What’s Wrong with the World

So Obama's message failed to appeal to an American blogger who wants to see Khamenei slapped down. Now I don't have any inside info from the White House, but I'm pretty sure that they don't cater their Middle East messages to "those dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism." And I think that's probably a good thing.

Steve,
There will be no "preemptive strike" against Iran. The American people haven't recovered from the Iraq War yet, they know Afghanistan is a bloody sand-trap and what they saw on TV created empathy, not enmity. We're rightly appalled at the 50 Iranian civilian deaths so far, but know a military operation by either Israel or us would incinerate 10's of thousands. Looks like we'll have to live under the MAD rubric with another hostile state. Again.

Obama may be a typical product of our post-Christian ruling class, but even he knows the last things the Iranian dissidents want is 1) to be saddled with the tag; traitorous Zionist - American stooges are subverting Islam from within and 2) to be liberated like their neighbors in Iraq.

Change in Iran is going to come from within. Not at the behest of a Saul Alinsky disciple presiding over the world's largest military. Put down the Paine & Podhoretz tomes and brush up on some Burke. The armed worldwide revolution is over.

I usually disagree with Joe Klein, but he's on the money here:
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/06/19/there-will-be-blood/

Too bad, Steve. It looks like you're up against a readership who liked the "see-no-evil" talk much, much better. Because, you know, anything else is evil Zionist war-mongering. They needn't worry. I'm sure Barack Obama will stick with them to the death in the end. Sigh.

So Obama's message to the Muslim world hasn't pleased Lydia, a woman who wants to end Muslim emigration to the United States in order to save homeschooling. Who cares?

Why, KC, you surprising man: as a matter of fact, "Obama's message" did kind of appeal to me, this time around.

Lydia,
It could also be that strongly associating with American influence is a sure way to destroy any liberalizing political movement within Iran. Sure, it makes us feel great about ourselves to pick sides in their fight, but if your goal is to "play for keeps" you might want to determine if you are actually helping or hurting their cause.

Yeah. I caught that. It appealed to you in an "almost, kinda, sorta," kind of way.

I don't think you quite understand, KC. Truth is, I don't think Obama has much of a "message," because I don't trust the guy and I know what his ideology is. And it has little to do with caring spit about how dangerous Iran is, either internally or externally. However, as Steve indicates, as far as it goes, it was a good thing for him to say something stronger than he has before. You write like you don't get the main post, somehow. Steve's whole point is that this stronger language comports more with what Obama's previous supporters (on Iran) have been condemning. So they either have to condemn him now or change their tune. Get it?

Kevin: please do try to get a grip.

Did I call for a "preemptive strike?"

Who is calling for a "preemptive strike?"

Suggested answer: nobody. That's who.

"Change in Iran is going to come from within."

Could be. Or it could be that *no* change in Iran is going to come from within.

As we all used to say back in philosophy grad school: it's an empirical question.

You've got an ideology that makes all this easy for you.

I don't.

Crikey. I took the "almost, kinda, sorta" and "Well - take that, Ayatollah Khamenei!" as clearly sarcastic. I guess I haven't seen an exclamation point used unironically in a while. You have to admit, though, this entire post could be read as some Krauthammer-type making fun of a purported half-bred "show of toughness" on the part of Obama, and then sarcastically saying "ooo, the Paleocons might be put off by this (half-bred show of toughness)."

Full disclosure: this blog sometimes tests my ability to decipher what is meant sarcastically and what is not.

Step2, thanks for reminding me just how dumb the congenital apologists can get.

Joe Klein. Ugh.

It's a wonder what shame will eventually bring a man to do.

Lydia, were it not for you, I think I'd just give it all up.

"Steve's whole point is that this stronger language comports more with what Obama's previous supporters (on Iran) have been condemning. So they either have to condemn him now or change their tune. Get it?"

Yes!

High Five!

Steve. Your post was ambiguous. It could be read either as approving of Obama's stronger language, or as chiding Obama's attempt at stronger language for not being nearly strong enough.

Here's the sarcastic reading of the post:

"Will Wonders Never Cease?"
(Translation: Will Obama's naive foreign policy ever cease to amaze?)

"Obama almost, kinda, sorta, makes a forceful statement on Iran:"
(Translation: Obama did not at all make a forceful statement on Iran, even as he seemed to try to be more forceful.)

"Well - take that, Ayatollah Khamenei!"
(Translation: Ayatollah Khamenei will be in no way hurt by Obama's unforceful statement.)

"I only hope that Daniel Larison & like-minded "paleo-cons" won't be too put out by this, after they've spent the whole last week defending Obama's previous see-no, hear-no, speak-no-evil approach to the current regime in Iran, while damning the dreaded "neo-cons" for suggesting that slightly stronger rhetoric might just possibly be in order."

(Translation: Obama's statement was such an inadequate change in forcefulness from his old statement that it is laughable to think Obama's message would make the paleo-cons apologize to the neo-cons.)

