Thanks for the tip Laura. I can't wait for the MSM to "discover" how Bush's policies immensely helped Iran while weakening US position. It takes years for them to realize it and report it, but report they will. If only voters spent a little more time thinking about these things (they are paying for all of it) before they voted!

First reaction: No shit...But it's nice that someone has done a reality-based assessment of Iran...

Second reaction: Well, the US put a major crimp into the activities of the Taliban, who were no strong ally of the Iranians, in Afghanistan. Doubleplusgood, the US eliminated an enemy of Iran by removing Saddam Hussein from power.

So, yes; the report seems to state the obvious: Even if Iran is a legitimate threat to US security, there isn't much the dillholes in the White House can do short of nuking Iran and promoting genocide.

Short of that, all that Dubya can provide is election-year bluster...

Thanks, Dubya. Thanks, PNAC. You've really made the world a safer place.

Of course, the neocons will simply spin the consequence of their own failures to engage the region as another sign that Iran is a menace that needs to be taken out or taught a severe lesson.

Heh -- it's almost as if they envisioned their failures from the outset and *planned* it this way.

"No no -- forget Shinseki's recommendation. The *point* is that Iraq goes straight to hell in a handbasket and Iran steps into the vaccuum. This will provide us the pretext to take them out, killing two birds with one stone, as it were ... "

But they'd ever, ever think in such grossly nihilistic Machiavellain terms ... now would they.

Bob

Machiavellain = Machiavellian

Bob

Dubya thinks he's a hammer and everyone else in the world is a nail.

The Bushies talked a great game 2-3 years ago, acknowledging that this was a "war for hearts & minds". Then they went back to shooting & bombing. It's really all they know.

But it reads like the average Iranian, while very nationalistic and supportive of Ahmadinejad, is aware that world opinion holds them as the chief troublemakers in the region, and they understand some of the justification for that.

Overthrow of the Iranian hardliners may still be possible. Underneath the nationalist froth are hearts and minds looking for something better. We need leaders with the skill to offer it to them.

Soft power. When people are very angry, it helps to go away for a while. It would be nice if America wasn't always on Al Jazeera.

Just for the record, Chatham House is a very respected foreign policy think tank here, and this story was widely reported in the UK.

"But it reads like the average Iranian, while very nationalistic and supportive of Ahmadinejad, is aware that world opinion holds them as the chief troublemakers in the region"

Doesn't world opinion hold the US as the chief troublemaker in the region?

Iran *might* be #2, but Israel would certainly be in the running for that spot.

US opinion certainly holds Iran as the chief troublemaker, but opinion in the US is very different from that in the rest of the world.

Laura Rozen wrote: "How the US could enhance its soft power in the region and beyond is the frequent subject of the work of among others, co-blogger Suzanne Nossel, and her Democracy Arsenal colleague Shadi Hamid."

Perhaps "Democracy Arsenal" should be renamed "US Control Of Middle Eastern Oil Arsenal".

The only reason that the US government wants to "enhance its power in the region" -- whether soft power or hard power -- is to have power over the oil that is there.

The USA would be much better off if it redirected all of this costly (and tremendously destructive) effort to reducing our consumption of fossil fuels, particularly oil, and particularly Middle Eastern oil. Then we would have no "need" to impose and support brutal dictatorships, invade countries and murder tens of thousands of innocent people, and otherwise interfere in the region.

The whole shtick of the "clash of civilizations" between so-called "Western democracy" and political Islam is a fraud. What's really going on is a war, conducted on all kinds of levels over the past century and continuing today, by the industrialized "great powers" of the world to control the huge oil reserves of the Middle East. That's really what this is all about. Deal with that reality, all the rest is bollocks.

Iran is not a menace because of the actions of the US. It is a menace because its leaders are a bunch of loonies. It is likely that they can be isolated, cold war style (and having a couple of divisions and air wings in place on their border is a great start). But if they do get nuclear weapons, and decide to use them (on Israel most likely), they will have to be destroyed - something which either we or Israel or quite prepared to accomplish.

Here's my comment at the bottom of Suzanne's first thread:

Shadi Hamid:

Democracy *promotion*? Sure, no problem. *Promoting* democracy is a
matter of soft power: advocacy, encouraging dissidents in undemocratic
countries, education, rebuttal of propaganda, etc. I'm all for that.

Hard power, OTOH, can't jump-start democracy, because democracy
demands certain cultural requisites in order for it to adequately
function. Merely imposing elections or frightening countries into
opting for elections is absolutely no guarantee that you're going to
wind up with a democratic society after the process.

Whack the Islamic world, tell them to go vote -- and they'll vote in
Islamists. Is this an expression of popular sovereignty? Yes. Does it
lead to democratic rights for all? Hardly.

It's a tricky process which demands decades of careful sheparding and
cultivation ...

Bob

Randy:

No Islamist country is going to nuke Israel and mass-murder Muslims in the process.

End of story.

Bob

Bob,

Well that's good news then. So isolating Iran should be no problem.

Tell me something I didn't already know.

Neocons. Do you still support the shit "war on terror" that is making Iran stronger? Was that the point of the "war on terror." To make our enemies stronger. Was invading Iraq and doing "something" still the right thing to do? What can you guys say now I wonder. Lame duck king. Horrible policy and horrible pres. I will never forgive those who voted for Bush.

Randy:

We have no need to isolate Iran. It's not like they're territorial revanchists, like Saddam was.

And we can't isolate their *influence* with hard power -- else it blows back in our faces in any number of ways.

