Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Bombs That Would Backfire - By Richard Clarke and Steven Simon

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
im10ashus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-16-06 07:46 AM
Original message
Bombs That Would Backfire - By Richard Clarke and Steven Simon
From The NY Times
By Richard Clarke and Steven Simon

White House spokesmen have played down press reports that the Pentagon has accelerated planning to bomb Iran. We would like to believe that the administration is not intent on starting another war, because a conflict with Iran could be even more damaging to our interests than the current struggle in Iraq has been. A brief look at history shows why.

Reports by the journalist Seymour Hersh and others suggest that the United States is contemplating bombing a dozen or more nuclear sites, many of them buried, around Iran. In the event, scores of air bases, radar installations and land missiles would also be hit to suppress air defenses. Navy bases and coastal missile sites would be struck to prevent Iranian retaliation against the American fleet and Persian Gulf shipping. Iran’s long-range missile installations could also be targets of the initial American air campaign.

These contingencies seem familiar to us because we faced a similar situation as National Security Council staff members in the mid-1990’s. American frustrations with Iran were growing, and in early 1996 the House speaker, Newt Gingrich, publicly called for the overthrow of the Iranian government. He and the C.I.A. put together an $18 million package to undertake it.

The Iranian legislature responded with a $20 million initiative for its intelligence organizations to counter American influence in the region. Iranian agents began casing American embassies and other targets around the world. In June 1996, the Qods Force, the covert-action arm of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, arranged the bombing of an apartment building used by our Air Force in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, killing 19 Americans.

cont'd...

http://www.trueblueliberal.com/2006/04/16/bombs-that-would-backfire/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-16-06 07:51 AM
Response to Original message
1. It is apparent, Bush is a madman
Bloodied by Iranian retaliation, President Bush would most likely authorize wider and more intensive bombing. Non-military Iranian government targets would probably be struck in a vain hope that the Iranian people would seize the opportunity to overthrow the government. More likely, the American war against Iran would guarantee the regime decades more of control.

So how would bombing Iran serve American interests? In over a decade of looking at the question, no one has ever been able to provide a persuasive answer. The president assures us he will seek a diplomatic solution to the Iranian crisis. And there is a role for threats of force to back up diplomacy and help concentrate the minds of our allies. But the current level of activity in the Pentagon suggests more than just standard contingency planning or tactical saber-rattling.

The parallels to the run-up to to war with Iraq are all too striking: remember that in May 2002 President Bush declared that there was “no war plan on my desk” despite having actually spent months working on detailed plans for the Iraq invasion. Congress did not ask the hard questions then. It must not permit the administration to launch another war whose outcome cannot be known, or worse, known all too well.



Seems a lot of people are coming forward to try to stop them this time. I just hope we can.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
im10ashus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-16-06 07:58 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. They are all madmen in this administration.
And Ahmadinejad is mad too. They are all using the element of hate to incite Armageddon. It's disturbing to say the least.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MUAD_DIB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-16-06 08:05 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. Do the Iranians have a defcon system?

It would seem somewhat logical that they aren't just sittting ontheir hands, and that they wouldn't be idle.

My bet would be that they keeping an eye out for the US.


This isn't like Iraq that had been effed up for ten years prior to an invasion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
annabanana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-16-06 08:08 AM
Response to Reply #1
5. So how would bombing Iran serve American interests?
It would not. It would however, enrich the oil interests.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FloridaPat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-16-06 08:22 AM
Response to Reply #1
7. How bombing would serve US interests - the price of oil would
skyrocket. Oil is sold in dollars and the Iranian oil bourse would never happen. Because oil is sold in dollars, more dollars would be used to keep the oil flowing, thereby keeping the US economy going. We need billions everyday to come into the US to keep our economy afloat. High oil prices make that easy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-16-06 07:58 AM
Response to Original message
3. When Richard Clarke speaks, I listen. Thanks. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
im10ashus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-16-06 08:28 AM
Response to Reply #3
9. You are welcome.
I believe that if these madmen-in-charge had their own God tell them what they are doing is wrong, they still wouldn't listen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-16-06 08:20 AM
Response to Original message
6. I just got home
with my morning newspapers. That is one of the first articles I plan to read.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
im10ashus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-16-06 08:25 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. There's a good editorial called "A Bad Leak"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-16-06 08:31 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. It is good.
It fudges the truth a little on the Judith Miller involvement. But it is still good.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
im10ashus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-16-06 08:33 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. Interesting that they still pseudo-protect her.
Pride goes before the fall?

:-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-16-06 08:46 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. I think that they
have conflicted feelings about that chapter in the paper's history. Miller was an active participant in the WHIG's efforts to lie to the country to make people too afraid to be capable of rational decison-making. Her role in the Plame scandal is far greater than just having dined with Scooter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 10:24 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC