Archive for the 'Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Columbia' Category

How to avoid war or defeat with Iran

September 25, 2007

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has in several talks, 60 Minutes, Charlie Rose, Columbia University and at the United Nations (UN) made it clear that Iran does not take the US, EU, IAEA, or the UN Security Council seriously. He has repeatedly indicated that he is toying with us.

As Charlie Rose pointed out in a broadcast from Monday Sep 24, 2007, taped before the Columbia remarks, Ahmadinejad is not answering questions, he is asking them. He doesn’t accept any obligation to be accountable to the world for what Iran is doing in secret. This is the same mentality as we have seen before in history and it has not led to peace, but war at the time and choosing of those acting in this way.

If we wait, we may see Iran have a new ally or guarantee at an unexpected moment as Germany did in 1939 with Russia. Putin models himself on Peter the Great and Stalin in respect to his foreign policy and ruthlessness. Putin brought back Stalin’s national anthem for the Soviet Union from WWII as the national anthem of Russia. The words are slightly different, but the music is the same.

To avoid war with Iran we must prepare for war with Iran. We must not repeat the mistake of Iraq of too little force. We should not make an airstrike on a country that we have ground forces next to, unless those ground forces are ready for a land invasion that would lead to a prompt victory for us at low cost. A large army is the way to guarantee that. Although our army likely could pull it off from where it is now, we would still limit our post war options and capability as well as increase our risk of higher losses.

The following program is the best to avoid war and defeat.

  1. Draft 2 million men.
  2. Congress should pass a set of conditions for Iran to avoid war. This should recognize that Iran has already committed acts of war against us and is doing so now.
  3. Congress and the President should appoint a bipartisan negotiating team under a Democrat. Richard Holbrooke would be a good choice. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid should choose the person, although Bush would have to appoint him.
  4. There should be a 6 month deadline.
  5. The negotiating team should go to Geneva and offer to meet with Iran there.
  6. At the end of 6 months, the team should report back to Congress.
  7. There would be a vote by Congress at this time on whether to authorize the president to engage in military action against Iran. This would be a ground invasion and full occupation.

We can call the above plan, Vote Draft Negotiate Vote (VDNV). This is a plan for unity. Unity helps us get what we want in negotiations because the other side sees that our reserve power is mobilized by our unity. We give the Democrats in Congress two votes. This lets them buy into the draft. Without the draft we can’t negotiate with credibility.

As discussed below, we need Neighborhood Escalation Dominance, the ability to fight the two main regional military powers, Iran and Pakistan, in order to negotiate with them and get what we want. Neighborhood Escalation Dominance, NED, is the way to get what we want in the region. Vote Draft Negotiate Vote is built around Neighborhood Escalation Dominance. Neighborhood Escalation Dominance is the engine that makes Vote Draft Negotiate Vote work.

Iran has shown in this visit that it does not take the US or the IAEA or UN seriously. Nicholas Sarkozy and Bush both made clear that Iran can not be allowed to have nuclear weapons and its current attempts to gain them mean war. Iran is supplying munitions against our troops in Iran and likely Afghanistan.

We can not avoid recognizing that we are at war with them, and that this is how they see it. We are at war with them, but neither fight them nor negotiate with them. We lack sufficient forces to make them believe we have an overwhelming advantage. But that is the way to either fight with them or negotiate with them.

Our current policy is aimed towards defeat by inaction or a spasmatic air attack. Like Israel’s air attack in Lebanon in 2006, we have not thought of what will happen after the air attack, we just assume victory. This is more irrational than our actions before the invasion of Iraq.

We are repeating the same mistakes we made in Iraq. We are not considering scenarios into the future. We fail to analyze what others and we will do after our next step. We have too little force.

We force our military to say we don’t need more men now, even though the plans the Pentagon prepared before Sep 11, 2001 all called for a vast increase in the military in time of war. We deserve to lose by our irrationality and refusal to reason or use the analytical resources we have already developed. We must wake up and stop repeating mistakes. We think we are invulnerable just as we did before 9-11. We won’t act now when it is easier. We are going to face a bad future because we don’t apply reason and refuse to allow anyone to discuss reality.

