the Iranian government was flat out in the wrong, and the British response didn’t sound reserved or something, but rather they were taking a tone of “Well, if you keep jacking us around, we’ll, like, not like that. And stuff.”
In terms of the diplomatic language used, I don’t recall Britain ever having said that Iran did something wrong. All they ever did was say that the UK wasn’t at fault. That’s a remarkably weak choice of diplomatic posture.
Terror is the preferred tactic of every guerilla, and ambush and taking hostages is both Arabian and Persian concept of any war for centures. So you can without much remorse label “terrorists” any enemy combatant in ME, just as in most parts of the world except West. The difference between terrorists and “regular” combatants is purely Western concept, it can not be applied universally.
Neo-Neocon said, ” west craven”. 11th paragraph from bottom, last 2 words.
British troops are still in Ulster to prevent sectarian killing (around half a century now). Some years were hot, some relatively calm. May be, to win GWOT the draft would be in some point became necessary. So what? Is dhimmitude better? It’s for you to decide, may be, for your children. But knowing US history I dare to say that American people would eventually prefer anything, draft included, to loss of freedom.
Getting the sailors back is good. But making sure something similar doesn’t happen again is even better — and one good way to do that would be to capture or sink any Iranian naval vessels that approached within sight of British or American forces. Given the Iranian hostage-taking in the first place, and then the coerced “confessions”, and propaganda camera-parades afterwards, this would be not just justifiable but advisable behavior.
UB, typically, frets that we’d “have a war on our hands then, wouldn’t we?” Note that the mullahs, thinking the West is permeated with such easily-frightened worriers, have no such concerns. But we obviously wouldn’t have a war on our hands if Iran, wisely, chose to keep its navy out of our sight — which I think, for all its public posturing and bluster, would be entirely likely as long as it was clear that we meant what we said. On the other hand, the real risk of real war increases every time we give them evidence that we’ll back away from any public confrontation.
Stumbley,
no, it was the Niemoeller paraphrase. It is an admittedly irritating peave of mine. Credit where credit is due and all that.
On that subject, and the one above, if stabilizing Iraq is the primary goal, why are the hawks itching to bomb Iran? If we are really there to stablize the region, why attack Iran now? How will inciting them into a full blown guerilla war across the Iraqi border, at a minimum, help us achieve our ends?
BTW, I was not labeling you a chickenhawk, just suggesting you consider the reality of what is happening over there as opposed to the hallucinations produced by the neocon Kool Aid.
As far as you labeling me a nazi racist, guess again. We are in a crossfire right now. The only thing we seem to be achiving at the moment is holding on and trying to keep from being over run and having our troops massacred along with the Sunni. In order for Iraq to work we are going to need atleast another 150000 troops on the ground. More if we attack Iran. I really don’t think we can accomodate that without a draft, or more mercinaries, which I am totally against. I would support a draft if I had more faith in Bush, but mercinaries are a bad idea. If Bush doesn’t have the brains or guts to do this right, then we need to pull them out now. Otherwise we are simply waiting time and delaying the inevitable.
It does not appear to me that the Iraqis are prepared to do what is necessary to make this work. Their bloodlust is too high. In the end, if they force me to choose between them and us, I choose us. When they are ready, we can help them. Till then, let them have at it. JMHO
From: BRITISH SAILORS STATEMENT – FULL TEXT cnn.com
UB,
Thanks for the link. There are a couple of troubling things, and a couple of reasonable things in the text you copied over.
The concerning bits are that the Royal Navy is tasking people out in a hazardous environment with absolutely no provision for force protection, and, evidently, a strong predilection not to protect their sailors.
Secondly, reread the language very carefully, and you’ll note that they’ve assumed all agency in this situation, and have attributed no sense of agency to the Iranians. That’s a very disturbing behavior, and is typically a posture taken by a powerless person in a subordinate position.
That the UK should let that kind of thinking inform their decisions is poor.
On the bright side, given the link and the text you’ve provided, the 15 sailors were out on the thin edge of the wedge, and so I can understand their reluctance to open fire. Nonetheless, I’m still rather bothered by a NATO Ally, nuclear power, and close friend of the US, who have seemingly made surrender an M.O. of their military. That just doesn’t bode well for much of anything.
BRD
UB–not sure why you say the new site is slow. It loads as quickly as ever for me. I’m not sure what the problem is, or how to fix it.
As for the TR quote, I found out he actually said “speak,” because I looked it up while writing this piece. I decided to go with “walk,” however, because it’s almost always the way the quote is written, and not to get into a history-lesson digression. That’ll teach me :-)!
nytimes.comBRD wrote:
“Doing something like attacking an oil platform, potting a couple of fighters, or bombing something doesn’t axiomatically precipitate a full-blown war. Escalation is a graduated series of steps that can lead to any one of a number of outcomes.”
“A number of outcomes” – OK, fair enough, but is the immediate and safe return of captured soldiers likely to be among them?