Bob

Philip Stephens also comments on the Chatham House report in today's Financial Times. One point I didn't understand, though, is when he writes:

A nuclear-armed Iran would be bad for everyone, including Tehran. History and geography leave Iran with genuine security concerns. But there is nothing to be gained that could not be better achieved through strong regional security arrangements and integration into the international community - and a lot to be lost.

It's clear why Tehran becoming "nuclear-armed" would be adverse to US interests, but why would it be bad for Tehran? It would allow them to have a defensive weapon against invasion and would balance other nuclear powers in the region. Mr. Stephens' advice seems a bit hypocritical.

Iran is not a menace because of the actions of the US. It is a menace because its leaders are a bunch of loonies.

Compared to what? Compared to Bill Clinton's foreign policy team? I agree. But, compared to the neoclowns that are running US foreign policy now? Hardly.

thump:

A nuclear-armed Tehran would be bad in that it would give the Western powers that much more excuse to sabre-rattle and impose strong sanctions.

Where I think the report's wrong is that we have no clear proof that Iran is actually angling for a nuclear weapon. I think it realizes the above point, and is rattling the West's chain because it's an issue of national sovereignty, and Islamic pride in developing homegrown high technology.

I think Iran has a real possiblity of coming to some kind of nuclear deal acceptible to the West in exchange for genuine security guarantees.

Bob

To the "Iran is a bunch of loonies" brigade:

Bear in mind that whatever crawls off Ahmadinejad's lips -- none of the mullahs on the Guardian Council believe in that create-world-chaos-to-bring-back-the-Hidden-Imam crap. And no policy gets enacted in Iran without their approval. The president of Iran is not the C-i-C of the armed forces.

That's a fringe cult that Khomenei banned after the Islamic Revolution.

Bob

I agree with much of what SecularAnimist has to say.

The best way for the US to improve its soft power is to become like France and loose the imperial ambitions, the hopes of enforcing stability (aka “Spreading Democracy”), and go home. Do Americans really think that if they just have a good PR campaign, rely on international institutions, and embrace the concerns of coalition partners than everyone in the Middle East will love them, buy their democratic liberations, and, sooner or later, love Israel?

I assure you the neocons and the Israelis know this is ridiculous. So if you want stability in the Middle East and you want to keep the oil flowing you must prop up friendly dictatorships in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan, and rollback un-friendly dictatorships in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. Iran is a special place because Islamism is the pan-Muslim nationalism that has come to replace Nasser’s older nationalism and Saddam’s Stalinism. It is a nationalistic bulwark against Anglo-American ambitions as it was against the Soviets. If you break Iran, the story goes, you break the dream of nationalistic independence that could overtake Saudi Arabia, Egypt and even Jordan.

Bob,

I think your reply,

A nuclear-armed Tehran would be bad in that it would give the Western powers that much more excuse to sabre-rattle and impose strong sanctions.

gets to the heart of it. Once Iran has a nuclear weapon, what is there to (credibly) rattle a sabre about? There's really not much to do about it, is there? Applying sanctions as an incentive for them to dismantle weapons doesn't seem to make much sense, does it? By "security ageements," do you mean "the US and Israel agree not to bomb or invade" or do you mean a deal like Saudi Arabia's? I don't see why Iran would trust the former or have need of the latter.

bellumregio:

But that of course conflates the Shia/Sunni rivalry for dominance in the region into a single force, and I don't believe that's quite accurate. Nasser's Pan-Arabism had a unitary ethnic/linguistic component that ultimately transcends a religious bond -- especially when the hardest-core advocates of that bond can't agree with each other across sects on basic issues like apostasy.

Bob

Thump,

Re; Why would possesion of nuclear weapons be bad for Iran? Because their use would result in the destruction of Tehran - and probably much of the rest of the country as well. They launch 1, they get 10 right back. Did you miss the article yesterday on Israel's purchase of ballistic missle submarines?

Did I read this right?

Chatham House is implying that the Bush White House, and The Project for the New American Century boys, didn't know what they hell they were doing when they invaded Iraq?

That they didn't think through the results of their actions?

Unpossible

Randy,

I don't think anyone outside the Bush administration seriously proposes using nuclear weapons as an offensive weapon. Because of nuclear weapons' extreme nature, and the retailiation to which you refer, they'd most likely be used as a last-resort defense of the homeland: "If you take us out, we're taking you out, too."

Iran is not a menace because of the actions of the US. It is a menace because its leaders are a bunch of loonies.

Disagree with the US neo-colonial agenda and you are a dangerous loon who needs to be murdered.

thump:

If Iran could wake up one morning and *poof!* have a nuclear weapon -- then yes, much of the issue is mooted. But by "bad for Tehran" I think what is meant is this whole Kabuki dance of the Western powers attempting to prevent Iran from developing one. I think Iran is playing a double game here, somewhat like Saddam did with WMDs, in that they very much want to reserve the right to develop their nuke technology as they see fit (the sovereignty issue), while giving unprovable assertions that they have no interest in developing nuclear weapons ("nuclear weapons are un-Islamic"). Much of it is an Islamic pride issue that the West has never been good at interpreting accurately -- cf April Glaspie's signal to Saddam that he read as a green light for a Kuwait invasion.

A security guarantee that Iran is no longer the subjected to threats of regime change might well leverage them to buy iuto Russia's proposal to do power plant enrichment for them in Russia.

