Fool Me Once, Shame on - Shame on You. Fool Me Twice. Fool Me - Won’t Get Fooled Again
At HenleyWatch they’re laughing about last night’s post about the pending war with Iran. Hey, bonus points for the attempted jiu-jitsu on the “bedwetter” meme!
The thing is, I’ve seen this movie before. TFG grumbles that I only included two links. Well, there’s a lot more than two stories out on the net about preparations for war with Iran. There’s a lot more than two posts on this blog. And I lived through the Summer of War. What I’m saying is that the elite discourse now resembles that of late-summer, early-fall 2002 so closely that the only reasonable conclusion is that the same game is afoot. We’ll see whether that’s true. But yes, I think war is coming, just like it was last time. And I remember that last time there was supposedly an attempt to use diplomacy to avoid the “last resort” of war - that was a sham.
Many thanks to President George W. Bush for the post title.
Comment by Ugh —
August 29, 2007 @ 7:30 am
Good god. How long do I have to stay away from downtown DC to avoid the truck bombs after they do something so fncking insane? Years?
Comment by KCinDC —
August 29, 2007 @ 8:44 am
Downtown DC isn’t going to be the only unsafe place, Ugh. And I guess we can forget traveling outside the US — being international pariahs isn’t going to be fun.
Comment by Barry —
August 29, 2007 @ 9:05 am
Ugh, there are 2 million + displaced Sunni Arab Iraqi; primer than prime recruiting ground for Al Qaida. Plus many, many millions of Muslims/Arabs across the world who’ve spent their formative years watching the US unleash h*ll across the Middle East; they’re merely prime recruiting ground, but there’s a lot of them.
And then add on this (all IMHO) -
This was isn’t half over, even from just the US perspective. We’ve not only seen Democratic presidential candidates endorse continuing the war, but also (f*cking g*d-d*mned) Democratic Senators go to Iraq recently, touch down for a few hours, and proclaim that all is well.
I believe that Bush is successfully pushing the war off to the next Democratic administration, with their eager assistance. They’ll pre-inherit the war, so to speak, and attempt to continue it. Considering that Bush is clearling ginning (literally?) up for a war with Iran, and pissing off every Shiite in Iraq that he possibly can, it looks pretty grim.
And, of course, there’s always the sh*tstorm awaiting after a US pull-out.
Comment by Barry —
August 29, 2007 @ 9:06 am
Of course, I highlighted my typo in bold
‘This *war* isn’t half over…’
Comment by Scott —
August 29, 2007 @ 9:22 am
No, I wasn’t laughing. I don’t want to bomb Iran any more than you do. I do want to understand why the imminent bombing meme cycles up every few months, both as a web hippie interested in memes, and as an American interested in foreign policy.
I’d also like to understand why Jim Lobe’s reading of the tea-leaves is authoritative. I’d never heard of him or IPS before last night, but that’s one of the reasons I read your blog…new stuff.
Comment by Iron Lungfish —
August 29, 2007 @ 9:28 am
I believe that Bush is successfully pushing the war off to the next Democratic administration, with their eager assistance. They’ll pre-inherit the war, so to speak, and attempt to continue it.
The real problem is that Democrats - even Democrats who knew this war was batsh!t insane - are too fvcking spineless to actually end the war. There has been a feverish hope on the mushy center-left for quite some time now that Bush would declare victory and end the war himself - for his reelection, or the midterms, or the ‘08 race, or to preserve his “legacy,” or because of an impending visit from the Ghost of Christmas Past - and it’s completely obvious to everyone outside the Democratic leadership that this is never going to happen, and that whoever gets the White House in 2009 inherits the war. But Democrats have spent so much time fretting about how ending the war will doom them politically (by opening them up to the right-wing dolchstosslegende they’re going to get anyway), and so much time hoping the war will somehow end itself through some curious act of God, that they can’t bring themselves to accept that they have to end it.
Comment by Ultima Ratio —
August 29, 2007 @ 9:36 am
Scott,
I can’t speak for Jim, but some of us have been pushing the “Iran in 2008″ meme pretty continually for a while now.
If you’re looking for evidence that the U.S. is going to bomb (bomb bomb, bomb bomb) Iran, consider the U.S.’s recent declaration that Iran’s 125,000-strong uniformed military is a terrorist cell. Or that the President continues to mislead the press on whether or not Iran has stated its intention to build nukes. Or the 97-0 resolution that the Senate passed claiming that Iran is complicit in killing U.S. soldiers in Iraq. Or the Guardian reprinting, without challenge, bizarre allegations about Iran, the Mahdi Army and Al-Qaeda working in concert. Or the agitation by leading Democratic candidates (the “anti-war” party, remember?) to keep “all options on the table” with Iran. Or the fact that 75% of Americans surveyed believe Iran is close to developing nukes, even though the IAEA says they’re 3 to 5 years away.
This is exactly the same build-up that was used to justify invading Iraq. I’d suggest at this point that burden of proof is on the person who says the U.S. won’t be in Iran in 2008.
Comment by Iron Lungfish —
August 29, 2007 @ 9:38 am
I do want to understand why the imminent bombing meme cycles up every few months, both as a web hippie interested in memes, and as an American interested in foreign policy.
Maybe this is because (1) there is a powerful segment of the foreign policy community that wants to bomb Iran, (2) there are powerful forces within the Bush administration that want to bomb Iran, not least of which is the office of the Vice President, (3) they’ve been pounding out a steady drumbeat of propaganda for the last several months in an attempt to convince people that America needs to bomb Iran. Given that all of these factors were in place in the lead-up to the war with Iraq, I can’t possibly imagine what might have Jim concerned about a possible war with Iran.
Comment by ran —
August 29, 2007 @ 9:43 am
Truck bombs in DC and elsewhere in the “homeland” following our carpet bombing of Iran is exactly what Shrubco is fervently hoping for.
That will provide the handy pretext for declaring Martial Law, canceling the 2008 elections and declaring George “Baby Doc” Bush president for life.
You didn’t think they were going to voluntarily hand all these shiny new executive powers to a lousy Democrat did you?
Comment by Walt —
August 29, 2007 @ 10:41 am
Scott, do you think that there is not a fraction of the Republican foreign policy elite that favors bombing Iran? Just to be clear, I think it’s pretty unlikely that it will happen, but it seems hard to argue that there is not a segment of the Republican party that is pushing it.
Comment by lemuel pitkin —
August 29, 2007 @ 10:42 am
The interesting thing about the Bush quote is it demonstrates his literal inability to say the words “shame on me.”
Comment by Dave W. —
August 29, 2007 @ 11:02 am
I think the US people decided on 7 November 2006 that the US would not be bombing Iran (even if they didn’t realize that is what they were deciding).
Til then it was touch and go. Even T. had me worried before that.
Comment by b-psycho —
August 29, 2007 @ 11:24 am
I had a lengthy, well-reasoned comment, but it got lost in the ether, so I’ll just play meme-tag.
Comment by mds —
August 29, 2007 @ 11:26 am
Yes, but apparently, no one has instructed the US people’s employees about that. If I could amend the Constitution, I’d put in some sort of binding “no-confidence vote” for our elected officials. And also free candy.
Comment by Gsnorgathon —
August 29, 2007 @ 11:29 am
Dave, what’s 7 November 2006 got to do with not bombing Iran? How is congress going to prevent it?
Comment by KCinDC —
August 29, 2007 @ 11:31 am
I’m still a little surprised at the way Bush gets away with alternating between claiming that we’re mainly fighting Al Qaida in Iraq and claiming that Iran is the one responsible for killing our troops there? AQI (Sunni) and Iran (Shi’ite) are on diametrically opposed sides of the conflict, so spreading the impression that they’re working together as part of one undifferentiated Islamic terrorist mass is as bad as the earlier implication that Saddam Hussein was connected with 9/11. But the media mindlessly broadcast the propaganda just as they did in 2002.
Comment by Dave Allan —
August 29, 2007 @ 11:32 am
Jim:
When the USSR cut off direct dial service back in the early 80’s you thought it was a percursor to attack. Similar concerns now might also be overstated.
