Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluesman
The article below is long, but it's a fast read, and we had all better read it thoroughly.
William, I'm looking right at you.
|
Bluesman,
Per your admonition, I read the article thouroughly and with a critical eye.
It has a few problems.
First, the construction of the essay does not do anything to support the conclusion.
Secondly, an examination of the end notes is interesting. On the one hand, what is not there speaks more than what is. On the other hand, some of the end notes appear to contradict the author's own conclusion and his use of other people's opinon pieces might not be such a hot idea.
Thirdly, the conclusion was written long before the essay was even conceived of: it is a verbatim rehash of the same drumbeat that has permeated Bush Administration propaganda for many years now.
Fourth, look at the author's C.V: it does explain the slant of his work quite nicely.
Fifth, the forementioned slant in general involves creating a monolith of myriad enemies. This is a well known tactic of political psychiatry among those who use foreign enemies in attempts to gain influence at home and its use makes the author seem more interested in propagating his agenda than educating an American audience to the nature of a highly nuanced enemy.
The fact that this material is being peddled in the first place might be an indicator of a deeper problem amongst the American public with regards to being able to define the enemy.
One thing I found interesting is how the author barely skimmed the surface of Whahibbism given its direct bearing on the current troubles. Fascinating subject...but when you work for the President, you cannot delve too deeply into things that might make people question some of the Boss's policies.
Too, fixating on "Twelver Shi'ism" is not a very accurate or useful position, especially considering the link between Iran and Lebanon. There is much room to manuever; perhaps we should acknowledge it and get down to business.
We should not let sycophants try to lump all of our enemies together when we shold be trying to use their divisions to our advantage.
Anyway, Bluesman, if you want your ship to sail tall, fast and far, I would not use Mr. Whener's work for your masts. Go a little deeper into the forest: check our Giles Kepel's
"Jihad: On the Trail of Political Islam".
Kepel's conclusion is debatable, arguably: he is either dead wrong or remarkably far sighted, depending upon who you ask or how you read the Post 9-11 tea leaves. However, the wealth of research and information is boon for anybody who wishes to learn more about the enemy, how he came to be and how he operates.
Getting back on topic, I think the idea of nuking a few Iranian facilities is not really going to get them very far and most certainly would be detrimental to American interests in the region.
Ultimately, the debate seems to boil down to this:
Do we take the high opportunity costs and questionable chances of success inherint in making war on Iran or do we let things play out a little bit and use the lower costs of some combination of balance, containment and roll back which have proven successful in other instances?
Talk now, bomb later or bomb now, talk later. Either way, we have to have the right kind of talk or the right kind of bombs and the right kinds of targets for them.
How does our score card look on both accounts?
Oh yeah, if ya'll have not read R.W. Chandler's
Tomorrow's War, Today's Decisions: Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction and the Implications of Wmd-Adversaries for Future U.S. Military Strategy, you might want to do so for it highlights the challenges inhereint in what many in Israel and the United States would like to do in Iran.
Regards,
William