You link to incidents of armed conflict with Libya and Iran, but those were responses more or less “in kind” to agressive actions, and not part of a diplomatic effort to release captives, which is a different situation entirely.
As for the 5 Iranians in our custody, I was referring to the ones we captured in the raid on the Iranian Liason office in Arbill:
“United States troops raided an Iranian office in northern Iraq on 11 January 2007 and detained five employees…As of March 27, 2007 the five Iranian detainees were being interrogated at a U.S. prison camp in Iraq. There were no plans to release them.”
You then wrote:
“In terms of the diplomatic language used, I don’t recall Britain ever having said that Iran did something wrong. All they ever did was say that the UK wasn’t at fault. That’s a remarkably weak choice of diplomatic posture.”
Not sure where you would have gotten that impression, but it is inaccurate:
Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain said today that the seizure of 15 British naval personnel by Iranian forces last week was “unjustified and wrong” and took place in Iraqi waters. (link)
regards
UB
UB,
First of all, thanks a ton for the links. It’s not often that I see actual sourcing of information in blog comments, and it’s a practice to be commended.
I guess the way that I am more accustomed to seeing this done is a denunciation in relatively strong terms of an “Act of Piracy in Iraqi territorial waters by armed, uniformed members of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard.” Followed, in response to Iranian threats to try the sailors for espionage, by statements condemning Iran for the trial of uniformed soldiers for espionage, in direct contravention of international law, in particular, the Geneva Convention. Both sets of statements to be supplemented by assertions that “Britain and the US deplore this illegal act in the strongest possible terms, and no options are being ruled out in response to this Act of Piracy, sanctioned by the Iranian government.”
If further saber rattling was needed, overflights of Iranian oil installations by military aircraft, and movement of one or more ships substantively within Iranian waters, would have been – at the level the crisis reached – appropriate.
I stand corrected about the Iranians captured at Irbil, but as that discussion very quickly veers off into the broader issue of Iranian involvement in Iraq, I’d just as soon leave that for another day.
My suspicion, on some level, was that a function of this crisis, in addition to Iranian saber-rattling, was to test the waters, particularly when trying to get a bead on how serious folks are about their nuclear program. My read on the response of the West, in particular Europe, is that the Iranians have ascertained that there really is no particularly effective impediment to their development of nuclear weapons, as many in the west seem anxious to make their own deterrent less credible.
BRD
cnn.comSorry, I meant to provide the link to the full statement, but I don’t have the hang of the “blockquote” thing yet.
Re your concern about sending them out unprepared, he said they had done 66 such missions in just the last 4 weeks without incident, and they were armed with sidearms and rifles. It seems that until this incident, a helicopter gunship hovering over a presumably-innocent foreign vessel during a routine search (in Iraqi waters) would have seemed excessively agressive and may even have hampered the search operation.
As for the statement imparting “no sense of agency” on the part of the Iranians, what about these lines:
“But when we tried to leave, they [the Iranians] prevented us by blocking us in. By now it was becoming increasingly clear that they had arrived with a planned intent.
“Some of the Iranian sailors were becoming deliberately aggressive and unstable. They rammed our boat and trained their heavy machine guns, RPGs and weapons on us.
“Another six boats were closing in on us. We realized that our efforts to reason with these people were not making any headway. Nor were we able to calm some of the individuals down.
“It was at this point that we realized that had we resisted there would have been a major fight, one we could not have won with consequences that would have had major strategic impact. We made a conscious decision to not engage the Iranians and do as they asked. They boarded our boats, removed our weapons and steered the boats towards the Iranian shore.”
BRD writes:
On the bright side…the sailors were out on the thin edge of the wedge, and so I can understand their reluctance to open fire. Nonetheless, I’m still rather bothered by a NATO Ally, nuclear power, and close friend of the US, who have seemingly made surrender an M.O. of their military.”
Here I think you’re being unfair to those sailors. They were on two rafts with rifles and pistols and were surrounded by 8 gunboats with RPGS and heavy caliber machine guns. Can you honestly call that “making surrender an M.O.”?
Now if they were at war with Iran, I can see expecting a bit more resistance from them. But if that were the case it’s likely they would have had more support (being so close to Iranian waters), and also would have viewed the approaching boats as hostile as soon as visual contact was made, giving them more time to prepare a defense.
UB
I just watched the presser of the released Brits and a more shameful, disgusting performance I can’t recall ever seeing in my life. I heard nothing but ‘me,me,me’ and ‘our survival’ and not a word of integrity and honor and duty. God help a country whose military puts their own personal survival over anything and everything else. I can not imagine that this little exhibition is going to garner anything but severe derision and contempt from anyone wearing, or who has worn, a uniform for their country.
BRD wrote:
First of all, thanks a ton for the links. It’s not often that I see actual sourcing of information in blog comments, and it’s a practice to be commended.
And thank you too. I have long been a champion of sources around here, but I usually just get a surly “go look it up yourself, troll” in reply.
