Zakaria: The Year of Living Fearfully (Iran is Not Hitler's Germany)

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14640262/site/newsweek/

It's 1938, says the liberal columnist Richard Cohen, evoking images of Hitler's armies massing in the face of an appeasing West. No, no, says Newt Gingrich, the Third World War has already begun. Neoconservatives, who can be counted on to escalate, argue that we're actually in the thick of the Fourth World War. The historian Bernard Lewis warned a few weeks ago that Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, could be planning to annihilate Israel (and perhaps even the United States) on Aug. 22 because it was a significant day for Muslims.

Can everyone please take a deep breath?

To review a bit of history: in 1938, Adolf Hitler launched what became a world war not merely because he was evil but because he was in complete control of the strongest country on the planet. At the time, Germany had the world's second largest industrial base and its mightiest army. (The American economy was bigger, but in 1938 its army was smaller than that of Finland.) This is not remotely comparable with the situation today.

Iran does not even rank among the top 20 economies in the world. The Pentagon's budget this year is more than double Iran's total gross domestic product ($181 billion, in official exchange-rate terms). America's annual defense outlay is more than 100 times Iran's. Tehran's nuclear ambitions are real and dangerous, but its program is not nearly as advanced as is often implied. Most serious estimates suggest that Iran would need between five and 10 years to achieve even a modest, North Korea-type, nuclear capacity.

Washington has a long habit of painting its enemies 10 feet tall—and crazy. During the cold war, many hawks argued that the Soviet Union could not be deterred because the Kremlin was evil and irrational. The great debate in the 1970s was between the CIA's wimpy estimate of Soviet military power and the neoconservatives' more nightmarish scenario. The reality turned out to be that even the CIA's lowest estimates of Soviet power were a gross exaggeration. During the 1990s, influential commentators and politicians—most prominently the Cox Commission—doubled the estimates of China's military spending, using largely bogus calculations. And then there was the case of Saddam Hussein's capabilities. Saddam, we were assured in 2003, had nuclear weapons—and because he was a madman, he would use them.

[Frazzled Educator]

1. Look at our boogeymen throughout history

1790 - 1870 = Native Americans
1870 - 1920 = Immigrants/Labor Unions
1920 - 1941 = Communists
1945 - 1990 = Communists/uppity negros
1990 - 2006 = Liberals/Homosexuals/Drug Users/Terrorists/the next door neighbor/France/immigrants/scientists/non-Christian fundamentalists/Academia/Artists & Actors/novels/movies/video games/the list goes on and on.

We need boogeymen and our government creates these larger than life boogeymen to scare the masses to become obedient servants to destroy things that would help their own best interest.

[theanarch]

4. actually, the Great American Boogieman...

...Tour is a bit more muddled than your list suggests. From 1607 (Jamestown) and 1620 (Plymouth) to 1876 (the last Indian war), it was Native Americans, sparodicly. Race riots (against Afro-Americans) go back to the late 1820's (mostly in Ohio Kentucky river towns). Anti-immigrant crusades predate that. Unions did go on the fecal roster in the 1870's, and are still on it, last time anyone checked. Commies, Anarchists and assorted pinkos joined the tour in 1917 (the Palmer Raids being their headlining show, and enjoying a wildly successful revival in the late '40's through the early 60's). As for everyone else, all "popular" forms of entertainment were demonized in real time tandem with their introduction (film, tv, PC's, etc); while books were burned almost on publishers release. The lib's, faggots, and dopers who live next door and work in education were all conscripted into the tour in the 1950's; while France joined in 1792, when they had a revolution better than ours.

[Demeter]

2. In 2001, Dubya Followed in Hitler's Footsteps

But because Dubya couldn't find his ass with both hands and a mirror, he's reduced the strongest country on the planet to the weakest. I can't wait to see our land invaded by more rational former allies seeking to rid the world of the 21st Century's Master Villain and his cronies.

[MikeNearMcChord]

3. If Richard Cohen wants to fight the "Iranian Islamic Reich"

Then he can enlist his upscale upper class White Butt!
Speaking of the Hitlerian Stupidity, an excellent piece by Ken Silverstein in Harper's Magazine.
http://www.harpers.org/sb-the-bush-administration-godwin-1157058126.html

[muntrv]

5. We need bogeymen 'cuz that means more business for

the military industrial complex.

[tecullinan]

6. Try a little diplomacy

I sure wish GW would try real diplomacy instead of just dropping bombs on people. Then again, that is part of the problem, GW does not know how, and/or does not believe in diplomacy.

[Autonomy]

7. In the words of Jon Stewart:

"That's why we love the Fareed Zakaria!"

Good article.

[CollegeDUer]

8. Wait, so Zakaria had some sense knocked into him

Sorry, Fareed. I stil hold you as one of the quintessential ideologues who promoted the hell out of this war. You're responsible for the killing (partly). Now's not the time to step back and pretend like you were a sane head hoping for peace.

Twit.

[Buzz Clik]

13. "Promoted the hell out of this war"? Please.

He supported going in, as did all but a tiny handful of our Democratic leadership. Zakaria has been at the tip of the spear of criticism for the bungling of the conflict.

Zakaria has unbelievable insight into the issues. One objective commentary by him is worth a thousand pages of screed by the likes of Maureen Dowd and her army of partisan zealots.

[CollegeDUer]

15. Hahaha

That's freaking ridiculous. I love how the "anti-personal responsibility" sect is trying to erase all the wrongdoings of these people and reveal that they were all underground leftist/pacifists to begin with.

Zakaria was one of the leading warmongers and intelligenstia behind the war. I read pretty much every column of his in 2003/2004.

[Buzz Clik]

16. Do you ever read before responding?

Or do you simply enjoy "hearing yourself speak."

Read my response to you, and try again.

[CollegeDUer]

17. I did and I see the same rationalization/apologism for all the

johnny-come-latelies on this war.

[Buzz Clik]

18. If you started reading Zakaria in 2003...

... then you missed his most emphatic support for the invasion. If you kept reading through 2004, then you saw his accurate predictions of the fractionization of the country, the pitfalls awaiting, and the why things went wrong.

So, CollegeDUer -- seeing how Zakaria had completely reversed himself before the end of 2003 and has become one of the most scathing critics of the handling of the war, how do you justify your contention that he's a "johnny-come-lately"? Is not his current position all the more significant considering his original position?

[CollegeDUer]

19. "reversed himself by the end of 2003"

Yes, into a supporter of illegal wars of aggression and cruelty upon Iraqis, into a supporter who believes Bush went about that process in the wrong way (but still a great idea!).

[Buzz Clik]

20. I see. And you can support that?

You've taken an intractable position, and I'm sure you have justification for it. So, back it up.

[CollegeDUer]

21. Look up his interviews with Jon Stewart in 2005

And you can see very well his position. He's another one of the "technical" critics -- he loves the war but critiques how it is operated. He joins such fame like John McCain, Hilary Clinton, and Joe Lieberman.

[Buzz Clik]

22. This is your claim. You do the leg work.

I'm more than ready to read your supporting arguments and respond accordingly.

[illinoisprogressive]

9. Iran's President is just being outlandish most of the time

I have seen the wipe out Isreal comment as one of his outrageous remarks to A- goad Bush like Chavez likes to do and B - he is playing to his base just like Bush does with fear.
I am not saying Iran is not worry but, alot of it is due to neocon dreams of war.
These guys are intellectuals who can't seem to come up with anything but, bombing for a solution.
Diplomacy seems to be a skill no one in the bushie circle possesses.
I think alot of the Iranian blowhard stuff is for attention and for talks, they want and need something but, the dimwits of this administration just can't figure it out. They do everything wrong. They increased terror and have made the middle east a powder keg. Keep them away from anything to do with foreign policy (and domestic as well).
It seems Bush has the habit of screwing everything he touches up and leaves it to someone else to clean up his messes. Problem is that when he makes a mess he always makes such big ones.

[eridani]

12. Playing to his base explains Admadinejad just fine

Saber-rattling does nothing but to play into his hands and make him more popular, just as Bush was more popular after 9-11.

[Gregorian]

10. This thread is amazing if for nothing more than the new DU'ers.

This is so refreshing to see.



As for Iran, even if they were the biggest military force on the planet, they are not an imminent threat. But that didn't stop our administration in the past. The love of money is the root of all evil. And it makes for some very convoluted logic.

[nealmhughes]

11. Yes, Fareek is right for once on war drums:

This whole "Terror! Terror! Terror!" mantra is getting a bit tired. Iranians are doing exactly what Brasil is doing right now: enriching uranium to about 3.5%. See the Chicago Sun Times of 23 April this year for the article, which says that Brasil and Iran want recognition as "big boys" and that reactors are necessary for them to have it, not bombs. Last year in Le Monde Diplomatique, an article came out that it was just sabre rattling http://mondediplo.com/2005/11/02iran

The oilogarchy (pun intended) wants a small war in the western part of Asia, in order to impose US bases there and keep the war hysteria at its peak to maximize oil profits. They don't give a whit on whom it was with, as long as its convenient, and Iraq was convenient as a causus belli, Syria being too far from the shipping lanes, and Iran too large. The blood of innocent Iraqis who thought they were actually being "liberated," were, instead being duped, just as were all the "True Believers," whether of the Ariel Cohen or Jerry Falwell camps, is the extra additive for Exxon's newest blend.

Now that we are no longer afraid of Old Sammy mysteriously finding a new band of al Qaeda suicide bombers in the US, what is a good oil exec like Cheney to do? Oh, I know: Iran! The sans coulottes (I reckon them to now be sans razoirs these days) are at the gate and they have a nuclear bomb and they are going to BOMB US WITH IT!

Look at Iran's neighbors: Pakistan (conveniently funded by the USA), Afghanistan (conveniently occupied by the USA) and Iraq (also conveniently occupied by the USA). What are they to think? That the US wants to come to Shiraz to see the fish ponds and the famous rose gardens and grape vines? They probably know sabre rattles when they hear them, but they do have a legit fear. With people "justifying" invasion or even nuclear attack of them, what does one expect except a bit of counter intel? They probably can't make a bomb right now, even if they had the uranium, do they have the triggers? Where and how would they deliver it? A tramp steamer from the Persian Gulf to Bayonne?

Had they a bomb, they would definitely test it in the open. It would change the balance of power in the region, completely and utterly. There is a Sunni Bomb (Pakistan), a Euro Catholic Bomb (France), an Orthodox Bomb (Russia) and two Protestant Bombs (US/UK) and a Jewish Bomb. And even a Confucianist/Taoist Bomb...to counter the Hindu Bomb. What next? A Sikh Bomb? Maybe Canada should have two, one francophone, the other anglo?

Look, the Revolution was over a long time ago and a bunch of grumpy old men with chronic hemmorhoids are in charge. The government wasted an unbelievable amount of lives in the stupid Iran-Iraq War, and I don't think the boys who have degrees in industrial hygiene but drive taxis in Teheran are too happy to get called up over a mullah's madness.

It's all a game. BushCo knows exactly what the Iranians have, and it's not squat. It is merely to keep us scared and to ignore the real mess that the "free market" has gotten us into. Notice no noise about Brasil...why they might lob one at Buenos Aires any day! Lula is a madman, he shakes hands with Hugo Chavez!

This is all a game to drive up oil prices. Iran is too big to invade. It would be a WWII sized war, and who knows what the second front would be (and there would be one, if not a third), the casualities would be in the millions. Oil production would be shutdown, making the whole thing worthless to Exxon. Dick and Donnie aren't happy unless the happy juice is flowing, but just enough to keep the prices nice and high...

[riderinthestorm]

14. Geat post.

Wanted to laugh and cry reading it. Kick.