It seems that centrist Mark Kleiman thinks continued Iran bashing is a bad idea because it is time "to give a hard time to" Russia. This belated opponent of the Iraq war seems to think that the point of ending that bloodbath is to turn our firepower against the appropriate new enemy -- to be named later.
Apparently, it is not just Republican hawks for whom the 21st century will never arrive, because the year is eternally 1938, and the place eternally Munich. Peace is for dirty hippies. Problems like climate change are always going to have to wait for the current emergency to end, and for one last enemy to be defeated. Because being a moderate means you never run out of Hitlers.
[Update] I decided the former version was unfair to Hilzoy - so eliminated all reference to her. The previous version really was attributing views to her she did not hold. My apologies.
Putin says climate deal must take Russian forests into account
Comments
View as Threaded
Jon Rynn Posted 12:48 am
19 Aug 2008
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:03 am
19 Aug 2008
How to deal with these alleged threats? Stabilize oil prices by grabbing hold of demand. Keep reducing demand steadily year after year.
Get other allied oil consuming nations to reduce demand year after year too. Big bad bear, toothless. Jihadists, reduced to rocks and spears. Problem solved.
And the right alternatives to oil actually cure GHG climate disaster too. And revive the economies of allies. If the exxonmob and saudis did not control this administration this oil demand reduction strategy would already be underway.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 1:11 am
19 Aug 2008
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:42 am
19 Aug 2008
Obama seems to be that leader, just as Teddy Roosevelt and FDR were. His voice will eclipse the industry noise filling the status quo DC leadership vacuum.
McCain has nothing but lobbyist/consultants around him. Will Obama listen to people like Lovins and Brown for expertise on energy?
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 1:51 am
19 Aug 2008
or are you saying Republicans started World War II?
In either case, your boy, Sherman, is ruining the couch...
Permalink
hilzoy Posted 2:11 am
19 Aug 2008
"A good President needs to be able to keep our objectives in Iran, and Russia's role in helping us secure them, in his mind even when Russia is attacking Georgia. Some of those objectives, like keeping Iran from getting nuclear weapons, matter enormously. It's one thing for William Kristol to have the entire rest of the world fly out of his head in the thrill of the moment. It's another thing altogether for our President to."
None of this seems particularly controversial to me. And none of it has anything at all to do with wanting someone to be Hitler, or wanting now to be 1938. I suppose you might think so if, say, you read "our objectives" as "our objectives, to be achieved by the use of military force." But why on earth would anyone read it that way?
I think nuclear nonproliferation matters. I bet you do too. I think that when we decide how to respond in Georgia, it would help to bear in mind the effects of what we do on any attempts we might make to keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons, as well as efforts to get Russia's cooperation in securing loose nukes, etc.
For the record, I do not support war with Iran in any circumstances I can foresee now, I have never compared Ahmedinejad to Hitler, etc., etc., etc.
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 2:36 am
19 Aug 2008
With both Russia and Iran what we need is engagement.
Permalink
vakibs Posted 2:37 am
19 Aug 2008
USA has a stiff choice today (a) to continue to consume 26% of the world's oil+gas and a lion's share of every other resource (b) to become self sufficient in energy and resources
(a) leads to a fossil fuel economy, (b) leads to a renewable / nuclear economy.
The foreign policy of USA so far has been tailored for (a) and it is no longer feasible. As the world's economic product is growing exponentially, every individual country is becoming rich and strong enough to defend itself. The US share in the global GDP is falling, and so is its geopolitical clout. This is inevitable.
There are strong interests in USA to continue with the fossil fuel economy because several rich people have massive investments in that sector and they want their investments to pay off as much as possible. This can only be obtained by a perpetuation of US hegemony over the world (They have think tanks such as the Project for a new American century, the American Entreprise Institute etc) . They have their men stationed in both Democratic and Republican parties (with Republicans courting these interests more aggressively). But the problem is that the strategy (a) is becoming less and less feasible in the world today, and hence it is a dying cause.
The strategy (b) leads to a rapid increase of the world's energy and other resources, and also cures the global environment. From the point of view of a true statesman, strategy (b) is a no brainer. The only obstacles that need to be removed are the fossil-fuel sycophants who are stationed in media and politics.
@Jon
In absolute terms, current Russia is stronger than the erstwhile Soviet Union, and hence a bigger menace for the imperialist aims of USA. Similarly, China is a bigger menace. Instead of facing these menaces, why not just abandon the imperialist agenda and become self sufficient ? The democrats above are not "wimps" but simply simply serviteurs to the fossil fuel interests.