I can understand wanting to hear a tougher tone from the British, but I think Blair was right to recognize that you can’t play games like that when 15 of your sailors are held captive, but are not in immediate fear for their lives.
I would think that the time for the types of statements and actions you were looking for would come if, for example, Iran seemed to be seriously moving forward with trials, they were shown being physically abused, etc.
NEO, about the slowness: Sorry, I am on a Mac and it seems to be a Safari issue. I switched to Firefox and the slowness is gone, but it won’t read the code number. A vast right-wing conspiracy, perhaps?
UB
Dustoffmom Says:
“I just watched the presser of the released Brits and a more shameful, disgusting performance I can’t recall ever seeing in my life.”
Dustoffmom, meet Sally. You two sit and get aquainted while I go and get a nice warm pot of blood for you. 🙂
Seems stereotypical, you have this profile in so many rightwing blogs. The female who used to be a Democrat, and now saw the light. It’s embarrassing.
cnn.com Full text at CNN.com
Oh Dusty,
That is not the take I came away with at all.
From all I have read and viewed, the Britsh Sailors handled themselves with the utmost professionalism and consideration for the true nature of their situation.
In fact, not only did they make the correct choice, they showed extreme bravery by staying cool and considering not only their personal safety but that of the entire coalition. It would have been very easy for them to give into fear and simply open fire. I know it may sound a little strange, but they actually took the higher road and the more difficult way out. They had absolutely know way of knowing what the Iranians would do to them, but instead of reacting out of self preservation, they chose to put the response to this Iranian act of aggression into the hands of their government. Britain is not at a state of war with Iran, otherwise thing probably would have been different. They risked their lives to give Blair the maximum amount of options. It takes guts not to panic in a situation where your future is uncertain. Exceptionally brave IMO. Especially for being so young. If it were me in that situation, I probably would have chosen death over capture, and that would have been the wrong choice, for everybody, except me. That is selfishness.
When negotiating from a position of strength, it is not always necessary to react aggressively when that response does not support your desired end. The Britsh have nothing to fear from the Iranians. If push comes to shove Iran will lose. The Brits know this.
This is the “speaking softly” part of TR’s premise. The bigger your stick, the more leaway you have to reach a solution that is not only amicable, but favorable to your position. In the end, if the stick must be used, so be it, but if you have nothing to fear, then why use the stick up front and make it the only option? Why not see what you can get first?
Anyway, that said, I too am a little angered by the way they were “hung out to dry” by the fleet. Such an incident could have easily started a war. I don’t think Iran will try something like that again. If they do, it will most likely end very differently.
UB,
Unfortunately, I just lost a brilliant exegis-in-a-blog-comment. And I’m lazy.
The thing I was getting at with respect to agency is the broader concepts underlying state-to-state relations. If you’ll forgive me, I’ll get to it a bit later.
BRD
Iran calculated well.
Iran wins massive strategic victory.
EU and Russia complicit. (ref: trade and UN)
UK dhimmitude shocking to behold.
Remaining “west” shrinks: US, AUS, Poland and other recent eastern block escapees.
UB, nope, not bloodthirsty, although I see how you would think so. Just a proud vet who ‘volunteered’ and like most, actually took my training seriously. And have immense respect for anyone honorably wearing the unfirom. The Code of Conduct is drilled into any recruits head, and for most of us, it sticks. In or out, it stays with you and can’t help but influence to some degree one’s outlook, especially when it concerns one’s ‘honor’ shall we say. Assume you know, or at least have read in your many wnaderings, said Code. Just in case, here are the first three tiems, and those which caused me such distress with the Brit sailors:
I am an American, fighting in the forces which guard my country and our way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense.
II
I will never surrender of my own free will. If in command, I will never surrender the members of my command while they still have the means to resist.
III
If I am captured I will continue to resist by all means available. I will make every effort to escape and to aid others to escape. I will accept neither parole nor special favors from the enemy.
Say, has anybody noticed the new news about how the British sailors were “bound, blindfolded and threatened”?
Kinda changes things a little, doesn’t it?
…and just for my pal prodigal:
http://apnews1.iwon.com//article/20070406/D8OB82RG0.html
My husband doesnt beat me! I got this black eye from falling down the stairs. Its my own fault for being so clumsy.
A new roadside bomb ambush in Iraq:
“The bombs themselves were of Iranian manufacture, as are 95% of all such devices which explode in Iraq.”
This is from today DEBKA.com military report. But some useful idiots still assert that “we are not at war with Iran”
Serge,
WHEN we end up in a war with Iran, we will be attacked with many different types of weaponry manufactured all over the world.
Does that mean we will be at war with China, Russia, or ourselves?
I am just sayin’…
I know I’ve read before conditions other than the specific “Code of Conduct” quoted. Of course, I can’t find it now.
