Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiHistory and the Drumbeat of War
If you Google "war Iran," you will come up with more than 90 million results. The blogosphere is full of alarms about US intentions toward Iran. Newsweek said last week that Vice President Cheney has been looking to provoke an Israeli assault against Iranian nuclear facilities that would draw Iranian reactions, sparking a "justifiable" American attack. At the United Nations, meanwhile, President Nicolas Sarkozy of France seemed to second his foreign minister's recent warning that an unchecked Iranian nuclear program will lead to war.
But this "constant drumbeat of conflict" concerning Iran, said Admiral William Fallon, head of the US Central Command, is "not helpful and not useful." Fallon wants to head off such talk. "There will be no war," he told Al-Jazeera, a denial that keeps the specter looming.
It is hard to imagine that President Bush would actually order an attack against Iran, despite the drumbeat, since the assault would instantly turn 160,000 US troops in Iraq into Shi'ite hostages. But it also seems clear that Bush, even content to leave Iraq a shambles, does not want to depart Washington with Tehran's nuclear provocations unresolved.
The surprisingly hawkish Sarkozy, warning of Iran, told the United Nations last week that "weakness and renunciation do not lead to peace. They lead to war." That was a dangerous conflation of two distinct ideas, since renunciation can be more a signal of strength than weakness.
Indeed, the lesson of the last half of the 20th century is that nations define their greatness as much by what they refrain from doing as by what they do. The United States long ago confronted the dilemma posed by a nuclear-determined Iran - in the far deadlier contest with the Soviet Union. The lesson of that experience seems forgotten, yet renunciation was at its core.
In 1945, General Leslie Groves, head of the Manhattan Project, bluntly declared, "If we were truly realistic instead of idealistic, as we appear to be, we would not permit any foreign power with which we are not firmly allied, and in which we do not have substantial confidence, to make or possess atomic weapons. If such a country started to make atomic weapons, we would destroy its capacity to make them before it has progressed far enough to threaten us."
Even when, in subsequent years, more dovish figures like Bertrand Russell and J. Robert Oppenheimer supported the idea of a preemptive strike against nascent Soviet nuclear facilities, President Harry Truman renounced the idea.
When Dwight D. Eisenhower succeeded Truman, that renunciation defined his "massive retaliation" doctrine, an official commitment to refrain from first strikes on Soviet nuclear targets. In 1954, Ike approved a National Security Policy paper that made it formal; "The United States and its allies must reject the concept of preventive war or acts intended to provoke war."
By the time John F. Kennedy became president, all-out nuclear war seemed imminent. But when, in summer 1961, the new technology of satellite surveillance showed that the Soviet nuclear force was far smaller and more vulnerable than ever imagined, the Pentagon brass saw a God-given opportunity to head off Armageddon simply by blowing up Moscow's nuclear weapons on the ground. Defying the generals, and their civilian acolytes, Kennedy said no.
Because of Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy, such renunciation became a pillar of American political morality, but history unfolded to show that, despite Groves's contrast between realism and idealism, this consistent refusal to launch antinuclear attacks was profoundly practical, too.
A further succession of US presidents went on to demonstrate the wisdom of this off-limits threshold. The nonviolent resolution of the American-Soviet nuclear high noon offers transcendent instruction, the past's most important message to the present. The trigger-happy gunslingers turned out to be wrong - "crackpot realists," as C. Wright Mills dubbed them. "In the name of realism," he wrote in 1956, "they have constructed a paranoid reality all their own." Is it happening again?
Pentagon "global dominance" doctrine now prohibits the emergence of any military rival to the United States, which means preemptive attack must replace stabilizing deterrence as the ready exercise of American power. Fortunately, though, the Bush administration's generic embrace of "preventive war" is discredited by Iraq, which is the main reason to hope no preemptive attack on Iran is coming. But that hope must be reinforced by a sense of history. America has already answered this question, and the answer remains no.
James Carroll's column appears regularly in the Globe.
© 2007 The Boston Globe
13 Comments so far
Show AllWhen our Congress is so stupid or scared to even listen seriously to Jew Lieberman, let alone pass his bill about the Iran Republican Guard, it appears that we are screwed. Again, whatever Bush and Cheny want done is no problem, the Robotics all go for it and the Dumbs pitch in like fools as usual. We must have a mass hypnotism in that capitol to make them all act like little children. Do they never understand what they have done or do they just not care about anything but getting re-elected for their cushy jobs? Look out Iran, we have reason to nuke your nukes now.
DR. ZIMMERMAN ROBERT
so what went wrong in burma????
WAR RESOLUTION
All Too Relevant Quote: How is the World Ruled, & how do wars start?---
Diplomats tell lies to journalists, & then believe what they read.
(Karl Kraus, Austrian Press,1874-1936)
Even with our limited information on this war, it is all to evident that our legislators erred when they granted this unlearned and arrogant administration the authority to embark on and perpetuate this ill conceived war.
The weapons inspectors were there and we had contained Saddam. The resulting "civil war" and chaos had been predicted by many informed experts, and should have been obvious--but their advice was ignored. One can only imagine the extent of disaster if Saddam had unleashed some biological, chemical, or primitive nuclear weapons on our troops during the invasion.
After over four years, the only rational option left now is for congress to seize the war powers from the president--and then pursue a logical course to conclude this misadventure. This would include not only recognition of the recent advisory commissions recommendations (which the administration ignored) but also curbing profiteering, promoting measures for energy conservation and global warming mitigation to reduce our dependance on their oil--and regain some worldwide trust.