It’s a wonder that after eight years of disastrous foreign policy, we have a President able to use nuance and diplomacy. The “This Is Sparta” neocons should obviously be taken as serious thinkers on the subject of American intervention. On the other hand, after a single speech in Cairo we get to witness one of the main sources of Islamic militant funding consume itself in a crisis of illegitimacy and fraud. If the Iranian ruling power structure survives, and the reformers are by their own history and rhetoric not likely to go that far, they will be irreparably damaged both internally and throughout the region.

Obama in that statement moved -- superficially -- from the revolutionary Left that is his homebase to the slightly less-than-radical Left that actually believes there exists a sufficiently large number of viably Westernized Muslims in Iran to make a difference to our geopolitical safety concerns. I.e., on this issue he moved -- superficially (at least to outsiders) -- into the camp of the Burtonite Conservatives.

I think I have discovered a common phenomenon at work on WWWTW. Call it the "Leiter Effect."

In the grip of the Leiter Effect, a reader attributes a maximally crazy interpretation to a WWWTW post, while ignoring a moderate interpretation for that same post.

You guys really ought to put a disclaimer on blog's main page:
Warning: Crazy posts on this blog may appear crazier than they actually are.

Who is calling for a "preemptive strike?"

Is this a joke? If not, right here and now say you are opposed to a strike against Iran's nuclear capabilities.

Could be. Or it could be that *no* change in Iran is going to come from within.

Perhaps, but we have seen the kind of carnage that comes when we impose our "vision" on enter another and it fails to meet even the most elastic interpretation of Just War Doctrine.

At any rate, what are you proposing; getting involved in another civil war?

As we all used to say back in philosophy grad school: it's an empirical question.

Yeah, it takes a lot of degrees to ignore the historical record, flesh and blood toll and blatant immorality of preemptive war.

Frankly, I expect Obama to launch a war to the hoorahs of the neocons yapping from the sidelines or serving as footstools in his administration.

It looks like you're up against a readership who liked the "see-no-evil" talk much, much better.

No. Some of us just think right to life extends beyond our nation's borders.

The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights.

What are these "universal rights", where do they come from? They must be respected, or else what??? This is where our people get to die in some tinpot third-world hellhole to try to make them San Francisco Liberals.

It's a wonder what shame will eventually bring a man to do.

Why have Perle, Kristol, Feith, Rumsfield and Cheney repented?

Obama is an abomination!

It's that simple. That creature is a gutless and worthless abomination.

But the creature from Chicago hardly feels for people protesting rigged elections, in his soul, {mendacious and dark, given over to prince of this world...} he inclines towards the fascists, towards the creature he himself termed "the supreme leader."

Abomination.

Abomination.

For which we will all pay, and dearly pay at that.

But I'm being charitable............... the truth would be much more robust, much more damning.

What did Dan Quayle do when Marcos threatened to move on the people?

He ordered American Air into the skies over Manilla, making it clear to Marcos that the United States would not allow the Army to be deployed against the people. Marcos collapsed almost immediately.

But that was Quayle, and he had more manhood in his little finger than the grand zero has in his entire metrosexual frame.

Anyone who says we can't do anything is:

A} Demonstrating their military cluelessness;
B} Demonstrating their lack of imagination; and
C} Demonstrating their feelbe grip on recent history.

American Air and Naval Air would at least ensure that the people are squared off against paramilitary thugs, who don't have APCs in support, with the threat of tanks following up. In the present situation, it would tell the people they're not alone. American F-15s zipping across Iran's major cities, and taking low overflight so that everybody could see they're not Iranian, but that they're American, would galvinize the people into one vast surge against that hated satanic regime. Sure it would demonstrate to the regime that this is it, but the regime ALREADY knows that they're fighting for their lives.

That regime has a rendezvous with the fate of Il Duce, and that rendezvous MUST be kept.

American F-15s zipping across Iran's major cities, and taking low overflight so that everybody could see they're not Iranian, but that they're American, would galvinize the people into one vast surge against that hated satanic regime. Sure it would demonstrate to the regime that this is it, but the regime ALREADY knows that they're fighting for their lives.

That regime has a rendezvous with the fate of Il Duce, and that rendezvous MUST be kept.

Hey Steve, you on board with R's "plan"?

R, as in RISK, your favorite board game?

I have this feeling that it's 1989 all over again. I could be wrong. But that's just the way I feel.

Remember, when Obama spoke in Cairo, he spoke to the "Muslim World." It is a world that seemed to like him and his message, and saw in him a sympathetic ear to their plight. So, perhaps the uprising in Iran was, remarkably, a consequence of a renewed confidence that the oppressed Persians have a friend in Washington who can articulate the distinction between the Muslim people and Muslim tyrants.