American soldiers aren’t required to fight to the death, for instance, if they are obviously outgunned and it would be useless. This is spelled out somewhere…
The conditions are particular. For instance if soldiers became trapped in a location and continuing to fight, unable to make progress, unable to escape, and continued fighting is just getting them killed, they can surrender. If however, they are assigned to guard an installation, it may change the requirements. But I’ve not read anything of this last part, so I’m guessing.
Also, soldiers can be sent into extremely hopeless conditions (where they likely will be killed), but they are not allowed to not fight just because it is going to be an almost sure thing.
Anyway, heavily outgunned on the open seas might be a condition of trapped without making progress. But then, these are British soldiers, and I do not know rules of engagement, or their particular orders. I suspect the British have changed their rules of operation after this — if that indeed was not a mistake.
UB needs to put his pot of blood on simmer, because it’ll be he who’s going to be drinking it eventually. Cowardice only works when you really can flee — but as a number of recent events have demonstrated, the planet’s too small for that anymore.
Prodigal is a little brighter than UB, but not enough to make a material difference. E.g.:
If push comes to shove Iran will lose. The Brits know this.
But push did come to shove, of course, and the Brits didn’t dare to push back. Once that had been shown, the hapless sailors were let loose, since their usefulness was over. Rely upon significantly greater and more threatening pushes in the future.
(And if you really want some absurdist lefty ethics, take the following bit of comical posturing:
If it were me in that situation, I probably would have chosen death over capture, and that would have been the wrong choice, for everybody, except me. That is selfishness.
What Prod really would have done — as opposed to what he says he “probably” would have done — is not something he knows himself. But I think somebody who tries to assert that self-sacrifice is “selfishness” probably has a clue that that’s not likely to be his real choice, and is setting up an excuse.)
BRD, on the other hand, perceives the stakes here:
My read on the response of the West, in particular Europe, is that the Iranians have ascertained that there really is no particularly effective impediment to their development of nuclear weapons, as many in the west seem anxious to make their own deterrent less credible.
That deserves another familiar quotation, this one from Burke: “all that’s necessary for evil to triumph is for good men [and women] to do nothing”.
I might add to my post — the idea of being sent into hopeless conditions might sound like being trapped, however, there is usually a larger purpose (like the invasion of Normandy). I do not know that there would be larger purpose getting slaughtered in a gunfight in the open seas with Iran at this point.
Sally,
Leave the personality analysis to Neo.
You can’t even fathom your own fears, little miss xenophobe, don’t try to fathom mine.
You would trade your freedoms and those of others just to make yourself feel a little safer. Poor frightened little girl. Stop cowering in the face of Islam, it is embarrassing, try to remember you are an American.
I really don’t understand how people who claim to be Americans can let themselves be so afraid of these little nothing windbags like Ahmed-Demon-Jihad. What a bunch of sissies.
Notice how prodigal “rationalizes” every stance he takes? If the sailors had “defended themselves” that would have been “giving into fear”, while surrendering was “correct and brave” in his mind.(I’m sure prodigal here told himself he was “brave” every time he “surrendered” his lunch money to the bully; and told himself he was “stronger” by “doing the correct thing” day after day after day) And, of course, He has to “mischaracterize” other’s statements(we’ll “save” them by “killing them all”) to make his feckless arguments seem rational to himself, but, in the end, he only does this to convince “himself” of the correctness of his position because most others see it as incorrect, ill-informed, or just simply propaganda.
Now, after losing every argument so far, poor prodigal claims “victimhood” at being “labeled” a nazi. Hey, loser boy(prodigal), the “nazi” comments were specifically directed at “TC” the resident nazi at this site. It’s obvious you can’t spell; are you now claiming you don’t READ very well, either?
Go ahead, prodigal, show us how “brave” you are. Demonstrate to the world that all you have to do to stop them from killing us is say a few simple words(just eleven of them): “There is no god but Allah; and Mohammed is his messenger.” Well, c’mon, “tough guy”, say it. SAY IT!!!
Too deep for you huh Lee. I didn’t think you would have the brain pan to digest that one. Don’t worry, one day, if you are lucky, you will evolve into a progressive then you will have a 50/50 shot at understanding that there are worse things than dying and greater sacrifices than giving your life.
Typical neocon logic. Can’t argue the point so you attack the person. IT IS SOOOO OLD already. You guys really do need to find a new playbook.
Lee, clean your glasses, then your monitor and reread the posts. That nazi reference was directed at stumbley in reply to this. It wasn’t directed at you, you megalomaniacal fool. I don’t pay you any mind at all, except maybe when I am bored or insomniatic.
Their is that “win/lose” thing again. What is it with your types. Never won anything in your life have you? Why else would you be soooo terrified of LOSING in Iraq. Some day when the cough syrup wears off you will have to explain that to me. In english.
Quittin’ time Lee, now go home and brush that tooth.
Laugh at you again on monday.
As far as “being at war with China, Russia, etc.”, the “concept” you put forward sure seems to work with lefties, nazis, and “Palestineans” every time they claim “Israelis kill with ‘American’ planes, tanks, bombs, etc.”, but weapons used against us are “readily available on the world market”, and “origin of manufacture” doesn’t imply “hostile intent” of said manufacturer. So which is it, loser(prod)?