It is foolish for us to have men at war in Iraq and Afghanistan and not have a big enough army to deal with the contingencies. Iran is supplying munitions. But even if it isn’t, we should have a big enough army on hand to deal with Iran if Iran did supply munitions. The same applies to Pakistan supporting the Taliban.

In either case, neither Iran nor Pakistan thinks we have a big enough military. That is what leads to war, and to bad wars for us if they are right. They are gambling their grip on power on their assessment that we don’t have enough military. North Korea, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Libya are other countries we want to think we have enough military. We want Russia and China to think we have enough military for the Middle East and South Asia.

We have military in Afghanistan in combat and military in Iraq in combat. The insurgents are supported by Iran and Pakistan. We need a military big enough to deal with Iran and Pakistan at the same time. We need a draft of 2 million men. We needed this in 2001 when we went into Afghanistan next to Iran and Pakistan.

We need a military big enough to deal with the countries next to which we are fighting in combat operations, not just the country we are currently fighting in. This deserves the name of a doctrine. Neighborhood escalation dominance (NED) is a good name for such a doctrine. This is how we have credibility with those neighboring countries.

Because we didn’t have enough men to deal with Iran and Pakistan in 2001 when we went into Afghanistan which borders both, neither country has had to take us seriously enough for us to achieve our objectives. Instead they have felt free to thwart our objectives. Pakistan we even pay money too, despite their support of the Taliban, or possibly in their view, because of it.

Until we have Neighborhood Escalation Dominance we will lack credibility in the neighborhood. While we lack credibility in the neighborhood, we won’t be able to get what we want from the two main regional military powers, Iran and Pakistan. While we lack NED, the two main regional military powers will work against us, as they have and our now.

To achieve Neighborhood Escalation Dominance, we need to have a large enough military to deal with the neighborhood military powers at the same time. That means a draft of 2 million men or more. Our lack of NED is why we have had the trouble we have had. Our lack of NED is why from 9-12-2001 we have not achieved our goals. We need to learn from our mistakes. Instead we have a rule of silence about how much military we need. This rule of silence is on the military but also in Congress and elsewhere.

What is our current plan or method? We are following Serial Myopic Spaspatism, SMS. This has been our approach to the Middle East and South Asia since Franklin Roosevelt, if not Woordrow Wilson or even since we started paying ransom to the Barbary Pirates in the 18th century.

Spasmatism has had us do the following:

  1. Pay ransom to the Barbary Pirates in the 18th century.
  2. Fight wars with the Barbary pirates in the early 19th century.
  3. Send an expedition to get our hostages c. 1900.
  4. Accept immigrants from the regions since the 19th century.
  5. Be part of the Allied Coalition in World War I that followed similar myopic short term policies, that ignored genocide against Christians and Europeans that was continuous to anti-Christian, anti-European attacks since the 7th century.
  6. Deal with Saudi Arabia and Iran in WWII on a short term basis.
  7. Invade North Africa in 1942 and promptly ignore it in our strategy once we invaded Sicily and Italy.
  8. Support the Shah in the 1950’s as simply a current operation.
  9. Go from event to event in the Middle East and South Asia without recognizing what was happening in the region including the Islamic Awakening that started in the 19th century or a series of them lasting from at least the 19th century to the present, each one going to a higher peak than the previous one.
  10. Allowing the WTC 1993 attack and then continued Muslim immigration.
  11. Calling Islam a religion of peace after the 2001 attacks, and the 1998 and 2000 attacks.
  12. Invading Afghanistan while having insufficient military to deal with the neighboring powers of Iran and Pakistan.
  13. Invading Iraq with the same inability to deal with the neighboring military powers of Iran and Pakistan.
  14. The continuation of this policy to the present time in fighting insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan while not having sufficient military power to deal with the two neighboring powers.