Obama's silence now, thus, seems out of character to those brave souls in Iran who chose to take on tyranny. The encouragement they found in Obama's Cairo speech seems now to be just the lines of a sweet talker practicing his wares on an ugly chick in the Global singles bar. Obama didn't really think she'd say "yes." Now, he's out the door and forgot to pay his tab.

As a former senator from Illinois once said, "words matter." They matter because they are the seeds of the soul that can sprout ideas and move people to do revolutionary things. They are the currency of political discourse that can soothe a nation, inspire a platoon, and teach a people.

Obama is a nominalist actor with a realist script.

"words matter." They matter because they are the seeds of the soul that can sprout ideas and move people to do revolutionary things. They are the currency of political discourse that can soothe a nation, inspire a platoon, and teach a people.

Is there any evidence that Obama is the inspiration for this uprising? Any? Or, is this just proof that even Obama's Republican foes have bought into his messianic powers? Maybe, it is an example of the American conceit that it is all about us and soon we'll be reading that Mirhossein Mousavi is the Iranian Thomas Jefferson.

Words follow the thought and precede the act. What actions do Obama's right-wing critics want him to take, or do they think another speech from the One will be enough to topple the Mullahs and make Iran, what they hoped Iraq would be, a Western-style democracy in the heart of the Muslim world?

Speaking of demonstrating their feelbe(sic) grip on recent history, the Marcos uprising occurred during the Reagan presidency, Dan Quayle was at the time a popular Senator from Indiana, and the only US military involvement was to provide transportation for Marcos to leave the country.

"They matter because they are the seeds of the soul that can sprout ideas and move people to do revolutionary things. They are the currency of political discourse that can soothe a nation, inspire a platoon, and teach a people."

That was a general statement about words, not Obama's words, which are sometimes inspiring, but not because of the ideas it communicates. Rather, because the subjective effects they provoke in his listeners. This is why if Obamaism were a religion, it would be Joel Olsteenism, auditorium religion for an auditorium people.

To the substanceless, Obama appears to lack substance.

Most of us know nothing about the intricacies of Iranian politics. Why is there so much bluster?

Why should we be backing supporters of Mousavi, a man who defended the taking of American hostages, backed the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, and appointed a Hezbollah leader to his cabinet?

Is there any indication he wouldn't be just as illiberal and nasty as Ahmedinejad? Other than their twittering anglophones' assertions, is there any indication these mobs of protesters are Democratic Freedom Fighters?

We don't have a dog in this fight. I'm far more concerned about instability in Mexico than I am about that in Iran.

I'm sympathetic to what you say, Kevin Jones, as far as Mousavi goes, but I'm also very unsympathetic to those who imply that talking about Iranian evils and about the scary rhetoric of "Johnnie" (as Auster calls him) is a no-no, because it's closet war-mongering, etc. There is a certain perspective on foreign policy that I utterly reject according to which (even if this isn't explicitly stated) a sympathy towards non-interventionism means _downplaying_ the evils and dangerousness of foreign countries, a kind of international non-judgmentalism. Such an approach usually also counsels us to make even our active trade policy morally neutral and to treat it as "unwarranted interference" to make negative statements about other regimes or to make our interactions with them dependent on anything like, say, their human rights record. To tell you the truth, this approach makes me ill. It would have had us in WWII not merely refraining from getting into the war but also maintaining full and friendly diplomatic relations with Hitlerite Germany without even daring to make _speeches_ about the death camps. Faugh.

Kevin, your 6/20 10;16 post
Shhhh, I am trying to give credit to Obama for something he doesn't have.
In the future feel free to address your responses to me by name.
Also, your attempted witticism on those named in your post hardly displaces our current president, the guy who's in office right now.
So your point is weak at best, allowing for a super-human justification,incomprehensible otherwise.

To re-enforce both Lydia's point and Frank's point, I thought readers would be interested in this article:

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1906006,00.html

HT: The Corner

Thanks Jeff. Nothing like the Bush White House to set us all straight on what we need to be doing in the Middle East.

Kevin:

(at 10:12 yesterday): That's easy. I am opposed to a strike against Iran's nuclear capabilities.

Any more softballs you'd like to throw my way?

Have I suggested that we "impose our 'vision'" on Iran? Have I suggested "getting involved in another civil war?" Have I called for "preemptive war?"

Quite obviously, I haven't. So why do you carry on as if I had?

I mean, really: why? What's with all the malicious misrepresentation?

I just don't understand it.

Step2:

(at 9:15 yesterday): Do you think that there was a causal link between Obama's speech in Cairo & the current troubles in Iran?

Hesperado:

(at 9:37 yesterday): "Burtonite conservatives," huh? A.k.a. "the slightly less-than-radical Left that actually believes there exists a sufficiently large number of viably Westernized Muslims in Iran to make a difference to our geopolitical safety concerns."

Well, ummm...I don't recall expressing an opinion on the matter. Perhaps you can remind me?