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
hilzoy Posted 2:46 am
19 Aug 2008
Still, I'm curious about what it was in my statement that "A good President needs to be able to keep our objectives in Iran, and Russia's role in helping us secure them, in his mind even when Russia is attacking Georgia" suggests even a cold war.
I mean: surely we have objectives that concern Iran, like the example I used: nuclear non-proliferation. Likewise, if we had a saner government, it would be trying to pursue objectives in Switzerland, namely trying to work for greater transparency in financial transactions. Does this mean we are in a war, hot or cold, with Switzerland? I don't think so.
There are things we are trying to accomplish. Some of these things involve other countries. We should not lose sight of those things when crises erupt. That's all I said. I don't think it makes me into Charles Krauthammer.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 2:58 am
19 Aug 2008
Vakibs, the USSR was much more powerful than Russia, oil/natural gas does not confer power in the way I'm thinking about it -- it certainly confers power, but not in the sense of a threat to invade or take over another country. Russia is powerful now insofar as it has a military, and in the long-run, insofar as it has a manufacturing economy, which is what you need in order to create a military. When the USSR had a powerful manufacturing economy, it was a Great Power in this sense.
History is littered with examples of formerly wealthy countries or civilizations that have been run into the ground by their ruling elites, and the US is just as prone to those kinds of problems as any, although it has the capability through elections to change course nonviolently.
Hilzoy, I guess the question is, how big of a problem is Iran now, and would Iran with nukes be? I don't see it as a very big problem -- certainly, it would be better through diplomatic means to prevent it, but it certainly shouldn't be prevented militarily. Same goes for Russia invading Georgia. There's always a question of what to focus on, and it seems to me that a foreign policy that is focused on climate change, converting to renewable forms of energy in order to prevent energy wars, trying to figure out how to lift regions of the world out of poverty so that they don't descend into chaos, those sorts of problems take precedence over Georgia and Iran -- although I realize those are nowhere on the conventional agenda.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:03 am
19 Aug 2008
I believe Israel has that situation under control. They no doubt have eyes on the nuclear program and are ready to eliminate it if necessary.
Unlike every other spy agency in the world, their intelligence services are actually competent. "Never again" is not just a slogan to them.
They wouldn't give a medal to a guy like George Tenant for instance. He would not have made it past the intern stage in their intelligence service. They knew all about Saddam's lack of WMD before the Iraq invasion. But (understandably in restrospect) didn't feel comfortable sharing information with Tenant's crew.
I know that actual competence as a characteristic of any modern government agency anywhere in the world is nearly impossible to believe, but it is true in this case. Ask Gerald Bull, hehey.
This take on Russia, Georgia, and Iran are about as illuminating as Kristol's, the guiding light of the Bush administration on foreign policy. Oh along with Condi of course, the Russia/oil "expert".
Condi can't seem to understand the power of demand reduction in the oil supply and demand equation either. And the economic power it would have over our opposition on the world stage.
Does the old slogan, "Speak softly, but carry a big stick", ring any bells at all? Oil demand reduction is that big stick.
These oil kleptocracies are only a few percent global oil demand reduction per year away from their dictators fleeing (starving mobs ready to hang them)to Dubai to enjoy their loot in comfort.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
infp Posted 3:24 am
19 Aug 2008
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 3:53 am
19 Aug 2008
For the record, I do think you're being unfair to Hilzoy, who is an eloquent voice for sanity in foreign policy. Your point applies to many purported progressives, but not her.
grist.org
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 3:54 am
19 Aug 2008
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 3:57 am
19 Aug 2008
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:33 am
19 Aug 2008
That is the real risk. He will most likely export the bomb quietly. Rather than launching it from within Pakistan. India is just waiting for one false move to crush Pakistan for good.
Back to the stone age with them, the radioactive stone age, if there is even a hint of a move towards India.
The neocons have opened up the west to nuclear terror with their strategy of letting Bin laden go when they had him cornered in the caves. But that's what they want. only a massive terror incident can return them to power now. They are hoping for another Bush-style "trifecta".
Yep DR, hilzoy is ok. Just accepts too much of the conventional wisdom. Welcome hilzoy, thanks for coming by. Don't be a stranger.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 4:57 am
19 Aug 2008
Permalink