First of all, to say I'm not keen on military intervention is a huge understatement. The only instance in which I felt we had the high ground was when we took part in the 1995 NATO attacks on Kosovo to stop ethnic cleansing and mass rapes. (And even about that, I have some doubts.) And it's always a red flag when human rights rhetoric is used to justify military intervention.

I participated in a White House blogger call on Libya today that was hosted by Ben Rhodes, Deputy National Security Advisor and he used most of the time on the call to answer questions from bloggers. I asked what I thought was a pretty obvious question.

"We sell massive amounts of arms to repressive regimes in the Middle East, and now in Libya, we're using our arms to stop them from using their arms against their own people," I said. "Wouldn't it make more sense not to sell arms to repressive regimes in the first place?"

I thought he hemmed and hawed a bit, but the question was put out there and answered.

He said that the Libyan government had a relationship with the United States until the uprising, and that the situation had changed. He also said it was an "interesting case" with the Mubarak government, that the U.S.'s "longstanding relationship with the Egyptian military allowed us to pay a positive role in some respects."

"We need to take a step back and assess the strategy of arming different regimes, look at it regionally and country by country, understanding the change that's being made and balance that with our interests."

Rhodes responded to a question from Spencer Ackerman about whether the U.S. was planning to expand its mission in Libya to include ground troops.

"It's premature to hazard any predictions that US would take place in such a force. For time being, there are absolutely no plans to put boots on the ground. We’re dealing several steps ahead, and right now, the US is not planning anything like that," he said.

Greg Sargent asked him to comment on preparation for the post-Gaddafi Libya.

Rhodes emphasized that U.S. plans are restricted to "civilian protection, a narrowly defined military mission – the no fly zone and stopping advance of Gaddafi’s forces." He said there would be no military action geared toward regime change.

"There's no international mandate for that," he insisted. "The Libyan opposition did not ask us to do that, they affirmed again today that the Libyan people should be the ones to do that. Change in Libya has to be driven by Libyans."

He said Gaddafi ceded his legitimacy by going after his own people, but "it doesn’t follow that we would go in and remove him militarily."

The U.S. is taking non-military actions to push him out, Rhodes said. "We're cutting off cash, whatever we can do to isolate him internationally – anything meant to serve the goal of a Libya not governed by Gaddafi, make the transition to that kind of government. It doesn’t mean we won’t pursue a government not under Gaddafi through any other means we have. It’s not as if we haven’t learned the lessons of Iraq."

Continue reading »

Dutch journalist Thomas Erdbrink, who is based in Tehran, has a must-read piece today in the Washington Post which details how, now that Obama is the President-Elect and offering no-precondition talks, non-trivial but junior members of the Iranian government are making noises about walking back their own offers to hold unconditional talks.

“People who put on a mask of friendship, but with the objective of betrayal, and who enter from the angle of negotiations without preconditions, are more dangerous,” Hossein Taeb, deputy commander of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps, said Wednesday, according to the semiofficial Mehr News Agency.

... In recent interviews, advisers to Ahmadinejad said the new U.S. administration would have to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq, show respect for Iran's system of rule by a supreme religious leader, and withdraw its objections to Iran's nuclear program before it can enter into negotiations with the Iranian government.

"The U.S. must prove that their policies have changed and are now based upon respecting the rights of the Iranian nation and mutual respect," said Mojtaba Samareh Hashemi, the president's closest adviser.

Ahmadinejad's media adviser, Mehdi Kalhor, said that "in fair circumstances" Iran would be open to talks. "But that is not when you have a bayonet pressed at your artery," he added, referring to the U.S. forces deployed in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf.

All this provides neocon hawks with the perfect opportunity to bang the "prefidious Iranians" drum, and Ed Morrissey doesn't miss that chance:

This is the point that Obama and his allies never seem to understand. Some people just hate us, and not because of our policies on trade and security. Iran is a nation run by radical Islamist mullahs who see secular democracy as the enemy of their religion, and Western values as a temporary heresy which they plan to correct with a global caliphate under Iranian control.