KC:

(at 9:42 yesterday): how about a disclaimer reading as follows: "Warning: mildly ironic posts on this website may look crazy to readers blinded by ideology?"

"This is where our people get to die in some tinpot third-world hellhole to try to make them San Francisco Liberals."

Exactly. The democracy we're trying to spread around the globe ain't your granddaddy's democracy, or even your daddy's, really. Pro-choice, sexually-liberated multiculturalism is now part of the package.

Gintas:

(at 10:14 yesterday): I think that your quarrel here is not so much with me as with our "founding fathers." I take it that you would have sided with the Royalists in 1641 & 1776 and with the Confederacy in 1860.

Not that there's anything wrong with that - but just so we're clear.

R:

(at 11:18, 11:19 & 11:25 yesterday): Trolling doesn't get much more obvious than this. I mean, "American F-15s zipping across Iran's major cities, and taking low overflight so that everybody could see they're not Iranian, but that they're American, would galvinize [sic] the people into one vast surge against that hated satanic regime?"

The only people you might just possibly fool are the looney lefties &/or paleo-cons who really seem to think that this is the sort of thing that the dastardly neo-cons believe.

In fairness, though, you're pretty good at this. Your posts gave me a couple of cheap laughs.

Kevin:

(at 11:37 yesterday): Well, sure enough - along you come, a scant twelve minutes later...

...hmmm...

...taking "R" at face-value - and throwing me another softball: "Hey Steve, you on board with R's 'plan'"?

What. A. Maroon.

But my favorite bit of your comment was this: "R, as in RISK, your favorite board game?"

So *that's* why...ummm..."R"...chose that moniker! And here I thought it was probably supposed to be R for Republican!

You're such a gas.

Interesting that a wise few know the Mind, singular, of the protesters. Rather like sardines in a can, you've seen one, etc. Joe Klein might be one such seer though usually he can be found slithering on his coils in the general direction of Obama's feet, where I might add, the crowds gather.
I'll go with heterogeneity, confusion, some chaos, and the possibility of a certain kind of emergence. Namely the chance that enough of the people desire or crave a genuine revolution, a series of changes in the current sclerotic, militant, belligerent, and possibly suicidal regime.

It may be heading in that direction, a movement heading towards at least a more open society.
And poor Obama can get back into his plans for managed health care disaster, which he had hoped to have completed by sometime before lunch tomorrow.

Kevin:

(at 8:15 this morning): sorry, but at this point you're simply descending into incoherent hysteria.

(1) obviously Obama did not inspire this uprising.
(2) obviously it is not all about us.
(3) not even the neo-conniest of neo-cons is under any illusions about Mousavi himself.
(4) yesterday's statement is pretty much the action that many of Obama's right-wing critics wanted him to take.
(5) nobody thinks that "another speech from the One will be enough to topple the Mullahs &c"

OK?

So now, here's my question for you, Kevin:

Are you not ashamed to conduct yourself so offensively in a public forum where you are, after all, a guest?

"You've got an ideology that makes all this easy for you."

"How about a disclaimer reading as follows: "Warning: mildly ironic posts on this website may look crazy to readers blinded by ideology?""

Apparently Steve Burton's trying to take one from liberalism's playbook by implying that his obviously ideological rants are really not ideology at all. Nice try Steve. Someone already invented a pretend no-spin zone, and I'm pretty sure the idea is copyrighted.

Kevin J Jones:

(at 1:04 this afternoon):

Isn't it just obvious to you, by now, that Mousavi has become the figurehead, however unworthy, of a movement that deserves our sympathy? Do you really think that there is nothing much to choose between Ayatollah Khamenei & the Basij, on the one hand, and the "mobs of protesters" on the other?

Shame on you.

Steve,

I think Obama's speech convinced the group who staged this coup that they can't take the risk of a popular election. So he didn't inspire the uprising, but he did worry enough people that they overreacted which in turn caused the uprising.
http://americanfootprints.com/drupal/node/4435

Lydia:

(at 1:19 this afternoon):

Exactly.

I'm a good old-fashioned libertarian non-interventionist. Nothing would please me more than to see *all* American forces stationed *anywhere* in the world except here in the good old U.S. of A. brought home once & for all.

But does that mean we have to forego all moral judgment, when it comes to the rest of the world? Does that mean, for example, that we have to wash our hands of the protestors in Iran, today, and go on sucking up to the Mullahs, on the grounds that it's "none of our business?"

If so, count me out.

Jeff Singer:

(at 1:54 this afternoon): thanks for the link.

I thought this was a particularly good line: "the job of an American president is not that of a history professor, but an actor in history. As masses march and bullets fly this weekend, a timeless question cannot be avoided. Even if we cannot know or control the outcome, we have a responsibility, through our actions as a nation, to answer clearly the question: whose side are we on?"

