Thread: "We must attack Iran."

The Iranians certainly seem willing enough to provoke the US into an attack:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2085192,00.html

Originally Posted by EX_REME

Originally Posted by "Grownup_Rafbrat

Historically the cheese-eating surrender monkeys helped our friends across the atlantic to throw off the yoke of British Rule. Without them, the USA would still be a colony of the UK.

History can be so selective, don't you think?

Yes but the point here is that they "helped our friends". If they had done it all themselves maybe the US would now be a french colony?

Well if they hadn't been so busy having their own revolution, that may well have been the case. I'm sure that's what the Sun King would have wanted. Imagine him building the case to his ministers that it was worth it to imbue the fledgeling USA with an appreciation of civilisation, culture, fine wine, cheese and democracy.

Bernard Lewis considers the question: Was Osama right?

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110010080

"Stage One of the jihad was to drive the infidels from the lands of Islam; Stage Two--to bring the war into the enemy camp, and the attacks of 9/11 were clearly intended to be the opening salvo of this stage. The response to 9/11, so completely out of accord with previous American practice, came as a shock, and it is noteworthy that there has been no successful attack on American soil since then. The U.S. actions in Afghanistan and in Iraq indicated that there had been a major change in the U.S., and that some revision of their assessment, and of the policies based on that assessment, was necessary.

More recent developments, and notably the public discourse inside the U.S., are persuading increasing numbers of Islamist radicals that their first assessment was correct after all, and that they need only to press a little harder to achieve final victory. It is not yet clear whether they are right or wrong in this view. If they are right, the consequences--both for Islam and for America--will be deep, wide and lasting."

Originally Posted by Lipo

Bernard Lewis considers the question: Was Osama right?

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110010080

"Stage One of the jihad was to drive the infidels from the lands of Islam; Stage Two--to bring the war into the enemy camp, and the attacks of 9/11 were clearly intended to be the opening salvo of this stage. The response to 9/11, so completely out of accord with previous American practice, came as a shock, and it is noteworthy that there has been no successful attack on American soil since then. The U.S. actions in Afghanistan and in Iraq indicated that there had been a major change in the U.S., and that some revision of their assessment, and of the policies based on that assessment, was necessary.

More recent developments, and notably the public discourse inside the U.S., are persuading increasing numbers of Islamist radicals that their first assessment was correct after all, and that they need only to press a little harder to achieve final victory. It is not yet clear whether they are right or wrong in this view. If they are right, the consequences--both for Islam and for America--will be deep, wide and lasting."

Ahhh Bernard Lewis, how was he described to me 'The White House's favourite orientalist', for my sins I have some of his books on my shelf. Seems he's moved on to try his hand at political science and recent history, neither, judging from this piece, with much success.

Bernard Lewis is the kind of academic I'd place alongside Benny Morris - someone whose moral compass has gone somewhat awry.

In reference to the Lewis article I have some Keywords for you Lipo...

Mohammad Daoud,
Daoud Regime (1st and 2nd),
Revolution,
PDPA,

The period in history is certainly far more complex than, how does Lewis put it...

The Soviets already ruled--or misruled--half a dozen Muslim countries in Asia, without arousing any opposition or criticism. Initially, their decision and action to invade and conquer Afghanistan and install a puppet regime in Kabul went almost unresisted.

Come on Lipo, have a look into the history of the period and see the mechanisms that were at play prior re: insurgency in Afganistan that lead to the Soviets bolstering the regime in Afghanistan. Wonder who was pulling the strings in that one...

Originally Posted by Lipo

Bernard Lewis considers the question: Was Osama right?

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110010080

Meanwhile, here's another oped direct from the Whitehouse:

http://www.whitehouse.org/news/2007/...beth-visit.asp

President Offers Gushingly Warm Welcome to Anachronistic Personification of Pompous Limey Entitlement

THE PRESIDENT: Today, Laura and me is honored to welcome Her Royal Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, and His Royal Hineyness King Philip – who may act all sissy-submissive in public, but who everyone knows really calls the shots back at the castle. (Winks.) I want to congratulate ol' Liz here on her recent movie and Academy Award. Watching her endure the agony of a clueless public stupidly grieving the death of that Arab-porking whore of an Ex-Princess Diane, I couldn't help but remember my own struggle when the criminally overrated Ronald Reagan finally kicked it. How expertly we both concealed our secret glee over the Lord's long-overdue decision to snuff out those pains in our asses!