Bob

Iran is part of the Republican Plan for Endless War.

rmck1 on August 25, 2006 at 2:50 PM:

..we have no clear proof that Iran is actually angling for a nuclear weapon

Easy enough to find out..Offer to sell them the technology for generating nuclear power with the caveat of active IAEA monitoring, enrichment level limitations...Basically tell Iran that they can have nuclear tech for energy production, but that a multinational agency will have full access to all facilities, data, and personnel related to that activity.

If Iran is sincere in its stated desire to pursue nuclear tech for power production, then they should have little problem with the proposal. If the intent is to develop nuclear tech for weapons development, then their bluff has just been called...

"Re; Why would possesion of nuclear weapons be bad for Iran? Because their use would result in the destruction of Tehran"

Possesion is not a synonym for use.

Iran's influence in Iraq has superseded that of the US, and it is increasingly rivalling the US as the main actor at the crossroads between the Middle East and Asia.

Most Iraqis want an independent and unified Iraq. This has been shown in a series of polls by different organizations. Whenever the US forces and Iraqi army engage the Mahdi army they receive help from non-Sadrists in the neighborhoods. That does not "refute" the italicized claims, but it does show that the situation is more complex than a simple "Iran supercedes U.S.".

The main beneficiaries of the war on terror so far are the citizens of Afghanistan and Iraq. In both nations the violence that is widely reported is confined to small geographical sections of the nations. In both nations, the central governments are strongly supported by the citizens, though the enemies of the governments retain considerable destructive power.

Furthermore, there is considerable civil dissension within Iran, even though the government has mastery of the languages and cultures of its people.

That said, the linked report is a worthy addition to the piles of information available.

... and neither is possession.

grapey:

No, I think it's a little more complex than that, and has to do with Islamic pride (again, something we Westerners tend to misread) at developing their own homegrown technology as a way of demonstrating their intellectual parity with the West.

I *do* think they could be nudged to take Russia's offer for offsite nuclear enrichment if that's coupled with a dropping of the regime change rhetoric -- but I'm just going on pure intuition here.

In any case, I do believe it's worth a shot to find out.

Bob

"No Islamist country is going to nuke Israel and mass-murder Muslims in the process."

That's right. Afterall, if they were all killed off in the process, who would the Jihadis use as human shields?

"Neocons. Do you still support the shit "war on terror" that is making Iran stronger? Was that the point of the "war on terror." To make our enemies stronger."

The liberal talking point seems to be: whatever we do, it makes our enemies stronger. If we bloody them, it makes them stronger... if we leave them alone, it makes them stronger... if we defeat their friends, it makes them stronger... if we defeat their foes, it makes them stronger... Maybe if we only try submitting to Islam... maybe it'll make them weaker.

Freedom Fighter:

I'd just *adore* it if they used you sometime.

BLAM !

Allau Akbar, baby :)

Bob

Freedom Fighter:

Strengthening the hands of moderate Muslims will, in the long run, make the appeal of terrorism weaker.

Bob

rmck1 on August 25, 2006 at 3:21 PM:

I think it's a little more complex than that

It always is.

I *do* think they could be nudged to take Russia's offer for offsite nuclear enrichment if that's coupled with a dropping of the regime change rhetoric

Tomato, tomahto. Either way, we find out if Iran wants nuclear tech for energy production or to develop weaponry...It's more than what we have now.

"Strengthening the hands of moderate Muslims will, in the long run, make the appeal of terrorism weaker."

Why would it? Moderate Moslems support terrorism in spirit, just not in action. What Islam needs is a reformation, similar to the one Christianity went through.

"I'd just *adore* it if they used you sometime.

BLAM !

Allau Akbar, baby :)"

I am sure they'd like to as well. But unlike you leftists, I'd never volunteer to be one.

Jefff,

True. But then what's the point of a nation like Iran having them at all? Prestige? Blackmail? In Iran's case, I think obtaining nuclear weapons is a political strategy aimed at capitalizing on popular animosity towards Israel. "See, we can destroy Israel - of this we can be proud". But its a high risk strategy. And I think Iran is slowly becoming aware of just how great the risk is. It is in our interest to increase the speed at which they become aware.

Iran’s knowledge of the region, its fluency in the languages and culture, strong historical ties and administrative skills...

Knowledge? We don't need no stinkin' knowledge! We got Bush's gut instincts!

Freedom Fighter,

Islam IS going through a reformation. That's what this is all about. The islamic world has been confronted with realities with which it hasn't the ability to cope. Remember that the reformation was a bloody time for christianity as well. And that it took a couple of centuries for an age of reason to take hold.

"The liberal talking point seems to be: whatever we do, it makes our enemies stronger. If we bloody them, it makes them stronger... if we leave them alone, it makes them stronger... if we defeat their friends, it makes them stronger... if we defeat their foes, it makes them stronger... Maybe if we only try submitting to Islam... maybe it'll make them weaker."

Wrong... My talking point is king bush's "war on terror" is doing the exact opposite of what needs to be done. I don't know how you interpreted what I said with your above rant. The fact is there is no "terror" to fight. You can't fight "terror." Also, I for one would die before coverting to Islam therefore I take a giant shit on your last sentence. Sniff

"Islam IS going through a reformation. That's what this is all about."

If it is, then it sure is going in the wrong direction.

SecularAnimist: "The USA would be much better off if it redirected all of this costly (and tremendously destructive) effort to reducing our consumption of fossil fuels, particularly oil, and particularly Middle Eastern oil...What's really going on is a war, conducted on all kinds of levels over the past century and continuing today, by the industrialized "great powers" of the world to control the huge oil reserves of the Middle East."