Comment by KCinDC —
August 29, 2007 @ 11:38 am
I’m with Gsnorgathon. I’m all in favor of having Congress start impeachment proceedings, but I’m not under any illusions that even if all the Democrats voted to remove Bush, any Republicans would go along. And nothing other than removal from office (or a military revolt) can prevent the bombing if Bush has decided to do it.
He’s making it pretty clear that Iran fits under the existing AUMF as far as he’s concerned, so he’s not going to go back to Congress for further authorization.
Comment by KCinDC —
August 29, 2007 @ 11:41 am
And while we’re speaking of deja vu…
Comment by Joshua Holmes —
August 29, 2007 @ 12:11 pm
dolchstosslegende
Note to self: Do not play Scrabble with Iron Lungfish.
Comment by Hesiod —
August 29, 2007 @ 12:23 pm
Maybe we should send Larry Craig over to the bathrroom stalls near Ahmenedenjad’s Presidential compund in an effor to entrap him.
Comment by Nell —
August 29, 2007 @ 12:46 pm
I’m grateful to Ultima Ratio for saving me a good deal of linking and looking-up.
The sole rational reassurance that I’m aware of is that Bob Gates is less insane than Rumsfeld, and in fact even Rumsfeld was said to have muttered reservations about the bomb-Iran talk in spring of 2006.
I’ve posted a fairly detailed analysis of Congress’ laying of the groundwork for this possible cataclysm, the implications of which have sent me into an uncomfortable and conflicted state of mind (which I’ve also posted about).
One other possible source of cheer: Jonathan Schwarz notes today at tinyrevolution.com that the phrasing in Bush’s speech implies that the CIA is not willing to conclude (in the already-overdue NIE on Iran’s nuclear capability and intentions) that there is an actual Iranian nuclear program.
That would be more cheering if the nuclear issue were the sole provocation available to our ruling regime. Unfortunately there are many more possibilities, most obviously supposed IRGC personnel in Iraq training Iraqis who attack U.S. troops, but also supposed cross-border attacks by Iranians in north Iraq/Kurdistan (links are in my comment to Jim’s Iran post of a few days ago).
Comment by Nell —
August 29, 2007 @ 12:56 pm
JH: And I remember that last time there was supposedly an attempt to use diplomacy to avoid the “last resort” of war - that was a sham.
As it is this time. As I said in the spring of 2006, “coercive diplomacy” is not diplomacy; it’s warmongering.
The amount and high levels of the sources of casus belli hogwash put the lie to any real diplomacy. When you’re actually negotiating, you don’t have generals accuse your discussion partner of killing their troops; you don’t kidnap and hold their personnel incommunicado, then declare them members of a global terrorist organization; you don’t publicly respond to every step forward on the nuclear issue with disparaging bluster (as the U.S. has just done on the recent new agreement between the IAEA and Iran, which has also received almost no notice in the U.S. press).
Sarkozy is apparently happy to be the new Blair, but all the other Europeans appear to have been convinced by recent administration talk and actions that it would be a bad idea to support tightening the U.N. screws this fall.
Comment by Dave W. —
August 29, 2007 @ 1:36 pm
Let’s just say that the idea didn’t test market well. Also, Iran failed to stay on-script when we sent the British navy into Iran a few months later — which means we can’t party like its 1979.
Comment by mds —
August 29, 2007 @ 2:37 pm
Oh, whew. Crisis averted. It’s not like this administration would simply ignore inconvenient CIA intelligence.
Comment by Mona —
August 29, 2007 @ 3:09 pm
We will soon be at war with iran; it has been decided. Greenwald pulls it depressingly together here. Among other points he makes:
Why was it, again, that I voted straight Dem last November?
Comment by Dave W. —
August 29, 2007 @ 3:16 pm
Why was it, again, that I voted straight Dem last November?
Bcs u r not as crazee as a sed u were. Or maybe bcs u were tired of my taunts directed at u.
Comment by CaseyL —
August 29, 2007 @ 5:43 pm
Because the alternative was…?
Comment by Mona —
August 29, 2007 @ 6:14 pm
Not rah-rahing the Dems, and staying home. What difference are they making when AIPAC owns enough of them too? The coming war against Iran is going to be a fvcking goddam nightmare, and what are the donks doing to stop it?
