“The U.S. and Western countries have to cope with new realities: that Iran is the master of nuclear enrichment technology and at the same time Iran is cooperating with the agency,” Ali-[Iranian IAEA envoy] Asghar Soltaniyeh told Press TV in a live program aired on Tuesday.
Americans: why work when you can posture? Given the lack of activity on Iran and Afghanistan, it won't matter one whit who gets elected, McCain or Obama: the Middle East will have an aggressively-posturing nuclear state run by a group of fundamentalists. The GWB administration prosecuted a war which drew criticisms they were unable to boldly answer. If you're going to fight a war, only to lose your balls to the point that you can't even make a serious effort to prevent Iran from nuclearizing, just stay home. (HT: The Corner)
- A must read in the WSJ, "Victory Is An Orphan in Iraq." The writer, Thane Rosenbaum, is absolutely killin':
When it comes to Iraq, a majority of Americans simply won't take yes for an answer.
I wholeheartedly agree, but in the end, who cares? The "informed" voter has made up his mind on this conflict, one way or another. The conservative says the war was a good idea and helped GWoT, lefty says GWB misled the public and has incompetently attempted hegemony. Yawn. The two long-term effects of this war that I'm comfortable predicting are:
1. Our troops are suffering and will suffer on levels unknown to the American public. Whether its the unrecognized heroism and success of our troops or the problems of reintegration into civilian society, we are alienating our defenders at horrifying levels.
2. Our military is having discussions that are for its long-term benefit. Witness this great musing from Shawn Brimley at Intel Dump. If we hadn't gone to Iraq, I don't know if these topics would even have arisen. In any case, military leaders have learned a lot from Iraq, and will (hopefully) be able to use that knowledge in Afghanistan and in later theaters.
- "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." True enough. But Orwell forgot that those people will also "atrophy the resources of those rough men through decades of wheedling socialism as domestic policy, to the point where those rough men will be alone and penniless on the front." He'd also say it much more clearly and sharply.
Max Boot, in that Commentary post, finishes with:
This isn’t just an issue of concern for Brits. It should be a real issue of concern for Americans, too. If the UK doesn’t have the resources to help us, then, Heaven help us, “unilateralism” may become a reality–not just a partisan slur.
Sadly true.
- The U.S. does a little kabuki apologizing to Pakistan for striking within her borders. This is a messy situation, obvs, but I have little sympathy with the Pakistani government. Reason 1 is the superb piece by Dexter Filkins in the New York Times Magazine. RTWT toot sweet, if only for the art-quality photos. Reason 2 comes from "Kip" at abu muqawama:
Pakistan will continue to complain that the US is violating its sovereignty. Either Pakistan is a sovereign state capable of preventing santuary, or it isn't. You can't claim the rights of sovereignty simultaneous to claiming you can't control the area from which attacks are being launched against another sovereign state. And certainly you can't have your military and intelligence agencies participate in attacks against another sovereign state and claim immunity.
Damn straight. BTW, I'd like send my best wishes with Kip as he goes on to fight the good fight. I'll pour one out for ya, Kip, and good luck on the 'outside-inside'.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment