Monday, January 09, 2012

Another Reason Rick Perry Shouldn't Be President

Frankly, he's almost as clueless about foreign policy as Herman Cain and Ron Paul.

Take a look at this, from Saturday's debate:

Governor Perry, believe it or not, says he would send U.S. troops back to Iraq.

"The idea that we allow the Iranians to come back into Iraq and take over that country, with all of the treasures, both in blood and money, that we have spent in Iraq- because this president wants to kowtow to his liberal leftist base, and move out those men and women. He could have renegotiated that time frame."

He apparently doesn't realize that Maliki and the Iraqis ordered us out of Iraq at the behest of the Iranian controlled Shi'ite bloc that's responsible for Maliki being in power. During the flag lowering ceremony when the last of our troops left Iraq, not one member of the Iraqi government we put in power with our blood and treasure could be bothered to attend.

Is Governor Perry planning to invade again and have our military take out that shiny new army the American taxpayers built for Iraq? Is he going to have our troops overthrow the 'model Arab democracy' we left there?

As I wrote long ago, with Maliki and his friends, it was always a matter of 'thank you infidels for your time and your money. Now leave, so we can bond with our jihad brothers in Iran.'

Even before President Obama pulled us out of Iraq, Maliki and the Sadrist bloc that keeps him in power were quite clear about what they wanted. Once we empowered the Shi'ites and rushed them into elections less than two years after we invaded that were ultimately decided on tribal grounds, it was over.

Governor Perry is correct that we essentially left Iraq after putting in power a Shi'ite Islamic Republic based on sharia. But unless Governor Perry plans to go to war again and depose that government, he's simply being stupid.

This is not the first time he's demonstrated his ignorance of foreign policy matters. Back in September, when he was asked what he would do if he got the 3 AM call saying that Pakistan's nukes had fallen into the hands of the Taliban, here was his reply:

Well obviously, before you ever get to that point you have to build a relationship in that region. That’s one of the things that this administration has not done. Yesterday, we found out through Admiral Mullen that Haqqani has been involved with — and that’s the terrorist group directly associated with the Pakistani country. So to have a relationship with India, to make sure that India knows that they are an ally of the United States.

For instance, when we had the opportunity to sell India the upgraded F-16′s, we chose not to do that. We did the same with Taiwan. The point is, our allies need to understand clearly that we are their friends, we will be standing by there with them.

Today, we don’t have those allies in that region that can assist us if that situation that you talked about were to become a reality.

Yes, according to Governor Perry, his solution to the Taliban or one of Pakistan's other terrorist groups getting control of Pakistan's nukes was to call and ask India or Taiwan what to do!

I'm sure he's a fine governor, but I wouldn't want him within spitting distance of the Oval Office.


Scott Kirwin said...

He's desperate. Stick a fork in him he's done.

B.Poster said...

We weren't going to remain in Iraq even if the Iraqis wanted us to, which they didn't. Essentially we wanted out more than they wanted us out. This timetable for withdrawl was negotiated during the Bush years. The American people are fully behind it and remaining or going back in does nothing to serve our interests. furthermore to go back in now would violate our agreement and would only contribute further to anti-Americanism. Instead of going back in redeploy these forces to positions where they are able to defend America. Mr. Perry got this wrong.

Even though the time table for withdrawl was negotiated during the Bush years Mr. Obama is taking the credit for it. If Republicans were smart, they'd be taking credit for this.

With all due respect I don't think Governor Perry is saying we ask Tawain or India what to do. What he is suggesting is that if we are to deal effectively with Pakistan, the Taliban, or China we are going to need assistance from India and Tawain. In order to get this assistance, we are going to need constructive relations with these people. Right now this is impossible or at least very difficult because we don't have good relations with these people because of rampant anti-Americanism that has been allowed to run pretty much unchecked. Until this is addressed, our options are going to be extremely limited.

We need to redeploy to defensible positions. This may have adverse effects on our economy for a while but at least we will have a fighting chance to defend our country.

Who would you suggest as President among those currently running on the Republican ticket? What would you suggest we do about Iraq? How would you handle Pakistani nukes? Remember: its got to be something we can implement, will have the necessary support of allies we need, and will be supported by the Aemrican people.