SA has it exactly right. The neo-Con approach is about controlling oil and we have already lost that battle. In fact, as this report finds, our current policies are actually hurting the US and helping our enemies. How stupid can we be?

Two other things to keep in mind as we think about the future: first, peak oil is going to play havoc with the US & world economy. And there sits Iran, on top of one of the world's major reserves of oil. Let's face it: The influence and wealth of Iran is just going to increase.

Secondly, as the world enters the dismal era of oil depletion, every single nation in the world is going to try to develop nuclear energy. A nuclear power plant isn't a nuclear weapon, but consider how we feel about having nuclear power plants to generate electricity in Iran now? So how do we feel about having nuclear power plants everywhere else in the world?

The US can do two things right now to win friends and ensure the longeveity of our society:
1) invest in finding alternate, non-nuclear energy sources
2) simultaneously nurture the emerging Iranian generation who doesn't want to be quite so theocratic.

As my mother always told us, you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Paraphrasing for those with literal minds, you create more allies with resources and respect than with bombs.

"Also, I for one would die before coverting to Islam therefore I take a giant shit on your last sentence. Sniff"

Well yeah talk is cheap. When push comes to shove, the wingnuts sign up with the US armed services, while those in the reality based community sign up to serve as Saddam or other Islamic terror network's human shields.

Freedom Fighter,

Its going in all directions. That's what happens when people lose their faith.

The good news is that the human mind is designed for pragmatism - at least, once it gets past the fight or flight thing.

Moderate Moslems support terrorism in spirit, just not in action.
This is just such pure utter bull that I have to call it out. Moderate Moslems are just like you and me. They want a better life for their kids. They want to send their kids overseas for their graduate education if they can (especially Iranians). They don't want war. They want to live in a safer world. And they sure don't see the US, under the neoclowns, as helping them achieve a better life. What are they going to do? Cheer us on as we threaten to bomb or invade? The neoclowns consistently play into the hands of Moslem extremists. They point to the bellicose idiocies coming out of Washington and say, "see? You better not look to the US to improve your lives."

Freedom Fighter on August 25, 2006 at 4:03 PM:

Well yeah talk is cheap.

Well yeah, you should know that, Freedom Fries...

When push comes to shove, the wingnuts sign up with the US armed services.

Coutler quit plagarizing for her next work of fiction and signed up? Why haven't I heard about this yet? Man, talk about putting your money where your mouth is...You plan on following her example, Fries?

while those in the reality based community sign up to serve as Saddam or other Islamic terror network's human shields.

Cite? Oh, nevermind...You're just making shit up again, so there won't be any citation...

Pfft. Like SecularAnimist and PT said above, we're presently involved in a resource war, maybe THE Resource War of this century. I'm sure the Administration knows but won't publicly admit that known reserves of Middle East fossil fuels have peaked which is why we are where we are now, battling over who has hegemonic control over the last drops of oil.

Freedom fighter: "What Islam needs is a reformation, similar to the one Christianity went through."

What are you talking about? Really, do dream on. Sure, it would be fantastic if the different branches of Islam turned on themselves, and--after killing millions of people in religious wars throughout the ME--ended up with a dominant form of Islam that was compatible with modernity and simpatico with US.

Is that likely to occur?? How about if we bomb them some more and attack their religious beliefs?

PTate wrote: "The neo-Con approach is about controlling oil and we have already lost that battle."

Yep, lost it big time. Read this article from today's Asia Times:

Russia Spins Global Energy Spider's Web
By W. Joseph Stroupe
Asia Times
Friday 25 August 2006

Johnny Tremaine wrote: "... we're presently involved in a resource war, maybe THE Resource War of this century. I'm sure the Administration knows but won't publicly admit that known reserves of Middle East fossil fuels have peaked which is why we are where we are now, battling over who has hegemonic control over the last drops of oil."

That's exactly right, but the coming wars over water will be even worse.

Freedom Fighter wrote: "What Islam needs is a reformation, similar to the one Christianity went through."

PTate to Freedom Fighter: "What are you talking about?"

Freedom Fighter knows nothing about Islam and the idea that he knows "what Islam needs" -- i.e. what hundreds of millions of Muslims in different countries and different cultures all over the Earth "need" -- is absurdly pretentious.

Freedom Fighter is just robotically regurgitating scripted, programmed right-wing extremist Republican talking points, which is all that neo-brownshirt Bush-bootlicking mental slaves like him ever do, because it's all they are capable of doing. That's his idea of "fighting for freedom" -- reciting the brain-dead propaganda that he gets from Rush Limbaugh and Fox News.

Iran has also lost is position as the cultural head of Shism, having passed that on to the Shia in Iraq.

Iran has obtained a near unanimous opposition from the Arab regimes, minus Iraq, all of whom fear a shiite arc of influence more than they fear Israel.

Iran's major ally, Bashar Asshode of Syria has been substantially wakened.

And Iraq still retains enormous influence among Middle Eastern nations by virtue of its position, the stability of the Kurdish and Shia regions, as well as the hold that Iraq has on the minority Arab Sunni.

It is not clear to me that Iran has gained much with two democracies on either side, both of whom host American troops. America is still the protector of last resort for gulf Arabs. And, it looks like Hezbollah has been weakened more than we realize if even Vichy France sending troops to South Lebanon.

I get a kick out of posts with simultaneous ad hominem attacks and claims of intellectual superiority.

