The ?next president? examining ?military option?

[Ozoned]

Link

Lot of people voted for Obama because they Detest war of any kind. What kind of man could convince them otherwise?
?Remember I said it standing here if you don?t remember anything else I said. Watch, we?re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.?
------------------------------------------------------------------

November 4, 2008

The ?next president? examining ?military option?
Author: - Categories: US, iran - Tags: , Eisenstadt, military option, obama

Over at Contentions, I wrote about a new paper, written by Michael Eisenstadt (of the Washington Institute), predicting that Obama will be a war president.

Why?

Mostly because of wars in which Israel might be involved.

Take a look:

The challenges posed by the Middle East are legion: ?fragile and reversible? security in Iraq; military fallout from a possible Israeli strike on Iran?s nuclear program; the destabilizing consequences of a nuclear breakout by the Islamic Republic; a new round of violence between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority (PA) - this time in the West Bank; an Israeli military intervention in Gaza to halt renewed rocket attacks, preempt a Hamas military buildup, or crush the nascent Hamas government there; and the possibility of a second Hizballah-Israeli war.
Eisenstadt advises Obama (or, as he calls him, ?the next president?â??) to try and find out ?if Iran would be willing to suspend enrichment? in return for serious negotiations with the US. Marty Peretz of The New Republic, an avid Obama supporter (and occasional JP contributor) has similar advise, but he goes further to provide the solution in case Tehran does not agree to such generous offer: ?negotiate fast or take them out?, Peretz writes.

An earth-shattering idea? Not for those (few) bothering to read real news (namely, news unrelated to electoral maps). As the New York Times reported yesterday: ?inside Washington?s policy circles these days - in studies, commentaries, meetings, Congressional hearings and conferences - reasonable people from both parties are seriously examining the so-called military option, along with new diplomatic initiatives?.

The Times is quoting a bipartisan paper (Obama and McCain advisors listed as authors) saying that ?a military strike is a feasible option and must remain a last resort.? This reminded me of a paper on which I wrote half a year ago under the headline: Obama, McCain aides agree: Israel, U.S. must discuss strike on Iran.

The President, that paper suggested, should begin ?a national conversation with the American people on the challenges, risks, and dilemmas posed to U.S. interests by the potential Iranian acquisition of a nuclear weapons capability, and on ways to prevent it - to raise popular awareness of the fact that Iran?s nuclear ambitions are likely to trigger a surge of nuclear proliferation and raise the potential of terrorists gaining nuclear weapons.?

 

[fskimospy]

It's a lot easier to make these threads when you invent things that never existed isn't it? Obama was very clear throughout the whole campaign that he was not anti-war, just anti-stupid wars. He came out and advocated additional military strikes in Pakistan if they were needed, he proposed expanding the war in Afghanistan, etc.

In order to support your case, please find a credible link that shows that 'a lot' of people who voted for Obama did so because they detest all war.

 

[Xavier434]

Ya seriously. Is there anyone here that believes that Obama is some kind anti-war hippy? I have not seen any indication of that at all.

 

[First]

Yawn. There will be no ground troops in Iran any time in the near future unless another 9/11-style attack occurs. Fact is a "strike" on Iran could simply be sending bombs to plausible nuclear installations in Iran. And I'm not really against that as a last resort if diplomatic negotiations with Iran were exhausted but failed.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Evan
Yawn. There will be no ground troops in Iran any time in the near future unless another 9/11-style attack occurs. Fact is a "strike" on Iran could simply be sending bombs to plausible nuclear installations in Iran. And I'm not really against that as a last resort if diplomatic negotiations with Iran were exhausted but failed.

If by "diplomatic negotiations" you mean, "do what we say and we'll give you money and resources paid for by US citizens," then I say "no."

 

[Lemon law]

I voted for Obama despite his existing position on Afghanistan. Rightly or wrongly, I hope he will talk to the various experts on the region, start to review the various options, and not do what GWB is doing now.