Comment by Thoreau —
August 29, 2007 @ 10:21 pm
I still can’t bring myself to believe that we will actually attack Iran. But that probably reflects my own limited ability to accept reality.
I will predict that if we do attack Iran there will be a few differences in the sequel:
1) They won’t base it entirely on WMD again. They’ll probably have an incident where somebody winds up (or allegedly winds up) on the wrong side of the wrong border (or disputed border, or whatever). There’s a confrontation, and it’s allowed to spiral out of control, and, well, there you go.
Gotta mix it up a bit in the sequel.
2) Ground invasion and occupation won’t happen, but bombing will happen.
3) Iran will retaliate inside the US. This will be taken as an ex post facto justification. “Look, they fought back!”
4) If Iran retaliates inside the US, vigilantes will do some very ugly things.
I hope that you guys are wrong. I really hope that you guys are wrong.
Comment by lemuel pitkin —
August 29, 2007 @ 10:21 pm
So if the probability of war has dropped from say 70% to 40%, does that make the Dem vote worth it?
Comment by Doug M. —
August 30, 2007 @ 6:46 am
Oh, for goodness’ sake.
You know I love you, Jim, but this is silly stuff.
Let’s cut to the chase. I’ll bet you $100 that There Will Be No War With Iran within the next year.
Definition: “War” includes bombing — however “surgical” or “smart” — large-scale border incidents, and raids involving more than 50 men. No declaration of war (hah) or other political or legislative act is required, just stuff being blown up.
On the other hand, it does not include minor border incidents, kidnappings, or conflict-by-proxy not involving soldiers of either side.
In case of dispute, your comments section can be the arbiter.
I pay off promptly once a war starts. You pay on September 1, 2008 if one doesn’t. A check might have trouble tracking me down, so if I win, I’ll probably ask you to contribute to a charity; you’re of course free to do the same.
Deal?
Doug M.
Comment by Doug M. —
August 30, 2007 @ 6:48 am
“2) Ground invasion and occupation won’t happen, but bombing will happen.”
Thoreau, I’ll take your money too, if you like.
Bet?
Doug M.
Comment by Ultima Ratio —
August 30, 2007 @ 7:51 am
Doug,
I’ll take that bet, on two caveats:
(a) “War” includes bombing — however “surgical” or “smart” — large-scale border incidents, and raids involving more than 50 men.
Does it have to be all of those three or would you accept any of the above? How about two of those three?
(b) I don’t actually know you, nor you me, so paying up might be tricky.
Comment by Thoreau —
August 30, 2007 @ 8:20 am
Doug-
Like I said, I don’t believe that it will happen. My point was that IF it happens, it will happen via bombing but not invasion and occupation.
In other words, I wouldn’t take your bet.
Comment by Jim Henley —
August 30, 2007 @ 8:36 am
Doug, I’m not a money better on anything, but we can come up with a wager of some kind.
Comment by anodyne —
August 30, 2007 @ 8:57 am
Folks, there’s a lot of interesting aspects to this discussion, not the least of which for me is the intestity of people’s beliefs and their willingness to use (as well as their emotional reactions to the use of) forecasts to justify or support those beliefs.
For anyone interested in a larger and more diverse pool of “betters” (”bedwetters” j/k) check out this link:
http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=USIran
Comment by Neel Krishnaswami —
August 30, 2007 @ 9:48 am
Hey Doug, I’ll take your bet, with a charitable donation as the stakes.
(I actually believe, like you, that war won’t happen by 2008, but if I’m wrong it’ll be good to be prodded into doing something constructive like donating to charity. I think of it as buying a hedge.
Comment by Jeff in Texas —
August 30, 2007 @ 11:09 am
We are all placing a bet on this one. A side wager is irrelevant. My own personal thinking is similar to Thoreau’s– I cannot imagine that the administration is really insane enough to do it, but then I can’t logically think of reasons (reasons to them, I mean) that they won’t, given what we have seen from them already. I do think this is one of those issues where it is okay to look silly in retrospect though. If you spend the next year or so raising awareness of the threat, running around like your hair is on fire, and no war comes– then so what? You might have been part of stopping the madness before it started, even if you’ll never know it.
