The British hostages: catch and release
[NOTE: I’ve got an exceptionally busy day today, and so this will be briefer than usual, despite the importance of the news.]
The British hostages have been freed (or are in the process of being freed) by Iran.
This is excellent news in human terms. In political terms, it depends on what cost—if any—was paid for their freedom. In other words, was it the result of a deal or a threat?
Or, alternatively, was it the result of Ahmadinejad simply pardoning them out of “humanitarian considerations,” as he’s quoted as saying in the above article [/sarcasm].
In propaganda terms, the Iranians may have gotten everything they wanted—the humiliation of Britain, the British Navy, and the sailors—and have no reason to continue to hold them further if there’s any chance the ante will be upped.
In strategic terms, they may have learned what they wanted to find out: that they could get away with this and more, without real consequences.
Or perhaps they learned nothing of the sort. I’ve been hoping that all sorts of things were going on beneath the radar of which we knew nothing, and that the public face we were shown was only the tip of a much more formidable iceberg on the part of Britain and the West. Perhaps the iceberg also included a bit of “persuasion” from Iran’s Arab “friends” Syria and Qatar. Iran may be a little bit too much of a loose cannon, and getting a bit too big for its britches (pardon the mixed metaphor), for their liking,
I have a deep respect for the mullahs’ knowledge of how propaganda works, and to my way of thinking they won this particular PR skirmish, big time. I hope they lose the war.
My first visit to your site. What I find interesting in your bio of lifelong Democrat “mugged by reality of 9/11” is that my fondness for conservative ideas headed the opposite direction after 9/11. Our (Republican) failure to allow elections in Vietnam in 1954 led the way to the Vietnam War. Our (Republican) removal of Iran’s popular leader in 1953 led the way to Kkomenei, and Reagan’s team’s sale of weapons to Iran and present membership of many involved in that incident in the Bush admin tell me that a neo-con Republican view of the world has caused far more harm than good. Our (Republican) support for Saddam in the 1980’s, without which he would have collapsed during the Iran-Iraq war.
And, most recently, we also removed from power Iran’s greatest threat (Saddam Hussein) and a sworn enemy of al-Qaeda (Saddam Hussein and, dare I say, on purely technical terms Soviet Afghanistan serving as an anti-terror proxy). I was hoping 9/11 would change the conservative view of the benefits of foreign meddling but apparently it has only fueled even wilder and crazier schemes, with consequences we will feel for decades to come.
What “war”?
The one where we drop bombs on them for no good reason at all? The one where we sponser terrorist groups to attack and kill Iranian civilians?
I hope we lose that one too.
Or rather I hope we have some kind of dignity left and negoiate in good faith(a nuclear-free middle east) rather than threatening everybody with illegal, aggressive acts of war ….
I think the hostages were let go either as a prisoner swap, or the Iranians knew they were getting a bad reputation on their hostage habit. Since the Brits were examining an Iraqi ship, there was no Iranian national interest and it really looked like Iranian hubris or Iranian meddling. Best to get it out of the headlines.
And nobody really believes the Brits and the Iraqis were confused about their GPS readings and what waters they were in. I don’t know if the Iraqi ship being searched by the Brits had GPS, but as professional sailors they had to have some way of knowing where they were in the Gulf. And the Iraqis weren’t taken into custody.
Dear puzzled:
Our Republican failure to allow elections in 1954 in Vietnam kept Vietnam divided but it was the later actions of Kennedy and Johnson that got the US into the Vietnam war.
Our Republican removal of Mohammad Mossadegh, in 1953 raises questions. We simply don’t know how things would have turned out if he were left in power. He had been abandoned by his supporters and the Shah by the time he was ousted. You could argue that if Mossadegh had not nationalized the British oil the current crop of Ayatollahs would not be in power. That said, I sure wish I could go back in time and stop the coup and the nationalization.
Most of the actions you describe are not neo-con actions, the are the actions of big business Republicans, many of whom are not even conservatives.
I am, by the way, not truly a conservative myself, more of a paleo-liberal or perhaps a John Kennedy Democrat. Scoop Jackson comes to mind.
I think we have to remember that the US leaders were truly frightened of another world war; There had already been two, why not a third? And how could it not be nuclear? When you consider the fear they had of a world dominated by Stalinism and a nuclear holocaust, you can begin to see why the things they did seemed righteous to them, or at least necessary. Remember, Russia probably had been able to smash Nazi Germany by itself. Most of the Nazi troops who died in WWII died on the Russian front. The Soviets were advancing on a wide front for a year before the D-Day landings.
The point is that the American leaders believed that the Soviets could easily overrun all Western Europe, and the only thing holding them back was the US atom bomb. With all of Europe in the hands of Stalinists, the US could not stand. With the world in the balance and nuclear holocaust on the horizon, the aspirations of the Iranians and Vietnamese were of no importance. Any weakening of the Western Alliance was a strengthening of the “Great Satan”, Soviet Communism.
Nowadays many seem to feel that the interventions in Vietnam and Iran were for narrow financial gain. You can be sure the US leaders did not see it that way.
Pingback:BilbaoPundit :: Ética y polÃtica :: April :: 2007
Not to take any credit from Russia during WWII, but the German’s were being led by Hitler back then. Every strategically and tactically bad decision can be traced to Hitler’s direct intervention: The failure to drive on Moscow, Stalingrad, Kursk, his “hold at all costs” orders, the Cannae of Army Group Center, etc. The one thing that bothers me about the “we support bad guys” argument is that the people who chant that mantra never mention Stalin. Just think of all the problems we could have avoided if we had let Hitler take him out. No “cold war”, no middle east, no Communist China, no Vietnam, no Ayatollah, no Castro, no Sandinista, no Angola, no Korea, etc. In other words, no (Republican) screw-ups. Or even (Democrat) for that matter. Imagine no Nazi wannabies like TC. (Yeah, there might still be REAL Nazis around, but I’m sure we could have talked with them) To quote Steely Dan: “What a beautiful world this would be.”.
As far as Iran goes, we WILL have to fight them sooner or later. Amazing how lefties and nazis have screamed for four or more years that Iran was the REAL enemy, and Iraq was a distracting sideshow. They talk about “invading our soverign soil(the embassy) and their support of terror groups like Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad, etc. and say Iran is the REAL threat while we “avenge our daddy”, etc. Now it looks like we might just throw down with Iran, and suddenly lefties and NatC here say “there’s no threat here, no provocation, and lemmie guess, no WMD’s. And besides, Iran has every right to defend itself against Israel(!?!?).
And besides, NatC, weren’t you and the lefties(the political propaganda alliance of the kook left and militant right reminds me of the Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact) saying we needed to PROMOTE the Iranian people to resistance against the mullahs and imams? Now that we’re doing it, you describe them as “terrorists attacking civillians”. Do you EVER get tired of talking out of BOTH sides of your mouth, NatC? Exactly what kind of credibility do you expect when you yourself can’t even keep track of your own lies, distortions, and Alex Jonesesque propaganda?
Interesting comments. WRT Iran’s history, while it’s fashionable to see our installation of the Shah as the great mistake (I love Fred’s summary, above), there is no question the greater mistakes were Jimmy Carter changing the environment such that the Soviets were encouraged to invade Afghanistan, and then abandoning the Shah as a result of knowing nothing about Khomeini.
What war now? Call it a chess game instead. It seems the Iranians are much better at that than we are. The stakes? Potentially, life on earth. More likely, a return in much of the world to conservative religious values. Not a pretty picture.
Pingback:Kaveman’s Daily Feed of Informative Blogs » The British hostages: catch and release
What “war”?
The war in which we send three Marine Divisions from Basrah along the southern coast of Iran, blowing up their naval and coastal facilities and various other military assets, incombination with a naval blockade, air strike, and unrestricted submarine warfare to annihilate Iran’s air force and navy.
After the Marines are done, they get to go to Afghanistan. Right through Iran that is, while avoiding Pakistan.
That war.
Pingback:Judicious Asininity
The Brits got their sailors back, the Iranians got to puff themselves up and look important, and nobody got killed. Sounds like everybody’s happy.
On the other hand, the Brits looked impotent and the Iranians looked like a bunch of desert bandits. So maybe everybody’s not happy.
On the other other hand, the Labor government thinks looking impotent (at least when dealing with Muslims) is a good thing, while the Iranians want the world to believe they are civilized. So maybe the Brits won after all.
That’s what I thought, Yar – the ‘war’ in your wee, thick head.
The one that you wish we were fighting – while you arm chair quarter back from your mom’s kitchen….
“The chicken hawk term has been considered a reasonable description for some politicians, people in certain Washington think tanks, journalists and some average Americans who pushed for and supported the invasion of Iraq.
For many of these people, we might wonder if they are psychologically and emotionally compensating for never having proven themselves in dangerous situations.
(Article Continues Below)
Some of them are certainly compensating for not being tested under fire. That testing does not need to be previous military combat fire. It could be that they have not been in dangerous situations of any kind, nor faced psychological, emotional and spiritual experiences that have shaped them in a positive way.
As an alternative, they talk tough and advocate sending others into danger to be injured and to die.
These people are a type of “armchair warriors” and wannabe heroes. They talk tough to possibly compensate for their own self-doubts, and the doubts others may have about them.
They may be angry or frustrated in their personal lives and find that being a cheerleader for war makes them feel worthwhile.
They may feel that being a patriotic American means always supporting officials and others who want war.
In addition, some people seem to be chicken hawks not for themselves, but for their teen or adult children. In other words, what if a parent was a hawk for the invasion and continued occupation of Iraq, but didn’t want their own children to join the Army or Marines and go? What if they wanted only other parents’ kids to go? These people might seem to be a type of chicken hawk too.
The Army has recently raised its first-time enlistment age to just under 42 years of age. When we hear someone advocating for continued death and injury to our troops in Iraq, we might ask them if they or their children have signed up to go.
Chicken hawks, armchair warriors and wannabes do exist and are dangerous to others. They often support sending brave and honorable Americans to be terribly wounded and killed. They justify deaths of and injuries to innocent people, including women and children.
Honorable and brave people in our military, veterans and some civilians often seem to assume that our political leaders and others in positions of power in American society also have the same courage, honor and fellowship as they. This may be a very mistaken assumption.
We may watch tough-talking politicians and talking-head pundits, or read the articles, analyses and editorials of certain journalists and assume that they have been tested and have some serious understanding the sacrifice, danger and pain of war.
We might mistakenly believe that they share the deep fellowship and love of our troops and their families.
However, chicken hawks most likely do not deeply understand these traits and emotions. This is one of they key reasons that they are so dangerous and destructive.”
“I was hoping 9/11 would change the conservative view of the benefits of foreign meddling but apparently it has only fueled even wilder and crazier schemes, with consequences we will feel for decades to come.”
A classic example of “displacement” here? Shhhh, not so loud but it was crazy and wild to fly passenger planes into New York and Washington CD. Whether we like it or not, the civil war “within” global Islam has drawn the West into the fight.
On the other other hand, the Labor government thinks looking impotent (at least when dealing with Muslims) is a good thing, while the Iranians want the world to believe they are civilized.
“Impotent.” “Weak.” “They must have cut a deal.”
Tsk, tsk. Such a tremendous amount of disappointment around here that this thing was resolved without the typical neo-con diplomatic skill set, namely tough posturing and threats of attack.
This thing was resolved.
I wouldn’t use the past tense so fast.
“Chicken hawks” are “dangerous” NatC? Name the “chicken hawk” who flew a plane into a building. Or maybe you could name the “chicken hawk” who used amfo to blow up a building(I can name a nazi like you TC; Timothy McViegh).
Girls, girls, girls. Is it time for Midol, or are you always this cranky?
It’s called a “discussion” SB. Do you have a problem with that? Wait ’til nazi boy(TC) gets me “really mad”, then you might have something to bitch aoout(what a baby).
TC,
What is your term of endearment for those brave and honorable people in the military that enlist, re-inlist and served more than one rotation in Iraq? Are they still brave and honorable in your eyes? Or do they just become mercenaries or unintelligent dupes?
Your politicians cant even bring themselves to call them “Soldiers”, “Marines”, “Airmen” and “Sailors”. to them they’re just “our children”. They get zero respect for being trained professionals.
After serving 25 years in both the active duty and National Guard, (but no, not during war), it strikes me funny now how much concern the folks on the left suddenly have for the military.
I can tell you that you arent fooling most of the active duty personnel.
Can you really, Harry?
While I’ll be damned….
…Awww…. Gee Harry, you’ve got the nazi(TC) at a loss for words. I guess propaganda classes don’t include spelling.
No Lee. I guess in the end, he really did answer my question.
Harry, I’m sure he(NatC) is just checking in with his handlers for a proper response. He can’t just “improvise” a response, it has to be “approved” by his gruppenfuhrer.
Sorry bout that release of the hostages. It seems the war with Iran will have to be delayed. Mr. Kristal is very upset about this. Mr. Pearl, Wolfowitz, Feith are also very upset by this turn of events.
Don’t be afraid of Hillary, she wants to go to war on behalf of Izreal too.
Pingback:Infidels Are Cool » Blog Archive » British Soldiers: No Point In Fighting Back
Gee, Horris, maybe Hillary helped plant some of those demolition explosives in building 7 herself. After all, she DID claim she was Jewish. Makes you wonder, huh?