KC (at 2:07 this afternoon): thanks for reminding me that you hate Bush II & everybody connected to him. That fact might otherwise have slipped my mind.

Thanks for reminding me that you're an ideologue, Steve, and not a very smart one at that.

Does that mean, for example, that we have to wash our hands of the protestors in Iran, today, and go on sucking up to the Mullahs, on the grounds that it's "none of our business?" -- Steve Burton

There's a third option aside from this simplistic dilemma: the Realpolitik of using one Muslim faction against another wherever we can, for the ongoing, pragmatic, limited goal of managing the problem of Islam wherever it rears its head. This would require the unsentimental common sense of the rule of thumb that no Muslims anywhere are trustworthy -- no matter how much they seem to be "Westernized" -- for the purposes of our primary concern to protect our societies from their Islam. But the Romantic Myth of the Westernized Persian seems too strong for such common sense to become operative in terms of the situation of Iran; for, if it has signficantly infected even the anti-Islam movement, there is little chance that it will affect the broader mainstream already deformed by PC MC.

And if it is operative in terms of the situation of Iran, where else will that sentimentalism exert itself?

KC (at 5:55 this afternoon):

So what's my obvious ideology?

I'm genuinely curious.

You're conservative and anti-Obama. You are "dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers you stand: the Jihad and Liberalism." You probably hold other ridiculous positions, but don't put them quite as ridiculously didactic as that.

Burton-baiting accomplished!

My last post was in response to a post by Steve Burton (which he promptly deleted after I got the better of him). It read "you'll have to explain it clearly and slowly because apparently "I'm not a very smart one.""

Step2 (at 6:06 this evening):

Interesting theory.

For the record, I'm not entirely convinced that there *was* any "coup" here - it's entirely possible that Ahmadinejad "won" fair & square, given all the various restrictions on the election process.

But, obviously, that question is pretty much moot, now. And rightly so.

Steve Burton,
Look, if bringing up your track record when it comes to the issue of war and peace in general, and our foreign policy in the Middle East in particular proves so personally painful for you, then maybe you should reconsider sticking out your glass jaw and crying foul every time it gets hit. For a guy so hawkish about warfare, you really need to toughen up when it comes to these exchanges.

No one here, or in our foreign policy establishment is coddling the Mullahs.
Just over a week ago the same architects of our Iraqi disaster were saying a nuclear-powered Iran would not be tolerated and the military option was "inevitable." Obama foolishly, but not surprisingly given his own warped view of human life, said he'd give Iran until December to show signs of slowing down her program of nuclear development.

So now that the people of Iran are no longer stick-figures fitting into a monochromatic cartoon about a WWIV with Islam, and few decent Americans would back a preemptive strike against that country, a new tact is taken. "Let's get involved and stoke the revolution", even though there is absolutely no evidence that the dissidents want us any where near them, or any thought as to what happens if our finger prints are all over the new government.

The new formulation of the pro-war crowd is this;

Heads - we strike the nuclear facilities dotting across a nation of 70 million. And teach them a lesson. Hawks love teaching lessons, they just never learn from them.

Tails - we use "soft intervention" to dispose of the Mullahs in a violent uprising. We'll worry about the day after, well the day after. Just like Iraq.

Bottom-line; Obama's silence isn't as emotionally satisfying as a speech about the evil of the Iranian ruling party and you didn't get goose-bumps like that all-time classic Axis of Evil riff raised on you, but a more just, less bloody outcome is more likely due to his refraining from strutting around as the Most Righteous Warrior-King.

As of this moment, he is behaving wiser and in a more morally serious way than the clanging gongs trying to stir up a very delicate situation which few know much about.

The result for you is is you've managed to lose the moral high-ground to Obama!

Takes some doing, but there you are. Aren't you ashamed of yourself?

Kevin:

What on earth are you talking about?

What "track record when it comes to the issue of war and peace in general, and our foreign policy in the Middle East in particular" do you have in mind?

Quotes, please? Links, please?

Does it ever occur to you to think even once - let alone twice - before signing your name to libel?

Yup, KC - you got me.

I am, indeed, conservative and anti-Obama. And I am, indeed, "dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ."

Ouch!

Not.

Steve Burton is one of the least ideological people I know. To call him an ideologue is to show that one is a know-nothing. If KC wants to pick on somebody as an ideologue (from his perspective), he'd do better to pick on me.

What is this the [effing - SB] 1980's? That may well be the most outdated use of slang I've ever seen. You must be a pretty "rad" guy to hang out with, Steve.

[KC, who made you the arbiter of who gets to participate in discussions around here? Mind your manners. -SB]

KC writes:

What is this the [effing - SB]1980's? That may well be the most outdated use of slang I've ever seen. You must be a pretty "rad" guy to hang out with, Steve.

Chronophobe!

We're all Hegelians now, but who knows what we'll be in the future. :-)

Forget the future. Your blog is about 100 syntheses away from modernity. And, yes, I do realize you probably take that as a compl[i]ment.

