Monday, January 5, 2009 at 12:33 pm
Kristol Blue Extrapolation
Leave it to Bill Kristol to take the situation in Gaza--a necessary corrective action on Israel's part, I believe (with a few caveats)--and transform it into a call for war with Iran. But here he is, in today's Times:
The huge challenge for the Obama administration is going to be Iran. If Israel had yielded to Hamas and refrained from using force to stop terror attacks, it would have been a victory for Iran. If Israel were now to withdraw under pressure without accomplishing the objectives of severely weakening Hamas and preventing the reconstitution of a terror-exporting state in Gaza, it would be a triumph for Iran. In either case, the Iranian regime would be emboldened, and less susceptible to the pressure from the Obama administration to stop its nuclear program.
But a defeat of Hamas in Gaza — following on the heels of our success in Iraq — would be a real setback for Iran. It would make it easier to assemble regional and international coalitions to pressure Iran. It might positively affect the Iranian elections in June. It might make the Iranian regime more amenable to dealing.
With respect to Iran, Obama may well face — as the Israeli government did with Hamas — a moment when the use of force seems to be the only responsible option.
Kristol is doing several dreadful things here. First, he is defining Israel's operation in the starkest possible terms--victory or defeat--without defining either. To my mind, a clear-cut Israeli victory would be the end of rocket attacks from Gaza (as was accomplished on Israel's northern border, a little-noticed victory in the 2006 war with Hezbollah) and the cessation on weapons-smuggling through the tunnels on Gaza's border with Egypt. It will not be the elimination of Hamas or the end of Hamas rule in Gaza. That's not going to happen. And so the clearest path to an Israeli victory is a negotiated cease fire of the sort offered by France and rejected by Israel last week--which was Israel's first major mistake in what has been a well-planned campaign.
The more I think about it, the ground assault has the potential to be a second big mistake. It has made a symbolic defeat more possible, if still unlikely. If the IDF gets hung up in alley-fighting in Gaza City, with significant casualties--that will be seen as a defeat. If Hamas guerrilllas can kidnap or use suicide bombers to attack the IDF positions outside Gaza, that will also be seen as an indication of Israeli vulnerability. The problem is that the expectations for Hamas--which already has had its military capability smashed decisively, if truth be told--are so low. Any symbolic victory has disproportionate effect.
I'm not sure that Kristol consciously understands that by raising the stakes--by seeking a comprehensive World War II style Israeli victory, by positing Iran as the real enemy--he is creating a standard that makes victory for Israel impossible... and makes Iran seem a more potent foe. Then again, Kristol is a cagey guy. He benefits from the delusion of Iranian potency. The more menacing and evil Iran seems, the stronger the arguments for the war that Kristol and many other Jewish neoconservatives really want: a U.S. attack on Iran to make the world safe for Israel (as if such a war could or would accomplish that). He comes very close to endorsing that in his last paragraph.
But it's not going to happen. The Iranians are likely to find themselves in a different world when Obama becomes President--a world in which the U.S. is not seen as a unilateral aggressor, a world that will be more easy to unite against Iran's nuclear program (especially if a rapprochment with Russia can be accomplished--which is not impossible, if Obama abandons the fantasy of an anti-ballistic missile system in return for Russian cooperation on Iran), a world where the U.S. no longer provides the mullahs with an overseas satan to divert attention from their disastrous domestic failures.
In the end, Kristol's saber-rattling is the death rattle of a simplistic, extremist ideology that has caused the U.S. great damage. A more sensible, centrist approach to international affairs won't have the bang or melodrama of military kinetics. It will take time to work, if it works. But it also won't have the bloodshed and torture that have stained our nation's history these past eight years.