Serial Myopic Spasmatism has been the approach of Europe to invasions from outside since the time of the Persian wars against the Greeks. It was the policy of the Roman Empire. It was the policy of Europe against the Caliphate from the 7th century to the fall of the Caliphate-Sultanate in WWI. Europe has been myopic and failed to recognize the need for overwhelming military power maintained on a constant basis towards this threat from the 7th century to now.

We have the choice of continuing Serial Myopic Spasmatism while keeping military forces in Afghanistan if not Iraq into the future or switching to Neighborhood Escalation Dominance. Vote Draft Negotiate Vote is the way to unify and mobilize our resources as we did in World War II. That is the way to get what we want by negotiation.

== Links to Ahmadinejad transcripts

https://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/2007/09/23/mahmoud-ahmadinejad-at-columbia-webcast-info/

== Nicholas Sarkozy

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20070925/tpl-uk-un-assembly-france-19346ad.html

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) – Allowing Iran to acquire nuclear weapons could destabilize the world and lead to war, French President Nicolas Sarkozy told the United Nations on Tuesday.

Re Kenneth Timmerman on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Columbia

September 24, 2007

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=D9982757-9390-45A6-A9B2-59DFDC77A603

Hitler’s Muslim Nephew Comes to New York
By Kenneth R. Timmerman
FrontPageMagazine.com | Monday, September 24, 2007

Comment on above article:

Kenneth R. Timmerman has fallen into the same trap that some on the left do, trying to stop people from speaking and making the debate over procedure and not substance. Its what Ahmadinejad has to say and his credibility that matter, and the response to that. This works for Timmerman but he can’t pursue it partly because Front Page is pushing him towards theatrics and away from substance.

Timmerman talks about suing in court. When you sue, you send out depositions to make the other side’s people talk. Timmerman is doing an anti-deposition service here. Timmerman is helping Iran protect its president from running off his mouth, something not in Iran’s interest.

Iran is letting him have a long rope because they think we are impotent, for domestic consumption, for Islamic consumptions, and because they have mis-estimated. Ahmadinejad sends the message that Iran is dangerous. He should speak everywhere he wants and take questions without the police hovering around those asking questions.

This is an error Front Page has a tendency to lurch into. It undermines its credibility by adopting some of the worst tactics of the left at precisely the wrong time. Ahmadinejad is here, and we need to concentrate people’s attention on substance, Iran is supplying weapons to use against US troops.

Has a fatwa already been approved that attacking all Western troops in Iraq and Afghanistan is Islamic? NATO is in Afghanistan.

quote from 60 Minutes interview:

“What religion, please tell me, tells you as a follower of that religion to occupy another country and kill its people, please tell me, does Christianity tell its followers to do that?” Ahmadinejad asked.

Was this because Iran has already prepared a secret fatwa saying it is Islamic to attack Western forces in both Iran and Afghanistan? That includes NATO in Afghanistan?

The protests have become agitprop against their own side. The issue should be what is Iran doing, are they attacking US and coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan through proxies, have they already approved a fatwa that in effect declares war on the US, NATO and other coalition forces such as Australia. The question should be what is the credibility of the Iranian president.

Instead, the tactic adopted, protest marches, pressure on Columbia or Bloomberg not to let him speak or appear, focuses the attention away from Iran and onto the protest movements. This may help them with fund raising but undermines them with the public. If the goal is to get the apathetic middle to focus on Iran and its president, this is failing.

The neocon right is instead making itself look ridiculous. They are making themselves look like a caricature, anti-Islamic warmongers who can’t talk substance. Iran’s leaders probably were not smart enough to predict this would happen, but if they were, the neocon right has fallen into their trap.