For what its worth, being from TX I don't thik Rick Perry is a particularly good Governor. He was simply fortunate enough to be in the right place at the right time.

Fabian Pascal said...

Iraq was a monumental strategic blunder that may well be the last straw for US decline: it wasted resources the US did not have and it only advanced the interests of the real enemy Iran.

About the only benefit I can envision is if it initiates a shia-sunni conflict that will keep all the Islamists busy at each other's throat and which, if the West had any clues and cunning, could exploit. But the West lacks cunning and is in decline/appeasement mode.

Perry is just a reflection of the Western leadership crisis. The sheer fact that there are so many clueless Republicans who can't beat the worst president ever tells you all you need to know.

The thing is the US has put itself in circumstances that it no longer knows what to do. So don't blame Perry for it, he just reflects reality.

Anonymous said...

I would have believed you would have had to resist a certain temptation to agree with Perry, considering the near carpet-bombing level immoral and ruthless, self-defeating war you claimed the US should have waged in Iraq a few weeks ago.

And if assured of something akin with Perry, maybe you would have.

Rob said...

I believe you were actually talking about Iran, not Iraq in your second to last sentence.

First of all, Perry has indeed already said he would likely bomb Iran to stop them from getting nuclear weapons. I agree, that's not too bright because only an fool telegraphs his strategy in advance.

Speaking of stupid, only a fool wouldn't know that Iran has regarded itself in a state of war with America for over 30 years and has acted on it every chance they get.

And only a real fool would avoid taking decisive action before someone who's an avowed enemy obtained nuclear weapons.

So tell me anonymous. How's it feel to be a fool? *chuckle*

Anonymous said...

Hey, even a centrist like Thomas P.M Barnett (but who also supported the immoral Iraq invasion) says it's inevitable that Iran will get the bomb.

But as you know Iran has been rather steadily reaching out to the US behind the scenes for decades, hoping that the US political elite will somehow wean itself off Israeli dominant ownership and quit the precipitating belligerence-which began as early as the assassination of Mossadegh circa 1950 and carried thru the subsidization of their hated tyrant Shah.

So far, we've only given them Iraq--by ineptitude, not design.

Rob said...

Unfortunately Anonymous, I have to stand by my previous remarks and my designation.You simply refuse to look at things logically because of the huge blindfold of your hatred of 'Zionists'.

I wouldn't call Barnett a 'centrist' although there's no doubt someone with your views would think he was, because compared to you and others like you he is, kind of.

It's not inevitable Iran will get the bomb, and given their involvement with terrorists including al-Qaeda, you had damned well better hope they don't.If they do, trust me you won't be safe in Ron Paul's Fortress America.Any steps we have to take including reducing the place to halal cinders is justified..although we could handle things a lot more efficiently and with less bloodshed and achieve that goal.We could even do it while avoiding the stupidity of invasion and 'nation building.'

To repeat,anyone who thinks allowing a millanarian regime like the Mullahs to get nuclear weapons and control both sides of the Persian Gulf and those oil reserves would be good for America and for world peace isn't playing with a full deck.To say the least.

A little clue about America's role in Iran in the 1950's...Mossadegh was an out and out commie backed by the Iranian Tudeh Party, and both were working diligently to turn Iran over to the Soviets. Mosadegh had already been dismissed by the majlis but refused to leave office, and luckily we popped him before he could invite the Red Army in.I would have pulled the trigger myself.

The Iranians owe us a debt for keeping them from communist terror and slavery, whether some of them realize it or not.As for the Shah, I betcha that if the Iranian people could somehow retrace their steps and choose between the Pahlavis and the Mullahs,they'd have the Shah back in a nanosecond,knowing what they know now.

G-d gave you a brain...use it, please.


B.Poster said...

Everyone is aware of the narrative presented by anonymous on the Iranian issue. To pretend that someone is somehow smart or presenting new information by sharing it is rather ridiculous. What actually happened is likely much more complicated than the simple narratives on this. The narrative that Rob presents, while likely much closer to the truth, is not as well known by all Americans including those around the world, is nonetheless a narrative. Again, the truth is likely much more complicated.

