Political correctness can kill - Part deux

[Bill Glasheen]

I dedicate this thread to my Iranian friends who fled post-Khomeini Iran.

I do this partially to keep Ian on his toes I guess.

So I read this in the Wall Street Journal today.

* MIDDLE EAST NEWS
* JUNE 10, 2010

U.S. Shifts Toward Support for Iran's Dissidents

Administration Seeks to Help Counter Tehran's Jamming of Websites and Western Broadcasting; Some Rights, Democracy Groups Lose Bush-Era Backing

By JAY SOLOMON

WASHINGTON—The U.S. has accelerated its effort to provide dissidents in Iran with computer hardware and software to evade government censors. But it's a shift that many activists say is insufficient to bring political change in Tehran.

During much of the Obama administration's first year—reversing the approach of the George W. Bush administration—the White House withheld action on unilateral economic sanctions and other measures seen as challenging Iran's regime. Its hope was to engage Iran diplomatically instead.

But this week, the U.S. pushed through new United Nations Security Council sanctions against Iran, days before the first anniversary of the Iranian "Green Movement" uprising against President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's re-election on June 12.

In announcing the sanctions, President Barack Obama said the measures were as much designed to aid the country's political opposition as to end Tehran's nuclear program.

The Obama administration also says it is seeking to aid the Green Movement by facilitating its ability to communicate inside Iran and by punishing government entities responsible for the political crackdown.

As part of its revised strategy, however, the State Department is reversing course from the Bush administration and is no longer funding some aggressive institutions focused on crafting training programs for democracy activists or offering other services intended to aid Iran's opposition.

The U.S. has cut new funding for programs including a center established in New Haven, Conn., to catalog human-rights abuses in Iran; an Iranian journalist-training initiative and a social-networking program focused on promoting democracy and human rights inside Iran.

"Because Iranians seem willing to take risks, we should be willing to provide them help when requested," says Jennifer Windsor, executive director of Washington's Freedom House. The State Department last year declined to provide $3 million in funding to keep open a Freedom House online magazine in Farsi that focused on democracy promotion.

{snip}

Wow... How could that be? Surely Ahmadinejad and his merry fascists would listen to Barry the Silver Tongued and follow him the way so many others did in this country. I mean really... We all know the rest of the world hates us because of Bush. It was all Bush's fault.

And Barry would save us - just by talking. And we wouldn't want to interfere in their domestic matters, you know...

Too little and too late, Barack. Many gave their lives and thousands were imprisoned while you sat idly by, saying and doing nothing in support.

The least you could have done is give one of those wonderful speeches...

THIS is why we shouldn't send junior to the White House. He hasn't a clue. No matter how humble we act... No matter how much we grovel... No matter how much we stay silent when they say it's all the fault of those nasty Jews who deserve to be exterminated...

They just don't like us and what we stand for, Barry. And Mahmoud's just not in to you. Get it now?

- Bill

[IJ]

How does this keep me on my toes?

Do you really, seriously think that Obama thinks that Iran or the DPRK is going to become un-insane because of his rhetoric, or that he thinks any wacko state like them dislikes us merely because of Bush? I mean, if memory serves, Iran was causing us problems before REAGAN, and that's clearly not GWB's fault--so... you think Obama (and all his ilk? I'm part of the ilk?) is a complete moron or ignoramus?

What would your experienced candidate have done exactly? We think that... there would have been a revolution if we had done... what again?

Did you write one of these threads after the Iraqi insurgents were slaughtered after the first Gulf War? You know, when they had a no fly exemption for helicopter gunships and we didn't support them?

Yours in total perplexitude...

[Glenn]

So after decades of the same old policies failing, Obama trying something new "to engage Iran diplomatically instead" was a bad thing? You never know what you might accomplish until you try. And unlike some presidents, he's at least not afraid to change his policies when one does not work. Too many politicians perceive policy-change as weakness because they would have to admit they were wrong, and thus keep staying a course they started no matter how bad it fails.

Kudos to the effort, it's more than most have done.

[Bill Glasheen]

Yours in total perplexitude...

No doubt.

- Bill

[Bill Glasheen]

So after decades of the same old policies failing, Obama trying something new "to engage Iran diplomatically instead" was a bad thing?

