There is a child's game all Americans know called Simon Says. Consecutive commands are shouted by a leader to a group with the legitimating prefix, "Simon Says." "Simon says raise your right hand; Simon says jump up and down; Simon says wave your arms; Simon says nod your head;--wave your arms!" If you wave your arms the second time, you are out. Monotony lulls the listener, and the aim of a clever leader is to jerk a mindless response from the listener who is attuned to the rhythm and not the prefix.
On April 16, the New York Times military reporter Michael Gordon waved his arms without a Simon Says. The strange contradictions of the Iraq war had finally worn him down; or maybe he had a story too good to miss. The headline read "Iraqi Unit Flees, Despite American's Pleas"; the story told of a desertion by Iraqi troops fighting with Americans in Sadr City. The turn away from Gordon's serviceable style cannot have pleased General Petraeus. It exposed the swindle of the assurance that Americans "will stand down as the Iraqis stand up"; and it undermined the claim that "the surge is working." Gordon did not claim that the desertion was symptomatic. He did not have to. The resentment of the American soldiers quoted on the scene plainly arose from more than a single incident.
That story of April 16 was an aberration, both for Gordon and for the Times, and many readers must have wondered: how it would be atoned for? The answer came on May 5, with a story by Gordon entitled "Hezbollah Trains Iraqi Militants in Iran, American Officials Say." This was perhaps the most opaque, elaborately qualified, antiseptically cleansed and institutionally begged-off story ever published by a major newspaper anywhere.
Since 2002, when, with Judith Miller, he helped to sell the war against Iraq with specious evidence that proved to be false, Michael Gordon has been the favorite war reporter of the War Party. His curricular virtues are easy to see.
He writes about war with a zest that other reporters bring to sports. And from a certain point of view, a missile that demolishes a terrorist and ten civilians is a good deal like a runner sliding under the tag at second base. The style of Gordon lets you experience the first action with the feelings required to handle the second. No pause, no lingering glimpse, but, for him, the swirl of dust, the flash of spikes and the instant report. The bunt dribbled foul, they went to the bullpen, turned the enemy's flank, and plunged ahead into the sand and darkness.As they huddled to keep warm, the men exchanged uneasy glances. Somewhere in the tent was the shared knowledge that they had won other games almost as close.
"Militants from the Lebanese group Hezbollah have been training Iraqi militia fighters at a camp near Tehran, according to American interrogation reports that the United States has supplied to the Iraqi government." That is Gordon's first sentence; it is also his first paragraph. He never tells us who put into his hands the reports submitted by American interrogators to the Iraqi government. It would seem to have been the Americans, if only because they are cited as "saying" many things for the rest of the article. In that case, it would seem the purpose of the Americans in giving the reports to the helpful Michael Gordon was to exert pressure on the Iraqi government to act against Hezbollah. A vague associative logic goes on to link Hezbollah with Iran, and Hezbollah trainers with Iranian camps in Iraq. Yet the grammar controlling the connections is so disjunctive and splayed as to deny any solid deduction from the intimations of Iranian complicity.
Meanwhile, with Iraqis quoted on the "positive" role Iran has played in their country, the story divagates oddly into a range of ascriptive statements ("it appears that"; "according to American officials"; "the Americans say"; "they say"; "according to American officials"; "the American officials said"; "an American official said"; "the official summed up")--all regarding the presence, intentions, and actions of Iranians in Iraq. In this article, Gordon appears to have checked, tracked down, and verified nothing for himself.
The article closes with a falling-off so delicate it might easily be missed.
"According to American officials," a change occurred following the capture of a Hezbollah commander in March 2007. "After his detention, Hezbollah militants appear to be less visible in Iraq, American officials say." A fine redundancy-- "appear to be less visible." But take note of the date: March 2007. It is the only date supplied in this story of May 5, 2008.
We are not meant to see quite what is happening here. Michael Gordon turned in a premature story about a possible occurrence. Instead of postponing and checking, the Times edited, recast, rewrote, re-edited, and again rewrote until they had on their hands a nearly self-canceling, degraded and degradable object.
Still, the story accomplishes concrete ends that have nothing to do with facts.
It serves the ambition of General Petraeus, by implicitly blaming Iran for the failure of his "surge": Petraeus has hinted that he wants a bigger war, a story like this supplies a plausible cover to his next escalation, and it was designed to lend itself to that use. Also, by invoking the name of Hezbollah--until now, an obscure Lebanese party to most Americans--Gordon and the Times pick an enemy of Israel to connect with an enemy of the U.S.
Something is in the air. Nobody is talking about Iran and everybody is talking about it, from Hillary Clinton in her run for president to Condoleezza Rice in her run for vice-president. When Senator Clinton said that for Israel's sake she would "obliterate" Iran, she was entering a new terrain of recklessness. In the past, in America, it has been mainly generals who talked this way.
Obliterate was a favorite word and idea with General Curtis LeMay, head of the Strategic Air Command and the prototype of General Jack D. Ripper in Dr. Strangelove. The only politician to talk freely of obliteration, before Hillary Clinton, was not John McCain but another retired pilot and senator from Arizona, Barry Goldwater.
What are Bush and Petraeus looking for? Probably, at first, a small or medium- small war, with tactical bombing raids across the border to assist McCain in the fall and have him inherit in January. And yet, the administration is ready for worse. And if Iran makes a war possible by violent counteraction, the last days of the Bush administration will be euphoric and satisfied.
Who benefits from a war with Iran? George W. Bush, most of all, since another war will serve him as a drug to anesthetize the pains of Iraq and drown the half-knowledge of what he has done. The smaller calamity will be lost in the cloud and confusion of the greater. For Dick Cheney, a war with Iran would be the fulfillment of a dream. For the Republican Party a larger war presents the key to the lock-down on debate which the September 11 bombings offered a first tantalizing glimpse of. For Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a war against the U.S. would tighten his grip on arbitrary power, and if the war could be seen as provoked by the U.S., he might succeed in ruling without substantial challenge for years to come.
Whom would a war between Iran and the U.S. not benefit? The list is shorter. It would not benefit the people of the United States, and it would not benefit the people of Iran. But the men and women of the Bush administration are genuinely excited. The mainstream media are excited. Two of the presidential candidates are excited. The Congress and Senate are paralyzed. And that is where we are in May 2008--a mood not unlike that of August 2002.
The only quibble is with the Clinton quote. What she said was that "we WOULD BE ABLE to obliterate Iran" (emphasis added), a statement made in the context of what would happen IF Iran attacked Israel. While not the epitome of diplomatic gentility, it's a statement that hardly qualifies as an extreme one. Nor is it far-fetched as a policy position. Let's face it; political reality virtually compels a Democratic candidate to take such a position, one that will appeal to armchair-warrior and Jewish vote alike. And look on the bright side: there's progress in the simple fact that, in contrast to the current crew in charge, her bombing would be reactive rather than preemptive.
China also has troops fighting extremists in Canada. (Afghanistan)
China has aircraft carriers and naval destroyers positioned just off the coast of California (The Persian Gulf)
Look at the map, people! We have Iran surrounded!
http://i.infoplease.com/images/mapmiddleeast.gif
Hezbollah is not just a Lebanese party, it is in many places with strong Shi'a presence, such as Bahrain and Qatar. Need a symbol? Look at the globe on their flag. Who is more experience in battle than the Lebanese elements?
Hezbollah is essentially an Iranian proxy. It was created by Iranian the advent of the Revolution, which had regional, not just Iranian, pretensions. It still does.
I have spent the last several weeks reading about Iran and its people. I've been writing all of my representatives as well as those on appropriate committees regarding the increase in violent rhetoric toward Iran -- pleading with them to seek a diplomatic solution. You would think that we would have learned from the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. Sadly, I just don't see enough of our leaders coming forward to question what we are being fed by the NeoCons and their lapdogs in the press.
The fact that the American public is grossly uneducated on world affairs, coupled with the constant disparagement of Arabs and Muslims since, and even prior to 9/11, makes it easy for the administration to push these fabricated and exaggerated claims.
I pledge to work even harder in the coming weeks to raise awareness of this issue. The more the American people know about Iran, the more they will question why we are working so hard to "obliterate" them.
Sad to say, but pretty much worthless. You should read about their government and the ideoogy of the ruling class.
"I've been writing all of my representatives as well as those on appropriate committees regarding the increase in violent rhetoric toward Iran -- pleading with them to seek a diplomatic solution."
Relax. There is no "diplomatic solution" without the bargaining chip of violence. The Iranian oligarchs know America will not "attack." Did America "attack" Syria while it funneled jihadis into Iraq? Bush is weak in Iraq, not strong.
"The fact that the American public is grossly uneducated on world affairs,"
I agree. The "it's all about Israel" refrain is tiresome. The biggest worriers about the Iranian nuke program is its neighbors such as Saudi and the Gulf states. Obama and Clinton know this. Did you see their last debate? Both turned questions about "protecting" Israel to a cooperative anti-nuke shield against Iran covering the Gulf Arab states.
Not so sure about that. We were told that the buildup to the Iraq invasion was merely a "show of force" when the invasion was a done deal as early as spring of 2002. Just because we threaten to attack doesn't mean we're not going to attack.
This administration has been following the American Enterprise Institute school of foreign policy, which pretty much views diplomacy as a speed bump to be crossed on the path to war.
And if such occurs, will be revealed as misguided folly, as the Saudis and the other OPEC members are at this moment waging war against us--it just happens to be "war" of the finanical variety.
Iran is the least of our worries in the region; once OPEC has managed to bring us to our knees over oil, what will we do then--attack them all? And who, pray tell, will foo the bill if such occurs?
Bomb 'em.
It will cost the lives of more US servicemen, require billions of $ and stretch our military to the breaking point.
And it won't work.
Other than than that, it is a great Republican idea.
We are getting the same lies and innuendo that we were given about the WMD. Don't believe the HYPE!!!
And paid a tremendous price for that fight.
If you don't know that fact you know nothing. Nothing other than propaganda.
in addition. When you hear about the crimes of Saddam, you should keep in mind that many of those crimes were committed against al Sadr, his family and his supporters.
I don't expect you to see the irony of our invasion of Iraq to protect the people from Saddam's crimes and then demonizing the exact same people. You no doubt live in the Republican Irony free Zone.
I have been noticing many attempts in the media to somehow pull Hezbollah and Hamas into the iranian fold in a way that indicates that somehow they are all part of the same team; As though Hamas and Hezbollah would somehow cease to exist if Iran discontinued support or funding, or even that Iran is somehow RESPONSIBLE for these organizations. It is likely the case that Iran gives money and sympathy to these groups. So do other middle eastern countries. The french helped the US in its fight against the british, but they did not INSPIRE OR CONTROL the fight.
Hamas and Hezbollah have the sympathies of the people in the middle east because they have legitimate grievances. They engage in deplorable terrorist activity, but they are perceived as fighting against real oppression in the form of the Israeli settlement movement and the periodic invasions and bombings that Israel unleashes on Lebanon.
When we force Israel to abandon all settlements, pull out of the occupied territories altogether, and PREVENT them from invading and periodically bombing Lebanon back into the stone age, Hamas and Hezbollah will lose their support from most of the rest of the middle east. It will also mark the beginning of the end of the war on terror, and the beginning of peace for Israel.
You better take that up with the Arabian media, they seem to lack your perspective.
They are part of the same team, for now. It's about money, foremostly.
"As though Hamas and Hezbollah would somehow cease to exist if Iran discontinued support or funding, or even that Iran is somehow RESPONSIBLE for these organizations. "
Strawman causality. Actually Hezbollah might cease to exist without Iranian money. It was created for Iranian purposes. In Lebanon it was created to usurp the Amal. Shi'a were Amal but concerned about Lebanon, not Iran and Israel. Voila, Iran created Hezbollah.
"It is likely the case that Iran gives money and sympathy to these groups."
Likely? You mean you have doubts about the Iranian Government's open claims of doing so?
"So do other middle eastern countries. "
Only Syria. Other Arab countries are embargoing Hamas now, since they've opened their hands to the traditional Persian enemy.
"It will also mark the beginning of the end of the war on terror, and the beginning of peace for Israel."
You are still hanging on to that Western-centric view that "If only Israel did x," except you have detotalized the Israel problem, but still make it the centerpiece of a "beginning".
Rather, Iran gives money to a group whom they sympathize with. Perhaps if Israel did not periodically destroy Lebanan, there would be little interest in joining such a group.
For instance, I doubt that Iran would gain much traction in trying to start a similar group here in the US. The key ingredient for recruitment, you see, is the bombing and brutalization over the period of decades, leaving people with little hope for themselves or their families.
I laughed when you wrote "western centric" in regards to the idea that if Israel gave up the aggressions (settlements and invasions) against the Palestinians and the Lebanese that things would change dramatically. That is the overwhelming belief of almost every nation in the world, as evidenced by their comments and votes on such matters in the UN, and also the opinion of (most Hilariously) most Israelis, as evidenced by the very charter of the Kadima party, whose goal it is to stop the settlements, the occupation, and to move forward with peace plans and normalization with other middle eastern countries.
It is also the specific recommendation of the Iraq study group, whose bi partisan board of experts are not likely to fall into delusional, dysfunctional, "western centric" thinking, unlike the group of yahoos that make up this current administration.
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2008/05/selling_the_war/
Good read, I enjoyed it, but some readers will think you're actually serious here.
They will miss the fact that you didn't say "Simon says."
Bush was unqualified, and Petraeus is all too eager to serve unqualified's debacle, but I have a difficult time believing that they are both kept alive by human blood consumption.
Simon says stop corrupting fools -- consider that many Americans don't get the education to laugh your comments away. These expendible units of manufactured military-clay might reach the conclusion that they are obligated to fight against such governmental power.
Then what?
At best, such comments might squander the precious fool (whom I consider much more than a renewable resource)..
At worst, they set fools -- fools with an abundance of valid complaints -- onto a path of permanent illogic.
Either way, it's like tossing battery operated, chattering, fanged, halloween teeth in the bed of a live porn shoot. It might work out, you might even get with the star, but only out of some perverted sympathy -- when she's an old woman, in five years, she's not going to remember you.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/11317/
Please don't forget, we, the US, staged a violent revolution against the English, Using the every dirty military trick in the book, over TAXATION!!!!!! Hezbollah has A LOT more to complain about, and when we ENSURE that Israel ceases its periodic attacks on Lebanon, Hezbollah will fade away.