Now with that said America and its leaders will have to make a greater effort to confront the standard narrative on Iran if we are to get the support needed among the American people and among other nations whose assistance we will need if we are to effectively confront Iran. I would not be opposed to using a forum like the ICC to settle this issue once and for all.

Before we do this though there are some issues that would need to be addressed. 1.) Given the rampant anti-Americanism in the world and the fact that the pro-Iranian government narrative and pro-Mossadegh narrative is so prevelant, how do we ensure America gets a fair trial? Frankly a fair trial for America is problematic at best right now. 2.) If America is at fault in some way, enforcing judgement against America will not be a problem. Given the enormous and often hostile media coverage America receives, America will have no choice but to comply. Also, other countries would be encouraged to take punitive actions against America should America not comply with the verdicts and judgements reached. Given the fact that Iran does not face such media scrutiny and it has the backing of two of the three most powerful nations on earth (Russia and China, for the sake of this post we'll assume America is most powerful) how do we ensure Iranian compliance with any judgements should Iran be found to be at fault in some way?

At a minimum these very real and legitimate concerns will have to be seriously addressed in a concrete way before America couls consider submitting itself to something like this. As it stands right now an ICC hearing/trial on this would simply be a kangaroo court designed to convict, vilify, and harm America and its officials.

The problem with "reaching out to the US behind the scenes" is generally when Iran or some other nation conducts negotiations with America is the whol thing starts with what must America give up, what must America do, and/or what must America not do. This type of farce is what we call negotiations in this country and the other party gets to take credit in the US and world media for their willingness to negotiate!! For any type of negotiations to be successful, the US needs to change its approach. The other parties will likely need to be expected to give up something etc. Until this happens what we have is a form of blackmail/extortion against the US and not what could be refered to as serious negotiations to resolve real conflicts.

Rob said...

Hi Poster,
Thanks for weighing in.

What I'm presenting on Mossadegh is not a conflicting 'narrative' but simple fact.His plan to turn over Iran to the Soviets is exactly why we got involved.

Also, I note that you've mentioned the ICC before on other matters. It is not an avenue for the US to pursue.

America, like several other countries recognized the bias of this venue and never signed or ratified any treaty recognizing its jurisdiction or its verdicts.

Therefore we have no standing to initiate cases or pleas before this tribunal.

Likewise, anonymous's claim that Iran is 'reaching out to the US behind the scenes' is outright fantasy only found in places like Iranian regime apologist Juan Cole's website or other fine places where fiction is sold.

Actually, it's been the other way around, especially since Obama took office.

B.Poster said...


Acccording to CIA chief Douglas at the time of the coup one of the reasons given was to halt the spread of the communists, meaning Russia. Since I have no doubt you are aware of his direct quote on why it all took place, I want print it in its entireity. Anonymous may or may not be aware of it, as it is not part of the standard narrative.

Generally those who make sure everyone knows the standard narrative don't dispute that the US acted to halt the communists. The standard narrative either glosses over this minimizing the threat, ignores it entirely, or says the US concocted the whole thing but generally no compelling proof is offered to explain how they could have concocted this. For example, how will the US who then and now was faced with intense scrutiny from a hostile media who generally prefers the Soviet/Russian position to America's going to get away with concocting such a thing? This is generally ignored or an attempt to explain it is made by interjecting even more conspiracy theory!!

I can see how allowing Russia to control Iran and allowing it to become a Soviet client state could have been an unmitigated disaster. As such, the coup is probably fully justifiable on these grounds. Furthermore doing nothing of significance to assist the Shah when he came under siege appears to have not been a good decision as it allowed the country to fall back in the orbit of a bitter and intractable enemy.

Perhaps there's nothing we could have done to preserve Shah much like there's nothing we could have done to preserve Mubarak in Egypt but with Egypt we sure could have managed the inevitable transition much better. It seems likely we could have managed the fall of the Shah much better too.

If Mossadegh was in fact a tool of the Communists in Soviet Russia, this explains allot. Many important policy makers around the world and in america, as well as prominent members of the news media feel the wrong side won the Cold War or at the very least the United States should have looked to the Soviet Union/Russia as its model for how it should govern itself. In short, America can NEVER be forgiven by these people for defeating the "evil empire" as President Ronald Regean called it. This is at least party why the hold a special hatred toward Mr. Regean.

Since we failed to complete the job of eliminating this entity, Russia is now back and wanting revenge and it has many important countries and important world leaders in full support of it. The American people and its leaders need to act prayerfully and with wisdom to confront this.

B.Poster said...

I'm aware that the US does not recognize the ICC. As this entity currently stands it should not. I think even if a country does not belong to the ICC they could bring a case against someone who does not and get a conviction in absntia if the entity being charged chose not to recognize the court. Such an event would send an incredible message. Also, the Iranians could pursue the UN and try to get any a general assembly resolution.

Given the fact, that either of these venues as currently constituted would be extrodinarly biased against America getting a conviction/judgement against America would likely not be difficult. The fact that Iran has not sought either of these remedies says a gerat deal actually. In any case that is brought, the US would be compelled to respond and in a trail this requires one to prove their case. Things might come out that don't fit the narrative. Needless to say this could get messy for Iran and the narrative. The case may not be as open and shut as the standard narrative tells us. Furthermore Iran does not appear to want to resolve the conflict with America. They wish to contiue with it or to escalate it.

Rob said...

RE: Iran and Mossadegh, Kermit Roosevelt Jr., who actually helped carry out the CIA mission (AKA Operation Ajax) has a pretty good account of it as well.

B.Poster said...

While one does have to look harder, objective accounts of this and accounts that are not biased against America such accounts of this incident are available. I'm sure I can find his account of this online, however, do you know off hand where his record of this can be found?

I do think America needs to do a better job of addressing this. If it comes to a military confrontation which I believe it will because Iran will see that it does, we are going to need support. As long as this narrative remains essentially unchallenged in the main stream its going to be difficult to get the support we need.

According to estimates in war games the US Nazy was able to defeat the Iranian Navy in combat it, however, it suffered enoromous losses that included at least one air craft carrier and several other ships. Also, Iran's Navy consists of essentially two parts which are the standard traditional type Navy that has old ships that date back to the era of the Shah and a newer less traditional Navy controlled by the Revoulutionary Guard that consists of the speed boats, anti ship missles, etc. While the traditional Navy is said to be professional and rational, the Revolutionary Guard Navy is said to be prone to irrational acts.

You no doubt no all of this. Nevertheless I found it interesting. Its important to understand as much as we can about an enemy. While no one of serious credentials denies that the US Navy is the most powerful in the world, when faced whan an enemy who is irrational, one must expect the unexpected. Also, while the US is likely the most powerful single military force on hand, what happens if Russia and China get involved on Iran's side? Esepcailly Russia who is still smarting over their loss in the Cold War to America.

So far American actions against Iran have been somewhere between a tap on the shoulder and a pin prick. Essentially its not enough to harm Iran in any serious way. Closing of the Strait would be the equivelant of a hard punch to the nose. To threaten such an action is defintiely irrational. What aren't the Iranians being held to account for this "dangerous escalation" by the media and others? I think I know the answer.

Should Iran close the Strait estimates are it would take the US Navy any thing between several hours to reopen to weeks. If things go down badly, it would be nice to have as much help as we can get. In order to get this help, we need to do a better job addressing the narrative.

Rob said...

Poster, as far as addressing misinformation and false narratives goes, just be aware that no matter what you say and what proof you offer, a lot of people are so ideologically invested in these lies ( to give 'em their proper,non PC name)that they will simply ignore you.

Holocaust denial is a perfect example. General Eisenhower, then our commander in Europe ordered that films be taken of the death camps and what was found there because, as he wrote in 'Crusade in Europe', he foresaw a time when certain people for their own reasons would deny that it occurred.

We also have court testimony, eyewitness accounts, the Nazis actual records,films and photos and people who still live among us with numbers tattooed on their arms, yet Holocaust Denial is a thriving industry.

Anyway, Kermit Roosevelt Jr.'s account can be found in his book, Countercoup. Your library may have it.