RSS Feed |
Senior Writer Karen Tumulty has been TIME's National Political Correspondent since 2001, and has also covered the White House and Congress for the magazine. A native of San Antonio, she is a graduate of the University of Texas at Austin and Harvard Business School, where her career choice has significantly lowered the average salary of her graduating class. But she gets lots of free magazines. Read More »
Follow Karen Tumulty on Twitter
Joe Klein is TIME's political columnist and author of six books, most recently Politics Lost. His weekly TIME column, "In the Arena," covers national and international affairs. In 2004 he won the National Headliner Award for best magazine column. Read More »
Michael Scherer is the White House correspondent for TIME. He previously worked for Salon.com, Mother Jones, and the Daily Hampshire Gazette. A native of San Francisco, he graduated from U.C. Santa Cruz and Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism. Read More » Follow Michael Scherer on Twitter
Jay Newton-Small is the congressional correspondent for TIME. Born in New York, she spent time growing up in Asia, Australia and Europe following her vagabond United Nations parents. A graduate of Tufts University and Columbia’s Graduate School of Journalism, Jay previously covered politics for Bloomberg News. And, yes, despite the misleading name SHE is a she. Read More » Follow Jay Newton-Small on Twitter
Amy Sullivan is a senior editor at TIME magazine, and author of the book The Party Faithful: How and Why Democrats are Closing the God Gap (Scribner, 2008). A Michigan native, she holds degrees from the University of Michigan and Harvard Divinity School. She writes about religion and politics for TIME, but no longer answers to the name "Bible Girl." Read More »
- Sarah Palin to Quit as Alaska Governor
- What Happened To the Stimulus?
- Michael Jackson Gets His Requiem
- Afterbirth: It's What's For Dinner
- Why British Health Officials Say Swine Flu is Nothing to Party About
- Does the E.U.'s Airline Blacklist Make Flying Safer?
- Pakistan Hopes for Answers on Bhutto Murder
- While Canada Spends Big to Save GM, Mexico Gets Free Ride
- This Preposterous Week! Paul Slansky's News Index
- How California's Fiscal Woes Began: A Crisis 30 Years in the Making
- Inside Michael Jackson's Neverland Ranch
- U.S. Marines Open a New Offensive in Afghanistan
- The History of the Bikini
- Photos: India's Contraband Wildlife
- Photos: A Madoff Family Album
- Michael Jackson: The Last Photos
- Public Enemy: The Extremely Brief and Violent Life of John Dillinger
- Photos: Sacha Baron Cohen's Outrageous BrÜno Promotions
- The World's Ugliest Dog Show
- Party On with the G-8!
- ABC News’ The Note
- Andrew Sullivan
- CBN’s Brody File
- Ezra Klein
- Foreign Policy’s The Cable
- Juan Cole
- Lynn Sweet
- Marc Ambinder
- Matthew Yglesias
- MSNBC’S First Read
- Nate Silver
- NRO’s The Corner
- NYT’s The Caucus
- Politico’s Ben Smith
- Powerline
- Ross Douthat
- Talking Points Memo
- The American Prospect’s Tapped
- TNR’s The Plank
- Tom Ricks
- Washington Monthly’s Political Animal
- WashPost’s 44
- WashPost’s The Fix
- WSJ’s Washington Wire
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
Monday, January 5, 2009 at 12:46 pm
a necessary corrective action on Israel's part, I believe (with a few caveats)
longer Joe Klein -- its okay for Israel to slaughter hundreds of Palestinians because a few Palestinians lob some pretty harmless rockets into empty fields in Israeli territory --- but because I know this is morally indefensible, I'll say "with a few caveats".
this was poltically motivated, pre-medidated slaughter by Israel. Israel has the technology to pinpoint where rockets have been launched from in REAL TIME, and respond to those attacks immediately and with minimal necessary force. Instead, Israel decided to bomb heavily populated civilian areas -- including police stations -- with the aim of creating a complete breakdown in public order in Gaza.
that isn't a necessary corrective -- its genocide.
Monday, January 5, 2009 at 12:47 pm
reposted from K-Teezies thread
.
Check out this report from the Army War College. I repeat the US ARMY WAR COLLEGE.
.
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/abstract.cfm?q=894
.
.
snip
.
.
snip
.
.
This was released Dec 23 2008. I wonder why this isn't getting much media play.
Monday, January 5, 2009 at 1:23 pm
War is often a necessary tool of diplomacy, my friend. The USA has used it many times and will continue to do so in the future. Israel is in the right in its invasion of Gaza and is doing its utmost to target only Hamas and to spare civilians. Israel does not have a magic wand to win this war without casualties. You can limit yourself to watching old cartoons, if that is all you can tolerate with regard to war.
Monday, January 5, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Thank you for pushing back against this mendacious garbage, Mr. Klein. If only a few more of your colleagues showed more of your insight to what really afflicts us as well as your courage to confront our domestic enemies.
.
If you happen to see Mr. Kristol or any of his neocon cohorts, please tell him that one of your readers suggested that he abandon his US citizenship and move to to the country he loves above all others - I'm sure that the Lukidniks will find a place for him. To this country they are all traitors.