[Spelling corrected. And yes, as a matter of fact I do!

It seems that we're approaching a real "meeting of minds, here, KC. I find this rather touching, in some strange way. - SB]

I only hope that Daniel Larison & like-minded "paleo-cons" won't be too put out by this

Steve, Larison seems remarkably immune to your argumentation, Gerson needs a cornerman;

Let's be clear: Gerson wants Obama to incite the protesters and urge them to seek "freedom," which in practice will mean provoking them to greater and greater confrontation with the government and ensuring that the crackdown against them will be even more bloody and cruel than it has been so far. Their blood will flow so that Gerson's bleeding heart can rest easy.
http://www.amconmag.com/larison/

Their blood will flow so that Gerson's bleeding heart can rest easy.

Get the smelling salts and an essay on cheap grace ready.

Steve, thanks for this.

I really don't get the paleo-con crowd. What's up with them lately? It's like they can't see any options whatsoever other than trying to solve all of the world's problems with America's military on the one hand, and on the other hand, a cultural and moral relativism that is totally blind to the distinction between freedom and violent tyranny, and cannot bring itself to even disapprove of the actions any nation except America (and of course Israel). And many of them are self-described Christians who should be able to see those distinctions.

What's so hard about saying, "It's unwise to try to rectify this situation with our military, but oppressing your people, creating phony rigged elections, and then sending out thugs in hockey masks to shoot the protesters is, like, bad, and I hope the protesters win"? In fact, that position seems so obvious as to be a no-brainer.

And yet when you articulate precisely such a position, all the paleo-cons seem so fundamentally incapable of comprehending it that they attribute to you the imaginary, bloodthirsty "neo-con" position (as they conceive it to be) instead. Their minds appear to work in binary. You don't agree with them, so you simply must be endorsing everything they hate. They simply don't have the conceptual space in their minds for that position. Trying to communicate it to them elicits only cognitive dissonance and rage.

I think Deuce has some very wise words. In the interests of full disclosure, I should say that I'm not as anti-interventionist as, probably, Deuce and Steve Burton are, _if_ "intervention" really could be surgical, short-lived, and limited. Though that's a big "if," I fully admit. But what Deuce, Steve, and I are all pointing out is that the questions of intervention and _disapproval_, including loud, stated, public disapproval, are _separate questions_, and that the paleos seem unable to get that.

At the risk of thread-jacking, I'm moved to point out that something similar is true of trade and things like what used to be called "most favored nation" status. It is especially baffling to me to find paleo-libertarians confused on this. As libertarians, they surely understand that if Joe refuses to sell a car to Frank the Philanderer because Joe considers Frank a low-life scum and doesn't want to assist him in his activities, this is well within Joe's rights. If Frank punches Joe in the face for doing this, Frank is the assailant, not Joe. Joe's refusal to do business with Frank is _not_, on a true libertarian view, an act of aggression! That, after all, is the kind of thing that is at the core of what is best in libertarianism--freedom of association and the like. But move it to the national level, and that all goes out the window. If people in the U.S. suggest that we should not trade with China because of its dismal human rights record, this is an attempt at "U.S. hegemony," "interference," and so forth. If the U.S. put an oil embargo on Japan, not wanting to help to oil the gears, as it were, of Japan's imperial expansion just before WWII, this on the paleolibertarian view was virtually tantamount to an act of war and "forced" Japan to attack Pearl Harbor. And so it goes. The active-passive distinction, the freedom to use one's moral compass to guide one's business associations and friendships, just isn't supposed to apply at the national level, despite the legitimate libertarian insight that it applies at the individual level. I have always found this very odd.

What's so hard about saying, "It's unwise to try to rectify this situation with our military, but oppressing your people, creating phony rigged elections, and then sending out thugs in hockey masks to shoot the protesters is, like, bad, and I hope the protesters win"? In fact, that position seems so obvious as to be a no-brainer.

When Reagan gave his famous speech about the Berlin Wall, he did so under the premise that the United States did not play a pivotal role in bringing Lenin to power. In the case of Iran, a lot of the protesters would cynically tell him to come tear down the "Tehran Wall" with his own bare hands since the United States' actions in 1953 laid the foundation for it.

By staying completely out of it, it becomes completely their fight. The United States has simply too much baggage with Iran, and if we get involved in any way (even rhetorically), it could be 1953 all over again. It's also unlikely that any rhetoric from Obama would have any positive impact, rather than resolving the regime's supporters that it is about to be 1953 all over again.

I should say that I'm not as anti-interventionist as, probably, Deuce and Steve Burton are, _if_ "intervention" really could be surgical, short-lived, and limited.

Hi, Lydia, I'm probably closer to where you are. I think it would be downright nuts to take military action over the Iranian elections (because the outcome, even if we helped the protestors win, is a total unknown, and there's really no reason to think it would be surgical, short-lived, or limited, and the number of ways it could blow up in our face is manifold). But, if we get to the point that it's either do something militarily now or let the mullahs have nukes, I do think we have to do something militarily.

And the rest of what you said is right on. I find the sort of America-is-always-wrong attitude that the paleos increasingly seem to be taking appalling. Note that it doesn't apply to anyone else. If America were to attack the Middle East because of OPEC price gouging, they'd recognize America as the aggressor. They wouldn't accuse OPEC of hegemony and interference.

I think the paleos are suffering from the effects of defining your position entirely in terms of opposition to someone else. The paleo-cons hate Bush and the neo-cons. Hoo boy do they hate Bush and the neo-cons. They hate Bush and the neo-cons so much that they've decided that Bush and the neo-cons must be wrong about everything. In fact, the neo-cons are so bad, that good and evil can be safely defined in terms of "neo-con" and "anti-neo-con". And just as light cannot mix with the darkness, you must either be with the "neo-cons" or with the "anti-neo-cons". You cannot be both or in-between.

So this results in trying to stick everyone in the "neo-con" or "anti-neo-con" box, and assuming that people who don't fit either must be hiding something. It also results in imagining most actual neo-cons to be more extreme and warlike than they really are. And since the neo-cons tend to be, on balance, generally conservative, endeavoring to oppose them at every turn results in the paleo-cons adopting the positions of the relativist, hate-America Left in a number of areas.

Kevin: what is the point in even pretending to carry on any sort of meaningful discussion with somebody like you?

In your comment at 8:20 p.m. yesterday, you stupidly and maliciously libeled me. In my response at 9:04 I called you out for this and demanded an explanation.

And then, when you showed up again at 11:44, you simply charged ahead with another volley of cheap shots, as if nothing had happened - perhaps hoping that I would simply let the matter drop.

Well, I won't let the matter drop.

Either you explain yourself, or you're out of here (on my threads, at any rate).

Oh, and as far as Larison is concerned, his real position has become all too clear today: he would actually prefer to see the protesters lose & the mullahs win.

Depressing.

KC: I have left your comment at 9:37 yesterday unedited only because it elicited a funny reply from Frank.

I have edited your comment at 9:45 yesterday because it was (a) presumptuous and (b) gratuitously insulting to a colleague.

Unfortunately, once I edited out the presumption and the insult, there was nothing left.

In future, when commenting on my threads, please confine your gratuitous insults to me.

;^)

BTW - "yup" and "you got me" isn't the half of it. I have even been known to say stuff like "golly," and "gee-willikers!" Make of it what you will.

"In the case of Iran, a lot of the protesters would cynically tell him to come tear down the "Tehran Wall" with his own bare hands since the United States' actions in 1953 laid the foundation for it."

1953? One would hope you meant 1979. (I'm new here, so "Mike T" could be a Leftist, which would explain such a comment that attains treason through sheer preposterousness.)

The Shah was the only brief window of time of a modicum of sociopolitical health in 1300 years of Persia's/Iran's grotesquely evil Islamic rule. The Shah was the best thing that ever happened to Persia/Iran, from the time Muslims first assaulted it in the 7th century, to now. And the Shah was only able to be such a best thing ("best" in relative terms, I wish it were needless to say) by exerting an iron fist of dictatorship, to constrain the natural virus of Islam coursing through the veins of all his Muslim citizens.

If any protestors are anti-Shah, that alone should define them as our enemy (which is a matter separate from whether their cause might provide pragmatic fodder for us to exploit for our own interests).

The Deuce: I simply have nothing to add to your two posts immediately above. Hatred and resentment of "neo-cons" seems to have torn a mile-wide hole in the soul of quite a few "paleo-cons."

Mike T: I take it, then, that you think Obama's words that I quoted in the original post were too strong, and that he should have just kept quiet?

One might argue that our role in frustrating Iranian Democracy (such as it was) in 1953 gives us all the more responsibility to support it today, in whatever ways we can.

"as far as Larison is concerned, his real position has become all too clear today: he would actually prefer to see the protesters lose & the mullahs win."

Seems to me that what he's doing is listing the potential negatives of a regime change. Did he take a side in there somewhere and I missed it?

I'm a longtime lurker, de-cloaking to acknowledge the spot-on comments by Deuce.

The dread of war-mongering neoconservatives has led people to adopt very perplexing positions on Iran. For example, I have seen the claim that even if (a) Iran is a horrendous tyranny, and (b) US rhetorical gestures are likely impotent, *even so* we should avoid criticizing the Iranian regime and supporting the protesters. Vide Will Wilkinson, of all people.

Ben A - thanks: I saw that Will Wilkinson post, this morning, and could hardly believe what I was reading. He's not just opposed to the *government* expressing any support for the protestors - he's even opposed to *private citizens* expressing support for them, even in purely symbolic ways!