Its futile to alienate everyone without having the assets in place to carry out any rational policy. As it is, the leaders of Afghanistan and Pakistan are directly appealing to Obama, they already know dealing with a fool like GWB is a failed policy. And at the same time, Obama is being forced to weigh in on Iraq and the Iraqi legislature, even before he is inaugurated. And GWB is going to have to give Obama his blessings, or GWB will be forced to watch the UN mandate expire some three weeks before he can slink out of office.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Evan
Yawn. There will be no ground troops in Iran any time in the near future unless another 9/11-style attack occurs. Fact is a "strike" on Iran could simply be sending bombs to plausible nuclear installations in Iran. And I'm not really against that as a last resort if diplomatic negotiations with Iran were exhausted but failed.

If by "diplomatic negotiations" you mean, "do what we say and we'll give you money and resources paid for by US citizens," then I say "no."

Why are diplomatic incentives bad? If it is in our country's interest for another country to do something (or not do something), we have two options. Convince them, or force them. Frequently convincing them (with some of your money and resources) costs far far less than forcing them. This is a wise use of taxpayer funds.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Evan
Yawn. There will be no ground troops in Iran any time in the near future unless another 9/11-style attack occurs. Fact is a "strike" on Iran could simply be sending bombs to plausible nuclear installations in Iran. And I'm not really against that as a last resort if diplomatic negotiations with Iran were exhausted but failed.

If by "diplomatic negotiations" you mean, "do what we say and we'll give you money and resources paid for by US citizens," then I say "no."

Why are diplomatic incentives bad? If it is in our country's interest for another country to do something (or not do something), we have two options. Convince them, or force them. Frequently convincing them (with some of your money and resources) costs far far less than forcing them. This is a wise use of taxpayer funds.

Yeah, and then the next schmuck sees us giving handouts, and boom, he wants nukes, too.

 

[techs]

YET ANOTHER BLOG

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Evan
Yawn. There will be no ground troops in Iran any time in the near future unless another 9/11-style attack occurs. Fact is a "strike" on Iran could simply be sending bombs to plausible nuclear installations in Iran. And I'm not really against that as a last resort if diplomatic negotiations with Iran were exhausted but failed.

If by "diplomatic negotiations" you mean, "do what we say and we'll give you money and resources paid for by US citizens," then I say "no."

Why are diplomatic incentives bad? If it is in our country's interest for another country to do something (or not do something), we have two options. Convince them, or force them. Frequently convincing them (with some of your money and resources) costs far far less than forcing them. This is a wise use of taxpayer funds.

Yeah, and then the next schmuck sees us giving handouts, and boom, he wants nukes, too.

You do realize that the development time and cost for nuclear weapons is huge in economic, scientific, and political terms, right? That it's far in excess of whatever incentives we have ever given, right?

You think countries are making nukes to try and get US aid? Please.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Evan
Yawn. There will be no ground troops in Iran any time in the near future unless another 9/11-style attack occurs. Fact is a "strike" on Iran could simply be sending bombs to plausible nuclear installations in Iran. And I'm not really against that as a last resort if diplomatic negotiations with Iran were exhausted but failed.

If by "diplomatic negotiations" you mean, "do what we say and we'll give you money and resources paid for by US citizens," then I say "no."

Why are diplomatic incentives bad? If it is in our country's interest for another country to do something (or not do something), we have two options. Convince them, or force them. Frequently convincing them (with some of your money and resources) costs far far less than forcing them. This is a wise use of taxpayer funds.

Yeah, and then the next schmuck sees us giving handouts, and boom, he wants nukes, too.

You do realize that the development time and cost for nuclear weapons is huge in economic, scientific, and political terms, right? That it's far in excess of whatever incentives we have ever given, right?

You think countries are making nukes to try and get US aid? Please.

It is their peoples' money, they get power and recognition.

But in Iran's case, with US military practically surrounding their country, building a nuke for them is a damn good idea. So, negotiations aren't going to work with Iran anyway.

 

[yllus]

President-Elect Obama always struck me as a pretty pragmatic person when it comes to foreign affairs. He'll use force as needed in places where talk isn't much of an option, and will use talk in places where force isn't much of an option.

The dishonesty of your statement is in posing President-Elect Obama's position as a binary one. He's not for war or against war - he's for making the best decision given the resources the situation lends him. Nobody other than his opponents and a random collection of fools expects him to completely rule out force as an option during his administration. In short, you aren't fooling anyone.