Antiwar.com Blog

Hey folks, I’m blogging over at Taki’s Top Drawer, starting today. Check it out.

I’m not done with Andrew Sullivan yet. You’ll recall this from Friday:

I’d say it means we need to tighten the sanctions, especially on gasoline. If we can economically strangle the theo-fascists, it’s far preferable to war.

You hear this sort of thing all the time in American foreign policy discussions, even from liberals who, unlike Sullivan, sincerely want to avoid war. And it has a whiff of reasonableness to it, in that strangulation may be preferable to being shot in the forehead. After all, while death in the latter case would likely be instant, strangulation is gradual, which may give the victim time to comply with the aggressor’s demands (if the aggressor’s primary desire is robbery or rape, not killing for the fun of it) and halt the process. But would anyone deny that both the gunman and the strangler qua strangler are on a deliberate path to homicide?

There’s a whole literature on how sanctions almost always fail to accomplish regime change, how, in fact, they usually consolidate power at the top while crushing those at the bottom, those least capable of bringing down the regime – children, the elderly, the poor, the sick, imprisoned dissidents. Everyone knows that by now, even Andrew Sullivan, so I won’t rehash those data and arguments. What I’m concerned with is challenging this notion that sanctions are on some separate plane of action from war. It represents a real failure of imagination on the part of the world’s policemen, who never pause to consider how things must look from the other end of the nightstick. Would any of you liberals who say sanctions are an alternative to war maintain that line if sanctions were applied to you? What would you think if some foreign behemoth – uni- or multilateral – encircled your country by land, sea, and air in an attempt to choke off, say, fuel imports? For all of you econotards out there, gasoline isn’t just for trips to the beach and NASCAR races: food and medical supplies, among other things, don’t just sprout wings and fly to where they’re needed. Iran has to import half of its gasoline, so we’re talking about inflicting serious damage on the country’s civilian infrastructure (forget about crippling its military: militaristic regimes from D.C. to Jerusalem to Tehran always coddle their killing machines, the rest of society be damned).

Sanctions are war, and that’s why Antiwar.com will not run any piece that calls for sanctioning even the most dangerous regimes. Iran has lived in the shadow of Israel’s nukes for decades now: the ever present threat of annihilation unites Iran’s mullahs, middle class, and moneyless in fear if nothing else. I’m sure they’d love to see sanctions applied to Israel’s rogue nuke program, but you won’t see us calling for that, because, yes, Virginia, some people are genuinely antiwar. Of course, it is instructive to watch the hysterical reactions from Israel’s amen corner every time some pissant non-state organization with no army threatens Israel with a meaningless (though certainly stupid) boycott. It’s OK to strangle Iran, in the sanctions-proponents’ own words, but flip off Israel and it’s a hate crime.

Here’s a proposal: the next time you see some plan for “us” to “deal with” whichever “them” we’re all supposed to hate at the moment, substitute the U.S. or Israel – lords of mayhem both – in “their” place and see if the plan is still palatable. Would you support strangling ordinary Americans or Israelis if their governments launched heinous, unprovoked attacks on other countries? If their governments had massive stockpiles of nukes, the only WMD that truly is one?

Well, would you?

On Wednesday, Jim Henley, in a post titled “All Is Forgiven,” noted an important admission by Andrew Sullivan: “what marks conservatism is extreme prudence in initiating conflict, a principle I foolishly rushed past in the wake of 9/11.” That’s certainly all true, and it was mighty nice of Sully to link approvingly to an essay right here on Antiwar.com. (Call me a dick, but I like to think that Tom Palmer wept a little bit when he saw that.) Moreover, I agree with Jim that “We have too much of the handiwork of the Unitary Executive Years to undo for anyone to be too persnickety about entrance requirements for the team.” That doesn’t amount to much more than “when people agree with you, let them,” but it’s sound counsel all the same.

But while forgiveness is a wonderful thing, it’s beside the point here. Forgive Sullivan all you want – it’s good for the soul – but for God’s sake, don’t forget his horrendous record. Jim’s soft heart has led him astray if he thinks one remorseful sentence means we should heap credibility on Sullivan, especially now. Here’s the great convert to noninterventionism today on the gas riots in Iran:

I’d say it means we need to tighten the sanctions, especially on gasoline. If we can economically strangle the theo-fascists, it’s far preferable to war.

Do you see where this is heading, Jim? Among other places, to a post titled “Hope In Iran” consisting entirely of the wisdom of Victor Davis Hanson. I don’t know how long it will take to unfold – six months, a year, two – but mark my words: this sanctions are preferable to war mantra will gradually shift shape into we tried everything else, all that’s left is war. I have no doubt that Andrew will draw on his vast reserve of fake pathos and shake his head sadly when he pronounces the words, but pronounce the words he will. Is it really a good idea to boost Sullivan’s stock right now, just in time for him to help launch another war? Shouldn’t there be some sort of probationary period before we let him “join the team” – say, five years without advocating an indefensible, catastrophic war of aggression?

The House of Representatives just narrowly defeated an amendment to deny funds to operate Vice President Dick Cheney’s office. Cheney had insisted that his office is exempt from Executive Department oversight by arguing that he is not part of that department. Rep. Rahm Emanuel proposed the amendment as a counter to that incredible claim.

The measure was defeated 209-217, with most Republicans and 24 Democrats siding with Cheney. GOP Presidential candidate Ron Paul of Texas and Walter Jones of North Carolina voted in favor of defunding Cheney’s office.

Emanuel tried to attach the amendment to a bill funding the Treasury Department and other agencies that could have faced a veto by President Bush. The overall bill includes a salary increase for House members that would bring their annual pay to nearly $170,000 next year.

The attempt to kill funds for Cheney’s vice presidential office and the government-owned mansion he lives in came on the same day Bush said he would not provide documents being subpoenaed by Democrats in Congress related to the firings of federal prosecutors.

[audio:http://dissentradio.com/radio/07_06_27_greenwald.mp3]

Former civil rights attorney, blogger and author, Glenn Greenwald, discusses the ideas in his new book A Tragic Legacy: How a Good Versus Evil Mentality Destroyed the Bush Presidency.

MP3 here.

Glenn Greenwald was previously a constitutional law and civil rights litigator in New York. He is the author of the New York Times bestselling book How Would a Patriot Act?, a critique of the Bush administration’s use of executive power, released in May 2006. His brand new book, Tragic Legacy, was released this week.

Michael Rubin, formerly of the Coalition Provisional Authority, writes a regular feature for National Review Online, a summary with links of the Iran-related news of the day. A hardcore neocon whose journalistic and other credentials have often been in conflict, today Rubin notes the following:

“Hardline, state-controlled press reprinting articles from U.S.-based Antiwar.com.”

If you follow the link you find a piece by Charley Reese (although the Iranians don’t give him a byline), a King Features columnist, which did indeed appear on Antiwar.com — as it did in several newspapers across the country, as well as online on several sites.

This is the neocon smear method, which they tried — with very limited success — on professors John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt when their Harvard University study of the Israel lobby came out. David Duke, they averred, had endorsed the Mearsheimer-Walt thesis — and what else do we need to know? A great way to divert attention from the real issue, which the neocons don’t want discussed: Look! Over here! No — over there! This way, they never have to discuss any actual issues, or make any real arguments — just the argument from intimidation.

The clear implication is that we are agents of a foreign power, and/or that we support the Iranian government: after all, why would they reprint something that we posted on Antiwar.com? If the Iranians say the sky is blue, is it really blue — or some other color?