Wow, prod, four(+) whole paragraphs dedicated to how much you “ignore” me. Must have said “something” to get under your skin THAT much(pretty thin, too, considering you have to “freshen up” until Monday to continue the match). Me? I’m as fresh as a daisy. Haven’t even broken a swaet, yet(after all, prod, you make it too easy). Score so far: Lee: 55; Prod: 3. See you Monday!
Simple Lee. They are wrong too. You will never hear those words pass these lips. That stance is just assinine. Closer to rigid neocon false logic than liberal thinking.
You keep doing that, so does Sally. It is annoying as hell. Don’t assume you know my position, it is just rude. I don’t regurgitate talking point, unless of course, I happen agree with them. You want to know, ask me. I will be honest.
UB,
Apologies for a lapse in my commentary earlier.
Although I fear I may have lost much of the point of discussion, the notion of agency is a pretty important one, and I think Britain’s actions – at the largest scales – reflects a completely upside-down concept of agency, and therefore causality.
Let us suppose that the Brits had provided air cover for their ship boarding exercises, it isn’t unreasonable that they would have been castigated for being ‘overly aggressive’. In other words, the Brits would have been the actors, and any other players, such as Iran, would have merely been provoked into their actions – like shooting at the helicopters. Thus, really, the Brits would have been at fault for whatever happened.
Had a scenario similar to this unfolded, and the Brits shot up the approaching vessels, they would have been criticized as trigger-happy blah blah. Had, instead, the Iranians tried to attack the boarding party and shot down the helicopter, then the Brits would have still been in trouble for ‘escalating’ and that the Iranians were ‘provoked’ into shooting down the helicopter.
Let’s say, however, that the Brits don’t provide proper force protection, and the Iranians engage in an act of piracy and attack the boarding party. In that case, the Iranians aren’t really the bad guys – they’re just responding to prior provocations, and in any case, the best thing the Brits can do is lie down and take it.
So, really, no matter what happens, hostages and piracy or not, the Brits are assumed to be the only people really responsible for their actions. The west is the only side credited with the ability to chose their actions, while the Bad Guys™, are never really at fault, but are merely responding legitimately to justifiable grievances.
To use an example that is probably both way too charged and a bit inaccurate, the logic applied to the situation here reminds me of a controversy a few years ago when someone suggested that if a woman was being assaulted, she should just ‘lie back’, because if she were to fight back and the man became violent, then, really, it would be her fault.
Or, to choose another poor example, it’s a bit like the behavior of co-dependent abused spouses who claim that when their spouse hits them, it’s really their own fault for making them so angry.
So, overall, the relatively supine position taken by the UK, and the unwillingness to provide force protection, and the unwillingness to actually call an act of piracy an “Act of Piracy” seems like, at the very least, they’re busy ceding the initiative, and, at worst, have completely made the assignation of agency totally asymmetric.
Hope this makes some sort of vague sense, if even poorly explained.
BRD
It’s friday night Lee. I got a life.
You should save up and get you one too.
Monday.
Lee, Prodigal,
I hereby designate you Sam and Ralph.
Enjoy the weekend!
BRD
WAIT, BRD, you can’t go away NOW. You HAVE to tell us which one of us is “Sam” and which one is “Ralph”.
Looks like it’s already decided by “Ralph”, who decided to work “overtime” rather than going home for the weekend as he earlier claimed(how much time out of your “life” did you waste telling us you “have” one?).
Is this supposed to be the part when I say that one man’s sheepdog is another man’s wolf? 🙂
I really don’t understand how people who claim to be Americans can let themselves be so afraid of these little nothing windbags like Ahmed-Demon-Jihad. What a bunch of sissies.
What a bunch of projection, no? People who are arguing for a stronger response to Iranian acts of piracy and hostage-taking are not exactly the ones who are “so afraid” here. So where does Prod’s exaggerated notion of fear come from? Perhaps from those who really are afraid of “Ahmed-Demon-Jihad” and his Crazy Jihadis. In other words, from his own spooked and fevered imagination.
Any guy who tries to argue that self-sacrifice is “selfish”, and at the same time who is unembarrassed to brag about how he “probably would have chosen death over capture”, is not a guy with much logic or self-knowledge, and so isn’t worth much attention. But it is worth pointing out how frequently any suggestion that islamist threats are significant and should be resisted is derided by the left. For some of the more depraved, no doubt, this arises from an actual admiration for the islamist “strong horse” they see standing against all that they hate so blindly. But for many of them this is just a way of calming their own fears by covering their eyes and ears. It makes it all the more ironic to see the likes of Prod speak about trading freedom for safety, since that’s exactly the route the dhimmified left is taking — and down that road, of course, you wind up losing both.
Nice “diplomacy” there, BRD.
I’m not immune to diplomacy.
Sometimes I don’t know where to target the missiles.