"They want to live in a safer world."

Yeah a safer world under Sharia law.

a short survey of false predictions about the invasion of Iraq.

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/03/three-years-of-dragging-democrats.html

In detail, everybody was wrong who tried to predict exact numbers: casualties, duration, voter turnout, etc. On the whole, anti-war pessimists were more wrong than pro-war optimists.

One group of people who have definitely not benefitted from the war on terror are the citizens of Iraq. On the whole they have fewer freedoms and job opportunities, and less wealth, than before the WTC bombing. Even as the price of their exported oil has increased, they have larger debts buying fuel in the international market than before.

"Is that likely to occur?? How about if we bomb them some more and attack their religious beliefs?"

Isn't that what followers of the Religion of Peace do to infidels on a regular basis these days?

"Its going in all directions. That's what happens when people lose their faith."

They don't seem to be losing their faith. Seems the current generation of Moslems are much more radical than the previous ones.

"Cite? Oh, nevermind...You're just making shit up again, so there won't be any citation..."

How about this? And this?

freedom fighter: What Islam needs is a reformation, similar to the one Christianity went through.

That might be something that the rest of the world needs from Islam. Outside the U.S. there doesn't seem to be much of a push in that direction among Moslems. If there is a trend, it seems slighlty more in the opposite direction, i.e. a counter-reformation. Obviously, no simple statement summarizes all 1.3 billion Moslems.

Also, the Reformation in Europe did not do that much good for the Jews or for the conquered peoples of the European Empires.

A few steps toward honoring the UN Declaration on Human Rights would be more helpful.

republicrat: One group of people who have definitely not benefitted from the war on terror are the citizens of Iraq.

that must be a Freudian slip, motivated by unconscious knowledge and desires. I meant: One group of people who have definitely not benefitted from the war on terror are the citizens of Iran.

Freedom Fighter,

What I see is that most muslims are becoming rapidly westernized. In Riyahd, people cruise the loop and hit the mall on Friday night, and the camels are for racing. Dubai brings Vegas to mind. The radicals are those who have turned to violence in opposition to the trend. They are more visible (at least in the western media), but they're hardly a majority. The majority are drawn to prosperity, as we all are. And that is why we will win. But the radicals must be confronted. It doesn't take many violent men to cower a population. They know this. But what they don't know is that we too know this - and that we won't let them succeed.

"Jefff,

True. But then what's the point of a nation like Iran having them at all?"

Self defense and deterrance.

Nuclear weapons are very cheap compared to conventional military forces for thier effectiveness. Having even a few nuclear weapons makes a nation virtually immune to conventional military invasion. It also makes it very unlikely to experience large scale bombing because of the potential of massive retaliation (MAD).

Observe that 8 nations almost certainly have nuclear weapons (Israel has not tested one, so gets an almost certainly) and only one nation ever used them and that was 60 years ago when nobody else had them at the very tail end of a war it was decicively winning.

If lebanon had had even one nuclear armed missile Israel would never have bombed it so broadly. If Iraq had had even one nuclear landmine the US would never have invaded it.

All the risk for a country like Iran is during the period while they are trying to develop the weapons, but have not yet done so. Once they have them thier strategic situation is qualitatively improved.

Bob wrote:

"Democracy *promotion*? Sure, no problem. *Promoting* democracy is a matter of soft power: advocacy, encouraging dissidents in undemocratic
countries, education, rebuttal of propaganda, etc. I'm all for that.
_____________

Well, who isn't, Bob? Even neocons advocate the use of soft power, when it is suitable or appropriate. But in many minds the Left's use of the term "soft power" is synonymous with "do nothing."

How is soft power to be implemented? And by whom? Education? If we were to finally withdraw from the Middle East, would American academics spontaneously sponsor Arab democracy seminars? Or would they just advocate that we make further admissions of guilt and further accomodation?

Will intellectual elites ever applaud the latest US government attempts to influence moderates in Syria and Iran or will they continue to condemn the US government for being interventionist? Isn't providing money or other support the fastest way to discredit the opposition in Arab countries?

Rebuttal of propaganda? Where and through what means? Radio Free Middle East? Editorials in the WSJ? Guest lecturers at the University of Cairo? Such efforts will simply be contradicted by a large segment of the Left, including many posters on this forum.

Advocacy of soft power is a very safe option, since it is impossible for the US to fully retire from the Middle East anytime soon, if ever. It says, in effect, don't do anything for which we can be blamed. Except, many folks will blame us, anyway. They don't want peace, they want us confounded and humbled - until, of course, someone they really fear shows up - then they'll clamor for us to jump into the fire for their favorite cause.

"They want to live in a safer world."

Yeah a safer world under Sharia law.

I'm talking about is moderate Moslems, ff. They want no part of Sharia. I lived in a Moslem country for years, and they are more scared of the extremists than YOU are. That's what the neocons don't get. Iraq was full of people who hated Saddam Hussein. Now it's full of people who hate US! Iran is full of people who hate the Mullahs. If we attack Iran, those moderate Moslems will hate us! This is simple. This is straightforward. This is the way it works! Get it?

Freedom Fighter: "Isn't that what followers of the Religion of Peace do to infidels on a regular basis these days"

First, a clarification:
Let Group A equal the Followers of the Religion of Peace who are NOT bombing infidels and attacking their religion. They number ~1,000,000,000.

Let Group B equal the Followers of the Religion of Peace who bomb infidels and attack their religion. I am guessing their number at what--5,000? 50,000? 5,000,000?

