Iraq - Check, who's next?

Saturday, October 01, 2005
Iraqis will go to the polls two weeks from today and approve a new constitution. Their ratification via referendum will be marked by sporadic violence on the part of the terrorist Baathist and Wahabist thugs who have much to fear in its passage. News coverage by the SoS media which are objective allies of the terrorists will focus on the sporadic violence and the fact that the tranzi orgs who specialize in the certification of elections which meet their approval will not be "approving" this election because they fear to send observers.

The handwringing and negativism on the part of the SoS media and the tranzis will have absolutely no impact on the Iraq's progress toward stability nor upon the Iraqi people but it does affect the possible extension of true representative democracy to Iran and Syria. I take it as a given that the US has never intended to invade either country because we have not taken the preliminary steps necessary to maintain a larger force within the ME. The increase in enlistment goals for the army amounts to two divisions - a 20% increase, admittedly, but hardly a sufficient number to occupy Iran even with two additional divisions being released from Iraq. If that assessment is correct, then the remaining military card that could be played is a sustained bombing campaign on Iran (similiar to Clinton's reduction of Serbia) coupled with open support for a Kurdish insurgency in Iran's north.

The question that I keep returning to is: "Can the tranzi orgs (including the UN) in alliance with the American media mount an effective campaign that would prevent the US from pursuing regime change in Syria and Iran? I'm interested in others thoughts on this.


MeaninglessHotAir said...

There isn't the will on the part of the American public to go into another war, unless good reason (by which I mean a direct traceable attack on us) is seen. The press will light the gasoline fire of anti-War protests, given half a chance. It will take another generation before we work our way out of the Vietnam haze, if then.

Rick Ballard said...


I neglected to put in a time frame for the proposed next battle (it's the same war). My opinion is that the most opportune time for a Serbian style air campaign will be from 1/15/07 to 6/15/07. I believe that we will see a declared policy supporting regime change in Syria and Iran adopted this fall - at the latest by early spring.

As to a direct traceable attack - it really doesn't matter. Who planted the mine that blew up the Maine? That's not a speculation that the US government will stage an outrageous act but an acknowledgement that there are other NGO's (aside from al Queada) with the means and will to do so.

Given the envisaged timing and a triggering act do you think that the SoS media and the tranzis have the wherewithal to block a bombing campaign? I lean toward 'no' but I'm not sure that the answer is one that makes me particularly comfortable.

MeaninglessHotAir said...


As for the Maine, well, the US of A was quite a different country a century ago.

The press will at this point block anything Bush proposes, and I mean anything. Their vituperation knows no bounds. The question before the house is whether the American people will follow.

My belief is that a large majority realizes in their hearts the necessity of fighting the Islamofascists. On the other hand, they have no desire to be war-adventuring all over the globe. War-weariness has set in. The urge to isolationism is strong. I think the support or opposition to any action will ultimately depend on how it's handled by the Bush administration. Condi's latest speech is a good start.

Jamie Irons said...

Rick and MHA,

In a sense I agree with everything you're saying.

I know you aren't agreeing exactly, but that in a way is my point. The situation is so fluid and so ambiguous that almost any point of view is "justified by the facts."

I do agree that Condi's speech was both stirring and exquisitely clear; in a way, the Mullah's could interpret it as a veiled (NPI) warning. I think those guys are very, very nervous.

Jamie Irons

truepeers said...

I'm a bit slow with some of the acronyms - SoS? Whatever they are, the American MSM and the Democratic Party are completely unable to carry on a serious debate(quite aside from their propaganda efforts) in the national and global interest at the moment, and I'm not sure the Republicans would be any better if the shoe were on the other foot.

In such a situation, the threat is more one of an ongoing fragmentation in the American polity - especially if the outcome in Iraq turns ugly - than the possibility of a consensus to continue the fight, though that is what I would like to see, with many countries joining the US effort. We should bring the age of tyrannies to an end, though I guess we have to be realistic and talk about this a project for the next century, not decade. However, if the Iranians continue on their nukes and jihad path, we'd better make them first, somehow. It's just that it seems a big problem without a solution at the moment. We may well have to wait until the threat is unmistakeable before getting enough political momentum for action. Too much of the western world just doesn't appreciate that some nations have to be treated like the dangerous adolescents they are. Way too much moral equivalence and white guilt out there to be as hopeful as you rick. When I see a new intellectual paradigm take serious root, I'll sing a new tune. RIght now it's stilly the crazy years.

David Thomson said...

“The press will light the gasoline fire of anti-War protests, given half a chance.”

Antiwar protests during the VietNam war ceased almost immediately when the male students no longer had to worry about the draft. The antiwar movement is normally comprised of a handful of easily ridiculed activists. Ever heard of Cyndi Sheehan? Will President Bush endure a lot of flack for making such a decision concerning either Iran or Syria? Of course, and I’m sure that he possesses the intestinal fortitude to do the right thing. A small majority of Americans will agree with such a decision---and that's sufficient.

terrye said...

I think it depends to some extent on two things:

what happens in Iraq

and what Syria and Iran do.

People are tired of this war. But they know in their hearts that we need to do something. I think many of them are still under the impression we can find a way to negotiate our way out of all this.

Wishful thinking.

Some people say that it might be a good sign if the Iraqis vote down the Constitution, but I disagree. I hope they ratify. I hear they have negotiated compromises to make passage more likely.

I hope so.

But it is amazing and depressing how much damage a thousand suicide bombers can do.

Rick Ballard said...


Sorry - SoS = Stuck on Stupid


The 'press' may not (IMO, does not) have the level of influence that you ascribe to it. I believe that "war weary" doesn't quite describe the overall current mood. Bored would be a bit more apt than weary because the "public" is actually carrying no load in this war. About half the wage earners in the country pay no income taxes and the people fighting are volunteers. What is there to grow weary from? I simply refuse to credit the high decibel level of protest with any weight.


The fragmentation of the American polity is fictional in nature. Forty per cent are (as always) tuned out, twenty per cent are for X, twenty percent are against X and twenty per cent are for or against depending on how they weigh the personal benefit of being for or against whatever X is on the day that they are asked.

As to the rest of the world (speaking in terms of nations) they will follow their interests. I anticipate that Europe will fall into line concerning whatever route Bush chooses for Iran - the risk of interruption of their oil supply is simply too great for them to do otherwise. The UN has been successfully neutered for now and the various and sundry dictators will remain quietly against regime change for obvious reasons.

The intellectual paradigm shift that you refer to is occuring but it's not something that has a verifiable metric where change can be proven through inspection. I'd like to read a proposal from you as to a metric that would produce satisfactory evidence of change. What I watch may not be at all what you watch and I may need to adjust and pay attention to different factors.

One factor that I have watched and do continue to watch is the appearance of new intellectual "names" on the left. Who's the current 'Chomsky in training' and what public entity is providing him sustenance?

truepeers said...

Rick, That's an interesting question about metrics; I'll give it some thought. It would, I think, have to be largely focussed on the end of knee-jerk anti-Americanism in regard to the global political scene. Domestically, the metric would be harder to determine. Perhaps one would focus on receptivity to religious, moral, or spiritual ideas, or on acknowledgment of the need for transcendent values and representations more generally.

I'm not sure if we'll see many more CHomskys. The forces of decentralization and increasing specialization at work in academic life make it harder and harder for someone both to largely give up his area of specialization - in CHomsky's case, linguistics - and carry over one's previous fame in getting access to a lot of public attention for political rants. Plus, the whole tradition of "Theory" in the humanities is coming to an end, with an exhaustion of questions and possibilities that were always in large part about resentment of the marketplace, and the intellectual positioning himself intellectually as if going to heroic lengths to postpone his full initiation into market society.

THe increasingly market-driven dynamics of academic life and elite punditry in the media and blogosphere mitigate against the historical conditions that created Chomsky. ONe either goes left into rank posturing which is today so unoriginal or plainly outrageous (Bush to blame for global warming) that no one can stand out like CHomsky once did, or one goes pragmatic and has all the politically correct thoughts while really focussing on the career - not what you know but who you know - or one is among the small band of conservatives. Perhaps the next "CHomsky" has to be a conservative.

If there is an academic equivalent on the left today, it would probably be one of the more broadly focussed (less specialized) feminist theorists, historians, or cause celebre Middle Eastern studies people. Not sure who I'd point to.

Rick Ballard said...

Edmund Burke - The Next Chomsky.

Hmm, I like that.

Wrt metrics - the repersonalization (decollectivisation) of virtue and duty would seem primary. I think that the seeds for the new paradigm of which you have written will be found there. A shift from "do your own thing" to "do the right thing".