Hawks Declare War on Iran

Matthew Yglesias points out that the Weekly Standard is gearing up for war with Iran. As he notes, the two articles he cites are a combination of fantasy (would air strikes actually destroy Iran's nuclear program? No one knows. Oh well…) and insanity (thousands and thousands of people could die? Oh well…) But for sheer nuttery, it's hard to top William Kristol's editorial on the subject:

Given Iranian president Ahmadinejad's recent statements and actions, it should be obvious that it is not "a sign of humanity's moral progress"--to use Blum's phrase--to appease the mullahs. It is not "moral progress" to put off serious planning for military action to a later date, probably in less favorable circumstances, when the Iranian regime has been further emboldened, our friends in the region more disheartened, and allies more confused by years of fruitless diplomacy than they would be by greater clarity and resolution now.Virtually no one, of course, thinks it's unequivocally moral or non-problematic to "appease the mullahs," as Kristol terms it.

The people making the case for engagement just think it's the rational thing to do—the thing that will get fewer people killed and cause fewer catastrophes. (Plus, engagement is far more likely to help Iran eventually liberalize than bombs and sanctions will—we've seen how well that worked for Cuba.) Sometimes foreign policy just doesn't have a "pretty" choice that will make everyone feel warm and fuzzy inside. But notice also that Kristol says we need to act right this very instant. Bombs can't wait. Yet right before that, he says this:

That action would be easier if the situation in Iraq improved--which implies an urgent push to make progress there, with the deployment of more troops if necessary. Planning for action in Iran would be somewhat easier if the president finally insisted on a far-too-long-delayed increase in the size of the military. It would be easier, too, under the leadership of a new, not-discredited defense secretary in whom the president would have confidence, since he has surely (if privately) lost faith in the current one.

That's a nice fantasy. Set aside the fact that there aren't "more troops" we can magically send to Iraq, and even if they were, they likely wouldn't do much good—the ongoing civil war almost certainly isn't something that "more troops" can quell. But how on earth would an "increase in the size of the military" help with Iran? Training troops and expanding the active service takes years and years. If we need to act immediately, as Kristol demands, then any expansion of the military is completely irrelevant. Iraq isn't going to get better immediately. A newfound invasion force isn't going to materialize immediately. I can't tell if Kristol's truly insane or just badly confused, but either way, it's disturbing that this sort of stuff gets taken seriously.

Posted by Bradford Plumer on 04/13/06 at 02:23 PM

Link Here

Kristol ClearBill Kristol, PNAC, 9/11 & The Media
An Exposé By TvNewsLIES.org

“… While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

A Report of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), Rebuilding America's Defenses - September, 2000

To understand Bill Kristol, you have to examine his modus operandi – his devious ways of plying a nefarious art. Bill Kristol is a master neocon, a heartless warmonger and an accomplished charlatan. But Bill Kristol works behind the curtain. He sets the stage and pulls the strings, while others do his dirty work. And Bill Kristol, with little fanfare or publicity, is one of the most influential architects of George W. Bush’s wars.

To know the man, you have to look behind his overt persona. Bill Kristol makes no secret of his views or his philosophy. He has never hidden his affiliation with of the Project for a New American Century PNAC), of which he is a founder. And yet, when introduced to the public, he is never, ever connected to that organization. He is always presented as the editor of the Weekly Standard, as benign an introduction as can be.

Neither Kristol nor the magazine is ever tied to PNAC by the corporate media. The dots are never connected. The truth is never told, and the facts behind the story remain hidden. But just this week, a slight slit appeared in the mask. A recent feature article in Kristol’s Weekly Standard gave this editor food for thought. Some signs of anxiety and concern on the part of the always-smiling, always-suave Bill Kristol may just be seeping through. See if you can follow me.
>>>cont

Link Here