Why The Neutralist? The term Isolationist implies a narrow Fortress America outlook and is used as an epithet. The term Neutralist does not indicate someone hiding out from the world. No one calls the Swiss isolationists. The Wilsonian world view is old, tired and wrong. Our interventions have been less and less successful and now the failure can no longer be covered up.

Friday, January 11, 2008

Plus ça change and how stupid can we get?

If the American people can be sold the Iranian Speedboat incident as a Casus belli, then I do tremble for my country. Justin Raimondo at Antiwar.com has both our video and their's and some anaysis of the audio.

Who does the neutralist believe? The question is beyond ridiculous, as if deciding between the two had any meaning.

If the little Persian Putt Putts were really threatening, well they could be blown out of the water with ease. If such tiny boats are a threat to our navy, I want a refund on all the taxes that have been paid for all the Pinafores and the contractors hung for fraud in selling such junk.

If we are ever to attack Iran, the nation must be propagandized into it. Must the shilling be so shoddy.

3 comments:

TheMasterTimekeeper said...

Here I am conflicted. On one hand, I do not care to see a repeat of the U.S.S. Cole attack; on the other, the person with the most to gain from provoking a conflict with the Great Satan is Ahmadinejad and his lot. An altercation which he can walk away from as the victim (at least in the eyes of the Iranian public) is in his interest. This is one of the stronger reasons I have for opposing preemptive action against Iran, as I believe the only true hope for that ill-fated country is another popular revolution.

Meanwhile the Navy, with the memory of the Cole never far away, have to walk a careful line between a similar incident on one hand, and being provoked into firing first and giving Ahmadinejad exactly what he wants on the other.

I have no interest in a protracted war with Iran, for the same laundry list of reasons as anyone else, nor do I wish to hand Ahmadinejad what he wants on a platter. I am also hesitant to shackle the Navy to ROE that allow a repeat of the Cole.

By the way, I have yet to see anyone in the DoD try to spin the speedboat incident as anything other than harassment and provocation. The Gulf of Tonkin this ain’t. But it is equally ignorant to say that the convoy commander had nothing to be alarmed about.

Joseph Moroco said...

Master tk,

You might want to look at the recent Stratfor take on the incident. http://blogs.stratfor.com/friedman/2008/01/14/the-strait-of-hormuz-incident-and-us-strategy/

Other places have some thoughts on it being contrived. Greenwald may be a lefty, but he is usually reliable. http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/01/10/iran/index.html

TheMasterTimekeeper said...

Thanks for the Stratfor link, I've been neglecting them recently and missed it. In my opinion George is discounting the possibility of provocation, which (in my opinion) is what this was about, but apart from that the geopolitical analysis was insightful.
It does beg the question of just how much coercion the Arab states really need to line up against Iran, though; my experience points to an answer somewhere between "damn little" and "none at all." Ir's as though Arabs and Persians make a hobby out of mutual belligerence.