"Ahhh Bernard Lewis, how was he described to me 'The White House's favourite orientalist', for my sins I have some of his books on my shelf. Seems he's moved on to try his hand at political science and recent history, neither, judging from this piece, with much success."

"Bernard Lewis is the kind of academic I'd place alongside Benny Morris - someone whose moral compass has gone somewhat awry."

This is vapid criticism. Why are you unwilling to engage in considered criticism?

"The period in history is certainly far more complex than, how does Lewis put it..."

Weak.

"...the mechanisms that were at play prior re: insurgency in Afganistan that lead to the Soviets bolstering the regime in Afghanistan. Wonder who was pulling the strings in that one..."

There's a point in there somewhere. Why don't you just make it?

[quote="LipoThis is vapid criticism. Why are you unwilling to engage in considered criticism?[/quote]

I love this thread. Mr. Pot, may I introduce Mr. Kettle?

Originally Posted by Lipo

"Ahhh Bernard Lewis, how was he described to me 'The White House's favourite orientalist', for my sins I have some of his books on my shelf. Seems he's moved on to try his hand at political science and recent history, neither, judging from this piece, with much success."

This is vapid criticism. Why are you unwilling to engage in considered criticism?

"The period in history is certainly far more complex than, how does Lewis put it..."

Weak.

"...the mechanisms that were at play prior re: insurgency in Afganistan that lead to the Soviets bolstering the regime in Afghanistan. Wonder who was pulling the strings in that one..."

There's a point in there somewhere. Why don't you just make it?

Your right 'weak' just about sums up Lewis' grasp on what was happening in the region, or at least the line he's willing to sell; is is Bernard or Bernards? The 'point' is that Lewis is avoiding issues; skirting around US, Pakistani and Saudi roles in the insurgency against the pre-Soviet regime won't make them disappear. Still my 'point' was about Lewis being liberal with the actual facts...

(by the way why are we discussing Afghanistan in an Iran thread?)

Hey Lipo,

The rest of us can see Nehustan's point very clearly.

That you cannot, yet insist on callng him 'incapable of considered criticism' is brilliant self-satire. :D

But I guess you don't see that either. :D :D :D

This is one of the funniest threads i 've read in a loooong time.

. . . AND IT'S ALL THANKS TO YOU.

Originally Posted by Lipo

Bernard Lewis considers the question: Was Osama right?

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110010080
[SNIP]

I think this quote misses the point entirely. 9/11 was not about killing Americans (although clearly that was a bonus for AQ), it was about mobilising support in their target audience to enlarge their powerbase by demonstrating that they were players, that they were at the forefront of Islamic revolution and ideally to expand their physical footprint. They gambled on US over-reaction to underscore their core message that the West is corrupt, decadent and hypocritical, that democracy and freedom are propaganda and not reality.

And boy did they luck out. After a wobbly start when the US hit Afghanistan the US invaded Iraq for no readily apparent reason and gave them Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, Fallujah, the PATRIOT Act, the utter failure to secure Iraq post invasion and ... you get the idea. Coupled with a demonstrated inability to compete in info ops for AQ's target audience, the uncommitted Muslim world.

The US then went on to attack its own economy via frankly stupid security measures such as the TSA. The US appeared to those who they would wish to fear them as cowards who panic and hide at the slightest attack. Reinforced by local perceptions of "force protection" measures to this day I fear.

Indeed, the only real check on AQ has been their very poor handling of the situation in Iraq. At times I've felt that AQ and the US were in a race to see who could alienate the Iraqis more. This of course left the field open for the Iranians who are about the only ones who will benefit once the dust has settled. Once AQ has been beaten down the Ayotollahs slide back into the chair as leaders of the revolution, resistance to them in Iran having been suppressed by antipathy to US actions. Quite why the US decided to turn the Iranians who spontaneously demonstrated in support of the US post 9/11 into Ahmadinejad voters with some of the most moronic foreign policy moves ever beats me.