There's nothing wrong with trying something new, Glenn.

• But when it's obvious that Ahmadinejad was going to ignore basic concepts of representational government...
• when it's obvious that citizens protesting the sham election were being brutalized by the government...
• when Iranian Americans are screaming for SOMEONE in this country to say something...
• when Obama says nothing (zero, zilch, nada...) as freedom-loving citizens are trampled on...

This has been going on for a long, long time. There are literally dozens of articles in The Wall Street Journal on the subject. Any ordinary citizen can keep up, and can read (from Reader Comments) how upset people were here and abroad. Obama can't be that ignorant.

Sorry, Glenn. Too little (see the article) and too late (see history). This guy reminds me of most of Europe as The Third Reich was marching across the continent. We wouldn't want to upset the man you know...

All the great things are simple, and many can be expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope.

- Winston Churchill

I have too many Iranian friends not to speak up. Obama blew it. His silence and his continued slap in the face to Iranians Americans working for freedom is unconscionable. Nobody's asking the guy to start a war. But allowing their propaganda and terrorism funding machine to go about unchecked is capitulating to that which will be our next great problem in the middle east.

"Told you so" doesn't quite capture what I feel - especially since he continues to show contempt towards those who care.

- Bill

[Glenn]

"Too late" is an indictment of his predecessors.

The problem is that the dissidents we help today we have to fight tomorrow. Afghanistan is a good example of efforts to assist the oppressed coming back to bite us. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for helping such groups, but we do not exactly have a good track record of it being in our best long-term interests.

[Bill Glasheen]

"Too late" is an indictment of his predecessors.

George Bush isn't president. These (in)actions and choices are on Obama's watch.

The problem is that the dissidents we help today we have to fight tomorrow. Afghanistan is a good example[

No it is not. You couldn't be more wrong. That's like comparing Japan to the Balkans. Iranians are educated, have a common language, have a definable heritage and culture, have a love of things Western, and genuinely want to be their own thing. They have a right to that path of self discovery.

Whether they agree with the US is immaterial. But when it comes to security in the Middle East, I'm putting my bets on a genuine representational government in their country.

It only took a handful of Spartans to inspire a slumbering Greece to defend democracy and freedom from a previous tyrant of Persia. A handful of brave, freedom-loving Iranians deserve to be heard.

- Bill

[Glenn]

"Too late" is an indictment of his predecessors.

George Bush isn't president. These (in)actions and choices are on Obama's watch.

Plural "predecessors" Bill, I was not referring to just one, nor to just one party.

You are becoming a broken record on wanting to remove all historical context that might reflect badly on GW, yet historical context was always at the heart of your defense of GW's (in)actions and choices during his presidency. At that time everything that went wrong seemed to tie back to Clinton,no matter when it happened in GW's two terms. I do not recall you ever once saying "Clinton is not president, it's Bush's watch". Your insistence on that line with Obama has become comically predictable though, I always know ahead of time when it is coming...plus it is easy to trigger.

Bottom line, to state that what Obama did from the BEGINNING of his presidency as "too late" can only be an indictment of his predecessors.

The problem is that the dissidents we help today we have to fight tomorrow. Afghanistan is a good example

No it is not. You couldn't be more wrong. That's like comparing Japan to the Balkans.

If you are saying Iran is like Japan, you couldn't be more wrong.

Iranians are educated, have a common language, have a definable heritage and culture, have a love of things Western, and genuinely want to be their own thing.

You need to brush up the basic geography of Iran, Bill. Both Iran and Afghanistan are more like the Balkans than Japan. Japan is a nation-state, with over 95% of the population being ethnically Japanese and native speakers of the Japanese language. Iran is a multinational state, with it's largest ethnicity accounting for only 51% of its population, barely a majority population, and the most common language only spoken by 58% of the population.

Common heritage and culture in Iran? Here are the largest ethnic groups ranked by their proportion of the population in Iran:

Persian 51%
Azeri 24%
Gilaki and Mazandarani 8%
Kurd 7%
Arab 3%
Lur 2%
Baloch 2%
Turkmen 2%
other 1%

Here is an ethnic (color shading) and religious (symbols) diversity map of Iran


Common language?