Irans’ mullahs see America as the bastion of these values, and Israel as our outpost for them in the region. Europe is mostly irrelevant to them; they can deal with Europe after eliminating the arsenal of democracy, or hobbling it so badly that we no longer make a difference.

But it's Ed who is missing the point. As Spencer Ackerman points out, Obama is more of a threat to those mullahs than Bush ever was. If you're an intransigent theocon Iranian leader:

All of a sudden, you’re deprived of a method of demagoguery that’s aided your regime for a generation. And if you refuse to negotiate, you’ve just undermined everything you told the international community you wanted, and now appear unreasonable, erratic, and unattractive to foreign capitols. Amazing how the prospects for peace are more destabilizing to the Iranian establishment than any inevitably-counterproductive-and-destructive bombing campaign or war of internal subterfuge.

That's an analysis born out by Erdbrink's past work too. Back in 2004, he co-wrote a Time piece which pointed out that "dominant hard-line clerics are worried that friendly American behavior might aid reformers, who are less anti-Western than the conservatives."

There's a presidential election in Iran next year and a moderate now heads the committee which would choose the replacement for the ailing Ayatollah. In other words, it's not about nukes or about international opinion - its about the shakier thrones Irans hardline government now find themselves sitting upon; with the best weapon in their arsenal, Bush's neocon ways, consigned to history.

On the streets of Tehran, Reuters recorded some video "postcards to Obama" from ordinary Iranians back on Nov. 5th. The message - carry through on negotiations, forget the hawks.

Crossposted from Newshoggers, video added.

Score another failure for Bush's hope for regime change in the Middle East. He was so eager to go into Iraq rather than finishing the job in Afghanistan that the Taliban have re-emerged and NATO cannot contain them.

Independent UK:

Tony Blair and other Nato leaders gathering in the Latvian capital, Riga, this week will almost certainly fail to secure the additional troops being sought to keep the Taliban at bay in Afghanistan, according to sources here.

Although it took over responsibility for the whole country just a few weeks ago, Nato's mission remains at least 15 per cent undermanned, with a significant shortage of combat troops and a desperate lack of helicopters. A succession of Nato meetings has failed to secure reinforcements, and all the indications are that the alliance's Riga summit, presented as one of the most crucial in its post-Cold War history, will not be any more successful.

Commanders have repeatedly sought at least 1,000 fighting troops to form a quick reaction force which could deal with upsurges of violence, but many in the 37-nation mission have insisted on constraints which effectively keep them away from the front line. Read on...

(h/t Gregory)

Bill Kristol writes his typical neocon column and says "It's Our War," What's happening in the Middle East right now is exactly what men like Kristol have dreamed about. Kristol has contributed to the chaos our world is in today and for anyone to take anything he says seriously having to do with issues of foreign policy have not witnessed what has happened in Iraq.

William the Bloody:

The right response is renewed strength--in supporting the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan, in standing with Israel, and in pursuing regime change in Syria and Iran. For that matter, we might consider countering this act of Iranian aggression with a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. Why wait? Does anyone think a nuclear Iran can be contained? That the current regime will negotiate in good faith? It would be easier to act sooner rather than later. Yes, there would be repercussions--and they would be healthy ones, showing a strong America that has rejected further appeasement.

Healthy repercussions? What the hell is he talking about?

Arthur Silber says it better than I can...

Monica joined "Scarborough Country," last night and left no doubt in the the minds of the viewers that Iran probably already has nukes and will use them against us. Nobody on the panel corrected her ill-informed, warmongering statements. Is this supposed to be political debate or a War propaganda segment?
Download | play -WMP Download | play -QT

Joe: ...Monica, is there any possibility that the Iranian leaders that are in charge right now would ever be so irrational as to launch a nuclear attack on cities like Los Angeles, New York, Washington, D.C., if they got this nuclear device?