Comment by Doug M. —
August 30, 2007 @ 12:18 pm
Ultima, no offense, but I don’t think I can do a bet with a pseudonym. Feel free to e-mail me directly, though; you can find me at “vormuir” in the domain men call yahoo dot com.
Jim, I’m open to suggestions. Some sort of forfeit? You agree to run a particular race for charity, maybe?
Doug M.
Comment by Doug M. —
August 30, 2007 @ 12:23 pm
Neel, that’s a bet.
You know where to find me, I think. Where should I look for you?
Doug M.
Comment by Thoreau —
August 30, 2007 @ 6:54 pm
Maybe I will join the bet, and pledge money to a charity. I would suggest that the charity be something like an orphanage in Iran, but I’m afraid that sending money to Iran, even to an orphan, would be construed as “giving aid and comfort to the enemy” or something.
Similar problems would apply to any charity that helps Iraqi refugees start new lives. Sending money to Middle Eastern folks doesn’t seem terribly safe right now.
Any suggestions?
Comment by roger —
August 30, 2007 @ 9:15 pm
I’ll take the non-attack bet. I think the foreign policy clerisy, Bush and various of the heart attack reactionaries in the Bush constituency would love to. I don’t think Wall street thinks it is a good idea. If the war doesn’t pass the Wall street test, I don’t think it will fly. The difference between now and 2002 is that we are now 6 years away from 9/11, and one very unpopular and expensive war. Myself, I think last year, the Bushies were hoping for Israel to hit Syria, and I think they are sorta hoping that Israel will do the Iranian bombing.
All of these are of course rational factors, which one has to place against the mentality of the D.C. unmeritocracy. But I think the rational factors are powerful. I also think that if there really is a significant economic slowdown, it will put a real keebosh on the war against Iran all through 2008.
Comment by Doug M. —
August 30, 2007 @ 11:24 pm
Thoreau, if you like, the offer still stands. But you have to say “yes” — “maybe I will join” is a bit vague.
BTW, I’m restricting this to you, Neel, and Jim (if he wants to, and comes up with a stake that suits him). More than that would get cumbersome; I don’t want to spend next September either paying a dozen people money, or tracking a dozen people down to dun them.
The rest of you are free to make bets with each other, of course.
Doug M.
Comment by Thoreau —
August 31, 2007 @ 7:57 am
Alright, Doug, I’m in. I’ll give $50 to a charity of your choosing if the US doesn’t attack Iran in within the next year, under the terms laid out in post 32. If the US does attack Iran then you give $50 to a charity of my choice.
And if I win the bet but I like your charity, I might give them $50 anyway.
Now we just need to decide on the charity. My standby is Transition House, a homeless shelter where I used to volunteer in Santa Barbara. But since we’re betting on foreign policy, I’m tempted to go with a charity that cares for Iranian, Afghan, or Iraqi orphans. Except that sending money to any of those countries seems to be a good way to get one’s name on a Homeland Security list right now. I’ll have to think about it.
I’m bookmarking this thread.
Comment by Ultima Ratio —
August 31, 2007 @ 2:03 pm
Do any of the prediction markets (InTrade, Iowa Electronic, TradeSports, etc) have a contract for “war in Iran by 2008″?
Comment by anodyne —
August 31, 2007 @ 2:20 pm
“Do any of the prediction markets (InTrade, Iowa Electronic, TradeSports, etc) have a contract for “war in Iran by 2008″?”
This one is close (Jan 09). It was linked earlier in the thread:
http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=USIran
Last trade was at 22 (think of it as a 22% chance). I was trying to level the playing field and get Doug M to give odds
Comment by Alex —
September 2, 2007 @ 6:53 am
I’ll back it.
Comment by Doug M. —
September 3, 2007 @ 1:53 pm
As noted in the other thread, Jim is in.
So that’s Jim and Neel for $100 and Thoreau for $50. Betting is now closed, ladies and gentlemen; we have now but to watch the calendar.
Doug M. — who spent a lot of time behind Iranian trucks this weekend.