Do not expect to see mainstream AQ attacks in the US unless and until the US pulls out of the ME. At the moment the US is doing all AQ wants them to and there's no need to expend effort in CONUS that could be deployed attempting to sieze power and territory locally. Do expect to see attempts, maybe some successful, by individuals and groups radicalised by AQs very successful info ops campaign (well, maybe the US info ops campaign on behalf of AQ is more accurate).

All that said, if that pile of tripe represents what the US thinks then it is no wonder they are losing and will continue to lose, all the while looking round in bewilderment. Come on, join in with me:

Six more months until ...
If you're not with us you're against us ...
(Insert name of country not daft enough to get involved here) will be overrun by islamic militants within five years and then they'll be sorry ...

Awesome post strange,

"Quite why the US decided to turn the Iranians who spontaneously demonstrated in support of the US post 9/11 into Ahmadinejad voters with some of the most moronic foreign policy moves ever beats me."

Answer? Because the CIA are notoriously ccrap at strategy, they have materially worsened the strategic situation in just about every country thay have been active in in the last 40 years. Blair doesn't read books and doesn't do strategy only the here and now. And our Intelligence Services were out lunching with their foreign office pals..

I still think we have to get the very big stick out with the Tehran regime, but that is partly because of some woeful foreign policy moves. That said New Labour does not have the guts to do it, I also have my doubts about the US. So, step up to the plate a nuclear Iran, we fought the war for you, now you can have the spoils as well.

Mandarins my arrse.

Meanwhile, talk in Baghdad is:

Iran's secret plan for summer offensive to force US out of Iraq
Simon Tisdall
Tuesday May 22, 2007
The Guardian

Iran is secretly forging ties with al-Qaida elements and Sunni Arab militias in Iraq in preparation for a summer showdown with coalition forces intended to tip a wavering US Congress into voting for full military withdrawal, US officials say.

"Iran is fighting a proxy war in Iraq and it's a very dangerous course for them to be following. They are already committing daily acts of war against US and British forces," a senior US official in Baghdad warned. "They [Iran] are behind a lot of high-profile attacks meant to undermine US will and British will, such as the rocket attacks on Basra palace and the Green Zone [in Baghdad]. The attacks are directed by the Revolutionary Guard who are connected right to the top [of the Iranian government]."

The official said US commanders were bracing for a nationwide, Iranian-orchestrated summer offensive, linking al-Qaida and Sunni insurgents to Tehran's Shia militia allies, that Iran hoped would trigger a political mutiny in Washington and a US retreat. "We expect that al-Qaida and Iran will both attempt to increase the propaganda and increase the violence prior to Petraeus's report in September [when the US commander General David Petraeus will report to Congress on President George Bush's controversial, six-month security "surge" of 30,000 troop reinforcements]," the official said.
MORE HERE

On the other hand, if the US Intel is as good as it was under this guy:

Originally Posted by Max Hastings

Dangers of limited intelligence
Excuses excuses: Max Hastings assesses the memoir of former CIA chief George Tenet

AT THE CENTER OF THE STORM: My Years at the CIA by George Tenet

The great RV Jones, wizard of wartime scientific intelligence, articulated what he called Crow’s law: “Do not believe what you want to believe, until you know what you need to know.� George Tenet, director of the CIA from 1997 to 2004, demonstrates in his new book what happens when Crow’s law is broken.

The United States, whose government had fallen into the hands of ignorant and reckless men, exploited public outrage about 9/11 to justify assaulting Iraq, an objective that had nothing to do with fighting Al-Qaeda, and everything to do with the neo-cons’ ideas about changing the Middle East.[hr]IN FULL

Poor old George Tenet. trying to blame the neocons. A bit like John Scarlett trying to blame Tony Blair for 45 min WMD. Thing is John Scarlett, got promoted out of his incompetence.....