New at Reason

David Weigel | September 5, 2006

Jonathan Rauch looks to another president's politicking to reason a way out of the Iran mess.

Comments

Jess|9.5.06 @ 3:42AM|#

I don�t want a war! I want a peace! I like to travel!I have seen already a lot of countries except Indonesia but I think I will visit this land, too. Last August I was in Cyprus, it was great! There are the fabulous ocean, good Cyprus villa, wonderful sunsets, Spa salon, wine tasting and many more.
Life is too short...

|9.5.06 @ 8:17AM|#

The arsenal included counterinsurgency capacity, a buildup of conventional forces and intermediate nuclear forces, and new foreign-aid and public-relations programs (the Peace Corps, for instance).

All part of the bedrock of the path to a libertarian utopia. Which member of the Reason foundation does Rauch have the photos of, anyway?

|9.5.06 @ 8:45AM|#

Re, Iran:

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran's hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called Tuesday for a purge of liberal and secular teachers from the country's universities, the official Islamic Republic News Agency reported in another step back to 1980s-style radicalism.

The direction Iran is going is a far cry from the scientific, rational worldview of the Soviet Union. But, as long as Jonathan Rauch can get paid by reason for writing another one of his crappy "Bush should do this rehashed Democratic idea, even if it is either anti-libertarian, unrelated to the current situation, or, preferably, both."

|9.5.06 @ 8:47AM|#

All part of the bedrock of the path to a libertarian utopia.

If Libertopia doesn't involve dealing with our enemies realistically or at all, then I'll pass thanks. Seriously, jf, what are you going for here? Not dealing with Iran, or dealing with them biltzkrieg-style?

|9.5.06 @ 8:50AM|#

The direction Iran is going is a far cry from the scientific, rational worldview of the Soviet Union.

I forgot to address this:

Oh yeah, except for forgetting the science of economics and eschewing the rational idea that people are ends unto themselves, not cogs in a central-government machine. Other than that, doodles, you're spot on.

|9.5.06 @ 9:02AM|#

Ok, AR, I'll bite: which, of the quoted programs, do you consider to be either viable or even vaguely libertarian?

Regarding Iran and the USSR: I forget, was it fervent prayer and religious devotion or scientific progress that put a Soviet into space before any other country? I tend to forget.

|9.5.06 @ 9:18AM|#

OK, jf, what is anti-libertarian about a build-up of forces again? I know some may not personally care for it, but the one lone function of the State is self-defense.

|9.5.06 @ 9:24AM|#

Agreed, but I'd have to qualify that by stating that Kennedy's buildup of conventional forces in Europe (which is what we are talking about here) had nothing at all to do with self-defense. I'm not really sure that the libertarian solution to Iran (if it needs one) is a buildup of American forces in the Middle East, which would be impossible anyway without invading and maintaining a large force in some country neighboring Iran. I really can't think of any good candidate nations, though, nor can I think of any situation where that would be a good idea.

|9.5.06 @ 10:11AM|#

if you want to argue against something you are going to have to do better than calling it "unlibertarian". Given the extremly sticky situation we find in regards to the middle east in general an Iran in particular, what is your practical libertarian solution?

|9.5.06 @ 10:17AM|#

I'm not so sure the JFK approach was a good idea even in JFK's time, it got us into the real vietnam (as opposed to the present war, which is either vietnam or WWII depending on which way the wind blows for you) after all.

|9.5.06 @ 10:29AM|#

citizengnat,

I called an article that shows up on a purportately libertarian website "unlibertarian", and when pressed, backed it up with some arguments. My argument is with the article (as with many Rauch articles, which seem to have little to do with free markets or free minds).

And you asked a trick question. There is no "practical libertarian solution" to the Middle East and Iran. My personal preferred solution would be that little dittie about maintaining friendship and trade with all nations and entangling alliances with none. We could keep ourselves out of a lot of other people's shitpiles that way.

(apologies if this is a double post, squirrel ate my first one)

|9.5.06 @ 10:29AM|#

I would like to take Rauch seriously. He lost me when he started talking about "dirty tricks". Not that I don't think that is a good idea. I do. The problem of course is that if the U.S. ever did do some dirty tricks, like knocking off some of the more powerful mullahs or funding a Kurdish guerilla war in Iran, Rauch, Dave Weigal and the entire get the U.S. out of North America wing of the Reason staff would have a litter of kittens the likes of which only God has seen. It is all bait and switch to prevent the U.S. from doing anything. Now, the line is "you don't need to stop Iran from getting nukes by attacking them, just let them have nukes and then do A,B, and C. After Iran gets nukes and the U.S. looks at options A,B, and C, it will be "you can't do that, you should do D,E, and F." The end result is the U.S. is paralyzed and does nothing. It is their right to hold that position. I just wish they would stop lying about it and stop pretending that they really want to do anything about Iran.

thoreau|9.5.06 @ 10:34AM|#

the entire get the U.S. out of North America wing of the Reason staff

I don't care who you are, that's funny!

Jennifer|9.5.06 @ 11:33AM|#

OK, jf, what is anti-libertarian about a build-up of forces again?

Considering how we squandered our military readiness on an optional war in Iraq, how do you propose building up our military in line with libertarian standards? We're not getting enough volunteers; shall we bring back the draft?