So turning to your comment about group B. Yes, Group B has been boming infidels and attacking their religion. And you know how successful that strategy has been in winning the hearts and minds of Jews, Christians and Hindus in the various nations they have terrorized. How could this tiny group be victorious in the end?

Try to reverse places. Imagine you are a member of Group A. Would US or Israeli bombing raids make you more or less likely to cooperate with Group B?

ExBrit, no, that's not necessarily the way it works. Not all the time, not even usually.

Oh, it is the way our enemies will always and forever claim it works.

There is nothing inevitable about how anything works, except physical laws. Certainly nothing dealing with people.

Will intellectual elites ever applaud the latest US government attempts to influence moderates in Syria and Iran or will they continue to condemn the US government for being interventionist?

What are the latest US government attempts to influence moderates in Syria and Iran? All I've heard is threats coming from this administration. The left won't applaud that because IT DOESN'T WORK!!
What works? Invading? Bombing? Yeah, that really influences the moderates. Is it so difficult to understand that moderates don't support extremists? And when we respond by invading or bombing them the extremists win. The Bush administration has handed them more success than they could ever dream of.

One thing I never have seen discussed by those that prattle on about The Clash of Civilizations is a point brought up in the book of that name ("The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order") about the possibility of the Taoist portion of humanity (very ancient & experienced) taking advantage of the tension between the Christian portion (middle aged exhaustion) & the Islamic portion (young & energetic) and playing those two younger factions off against each other to (re)gain dominant global power.

Looking at the current global situation from a strategic perspective, it appears that such a gambit might just be worth looking into; Shanghai Cooperation Organization anyone ?

I think it is time to look beyound the end of our own noses and adjust our biases to a very low setting

we can see clearer if we choose to do so...

"If you don't deal with reality, reality will deal with you" - C.J. Campbell

Trashhauler wrote: "Will intellectual elites ever applaud the latest US government attempts to influence moderates in Syria and Iran or will they continue to condemn the US government for being interventionist?"

I am not an "intellectual elite", whatever you mean by that (anyone smarter than Bush?), but I do "condemn" all actions by the US government to intervene in the Middle East in order to secure control of Middle Eastern oil, which is the only reason that the US has ever intervened in the Middle East and the only reason why it continues to do so.

Trashhauler wrote: "... it is impossible for the US to fully retire from the Middle East anytime soon, if ever."

Oh, and why would that be? Maybe because of our total economic dependence on the continued flow of abundant cheap oil to power our grotesquely greedy, shockingly wasteful, ecologically destructive, fat-assed, SUV-lovin' lifestyle?

Trashhauler dude

You have been dropping that trash you are supposed to be hauling all over this place

Please pick it up and take it where you were supposed to take it when you picked it up

This ain`t a dump in case you haven`t figured that out yet

"War is the easy part" - Anthony Zinni - General U.S.M.C. (retired)

http://www.bp.com/home.do?categoryId=1

Obviously that is promotional. Nevertheless, BP, Shell, Amoco, and Exxon/Mobil are investing in alternative enrgy generation. As it gets harder to make money in oil, and easier to make money in alternatives, their investments in alternatives will grow faster than their investments in oil.

With most of the remaining reserves of oil in the hands of enemies of the US, there is no real free market in oil. Even if there were, buying oil has turned into a proposition of arming our enemies. So this is a really good time for the U.S. government to renew its commitment to developing U.S. energy supplies that do not necessitate the importation of oil.

I do not emphasize conservation on this thread because I think that high prices will force conservation over the long term (and not that long a term.)

ExBrit wrote:

"(Quoting me) 'Will intellectual elites ever applaud the latest US government attempts to influence moderates in Syria and Iran or will they continue to condemn the US government for being interventionist?'

What are the latest US government attempts to influence moderates in Syria and Iran?"

I meant that hypothetically, ExBrit. Should the day come when the only US efforts in the Middle East are of "soft power," most on the Left will not cease criticizing us. They will simply shift their criticism to whatever it is we are doing, no matter how little.

secular animist wrote:

"I am not an "intellectual elite", whatever you mean by that (anyone smarter than Bush?), but I do "condemn" all actions by the US government to intervene in the Middle East in order to secure control of Middle Eastern oil, which is the only reason that the US has ever intervened in the Middle East and the only reason why it continues to do so."
_________________

Of course you do condemn it, SA. My point is that you would continue to condemn our efforts there even if they were confined to "soft power." You have a particular, consistent vision of what you want for America - humbler, less powerful, less rich, less everything. It just doesn't happen to correspond with what most Americans want.

You also wrote (about my statement that we cannot leave the ME soon):

"Oh, and why would that be? Maybe because of our total economic dependence on the continued flow of abundant cheap oil to power our grotesquely greedy, shockingly wasteful, ecologically destructive, fat-assed, SUV-lovin' lifestyle?"
_______________

Partially that, certainly. The changes you wish to see in how we live will take years to achieve, even if done through government coercion. Then too, our support for Israel is not going to disappear over night. Nor will our other agreements, pacts, and accomodations in the region. Even if we pulled out of Iraq in a month (a physical impossibility), those other attachments would still exist.

daCascadian wrote:

"Trashhauler dude

You have been dropping that trash you are supposed to be hauling all over this place

Please pick it up and take it where you were supposed to take it when you picked it up

This ain`t a dump in case you haven`t figured that out yet"

I'm sorry you feel that way, daCascadian. I'm a great believer in the dialectical process. The give and take of ideas is how we shed light on our problems. If you have a specific issue with something I've written, I'll gladly listen. I would be the last one here to claim to have all the answers. About many things, all I have are questions.

Trashhauler wrote: "You have a particular, consistent vision of what you want for America - humbler, less powerful, less rich, less everything."

No, that's your one-dimensional cartoon comic book stereotype of what you think all one-dimensional cartoon comic book stereotype "leftists" want for America.

Trashhauler wrote: "It just doesn't happen to correspond with what most Americans want."

You don't know "what most Americans want." All you know is what Rush Limbaugh and Fox News tell you "most Americans want", and they lie to you every day to keep you ignorant and stupid.

Trashhauler wrote: "The give and take of ideas is how we shed light on our problems."

Regurgitating corporate-sponsored, scripted, programmed, one-dimensional cartoon comic book stereotypes about what you imagine stereotypical leftists want, and baseless fatuous pronouncements about "what most Americans want" is not "ideas". It's mental slavery.

secular animist: you didnt respons to this on the other thread, so I thought that I would repeat it here and ask what you think: On another topic: the PIRG 6 point plan to reduce CO2 emissions is a good complement to the 17 well-known technologies for sequestering CO2; and a complement to the plans for recycling CO2 in biofuels.

what do you think?

The US could be self-sufficient in fuel in a few years (under 25 for sure, and under 10 probably) with a dedicated effort. Unfortunately, that would drive dwon the price of oil and look like a mistake. It would be cheaper than trying to promote democracy and stability in the middle east, cheaper than replacing our carrier fleets in the upcoming decades, and all of the money would be spent in the U.S.

republicrat, check this out:

Winning The Oil Endgame:

This independent, peer-reviewed synthesis for American business and military leaders charts a roadmap for getting the United States completely, attractively, and profitably off oil.

Our strategy integrates four technological ways to displace oil: using oil twice as efficiently, then substituting biofuels, saved natural gas, and, optionally, hydrogen. Fully applying today's best efficiency technologies in a doubled-GDP 2025 economy would save half the projected U.S. oil use at half its forecast cost per barrel. Non-oil substitutes for the remaining consumption would also cost less than oil. These comparisons conservatively assign zero value to avoiding oil's many "externalized" costs, including the costs incurred by military insecurity, rivalry with developing countries, pollution, and depletion. The vehicle improvements and other savings required needn't be as fast as those achieved after the 1979 oil shock.

The route we suggest for the transition beyond oil will expand customer choice and wealth, and will be led by business for profit. We propose novel public policies to accelerate this transition that are market-oriented without taxes and innovation-driven without mandates.

A $180-billion investment over the next decade will yield $130-billion annual savings by 2025; revitalize the automotive, truck, aviation, and hydrocarbon industries; create a million jobs in both industrial and rural areas; rebalance trade; make the United States more secure, prosperous, equitable, and environmentally healthy; encourage other countries to get off oil too; and make the world more developed, fair, and peaceful.

I am not familiar with any "17 well-known technologies for sequestering CO2", their efficacy, their cost, or whether they even actually exist, so I have no comment on that. In my view it seems likely to be faster and cheaper to simply reduce the burning of fossil fuels rather than mitigating their impact on the Earth's climate by attempting to sequester their CO2 emissions.

And although I think that global warming caused by CO2 emissions is the most important concern about fossil fuels, in the context of this thread the concern is the effect on US foreign policy of our dependence on Middle Eastern oil imports, and sequestering CO2 emissions from burning that oil won't reduce our reliance on it and the resulting "need" of the US military-industrial-petroleum complex to support dictatorships and wage wars in the Middle East to ensure control of the oil.

SA, I read that article on winning the oil endgame a few months ago. I definitely agree with that last paragraph.

I am not familiar with any "17 well-known technologies for sequestering CO2" the source is the journal Science, and I have already posted the link here three time. Your only excuse for not knowing is that you don't want to learn.

I'd never volunteer to be one.Freedom Fighter at 3:43 PM

What are the latest US government attempts to influence moderates in Syria and Iran?" Trashhauler at 6:44 PM

My point is that you would continue to condemn our efforts there even if they were confined to "soft power." You have a particular, consistent vision of what you want for America - humbler, less powerful, less rich, less everything. It just doesn't happen to correspond with what most Americans want.

Trashhauler,

What an absurd presumption of knowledge about "liberals".

Here's a tip: Your preconceived ideas are not knowledge, they're not accurate, and they say much that is unflattering about your understanding of the world.

Trashhauler >"I'm sorry you feel that way, daCascadian. I'm a great believer..."

Ah yes, the "emapthy thing"; don`t bother, just pick up your trash & move on

Be sure & let Karl know the peasants are a little smarther than you are able to deal with

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

Shelf that thought until 2009. Bush only does military and military threat. Bush does not do diplomacy. DUH

secularanimist wrote:

"(Quoting me) 'You have a particular, consistent vision of what you want for America - humbler, less powerful, less rich, less everything.'

No, that's your one-dimensional cartoon comic book stereotype of what you think all one-dimensional cartoon comic book stereotype "leftists" want for America."
_________________

Well, not quite, SA. I don't believe that about most leftists. I just believe it about you. Perhaps I was led slightly astray by your reference to "our grotesquely greedy, shockingly wasteful, ecologically destructive, fat-assed, SUV-lovin' lifestyle."

If you do not want the US to be more humble, less powerful, less rich, than please pardon my mistake.