Monday, January 5, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Fascinating:
Hard to imagine you could ever put a complete stop to this kind of small-ball aggression.0
Monday, January 5, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Heck, Joe, I've known from the start (and commented here last week) that this attack on Gaza was really an attempt by Israel (on behalf of the Cheney-Kristol neocons) at goading Iran into doing something stupid that would eventually force Obama's hand.
Now that the ploy has failed (largely because Iran finds Gazans just as useful as martyrs as it finds Hamas useful as a tool) Kristol must resort to calling for an attack on Iran on general principles.
And you still have no concept of how bad this unnecessary -- yes, UNnecessary, and in the long run, counterproductive -- attack is making Israel look around the world, and how it is decreasing Israel's stock among the American populace, despite the corporatist press' (you included) insistence upon parroting Israel's dishonest line and hiding innocent hundreds of Gazan victims from our view.
It's going to end up costing Isreal American military aid.
Monday, January 5, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Again I'm torn between the cavalier way Joe Klein discusses issues of life and death, searching for the 'reasonable' approach to carnage and the fact that he's pushing back against people who are considerably more evil who are actually advocating for unreasonable levels of death and destruction.
In one sense, I'm grateful to Joe (especially in light of some of the fire he's drawn) but I still think that many of the core assumptions that guide his thinking are horribly wrong.
Monday, January 5, 2009 at 1:51 pm
I've always been fascinated by the way in which critics of Hamas (or whomever is being demonized) complain about how "inaccurate" their rockets are.... I mean, I'm quite confident that Hamas would be delighted to have highly sophisticated weapons available to them with which they could pinpoint (and reach) Israeli military targets -- but no one seems to be offering them the option to attack Israel in the way they would "approve" of.
Monday, January 5, 2009 at 1:55 pm
I oppose the Israeli attacks, but even more I just haven't understood them. I've been searching for a non-hysterical explanation, and I think the excerpt below is probably it. This doesn't change my strong opposition, but I think it's an accurate take:
Don't point your right and wrong arguments at me. I'm just trying to understand the parties so I can guess what negotiated settlements might look like.
Monday, January 5, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Since Israel requires American military aid, for a commentor to suggest withholding such aid implies that the commentor wishes to see Israel eliminated by its enemies. Antisemitism is bad for America.
Monday, January 5, 2009 at 2:03 pm
danielev99
.
What do the palestinians require?
.
You do realize that Arabs are semites too right?
.
Idjut
Monday, January 5, 2009 at 2:03 pm
The genocide of the palestinains has only strenghted iran's position in the region. unlike the other arab stated who continue to stand back and keep quiet while their fellow arabs are killed, Iran has been outspoken against this and has even called for action against israel. while i don't agree with other nations getting involved in more fighting,iran has even called for using oil as a means of leverage against the western nation who are backing israel.this tough talk is being heard by all the people in the region. this only gives iran another reason to seek nuclear weapons. and lets not kid ourselves, but israel will not and cannot take on iran by itself. israel has proven it is not the military "superpower" that it like to think of itself. they have spent all their time fighting rag tag street gangs like Hezbullah and hammas. fighting a nation like iran one on one would break israel's back not to mention set of a chain of events that would have affects world wide. whether its shia militas in iraq or Hezbullah on the northern israeli border. it would be a mess for everyone.
Monday, January 5, 2009 at 2:11 pm
"Antisemitism" is a word that means, essentially, hatred of Jews. That Arabs are semites(?) is another idea altogether.
Monday, January 5, 2009 at 2:15 pm
Fortunatly hatred of Jews bears no relationship to one's feelings concerning selling tools of destruction. The fact that 'aid' to Israel gets recycled right back to American arms manufacturers is one of the reasons that Peace is so difficult to achieve. There's way too much cash to be made encouraging conflict.
Monday, January 5, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Since "A" requires "B", for a commenter to suggest withholding "A" implies the commenter wishes to see "A" eliminated. Insert you own "A's" and "B's" as needed. Mine: A = "I" / B = "Supermodels"
Monday, January 5, 2009 at 2:19 pm
"In one sense, I'm grateful to Joe (especially in light of some of the fire he's drawn) but I still think that many of the core assumptions that guide his thinking are horribly wrong."
.
Well, nobody's perfect. And most of his peers are absolutely atrocious.
Monday, January 5, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Indeed we must take immediate action to make up for poor pourmecoffee's devastating lack of supermodels. Failure to do so could spread instability throughout his entire region!
Monday, January 5, 2009 at 2:23 pm
@Paul - Here here! I messed up the equation a little (should be withholding "B"), but thank you for your support, and by supermodel, of course, I mean wife. I misspelled wife.
Monday, January 5, 2009 at 2:23 pm
I want to repost this for effect.
.
.
Thats not from Al Jazeera, thats from our very own Army War College. You know the one every journalist was quoting from a couple of weeks ago when they released their "Known Uknowns" report about the problems facing Obama? The same one that correctly predicted the problems with going to war in Iraq? Is that not the exact OPPOSITE of what we have been hearing for over a week from our elected officials and the media?
Monday, January 5, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Economics and war are related, for sure. We kill to eat, too. There is a place to draw the line in war and food production. We may not agree on where that line is.
Monday, January 5, 2009 at 2:29 pm
danielev99 compares the residents of Gaza to cattle and yet has the audacity to complain about somebody elses racism/antisemetism.
.
I can see where this is going clear as day.
Monday, January 5, 2009 at 2:34 pm
Recourse to false claims of "antisemitism" is the last refuge of the scoundrel.
Especially when I said that Israel's dissembling slaughter "is going to end up costing [Israel] American military aid," not that I want Israel wiped off the map.
Among non-Religious-Righters (who really only support Israel insofar as its existence may help to hasten the return of Jesus, who will then -- according to their insane theology -- condemn to the eternal fires of Hell any Jew who refuses to convert to Christianity) Israel is overplaying its sympathy card. Like our Abu Ghraib/torture policies in Iraq, Israel's Gaza slaughter is making terrorists faster than they can kill them; and unfortunately, those terrorists lump us in with Israel, because we are picking up the tab.
Especially given our present financial crisis, this play doesn't have many years left in it.
Monday, January 5, 2009 at 2:38 pm
We can't get past the way facts are selected to make an argument. I understand Israel's need for security. But its use of border closings flies in the face of the agreement reacehd between Israel and Hamas. I know that the picture of dead and wounded children is absolutely horrible and Israel must know that this is going to happen. But I am sure Hamas uses this for its propaganda value. One of the dishonest aspects of Israel's policy is the way it allows illegal settlements to flourish thereby making it impossible for even the accommodating Abbas to work with them. Sorry: the rampant dishonesty of both sides is there if you want to see it. It seems as if the Israelis want to foster a Holocaust in Gaza City. The pictures of dead children laid out in shrouds is doing the rounds of Arab tv. We may shrug at this, but the Arabs are not.
Monday, January 5, 2009 at 2:41 pm
The islamist terrorist attack America and Israel simply because they think they can win. Tom seems to think so, too. I do not.
Monday, January 5, 2009 at 2:42 pm
"We may not agree on where that line is."
.
The line is recklessly killing and injuring non-combatants you cretin.
Monday, January 5, 2009 at 2:48 pm
I mean the line between moral and immoral food production, and the line between moral and immoral war. Jeez. People are not cattle, not even if they are our enemy. The IDF is not trying to "slaugher" civilians.
Monday, January 5, 2009 at 2:49 pm
the next time i hear someone mention the supposed restraint of the Israelis and their attempt to prevent civilian casualties i would ask why the are being condemned by solidarity international, that is definitely proof that they are doing something wrong. as a side note i would remind people that while hamas began firing rockets that was not the original breach of the ceasefire, Israel withholding basic supplies and electricity from the Gaza strip was the original breach of the ceasefire. Our media has once again resorted to false equivalencies making it look like the suffering is equal on both sides. Let me put this in numerical fashion, approximately 450 dead Palestinians and 5 dead Israelis, (these numbers are approximate as of last time i checked and don't discriminate between combatants and noncombatants but are still a good comparison)this does not look like an equal fight. One estimate is that 25% of casualties are women and children. If this is the best that can be done to prevent collateral damage... maybe it would be better if i didn't finish that sentence.
Monday, January 5, 2009 at 2:50 pm
sevenoaks07: The pictures of dead children laid out in shrouds is doing the rounds of Arab tv. We may shrug at this, but the Arabs are not.
The Arabs aren't the only ones not shrugging. The rest of the world is not being sheltered from the real news coverage coming out of Gaza as we here in the US are. The rest of Israel's friends are quickly becoming less friendly.
And to the eliminationist danielev99: when you can define what "winning" is, short of Israel sponsoring its own holocaust (which seems to be the direction in which they are headed) let me know.