== 8:51 AM 24 Sep 2007 Reply to a Comment at Front Page

“Your Freedom of Speech, is payed by the lives of our students. ”

This shows the misconception that Front Page is under as well. The issue is being cast as a free speech issue by those against Iran. They are missing their chance to be heard. Its not Iran that is not being heard, its those who have criticism of substance of Iran whose chance is being lost to be heard or taken seriously.

We need a draft of 2 million men. We need to have Congress pass a set of conditions for Iran. We need a bipartisan team to negotiate with Iran in Geneva. This takes getting the public to buy in to these measures.

Where are the neocons headed? A missile strike on Iran when our army is next door. You don’t attack a country with missiles that your army is next to unless you are ready for a ground war. We need a much bigger army. That takes getting the support of the US public.

To get the support of the US public, we need the president of Iran to run his mouth.

Islam is a legalistic system. They are supporting attacks on our troops. To do that, they had to make a fatwa or other finding that it was Islamic to supply munitions against US and NATO forces in both Iraq and Afghanistan. If its required by Islam to oppose the West in Iraq, then it is also required to oppose the West, i.e. NATO in Afghanistan.

quote from 60 Minutes interview:

“What religion, please tell me, tells you as a follower of that religion to occupy another country and kill its people, please tell me, does Christianity tell its followers to do that?” Ahmadinejad asked.

Ahmadinejad is saying this is a matter of religion to religion. The munitions supplied by Iran’s government required, within the legalistic system of Islam to be justified on Islamic grounds. A fatwa against US forces in Iraq on Islamic grounds would apply to NATO on Islamic grounds. Thus Iran has likely approved a finding that it is at war with NATO in Afghanistan on Islamic grounds.

This is the issue, not a free speech issue.

== Comment at Jihad Watch

Link to Columbia webcast info and 60 Minutes transcript links

Has Iran issued a secret fatwa that finds that it is Islamic to supply munitions against US forces in Iraq? Does that mean it is Islamic to do the same against NATO forces in Afghanistan? Has Iran, in effect, made a finding that it is at war with the US and NATO as well as coalition members such as Australia?

That is discussed at the above link and at the link at my name.

quote from 60 Minutes interview:

“What religion, please tell me, tells you as a follower of that religion to occupy another country and kill its people, please tell me, does Christianity tell its followers to do that?” Ahmadinejad asked.

Ahmadinejad is saying this is a matter of religion to religion.

This comment is consistent with the hypothesis that an Islamic fatwa was prepared and approved in Iran for supporting operations against US troops in Iraq and NATO in Afghanistan. Islam has a legalistic tendency in it. So a finding that Iran has a duty under Islam to support the fight in Iraq seems like a logical necessity for the more than casual and sustained support they are making. If its Islamic to support the insurgency in Iraq, then it must also be in Afghanistan?

“All infidels are but one nation”? Also, the US is one nation and is in Iraq and Afghanistan. It would be strange if Islam required Iran to fight the US in Iraq but not in Afghanistan. But if Islam requires fighting the US in Afghanistan, it also requires fighting NATO in Afghanistan.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/018247.php

==Added 12:54 PM Monday Sep 24 2007

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20070924/cm_huffpost/065519

 Azadeh Ensha  Sun Sep 23, 10:21 PM ET

Once again, the American right is going about things all wrong. Ahmadinejad is their best tool. Rather than working to shut him down, they should sit back and let him speak. Here’s why: Sound bites from Ahmadinejad’s Columbia appearance will inevitably produce more “evidence” the administration and its hawks can use to push the need for this regime’s elimination — like his incendiary remarks at the Council on Foreign Relations last year. It is Ahmadinejad’s words the administration consistently cites as supporting evidence for its cause. If Ahmadinejad wasn’t afforded the opportunity to speak, and to offer up more inflammatory remarks, then the right would be without this easy ammunition in its ongoing campaign to invade Iran.

As leading campus free speech and first amendment scholar Robert O’Neil rightly notes: “If you suppress a viewpoint by disallowing or barring a controversial speaker, you make the speaker a martyr.”

%d bloggers like this: