This is good, from Peter Beinart.
This is malpractice. It’s malpractice because whether the Trump administration has given “serious thought” to “what comes next,” and whether its post–Iran deal strategy “can be successfully implemented” are questions Stephens, Dubowitz, and Gerecht have an obligation to factor into their analysis of whether Trump should withdraw at all. You can’t cordon off the practical consequences of leaving the deal from the theoretical virtue of doing so. In theory, I’d like my 10-year-old to cook our family a four-course meal. But unless I have good reason to believe she’s “capable of pulling this off,” it’s irresponsible for me to scrap our current dinner plans.
The point he made the other day – namely, if it’s the same damn people who lied last time, and they seem to be telling you the same damn thing, maybe it’s a lie – is also inductively reasonable. And draws down some doubt on the alleged theoretical virtue.
But the first point seems to me important, going forward. There are a lot of Joker-by-proxy Hawks out there. Some men wouldn’t dream of burning the world down. But they seem happy to watch someone else do it, so long as they don’t get the blame. That sort of thing should be called out.
{ 14 comments }
alfredlordbleep 05.13.18 at 4:57 pm
Put aside the question of whether even the most technically competent and intellectually honest U.S. administration could have made a success of the Iraq War. (I strongly doubt it.) Key deficiencies that would prevent the Bush administration from competently occupying Iraq were clear before the war began. Just as key deficiencies that will prevent the Trump administration from crafting an effective strategy to replace the Iran deal are clear today.—Beinart
One of the great themes for Bush-Cheney (in “transforming” the Middle East) was to cancel or mitigate the well known Vietnam syndrome. A contributor in that tragedy was the purge of South East Asia experts in the State Department. (As a parallel Cheney did his damnest to get the desired intel reporting on weapons of mass destruction)
Invading Iraq and contemplating giving the Shia majority rule in the peace that passeth understanding (for neocons at least) meant ignoring 600 years of Sunni dominance. It also meant learning nothing from the terror of Reconstruction after Union troops withdrew from the Confederate states.
Indeed, the present is building on the past, especially Bush-Cheney’s.
Lee A. Arnold 05.13.18 at 5:15 pm
The writers Beinart mentions look inept at military and geopolitical thinking. Trump’s violation of the Iran deal hastens the convenience of a loose Russia-Iran-China alliance. I vaguely recall that Russia was among the first to warn Obama they wanted to end the old sanctions, thus helping to compel the JCPOA to begin with. China was already building a railroad to Iran perhaps as part of their Belt & Road trade empire and they can only look at Trump’s mistake with great hilarity and relish. Trump is isolating the US from its major allies except Israel and his only way to look like a Big Man may be a bombing campaign against Iran. Pentagon war-game scenarios have shown that this will be unwinnable. EU especially Germany and France may emerge as worldwide arbiters between Russia-Iran-China and the knuckleheaded Trumpers & Brexiters. On the economic front, this will accelerate a manifold of global trade problems as US diminishes in influence.
alfredlordbleep 05.13.18 at 5:28 pm
Looking into Putin’s soul (per Lil’ Bush) updated
(as a postscript to my comment, this is irresistible):
WH Nat’l Security Adviser John Bolton tells @MarthaRaddatz having a meeting between Pres. Trump and Kim Jong Un “without months, and months, and months” of preparation is advantageous: “President Trump will be able to size Kim Jong Un up, and see whether the commitment is real.”
Bolton, the tough-minded (mouther of nonsense).
Mark Brady 05.13.18 at 7:57 pm
“Some men wouldn’t dream of burning the world down. But they seem happy to watch someone else do it, so long as they don’t get the blame. That sort of thing should be called out.”
And, I dare say, some women.
LFC 05.13.18 at 9:55 pm
I think this piece is pretty good, especially on Netanyahu’s motives/aims and some other matters:
https://jacobinmag.com/2018/05/trump-iran-nuclear-deal-sanctions
Omega Centauri 05.14.18 at 2:49 am
Lee @2.
He has a couple more allies, The Saudis, and the Gulf States also seem to want to take Iran down several notches, and have been urging on the deal breakers. This is partly just regional power games, but also partly driven by the desire stifle of oil exports.
The tricky part is Europe, since the US seems to be seriously into punishing foreign companies that trade with our designated enemies. For instance Airbus stands to lose a lot of business with Iran, but could also lose a lot with the USA if Trump turns this into a full blown trade war.
I forecast a lot of noses will be cut-off for the momentary satisfaction of face spiting.
Peter T 05.14.18 at 7:36 am
This is one of those “naivety of power” moments. The EU may well shy away from direct confrontation (as in, set up arrangements that preserve trade in defiance of sanctions), but it will strengthen the case for less integration with US supply chains. There’s nothing stopping EU and European governments moving away from Microsoft and Google, Airbus from sourcing components in the EU and so on. China will, of course, be more robust. Russia has nothing to lose (and a lot to gain). A decade or so of quiet drift, and the US is another notch lower.
casmilus 05.14.18 at 8:05 am
See also the entire Brexit “debate” in the UK, full of characters who never thought about the practical consequences of their ideas, and even now are trying to pass them off as someone else’s problem. Irish border, inspections at ports, etc.
GrueBleen 05.16.18 at 4:46 am
Mark Brady @4
Interesting point. I thought about it for a moment or two and reckon I could name a lot of men, over history, to whom that applies.
Couldn’t name a single woman though. Can you ?
Fergus 05.16.18 at 9:07 am
Goes back to Dan’s old thing from Iraq, doesn’t it…
“The raspberry road that led to Abu Ghraib was paved with bland assumptions that people who had repeatedly proved their untrustworthiness, could be trusted. There is much made by people who long for the days of their fourth form debating society about the fallacy of “argumentum ad hominem”. There is, as I have mentioned in the past, no fancy Latin term for the fallacy of “giving known liars the benefit of the doubt”, but it is in my view a much greater source of avoidable error in the world.”
http://blog.danieldavies.com/2004_05_23_d-squareddigest_archive.html
Guano 05.16.18 at 5:18 pm
“See also the entire Brexit “debate†in the UK, full of characters who never thought about the practical consequences of their ideas, and even now are trying to pass them off as someone else’s problem. Irish border, inspections at ports, etc.”
Indeed. Plus the invasion of Iraq, facilitating the collapse of the Libyan regime, sending arms to the Syrian opposition and a host of other wheezes. Not only did most of the media not question the assumptions on which they were based, they failed to question them adequately when they went wrong. And many commentators in the UK would like it to be easier to go to war, without discussion at the UN or in parliament.
maidhc 05.17.18 at 7:21 am
In the long run, history is determined by geography.
I’m not sure if someone else said this first?
Lee A. Arnold 05.17.18 at 11:15 am
History is equally determined by technology, particularly military technology. This maxim too is almost as old as the hills. What ought to alarm national security types is that the US is destroying its longterm advantage in the seeds of military innovation by 1. ruining its trade alliances thus impeding future technology transfers, 2. underfunding its education, and 3. frightening away brilliant young inventive immigrants who don’t have white skin and don’t want to risk the increased racist violence in the US.
Bill Murray 05.18.18 at 2:54 am
the US seems to be seriously into punishing foreign companies that trade with our designated enemies.
Are they? The ZTE deal seems to not be pointed in this direction
Comments on this entry are closed.