As if there were even the *slightest* possibility of green avatars fueling some sort of imaginary neo-con push for the Obama administration to invade Iran!

Crazy. Contemptible.

Rob G: I won't pretend that I read everything that Larison writes. (I mean, who has time? The guy simply writes too much, and badly needs a forceful editor.)

But I think I've read enough of his commentary on the troubles in Iran to get the gist of his view - which is that, even if he thought the protesters had a chance of overthrowing the regime, he wouldn't particularly want them to.

If you can point me to anything by him that suggests otherwise, I'd be happy to read it.

I don't read him that often myself, Steve -- I was going solely by the one article you linked to, since you wrote that "his real position has become all too clear today." I was expecting a smoking gun in there somewhere, but didn't see it.

Steve Burton wrote:

BTW - "yup" and "you got me" isn't the half of it. I have even been known to say stuff like "golly," and "gee-willikers!" Make of it what you will.

Maybe it's that KC was hinting at his age. And I thought the proper terminology was "effing." I guess I need to do some catchin' up myself.

Steve and Rob G,

As the self-professed neo-con around here, who not only wants the current regime to be overthrown, but would support air strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities (I'd secretly give the Israelis the green light to go in...they did a nice job in Syria recently) I just had to quixotically jump in and defend Larison. I do think that the post Steve picked was perfectly defensible by itself -- essentially Daniel was saying that he fears that this current revolution will lead to something worse than the mullahs (i.e. an unstable Iran PLUS a nuclear Iran). It would have been nice for him to acknowledge just how nasty the mullahs are, or perhaps like "Hesperado" acknowledge that the mullahs at least divide the Islamic world and keep the Shia/Sunni fight going; but it would also be nice if I could travel back in time and slap some sense into middle-class Iranians who should have known better that the mullahs were not their friends. But alas, neither is probably going to happen anytime soon.

And just for the record, the back and forth with Kevin was priceless -- I don't understand why he doesn't hang out at my buddy Frum's website where his criticisms will actually apply (even if they remain ridiculous).

Terry Morris - thanks: "effing" is definitely better. I have amended a couple of earlier comments accordingly.

Steve,

I also thought you'd enjoy this recent post on the Iranian situation from Spengler:

http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/spengler/2009/06/21/when-empires-die/

Like Steyn, he has a way with words that just cuts to the truth of the world (e.g. "Egyptian intelligence will refresh its files on Hezbollah supporters in Egypt and dust off the electrodes.")

[Sorry, Kevin - non-responsive. I guess you thought I was kidding.]

[Ditto]

Bye, Kevin.

Jeff - thanks for the link. One reads everything by "Spengler" with several grains of salt, but this was certainly interesting.

You've banned Kevin, but don't you still need to burn his books?

Sophia: It's not within my power to "ban" Kevin from this site. But I can sure as heck edit &/or delete his comments on my posts, so long as he carries on so abusively.

Spengler needs so much salt, I'd die of salt poisoning reading him.

One might argue that our role in frustrating Iranian Democracy (such as it was) in 1953 gives us all the more responsibility to support it today, in whatever ways we can.

Wow.

The best thing that happened to Iran was the Shah. Iranian Muslims should be on their knees thanking us for his regime. But of course they can't, because of their disease. And speaking of diseases, no wonder the West is behaving so colossally irrationally in the face of an Islam Redivivus, when even its conservatives believe such things. That is the amazing thing about PC MC -- it has managed to insinuate itself into the hearts and minds of most centrists and conservatives. It would not have become dominant and mainstream, as it is throughout the West, if it hadn't. One suspects, ruefully, that steve burton thinks FDR's order to intern Japanese-Americans was a "shameful chapter" in our history as well.

Steve, I'd actually been waiting on your response to Kevin's June 22, 2009 10:32 PM post, so... pretty disappointed to see you've deleted it. Bad form and certainly not gracious to either your readers or commenters.

trouscaillon, to each his own but I thought Steve did do the gracious thing. I followed some of the dissenting posts and thought they were incredibly stupid, nasty, and personal. The argumentation was so weak that it too managed to be offensive. But like I said, to each his own. Still, there are limits and no one has to be a punching bag for those seeking outlets for their maladjustments.
If you scan back to June 21, 1:46pm you will see I invited some dialogue, no luck.
There are places for these types, I hope this isn't one of them.

trouscaillon, I'm sorry that you're disappointed.

But in my post of 2:12 p.m. on the 22nd, I laid out the conditions for Kevin's continued participation.

He defied those conditions.

And if there's anything I've learned from my awful, depressing years of teaching adolescent boys, it's that once you lay down a condition you must stick to it - or they'll walk right over you from there on out.

johnt: thanks, as always, for your good sense & good will.

Hesperado: Your claim that "the best thing that happened to Iran was the Shah" might just be defensible, had the Shah's regime not led to Khomeini's take-over. But it did.