😉
Yeah, touche, BRD. Neoneocon asked me to “tone it down” with the trolls. Lord knows I try, guess I still “lose it ” from time to time. Sometimes, though, you just have to “scream”…”What the &%$* are you talking about?!”
See, for me, the blogging is what prevents from screaming my head off in Real Life.
I appreciate the ability to actually argue point-by-point in blogs, because the one thing I would rather do than vent is be provably, demonstrably right.
Still, it was fun when he(prod) took the bait to respond after he said he left, ’cause you KNEW he was still there. The lefties are nothing if not “predictable”.
prodigal said: (attribution, see?)
“That nazi reference was directed at stumbley in reply to this.”
Gee, you thought I called you a Nazi? No, no, no. I was making a reference to your penchant for ignoring the Islamofascists…until they come for you. See, it’s the statements like “I really don’t understand how people who claim to be Americans can let themselves be so afraid of these little nothing windbags like Ahmed-Demon-Jihad. What a bunch of sissies.” that have me thinking like that…
We’re not “afraid” of Ahmadinejad, we’re concerned about what those who follow the mullahs might do with a nuke stowed in a container ship. These days, you can destroy a country with a lot less than a whole army.
The Left is doing it with teacher’s unions and newspapers.
…but you knew that already, didn’t you, prodigal?
Sally,
There you go assuming again. I was not bragging, but acknowledging a relative weakness, something most neocons are completely incapable of, except in others.
I probably would have been to prideful or pumped up to allow myself to be captured. Self sacrifice, though the highest deed of selflessness, is selfish when doing so serve’s oneself more than it would serve others. Not serving their pride or honor above their country (or world if you think about the probable consequenses), to me, took more guts than simply leaning on the trigger to avoid capture. Most soldiers, I would venture, are willing to sacrifice their lives for their country. How many do you know that would be willing to sacrifice their honor?
Projecting? No dear. It is the right that has supported Bush’s subvertion of the constituion in the name of saftey. It is the fear you allow others to create in you that makes you so willing to sacrifice your freedoms and give others so much unchecked power. Sally, you have seen Ahmadinejad, you could probably whip him in a fight. He is a windbag who is scared to death. He poses no threat to me. Or as they would say in my old neighborhood “he pumps no fear into this heart”
I will not let irrational fear destroy my liberty. If I do, the terrorists have won.
I am more afraid of Bush destroying the constitution that protects us from tyranny then I am of Al Qaeda killing me.
Make no mistake, my idea of fair treatment for OBL or any other REAL terrorist is a .25 behind the ear and a shallow grave, but I will be damned if I will let fear stirred up and fosterered by this administration destroy my freedom.
911 was a sacrifice to freedom. Cowering and running from the challenge of maintaining that freedom in the face of terror is a disgrace to those who died. I hate bullies, but I hate cowards even more, at least bullies protect themselves. Cowards are perfectly willing to give up everything to let someone else protect them.
stumbley,
Use your head. 1st, do you think IF Iran could develop a nuke they would waste it by detonating on us soil? They might be able to destroy a small city, then they would be ashes. ALL OF THEM. Don’t you think they know this? No, they would keep it to protect themselves against Isreal. ‘sides, Isreal will NEVER let them even come close to developing a bomb, neither will the Iranian progressives. You know this.
2nd,
The louder they scream, the more scared they are. It is the quiet ones you have to watch out for. Like OBL. That is the SOB we should be focused on. He is rich AND crazy. But he is quiet crazy, not blabbermouth crazy. That’s why it is hard to see him coming. The noisier it gets (war with Iran) the harder it will be to here him and his boys.
Please don’t use stupid Rushisms like Islamofascist. It makes you sound less intelligent and more like a lemming than you actually are.
I hear you about the left and newspapers. Terrible thing that 1st amendment.
Teachers unions??? You will have to explain that one to me.
“They might be able to destroy a small city, then they would be ashes.”
Provided one could prove that they were the ones who sent it. They’re sending IEDs to Iraq now, and nobody seems to care. They’re kidnaping British sailors and nobody’s doing much except complaining.
“Please don’t use stupid Rushisms like Islamofascist. It makes you sound less intelligent and more like a lemming than you actually are.”
Okay, I’ll call them fanatic Islamists. That all right with you?
“I hear you about the left and newspapers. Terrible thing that 1st amendment.
Teachers unions??? You will have to explain that one to me.”
Antonio Gramsci.
I will not let irrational fear destroy my liberty. If I do, the terrorists have won.
The sad and ironic thing is that letting irrational fear threaten, if not (yet) destroy, your liberty is exactly what you are doing. You may have managed to convince yourself that Bush-Cheney are actual adherents of some secret fascist cabal intent on enslaving the world (or maybe just the Spawn of Satan), but — and I can’t put this any clearer or kinder — you’re mistaken if so. In fact, to be honest, you’re politically deranged.