Persian and Persian dialects 58%
Turkic and Turkic dialects 26%
Kurdish 9%
Luri 2%
Balochi 1%
Arabic 1%
Turkish 1%
other 2%

I tried inserting a map of linguistic diversity in Iran and surrounding states, but it was too big, so here is a link instead:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... gesmap.jpg
Light green is Persian, other languages are listed.

Iran is hardly the Japan of the Middle East. We did not take the diversity of the Iranian people into consideration when we supported the Shah, and we still have not since his fall.

[IJ]

Bill, when you write "no doubt [I'm perplexed]" you might as well just start with the name calling.

You didn't answer my question about Obama's naivete, which you keep harping on, but could realistically only exist if he were a moron, rather than a Constitutional law professor.

In reference to what you'd have preferred he had done, it seems you wanted sterner language, and to "check" their propaganda and funding machine. So what do we need exactly? Maybe if he'd used harsh language instead of conciliatory language they'd have held free and fair national elections and renounced wacko-ism?

You have also failed to answer my question about the annihilation of Iraqi insurgents when we offered and withdrew support. They were wiped out with gunships in a misuse of the helicopter exemption to the no fly zone. What was done? Were Iranian dissidents crushed with tanks Tiananmen style? 3,000 of them per Wiki? Burma? Multiple conflicts in Africa? Yes, yes, this was before his watch, no excuse, yadda yadda. But what, exactly, came of your outrage for those incidents? Did you write a whole thread about the need for forum attendees to be on their toes with regard to the stupidity and naivete of Bush Sr, for example?

Oh and hey, we know you read the WSJ. Super.

[Valkenar]

George Bush isn't president. These (in)actions and choices are on Obama's watch.

Yeah Obama should really be ashamed that he hasn't solved all the world's problems yet. He's had a year and a half; that's *plenty* of time. We should ignore totally everything that happened before he was president, because let's face it, anyone who doesn't immediately fix any level of disaster they inherit should be 100% blamed for everything bad that happens anywhere. Makes perfect sense to me.

when Obama says nothing (zero, zilch, nada...) as freedom-loving citizens are trampled on...

Just because you say it don't make it true. Obama has said a number of things. The fact is he did come out against the crackdown on protestors. He has spoken out on Iran's civil rights abuses. Maybe he hasn't said what you want him to, but oh well.

Seriously, Bill. what the f- do you think we should be doing? Just run in there bombing? Because that's worked so well in the past. Oh wait, sorry, we don't talk about the past unless it looks bad for a democrat. Anyway, we're trying sanctions, though I don't expect that to accomplish anything. I'm sure Mr Obama would love to hear your great solutions to the problems with Iran. So would I.

I actually think he's done something in the neighbor hood of the right thing. The US president absolutely should not be coming out too strongly against the Iranian government right now. That would do nothing but create a focal point for the regime to scream American interference and get the people back on its side to resist foreign influences. The US has to stay out of it, publicly, because we need *not* to appear like we're meddling in their business, even though, yes, we'd like to.

Here's a case where subtlety and guile is a much wiser course than bold platitudes and constitution-thumping. The problem is we're not used to having a president who is smart enough (or willing to sacrifice the political capital) to take a more thoughtful approach. Oops, there I go acknowledging irrelevant prehistorical (pre-2008) times again. Anyway, it's all well and good to say that the freedom-loving people of Iran deserve a chance (and they do). But for the president to let the government of Iran use our own bombast and outrage as a tool to unite the people against us would be flat out stupid.

[Bill Glasheen]

If you gentlemen could come up with a coherent argument to my criticisms of Obama, then I could discuss this with you. Alas I get the same old "It's Bush's fault!" nonsense.

Glenn

You're proposal is the exception here.

Regardless of ethnicity, my comment holds. Comparing Afghanistan to Iran is like comparing the Balkans to Japan.

Iran/Persia has unity that revolves around history, culture, ethnicity (in spite of minorities) and education. Iran is home to one of the world's oldest continuous major civilizations. It has a common and official language (Persian) by constitutional edict (Article 15). You don't have factions fighting amongst themselves the way they do in Afghanistan. You don't have the common people hating all things Western. Your hypothesis holds no water.

Justin

Please read what I wrote before babbling about war.