Monica: Unequivocally, yes, Joe. And in fact, the hypothetical scenario that you just laid out, that hypothetic ground zero is just a few blocks from where I am sitting here tonight. So, it is an incredibly frightening scenario and absolutely within the realm of possibility given the nature of the regime we‘re talking about. This Tehran regime covers the terrorist Trifecta. They do have weapons of mass destruction, possibly even nuclear at this point. They export terror and they do support al Qaeda.---read the transcript

The segment featured graphics showing what a nuclear blast would do to New York. That's a great way to influence the American people if the U.S. bombs Iran. What will happen when all the young Iranian kids that are said to love America are hit with bombs? Will they still want regime change in Iran?

Here's my latest on the Huffington Post about "Joe Klein and Nukes."

Check out "60 Minutes" this Sunday: A Spy Speaks Out

"A CIA official who had a top role during the run-up to the Iraqi war charges the White House with ignoring intelligence that said there were no weapons of mass destruction or an active nuclear program in Iraq. The former highest ranking CIA officer in Europe, Tyler Drumheller, also says that while the intelligence community did give the White House some bad intelligence, it also gave the White House good intelligence — intelligence the administration chose to ignore...read on"

From what Tyler is telling us, (not that we didn't know) the administration cherry picked intel without verification because they wanted regime change in Iraq.

(h/t from a comment at Olbermann Watch)

Angry Bear: Sully now (finally) pretends to be a Bush critic but still embraces Junior's fiscal dishonesty...and Brad DeLong says Andrew Sullivan is still a mendacious dork.

The New Yorker: Q & A with Michael Specter who has a piece in the current issue about the Bush administration's vehement opposition to “any drug, vaccine, or initiative that could be interpreted as lessening the risks associated with premarital sex.” These fine Christian folks would rather people die of AIDS and cancer than do anything to "encourage" sexuality.

Lew Rockwell: Condi Rice's flawed foreign policy is a repackaging of failed neoconservative policies that seeks to disguise regime change with the rhetoric of Wilsonian democracy.

Petrelis Files: Former Bush domestic policy advisor -- and one time Bush judicial appointee -- Claude Allen's mug shot. Allen is another one of those a--holes who believe it's better for people to die than to deviate from his "Christian," abstinence-only notions about sex education.

The Saturday Cartoons

Off The Beaten Path: Tom Flannery...Night Bird's Fountain...IntoxiNation...The Gaelic Starover...That Colored Fellas Weblog

During a news update during H&C on 8/30, Steve Centanni repeated the lie that Robertson tried to first skate with over his " hit man" remarks about Hugo Chavez.

Centanni: " ...the U.S. should take him out. He later explained he meant a regime change and not an assassination."

Steve neglected to read Robertson's whole statement which is here.

Download | play -WMP

Anyone saying that Fox has kicked Pat Robertson to the curb is sadly mistaken. This report proves that. Robertson had already apologized for his calling for the murder of Chavez by the time this report aired.

(hat tip) Virtual Matter via TIMESONLINE

MINISTERS were warned in July 2002 that Britain was committed to taking part in an American-led invasion of Iraq and they had no choice but to find a way of making it legal. The warning, in a leaked Cabinet Office briefing paper, said Tony Blair had already agreed to back military action to get rid of Saddam Hussein at a summit at the Texas ranch of President George W Bush three months earlier.

The briefing paper, for participants at a meeting of Blair’s inner circle on July 23, 2002, said that since regime change was illegal it was “necessary to create the conditions” which would make it legal...read on

--------------------------

More and more information is coming out that Bush planned this war in 2002. This is more backup to go along with The Downing Street Memo. Its apparent that our press will do no investigating on this issue so it'll be up to the UK. Couple this with the revelations from Mickey Herskowitz saying: " "He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," that we have a clear pattern emerging. Steve laid out a great plan today. Include this new piece of information and the case gets stronger. Add PNAC's "we need a "Pearl Harbor like attack" and we have another piece of powerful information.

Talk Left has more: More on the Blair Iraq War Briefing Memo