The alternative is to permit continuation of this disastrous quagmire, while risking a war with Iran and destabilization of the entire area-- and further damaging our international stature.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
Iranian and Israeli news outlets are reporting that Russia has evacuated its entire staff of nuclear engineers and experts who were working at the Bushehr nuclear reactor, increasing speculation that the United States is preparing an imminent military attack on Iran.
According to the Khorramshar News Agency, which represents ethnic Arabs in opposition to Ahmadinejad's regime who live near the reactor, the Russians packed their bags and left on Friday.
http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=4636
According to the article, Putin has a scheduled meeting on October 16 to sign a number of nuclear accords with Iran. So I would not be surprised if something happens on or before October 15. Ramadan ends on October 12, so October 13-15 might be the window for a limited attack on their nukes facility. They probably hope Iran will retaliate in some form or another, allowing us to escalate with a larger campaign. Of course, Russia may be just taking a conservative approach and this means nothing.
Conspiracy theorists say JFK was assasinated for one or more of the following reasons.
Pressuring Israel for inspections at their suspected nuclear facility
Seeking a rapproachment with Castro and the Soviets
Refusing to go large with Vietnam, in fact committing to reduce US presence by 1965.
Refusing to launch an invasion of Cuba during the missile crisis and a first strike on the Soviets.
The Nixon coup happened because he made nice to Red China and the Soviets.
The Generals and CIA were not having anymore of that, especially when Nixon discussed breaking up the CIA in private conservations that were being monitored. Woodward was in Naval Intelligence and used to brief Haig at the White House on Naval Intelligence matters. His connections as a reporter led him to Watergate fame by those who wanted to destroy Nixon, like Richard Helms and the Generals, and they did so through Deep Throat (now said to be Mark Felt whom Woodward first met at the White House as a Naval Intelligence Officer). As it is Nixon still fired Helms. Their main problem was they had to get rid of Agnew which they did, and replace him with someone they could trust, Gerald Ford, former Warren Commission Whitewasher was their man. Nixon had no choice but to cooperate.
JFK and Nixon prove peace is not good for Presidents careers.
Iran is still all about the oil and an excuse for a permanent presence in Iraq, we are not that worried about Iran getting nukes in the near future. I mean, leave Hillary a couple of countries to invade or attack. Every President has to start at least one war and kiss Israels behind, so leave her Iran. Bush is just too greedy.
"Nothing is so unworthy of a civilized nation as allowing itself to be "governed" without opposition by an
irresponsible clique that has yielded to base instinct. It is certain that today every honest German is
ashamed of his government. Who among us has any conception of the dimensions of shame that will
befall us and our children when one day the veil has fallen from our eyes and the most horrible of crimes -
crimes that infinitely outdistance every human measure - reach the light of day?" --First leaflet of the White Rose, 1942
Part of me thinks that Bush (and his lackeys in Congress) could not possibly be insane enough to launch a war with Iran. The other part looks at the historical record and fears for the future...
"There will be no war."
There will, however, be a lot of stuff and Iranians blowing up and bullets flying and people dying.
"By the time John F. Kennedy became president, all-out nuclear war seemed imminent."
One of the causes of that apparent imminence was Kennedy's embrace of the falsehood of a "missile gap" in order to win Cold Warrior votes.
"The trigger-happy gunslingers turned out to be wrong - "crackpot realists," as C. Wright Mills dubbed them. "In the name of realism," he wrote in 1956, "they have constructed a paranoid reality all their own." Is it happening again?"
The end of the USSR left a void that the weapons-makers and bankers and Manifest Destinarians needed to fill & of course the contemporary mediatistas eat it up the way their predecessors warned about the Red Peril (and before that the Yellow and before that the Pope of Rome, etc. . . )
Bu$h the inferior is either evil, stupid or more likely both. His serious effort to avoid education in America's finest schools while developing his skill in a avoiding reflection on past errors has led to the most dismal presidency in history.
Anyone who finds themselves President would normally seek a wide range of opinions and try to improve the life of ordinary citizens in an effort to mimic the most respected past leaders. Not Bu$h the inferior: he is the decider.
I really resent his efforts to blame God for making him president. It was an uniformed populace and a significant level of corruption not God.
"Till the pain is so big you feel nothing at all"
The human cost of war alone makes it self-evident that we must renounce war.
Movement for the Renunciation of War.
I renounce war, and I will never support or sanction another war.
Signed: _____________________
Dated: __________
It is astounding to think that over one million people had to die; to discredit the "Bu$h Administration's generic embrace of preventative war"...What? so kill another few million to prove Iran wasn't a threat.
As Justin Ramando at antiwar.com says, "Bushites live in bizarro world". Trouble is all of America will cop the BlowBack...
If the world took a vote on which leader they's perceive as safe closest to the big nuclear trigger, what percentage would identify our dear Bush for this most dangerous of positions? Never duly elected, propped up by a sycophantic press that almost NEVER tells the population what ACTUALLY is going on. There's an apt reason for the very wise adage, "The ENLIGHTENED warrior understands best the benefits of peace." The flight deck mc-do-worthy counterfeit likes to strut about all tough when it's other peoples' precious lives on the line. I wish what IS happening was instead something equivalent to a Greek drama being fictitiously played out on a virtual world stage. Tragically, it is not.
I'll try to remember this as the bombs atart falling in Iran, some possibly sending up mushroom clouds when they hit their targets.