Ian

Fercryinoutloud, make some sense! You're better than that! I don't know where to start. Meanwhile... Maybe YOU can start by staying on subject.

- Bill

[Bill Glasheen]

Moving along...

Apparently both the Democratic and Republican leadership agree with me here. This is an article written about an ABC This Week interview today.

Israeli Commando Raid

Turning to foreign affairs, Boehner sharply criticized the Obama administration's Israel policy.

After discussing the deadly Israeli commando raid on a ship of activists on May 31 and declaring that the "Israelis have a clear right to defend themselves," Boehner said, "We've coddled our enemies and pushed our friends aside in the process. We're raising a lot of doubts around the world, including the people of Israel who are having serious doubts about our commitment to them, our closest ally in the Middle East."

Hoyer said, "This is not a partisan difference. I strongly support Israel's actions. ... It is appropriate to have a blockade to make sure they don't get the weapons or other materials [for] ... terrorist acts.

"I think they did exactly the right thing in stopping that [ship]," Hoyer said.

Oh my... Both parties slamming Obambi and his dangerously naive Middle East policies. No wonder the wolves are acting up! All this just leaves the U.S. on a defensive, reactive course. Act like a deer-in-the-headlamps coward in the face of injustice, and you're going to get your ass handed to you by those who perceive the weakness. Iran's dictatorial theocracy funds officially-designated terrorist organizations in a dangerous area - unabated. Ahmadinejad gets away with preaching hate in the U.N. and elsewhere, and holding an "elected" office by sham. And now that they're getting away with murder (literally), Turkey et al are testing the U.S. resolve.

Too bad Obambi can't dig in to that deep executive experience and... Oh wait!

You boys have some splainin to do. You're backing defenseless policies, and not the cause of justice. Rather than see the issues for what they are, your knee-jerk reaction is to argue with me. This isn't about me.

I'm disappointed. But I'm not surprised.

- Bill

[Bill Glasheen]

More support for my thesis. While Krauthammer is no lover of liberalism, he is a writer for the left-of-center Washington Post.

- Bill

Obama policy on Iran is hurting U.S.

By Charles Krauthammer - Washington Post Writers Group

June 11, 2010

Washington — In announcing the passage of a U.N. Security Council resolution imposing sanctions on Iran, President Obama stressed not once but twice Iran’s increasing “isolation” from the world. This claim is not surprising considering that after 16 months of an “extended hand” policy, in response to which Iran actually accelerated its nuclear program — more centrifuges, more enrichment sites, higher enrichment levels — Iranian “isolation” is about the only achievement to which the administration can even plausibly lay claim.

“Isolation” may have failed to deflect Iran’s nuclear ambitions, but it does enjoy incessant repetition by the administration. For example, in his State of the Union address, President Obama declared that “the Islamic Republic of Iran is more isolated.” Two months later, Vice President Biden asserted that “since our administration has come to power, I would point out that Iran is more isolated — internally, externally — has fewer friends in the world.” At the signing of the START treaty in April, Obama declared that “those nations that refuse to meet their obligations (to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, i.e., Iran) will be isolated.”

Really? On Tuesday, one day before the president touted passage of a surpassingly weak U.N. resolution and declared Iran yet more isolated, the leaders of Russia, Turkey and Iran gathered at a security summit in Istanbul “in a display of regional power that appeared to be calculated to test the United States,” as The New York Times put it. I would add: And calculated to demonstrate the hollowness of U.S. claims of Iranian isolation, to flaunt Iran’s growing ties with Russia and quasi-alliance with Turkey, a NATO member no less.

Apart from the fact that isolation is hardly an end in itself and is pointless if, regardless, Iran rushes headlong to become a nuclear power, the very claim of Iran’s increasing isolation is increasingly implausible. Just last month, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad hosted an ostentatious love fest in Tehran with the leaders of Turkey and Brazil. The three raised hands together and announced a uranium transfer deal that was designed to torpedo U.S. attempts to impose U.N. sanctions.

Six weeks ago, Iran was elected to the U.N. Commission on the Status of Women, a grotesque choice that mocked Obama’s attempt to isolate and delegitimize Iran in the very international institutions he treasures.

Increasing isolation? In the last year alone, Ahmadinejad has been welcomed in Kabul, Istanbul, Copenhagen, Caracas, Brasilia, La Paz, Senegal and Gambia. Today, he is in China.

Three Iran sanctions resolutions passed in the Bush years. They were all passed without a single “no” vote. But after 16 months of laboring to produce a mouse, Obama garnered only 12 votes for his sorry sanctions, with Lebanon abstaining and Turkey and Brazil voting no.

From the beginning, the Obama strategy toward Iran and other rogue states had been to offer good will and concessions on the premise that this would lead to one of two outcomes: (a) the other side changes policy, or (b) if they don’t, the world isolates the offending state and rallies around us — now that we have demonstrated last-mile good intentions.

Hence, nearly a year and a half of peace overtures, negotiation, concessions, two New Year’s messages to the Iranian people, a bit of groveling about U.S. involvement in the 1953 coup and a disgraceful silence when the regime’s very stability was threatened by peaceful demonstrators.

Iran’s response? Defiance, contempt and an acceleration of its nuclear program.

And the world’s response? Did it rally behind us? The Russians and Chinese bargained furiously and successfully to hollow out the sanctions resolution. Turkey is openly choosing sides with the region’s “strong horse” — Iran and its clients (Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas) — as it watches the United States flailingly try to placate Syria and appease Iran while it pressures Israel, neglects Lebanon and draws down its power in the region.

To say nothing of Brazil. Et tu, Lula?

This comes after 16 months of assiduously courting these powers with one conciliatory gesture after another: “resetting” relations with Russia, kowtowing to China, lavishing a two-day visit on Turkey highlighted by a speech to the Turkish parliament in Ankara, and elevating Brazil by supplanting the G-8 with the G-20. All this has been read as American weakness, evidence that Obama can be rolled.

The result is succinctly, if understatedly, captured in Wednesday’s Washington Post headline “U.S. alliance against Iran is showing new signs of vulnerability.”

You think?

— Charles Krauthammer is a columnist for Washington Post Writers Group.

[Glenn]

You boys have some splainin to do. You're backing defenseless policies, and not the cause of justice. Rather than see the issues for what they are, your knee-jerk reaction is to argue with me. This isn't about me.

I'm disappointed. But I'm not surprised.

No spainin needed because it is not about us either. It's about debating options available. The president chose a course of action in an effort to get results after other policies have not worked. You are implying that a better result would have occurred if he had continued previous policies, but there is no real reason to believe that would be the case. Or, as Justin asked earlier, are you suggesting we should attack or invade Iran?

Our countering of your opinion of Obama is no more knee-jerk then your unsurprising insistance on attacking him for every perceived mis-step. But the fact remains that there is no one way to handle international relations and therefore your interpretation is open to debate.

Besides, you aren't fooling anyone, you thrive on debate and wouldn't bother posting this stuff it you thought it wouldn't get a reaction. That's when you would truly be disappointed.

Iran's dictatorial theocracy funds officially-designated terrorist organizations in a dangerous area - unabated. Ahmadinejad gets away with preaching hate in the U.N. and elsewhere, and holding an "elected" office by sham.

You could have also mentioned continuing to try to start a nuclear program, but regardless what you are saying is nothing has been changed by Obama's policies, he's getting the same results with Iran as previous presidents did. So in other words his policies are no worse than the others. Krauthammer's article mentions nothing that likely would not have happened regardless of who was president and what their policies were, short of invading Iran.

[Glenn]

Iran/Persia has unity that revolves around history, culture, ethnicity (in spite of minorities) and education. Iran is home to one of the world's oldest continuous major civilizations. It has a common and official language (Persian) by constitutional edict (Article 15). You don't have factions fighting amongst themselves the way they do in Afghanistan. You don't have the common people hating all things Western. Your hypothesis holds no water.

Admittedly Iran is more like Iraq, with the main rivalry being religious-based between the majority Shia and minority Sunni. But check out the maps again. There definitely is a well-defined core Persian region, but it's those peripheral minority homeland regions that can be separatist. The Kurds for example have resisted Persian authority for centuries, and last fought an uprising 1979-1982 when they saw an opportunity after the revolution to try to gain independence from Iran.

Also keep in mind that the 1979 revolution was, in part, a popular rejection of increasing secularization and westernization of Iran by the Shah so I would not say the common people love all things western either.