The simple truth of the matter is that the western world, and much of the non-muslim world, is actually under attack by a loosely organized but well funded global terrorist conspiracy, whose willingness to slaughter is without limit. They have had conspicuous successes in New York, London, Spain, Bali, and of course many other venues around the world. This real conspiracy has adherents in virtually every country, and has active or passive state support in the most oil-rich region on the planet. These facts and actual events are the basis for rational fear and concern, and for making reasonable alterations in policies that would not ordinarily be acceptable in the absence of such a global confrontation. If you’re saying that your own fear of a particular US administration is so overwhelming that any alteration in peace-time operating procedures means that “the terrorists have won” — then you really are letting “irrational fear” threaten your liberty.
Stumbley,
Antonio Gramsci? You are kidding right? I thought Tailgunner Joe covered all this commie crap in the 50’s. Did Jimmy Hoffa seem like a communist to you? Unions are not about communism, they are about money and power. Unions provide workers with the illusion of protection and representation, and the workers provide unions with money and power. A communist imprisoned by a fascist is your objection to the 1st amendment and unions?. You are starting to get scarey dude.
Radical Islamic Fundamentalists is probably more accurately descriptive. Radical (way outside the norm) and Fundamentalist (ridgid adherence to doctrine) are the operative terms. It’s not the ideology (islam) per se, its the people taking it to extremes that are the danger. religious fundies are religious fundies they are all pretty dangerous when they think god has given them a mandate to kill.
Sally,
When the Attorney General of the US starts intimating that Habeas Corpus doesn’t really exist, my instincts tell me it is time to start stocking up on food and ammo. You get my drift?
To me the threats on the constituion affect EVERYONE in the US at once and errode our core freedoms. The best OBL could hope for is maybe a few thousand at a time.
Bush and Cheney are not smart enough to run a decent cabal. I use to think that they, combined with Rove, were evil geniuses ruthlessly pursuing the PNAC agenda, but after witnessing their pittiful attempts at covering their tracks since the elections I have realized they are really just a bunch of dumb rich guys playing king of the world with our tax dollars.
They are in it for the money.
“A communist imprisoned by a fascist is your objection to the 1st amendment and unions?.”
It’s the philosophy, and the uses to which it’s been put. When my children start coming home from school telling me that the US started slavery, and that anthropogenic global warming is a fact, not a theory, then it’s the teacher’s unions I worry about. When newspapers–staffed by 90% “progressives”–start showing me photoshopped pictures from Lebanon, and calling them real, I start to worry…because people like Rosie O’Donnell believe them. Capisce?
What’s scary is that it doesn’t bother you.
They are in it for the money.
Whatever. Meanwhile, there are other things to focus on.
See, this is why “dialog” with the likes of Prod are pointless. The world could be going up in flames around them, but somehow that’s never going to be as important as routine partisan accusations that one’s political enemies are corrupt. And, I guess, frightening because they want to deny terrorists the full CNN/CourtTV/Entertainment Tonight celebrity treatment.
The point is that failing to recognize the difference between global terrorist conspirators and the average criminal is just a symptom of a fundamental lack of seriousness. And viewing standard charges of venality among your political opponents as “scarier” than demonstrated and repeated attacks by murderous enemies of your country and/or your culture — well, that just turns the lightweight lack of seriousness into simple stupidity.
Sally, I am deadly serious. Without the freedoms protected by the constitution, the rest is just noise.
Check the oaths lady, see what they swear to “preserve protect and defend.” Hint, it is not the president. It is that way for a reason. Without the constitution, there is no America. Snap out of it.
On second thought, keep chugging the kool aid. You seem very comfortable there. If you refuse to see what is right in front of your face, you are not worth talking too anyway.
Fair enough Stumbley,
You are not the only person I have heard (on either side of the aisle) complaining about that type of behavior from teachers. The teachers should definitely be taken to task for it. I am not sure I would put it on the unions though.
Propaganda in the media has been going on since cavemen have been drawing on walls. It will probably always be that way. It is not limited to the left though. Consider some of the crap Fox News puts out. I don’t buy that %90 number either. For every left biased newspaper there is a right biased newspaper to counter it.
One of the prices we pay for freedom of speech is having to confirm ANYTHING we are told by ANYONE. Me, I am a cynic and don’t believe anything anyone says anyway, so that makes it a little easier.
Sally, I am deadly serious…. Without the constitution, there is no America.
Right. And without motherhood, there are no people.
Once we get past the cliches, truisms, bumper-sticker sentiments, etc., we can get a little closer to the heart of the matter here — which is that the country is engaged in a very serious struggle with a very vicious but unconventional enemy, and that this requires some adjustments in normal operating procedures. Meanwhile, however, the courts continue to function, and the constitution continues to be the supreme law of the land. It’s just not — to use a bumper sticker myself — a suicide pact, as the courts themselves understand.