At this point, debating our best military option to handle the Iranian situation is like me debating the pros and cons of buying my own private Greek isle in the Mediterranean; say whatever the hell you want, I can't afford it anyway. But John can argue that the vacation cottage I build on my island should be in the classic Greek Revival style, while Ayn Randian argues in favor of a more modern-type building, the sort that Howard Roark would design.

Jennifer|9.5.06 @ 11:33AM|#

OK, jf, what is anti-libertarian about a build-up of forces again?

Considering how we squandered our military readiness on an optional war in Iraq, how do you propose building up our military in line with libertarian standards? We're not getting enough volunteers; shall we bring back the draft?

At this point, debating our best military option to handle the Iranian situation is like me debating the pros and cons of buying my own private Greek isle in the Mediterranean; say whatever the hell you want, I can't afford it anyway. But John can argue that the vacation cottage I build on my island should be in the classic Greek Revival style, while Ayn Randian argues in favor of a more modern-type building, the sort that Howard Roark would design.

|9.5.06 @ 11:49AM|#

I can't wait for Bush-lite to declare that he too is a cream-puff pastry.

|9.5.06 @ 12:52PM|#

Jennifer,

The Air Force and Navy are barely deployed in Iraq and the majority of both the Army and the Marine Corps are not there. The U.S. could bomb Iran into the Stone Age and walk into Terrain tomorrow if it wanted to. Could the U.S. occupy Iran and try to rebuild the country? No. But, it most certainly could militarily defeat Iran if it chose to do so. That doesn't mean that it should, but it could. Of course, admitting that obvious fact would prevent you from making this argument into an argument over Iraq. So, feel free to ignore the obvious.

Jennifer|9.5.06 @ 1:03PM|#

The U.S. could bomb Iran into the Stone Age and walk into Terrain tomorrow if it wanted to.

I'm guessing that by terrain you meant "Tehran?" Certainly, we could bomb the hell out of Iran (except for their nuclear capability, which is mostly underground). And we could walk through Iran as easily as we walk through Iraq; we just need to duck a lot to avoid the flowers/bombs the liberated populace keeps throwing at us.

But that wouldn't achieve whatever the hell our goals are--getting rid of the nukes, turning Iran into a happy secular democracy, reducing the threat of Islamic terror. . . sure, our military is capable of major destruction, but not the kind of force projection that would actually achieve a gain for our country.

Germany did an effective job of trashing London during the Blitz, but I don't recall them actually achieving their military goals from it.

|9.5.06 @ 2:59PM|#

Jennifer,

Germany never invaded and occupied London. They lost the war in case you didn't notice. The U.S. could invade Iran and remove the government, destroy their entire defense infrastructure and go home, if it chose to do so. You can win a war without creating a democracy. You can win a war by killing the enemy and destroying his ability to fight.

You are right in that wars do not always settle things. If we kicked the crap out of Iran and killed their leaders, there is nothing to say that they won't build up and come back again. As a matter of fact, I think they probably would. Whether that is preferable to to Iran building nukes and using them on us, I will leave up to you.

Jennifer|9.5.06 @ 3:10PM|#

Germany never invaded and occupied London. They lost the war in case you didn't notice.

Yes, dear, that was my point.

The U.S. could invade Iran and remove the government, destroy their entire defense infrastructure and go home, if it chose to do so.

Again, I already said that. We can certainly trash Iran. What we can't do is trash Iran in such a way that we'll actually be any better off for it, just as all those damage done to London and Coventry didn't bring Germany victory.

As for the nukes--the Iranians already buried those underground. Conventional bombing won't serve to get rid of them. Militarily, there's nothing we can do to stop the Iran problem. We can annoy Iran, we can destroy their infrastructure and kill a shitload of their civilians, but we can't actually negate any threat Iran might be.

|9.5.06 @ 5:13PM|#

I didn't know you knew they had them already, Jennifer. Better call the CIA, somebody's not on the ball.

|9.5.06 @ 5:13PM|#

I didn't know you knew they had them already, Jennifer. Better call the CIA, somebody's not on the ball.

|9.5.06 @ 5:13PM|#

I didn't know you knew they had them already, Jennifer. Better call the CIA, somebody's not on the ball.

Jennifer|9.5.06 @ 5:32PM|#

I didn't know you knew they had them already, Jennifer. Better call the CIA, somebody's not on the ball.

The CIA is under the impression that their nuke facilities are underground, AR. All your semantic nitpicking won't transform the Iranian threat into one that we can make disappear via bombing.

|9.5.06 @ 6:51PM|#

There is more to a nuke facility than, well, nukes. There is also the violent removal of the scientists, mullahs and politicians dedicated to using them. there is also the destruction of the vehicles and equipment necessary to man and operate those facilities. So yes, you can effectively shut down the facilities without destroying them. Additionally, I would think that "bunker-busters" could be pretty effective against underground nuclear facilities.

|9.5.06 @ 7:04PM|#

"If you don't favor military action, what would YOU do about Iran?" sounds a lot like "If you don't favor burning, what would YOU do with all the witches?

|9.5.06 @ 7:47PM|#

So, since witches weren't a real problem, are you saying that Iran isn't a real problem?