Islamists don't attack us to win. They attack us to hurt us back.
The only way to stop it is religious genocide. But it can be reduced by giving them less unnecessary "back" as an excuse to hurt us.
Monday, January 5, 2009 at 2:54 pm
by the way danielev99, no occupying force in history has ever been able to eliminate a resistance movement with any level of violence short of genocide. On the other hand if you care to find us an example where that isn't true then you may try. i don't think you'll find anything but it would interesting to see what you come up with.
Monday, January 5, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Anyone who isn't willing to sacrifice everything in the name of Israel is an anti-semite. Anyone who questions Israel's tactics is an anti-semite(see above). Anyone who isn't ready to face the consequences of nuclear war in the name of Israel is an anti-semite. Get it people?
Monday, January 5, 2009 at 2:59 pm
right sorry
Monday, January 5, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Anyone who doesn't use periods is an anti-semite.
Monday, January 5, 2009 at 3:04 pm
The islamist terrorist attack America and Israel simply because they think they can win. Tom seems to think so, too. I do not.
.
2004 called, they want their war slogans back.
Monday, January 5, 2009 at 3:05 pm
Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not genocide. It was harsh and appropriate to the circumstance.
Monday, January 5, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Im betting danielev99 is a paid Israeli operative. You know they are using Youtube and Twitter for propaganda purposes. Why not Swampland?
Monday, January 5, 2009 at 3:08 pm
As for Klein's original post, I think the evidence is mounting for the need to quarantine Kristol away from public discourse, before we all catch the stupid.
Monday, January 5, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not genocide. It was harsh and appropriate to the circumstance.
.
Man, what the f--k are you babbling about.
Monday, January 5, 2009 at 3:12 pm
Why not Swampland?
A real Israeli operative wouldn't come off sounding like a 13 year-old.
Monday, January 5, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Cliff Says:
Monday, January 5, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not genocide. It was harsh and appropriate to the circumstance.
.
Man, what the f--k are you babbling about.
Cliff, I responded to comment# 29
Monday, January 5, 2009 at 3:17 pm
People that question whether Hiroshima and Nagasaki were appropriate responses are anti-semetic.
Monday, January 5, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Someone check Wikipedia - did we occupy Japan?
Monday, January 5, 2009 at 3:19 pm
I wonder if another Swamplander has the same impression. The Knesset in Israel is a pretty rough place; and elections rarely produce a party with an overall majority. So govt ends up with a rag bag collection of members who span the whole spectrum. Extremists in Israel are a dime a dozen. Progressives too are around but not in any position of strength in the body politic. Maybe they need Gaza to keep them united. All you need to do is meet a bunch of rough illegal settlers to ask yourself: what differentiates these guys from Hamas?
Monday, January 5, 2009 at 3:19 pm
AN OLD RITUAL REPEATING ITSELF
Where is the outrage from the Arab community for the Hamas tactics?
-
http://pacificgatepost.blogspot.com/2008/12/israel-hamas-lebanon-here-we-go-again.html
-
That is where any hope for a real solution lies.
Monday, January 5, 2009 at 3:19 pm
danielev99:
That's arguable, because Japan was an imperial nation engaging in traditional mechanized warfare. They signed an unconditional surrender before we set up an occupying force, so we never had to deal with generations of Japanese setting up bombs and pungi sticks.
Monday, January 5, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Anyone who doesn't see the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as analogous to the Israeli occupation of Gaza is an anti-semite.
Monday, January 5, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Heck, we were propping up Hirohito. BTW - nobody was talking A-Bomb = genocide until danielv99 made the connection himself.
Monday, January 5, 2009 at 3:28 pm
Who benefits? Ehud, Tzipi and Netanyahu? What is the election angle? The 20 jan 09 angle? The timing of this venture stinks.
Monday, January 5, 2009 at 3:29 pm
I support Israel's operation in Gaza because I believe it is good for the West and bad for Islamists, and it is being waged at a reasonable cost of life and money. Thanks for the debate! -Bye
Monday, January 5, 2009 at 3:31 pm
[...] Read the rest: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/01/0 5/kristol-blue-extrapolation/?xid=rss-topstories [...]
Monday, January 5, 2009 at 3:35 pm
"I support Israel's operation in Gaza because I believe it is good for the West"
.
And of course, anyone who doesn't equate what is good for Israel as also being good for the West....you guessed it: anti-Semite.