So the idea that the Bush administration is threatening the very basis of the nation is just a piece of wildly exaggerated political hyperventilation, worked up and spread about by partisan hacks as a way of spooking the “masses” they regard and treat as herds of sheep. The only types who actually are serious about that kind of hyperbole tend to favor tin-foil headgear and periodically foam at the mouth. I hope that’s not really you, Prod — better to be cynical than deranged.
Cynics are probably the most easy to mislead with propaganda out of all various kinds of people.
Ymarsakar,
I disagree, those who engage in unconditional blind faith are the true suckers.
Cynics view everything with a healthy dose of scepticism and tend not believe independent without verfication. no matter what the souce of the message.
Sally,
False comparison. The America is not the “chicken” and the Constitution is not the “egg”. You take it for granted. You should not. Just look around at the tyranny in the rest of the world. The founders did not take it for granted either, They were more worried about tryranny coming from within than without as well. Freedom is not a given, it must be fostered and stood watch over. Any “adjustments” bear close scrutiny. And, no the Constitution is not the supreme law of the land, the provisions in the Patriot Act and several other pieces of legislation that were passed in the post 911 panic give the president the power to circumvent the constituion.
Funny, you suggest I am a victim of kookery, yet you are the one who sees Al Qaeda in every closet.
Ha ha ha. Do you mean like the ever evolvoing reasons for us going into Iraq. What scarey reason is Bush feeding the sheeple this week?
We are going in circles and have come back to the beginning of our argument. You have your fears, and I have mine. One thing is obvious Sally, we both seem to be trying to protect the American way of life. You by stopping terrorism, me by checking abuses of executive power that terrorism has created. We must agree to disagree on which threat is greater, but should find comfort in the idea that between the two of us, we have ALL the threats covered.
Peace to you on this Easter Morning.
A) The “motherhood” remark wasn’t a literal comparison, it was just an example of another inane, trite, obvious remark, like “without the constitution there is no America”.
B) Any “adjustments” bear close scrutiny.
Yes, they do — it would just be helpful if the “scrutiny” were of the non-hysterical kind, and were a step above mere partisan power-struggles.
C) And, no the Constitution is not the supreme law of the land,…
So you think it’s possible to “circumvent” the constitution by just passing legislation? Why do people ever bother with constitutional amendments in that case? Do you even understand what a constitution is and means?
D) You have your fears, and I have mine.
Yes — and both can arise from legitimate, rational concerns, just as either can be the product of cynical manipulation and/or hysteria. In attempting to separate the former situation from the latter, it would help to note that skepticism and cynicism are distinct — failure to recognize this can, as Ymar indicated, lead to a “cynicism” that is indistinguishable from an inverse but still naive credulity.
E) Peace to you on this Easter Morning.
And to you.
Cynics view everything with a healthy dose of scepticism and tend not believe independent without verfication.
Cynics of that sort engage in the fallacious blind belief that they are better at discernment, immune to deception. Such hubris produces a fall eventually.
You by stopping terrorism, me by checking abuses of executive power that terrorism has created. We must agree to disagree on which threat is greater, but should find comfort in the idea that between the two of us, we have ALL the threats covered.
Not really. If a terrorist attack gets through the US defenses because of foreign aid from Syria and Iran, because they’ve already taken over Iraq, then this means for every major attack, American Civil Liberties takes a 1-10% decrease. A single attack that kills an excess of 3 million people, would more or less suspend the Bill of Rights.
It is shortsighted to think you have the power to make people not panic.
Y,
The persom described is not a cynic, but a smug elitest.
A true cynic questions their own judgement and motivations FIRST. specifically because they know NOONE is immune to deception, false reasoning, or base selfish incentive. Cynics are no stronger smarter, wiser, or perceptive than anyone else. The only advantage cynicism has is it makes one less suseptible to the effects of political and religious Kool Aid because it forces one to question EVERYTHING instead of just blindly accepting the word of any “AUTHORITY”, even their own.
It is also short sighted to belive that conducting a conventional war in Iraq will prevent a terrorist attack here at home, but we all do what we can.
Neocons could care less about terrorists or the spread of democracy. They are the biggest threat to the democracy in this country because they only want oil riches, and they seem to have a death grip on government, in order to carry out their imperialistic and illegal oil wars. Wake up neocon lovers, they are more worried about the dollar and about oil riches then they are about democracy and terrorism.
Proof, what Paul Oneill said about their pre 9/11 plan, their lying about why we went into Iraq, the contract giving oil companies 70 percent of the profits tax free, and the attack on Iraq even though they had nothing to do with 9/11. See http://bushliar.newcovenanttheology.com
And the necons could care less about the nukes North Korea have. North Korea has no oil.
Hey, who put a coin in Christian Identity’s slot(Gary)?
It is also very essential to give importance to the comfort factor. You need to make it sure that the shoe you are wearing us comfortable and is made of good quality materials. You can try it before you actually buy it. Size is another important issue. Select the right size. Otherwise, you may face problem in walking.
It is unbelievable to have abs like T.O. or Ocho Cinco. Can I get abs like that with the information here