February 20, 2005
time and again in Iran...
By CBS News Correspondent Elizabeth Palmer:
"Do you think President Bush will invade our country?" the young Iranian student asked hopefully, peering up from his keyboard in the darkness of a Teheran Internet cafe. "You know it is our great hope. America is the only country strong enough to free us from the mullahs."
I was asked the same question – often wistfully, always seriously – time and again in Iran, even as America’s military nightmare unfolded in neighboring Iraq.
This is not a real invitation to U.S. troops. A military invasion of Iran would meet fierce resistance, even from the young. But it is a measure of the anger and helplessness that consumes Iranian youth...
This is a case where, as Orrin pointed out, "If your own reporting conflicts with what you wish to believe, stick to your ideology, eh?" There is no evidence presented in the article that young Iranians would fiercely resist an American invasion. That's just simply an article of faith.
And oddly, it seems to be a widespread bit of dogma even among those who support our campaign in Iraq. I've several times had it happen that I mention the military feasibility of invading Iran to generally hawkish people, and am answered with instant scornful dismissal, as if even mentioning the possibility violated some taboo. As if it isn't even open to question that the Iranians would immediately rally to their government if we attacked.
Well, the hell with that. Nobody ever presents any evidence to support that view, so as far as I'm concerned, it's bullshit until proven otherwise.
We could invade Iran right now, but my suggestion is we wait until 2006. The Iranian people are aware of the elections in Iraq, but give them another year for it all to sink in. Since hundreds-of-thousands of Iranians visit Iraq for pilgrimages (and shopping and business) every year now, they will see clearly that we are disengaging from Iraq as quickly as we can, and are trying hard to establish democracy there. They will welcome a dose of the same medicine in their own country.
Perhaps I should add that to my list of reasons to invade Iraq, (or invade somewhere.) We should invade because that's the only way to show that we don't want to be occupiers, or to steal anything. Of course anyone who knows America, or American history, already knows we don't want to be proconsuls of distant shabby countries, and will hurry home as soon as possible. But actually a lot of Americans seem to have skipped school the day that chapter was covered.
Posted by John Weidner at February 20, 2005 07:05 PM"Of course anyone who knows America, or American history, already knows we don't want to be proconsuls of distant shabby countries..."
Why? Because you say so? I seem to remember we spent decades in the Philippines, invaded Nicaragua and spent almost 20yrs there, Haiti for 19yrs, Dominican Republic for 8yrs...the list is quite long. And while we didn't try to stay for centuries, in every case when we left it was with a VERY friendly gov't in place that seemed more inclined to protect US interests than their own.
So your logic is that we should invade someone, anyone, just to prove that we really don't want to occupy anyone forever? So, as I understand you, we invade a country, spend hundreds of billions of scarce tax dollars, lose thousands of our own soldiers lives, tens of thousands of them crippled, hundreds of thousands of innocents in the country we invaded, stay a few years (but not too few - that would show we could be pushed out by insurgents), and then leave! That way the world will know we are really good people who don't want to steal their county! And they'll just forget about the devastation and death we brought to them just to prove we're really nice guys???
Posted by: Zoomie at February 25, 2005 07:19 PMOK Zoomie, we leave the mad mullahs alone, they get their bomb and vaporize Tel Aviv, or they pass it (with a wink and a nudge) to Sunni Al Qaeda jihadists who nuke New York. Oh, but I suppose there aren't any innocents in the capitol of capital, eh?
However, John, I think that mere subversion would probably suffice for Iran. We could help form and recognize a government in exile -- something we should have done with Iraq. Let it be housed in, say, Karbala, pending installation in Teheran. If necessary, an aerial assault on Iran's nuclear facilities will buy more time for revolution to ripen. The cruise missiles will probably fly this year. But I think US troops will not be used in Iran. They'll be too busy with another messy aftermath in Damascus.
I agree Alan, I was just being provocative. (I was hoping you'd respond with "You can't say that!" and then I could say "gotcha!")
But I don't think invasion is going to be necessary. Even though I've predicted repeatedly that the Iraq campaign would yield big dividends and help prevent future wars, I'm still surprised by how fast the Middle East and other places are changing. Astonished, even. Egypt has actually promised elections!! (Yeah yeah, I know--they will almost certainly be flawed. But once these things get started they are very hard to stop. As witness Ukraine.)
The pressure on Iran and Syria is just going to increase. You may call what's happening in Iraq a 'messy aftermath," but I say "bring 'em on. More messy aftermaths please." The fall of the Soviet Union left a really messy aftermath. But these messes are like tilled soil where new crops can be encouraged. (And the things happening places like Ukraine are no accidents; we've been tending these plants busily behind the scenes.)
Posted by: John Weidner at February 26, 2005 01:39 PM