SA also wrote:

"Regurgitating corporate-sponsored, scripted, programmed, one-dimensional cartoon comic book stereotypes about what you imagine stereotypical leftists want, and baseless fatuous pronouncements about "what most Americans want" is not "ideas". It's mental slavery."
__________________

I cannot see how you can claim my posts are scripted. If this is you way of saying you don't want to answer my posts or questions, that is, of course, your privilege. One demurral though, I haven't made any pronouncements about "what most Americans want." I just said they don't want what I thought you want for America. Perhaps I should have said that was my impression of what you want. I'm often wrong about things like that.

obscure wrote:

"(Quoting me) 'My point is that you would continue to condemn our efforts there even if they were confined to "soft power." You have a particular, consistent vision of what you want for America - humbler, less powerful, less rich, less everything. It just doesn't happen to correspond with what most Americans want.'

What an absurd presumption of knowledge about "liberals".

Here's a tip: Your preconceived ideas are not knowledge, they're not accurate, and they say much that is unflattering about your understanding of the world.
_____________

I agree it would have been an absurd presumption of knowledge about liberals. If I had made it, which I did not. I was giving my impressionn of secularanimist, based on what he has written in the past. Liberals are no more monolithic in their thinking than are conservatives. At least, that is my understanding of the world, flattering or no.

daCascadian wrote:

"Trashhauler >'I'm sorry you feel that way, daCascadian. I'm a great believer...'

Ah yes, the "emapthy [sic] thing"; don`t bother, just pick up your trash & move on[.]

Be sure & let Karl know the peasants are a little smarther [sic] than you are able to deal with[.]"
_______________

I wasn't attempting to use empathy as some sort of ploy, daCascadian. You are misusing the word. Frankly, I cannot have much empathy for anyone who, instead of dealing forthrightly with another's questions and comments, tries to muscle and bluster them off the board.

That's not being smarter, that's simply being rude.

I began by asking several questions about the application of "soft power." Instead of thoughtful responses and comments, I got triple-teamed by folks looking to trade insults. However, I get no satisfaction out of insulting anonymous posters and I won't begin now.

Trashhauler: But in many minds the Left's use of the term "soft power" is synonymous with "do nothing." ... Will intellectual elites ever applaud the latest US government attempts to influence moderates...

Then the criticism should properly be directed at those "minds" who think force is a substitute, or who are impatient with the pace of soft power. And the efforts will not be applauded as long as that influence--as well intentioned as it may be--is at best subservient to, and at worst a facade, for remaking the world in our image. Who's in la-la land here?

You ask for a simple solution to a complex problem, and appear to complain--or direct ire at the "left"--when the solution isn't simple, or does not fit with some preconceived notion of an acceptable rate of improvement (however you wish to define "improvement").

"Advocacy of soft power" is not a "safe" option. It takes a long term commitment, and a willingness to adapt. It brings no guarantees, and requires the presence of mind and humility to recognize that there are some things that must be endured. It requires recognizing that the alternatives--as much as they may salve the soul of the righteous in the short term--is counter-productive.

Before denigrating soft power and those who promote it, you need to make a credible argument that hard power--which seems to be the only alternative you propose--is preferable. As yet you have not.

has407 wrote:

"Before denigrating soft power and those who promote it, you need to make a credible argument that hard power--which seems to be the only alternative you propose--is preferable. As yet you have not."
_______________

has407, the intent of my questions about the implementation of soft power was not intended to denigrate it. Nor was it meant as an argument for hard power. If I had meant to make either argument, I would have.

My purpose in asking those orginal questions was to get at below the surface exhortations and discuss if it is even possible to exercise soft power effectively. I am under no illusion that it would be easy to do. My meaning in calling it the safe option was that it is easy to call for soft power, especially when the hard power options appear more difficult each day. It is less easy to consider the limitations of soft power and to contemplate the possibility of things deteriorating even further if we rely on soft power entirely.

You wrote, "Then the criticism should properly be directed at those "minds" who think force is a substitute, or who are impatient with the pace of soft power." By that, I take it that you think the Left really would stay serious about exercising soft power, if only we could extricate ourselves from our current military campaign in Iraq. But unless one could be sure that there would be a concerted effort to make soft power actually bear fruit, I'd argue that one can be forgiven having doubts about it. Asked straight up, what guarantees are there that any government, having safely extricated us from Iraq, would thereafter do very much of anything to spread democracy in the Middle East? And, having asked that, isn't it logical to discuss how the mechanisms of soft power would be implemented? How does one "encourage dissidents" and what sort of "education" should we seek and for whom? It was questions like those I had in mind, not attacking the concept of soft power, per se.

Trashhauler -- I think the appropriate question is whether the country would support such an approach; it cannot be dependent on the left. I believe the country would. Historically the primary influence the US has exercised has been soft power. The "beacon on the hill", rather than the "fortress on the hill".

Holbrooke is a guy with a ton of credibility. When he says that diplomacy has to be backed up by a credible threat of force, he obviously means it: he recommended military action twice in the Balkans during the 90s. At the same time, when he says it should be a last resort, he obviously means that too: he devoted uncounted thousands of hours to serious, toughminded diplomacy during the same period. Some of it worked and some of it didn't, but his dedication to the cause is hardly questionable.And despite his continued unwillingness to flatly face the reality that we can't afford to stay in Iraq any longer, he had by far the better of the argument when the subject turned to Iran. Diplomacy is not, he reminded Kristol, in and of