(Frank Anderson worked for the CIA from 1968 until 1995. According to his unclassified biography, he served three tours of duty in the Middle East as an agency station chief, headed the Afghan Task Force (1987-1989), and was chief of the Near East Division. )
5. As it turns out, Iraq under Saddam Hussein did not pose any significant threat to American security. How do you evaluate the case of Iran?
Iraq was not a strategic threat—it was in a box for eleven or twelve years. But Iran is not in a box. Iran is stronger in the region than it's been in a long time—and that should be a concern to everyone.
6. So if Iran poses a real dilemma, what's the best course of action?
There was a Defense Science Board task force in 2001 that looked at homeland defense. The board proposed that we look at terrorism in the same way we look at jurisprudence—that we examine means, motive, and opportunity. Look at Iraq. Iraq was not an enabler, nor was it a chief supporter, of terrorism. The invasion of Iraq did not attack the means of terrorism—but by invading we provided a major motive for terrorism and an enormous opportunity by putting 190,000 soldiers there as targets.
Now look at Iran. It hasn't had any fingerprints on international terrorism since the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996. Their capability of hitting us with a strategic weapon is remote. But any military attack on Iran will provide a motive for terrorism in many parts of the world, yet we'll achieve no significant reduction of means with military action. We gain very little, but there's great potential harm.
I divide the world into copers and fixers. The former say, “There's a mess but we can cope with it.” The fixers say “Let's take a risk and try to fix it.” My attitude is that it's better to cope with Iran.
7 comments:
Yeah, read my comment under this entry. (I had to remove and repost, I made a boo-boo.)
they are indeed psycopaths.
and they scare me.
Making such a distinction is critically important. People returning from the war, people wondering how to vote, people like you and me, ask themselves what in the world are these people doing and thinking. A little well-earned generalization, which is really true, can be a big help. They're fascists. They're despots. They're communists. They're lying, thieving, murdering nut cases. Their actions speak volumes about these irrefutable truths.
It's too damn bad, too. When any administration comes into office, I always hope for the best--that they're good for the world and country and that things go well for them. As for Bush, et al., I knew they'd be astonishingly poor. The depths to which they've sunk surprises even me. But at the start, I didn't realize these people are psychopaths on top of everything else.
i'm not sure that they are communists - how do yuo figure?
I like the word "communists" because it elicits horror from Americans; but, essentially, what do you call one-party control of government with no way to vote it out of power, even with supposedly "free elections?" Add usurpation of state's rights giving way to increasing centralized power, with the chief executive vested with virtually unlimited power, and the "governmentization" of corporations (or "corporatization of government"), and you have something which looks just like communism. And, that's what the GOP's sacred, annointed plan has been lo these last three decades. Most people prefer the term fascism, but darned if it doesn't look like communism too, and a hostile mutation of it as well.
The term I like best is "oppressive despotism," although since the Bush-Cheney-Rove government model gleans elements from history's repressive regimes, perhaps a new term would be appropriate--like "oppressive communofascistdespotism." Hey, that's not bad! Perhaps I'm just being a shrill, reactionary crybaby. You think? Trolls have accused me of it. But that's only because I'm being polite, and not calling them "mother-fucking-murdering-ghoul-dictator-little-tin-god-sorry-ass-anal-cancer-thieving-lying-turd-burgling-pervert-psycho-shitbags" like I'd prefer.
you are right that americans hate 'Communism' - but i can't really see how the pluto/kleptocratic dystopia that these people appear to fancy can be called 'communism'
i think your latter phrase is more appropriate!
It's hard to say what it is exactly, except that it's ugly and people are scared. I'm glad you take such an interest, in that you don't live in the U.S.A. and sure don't have to. I screwed up and stayed up all night, and now I have to shower and go downtown to deal with my old jalopy. I'll get back to reading and writing about the new equal-misfortune Bush system of justice later...
Post a Comment