dude, you just referred to missiles and self-neutering as alternatives. do I need to get all Derrida on you?

You are, of course, quite right. It is ridiculous the lengths we’ve gone to not to irritate the street brawler and his bearded mass-murderer masters.

I’d prefer, of course, to assist the Iranian people in taking care of the matter themselves.

Cheers,
PGE

How would killing people get the British hostages back? It’s not hard to imagine what would have happened to American embassy workers in Iran in 1979/1980 had we just launched cruise missiles willy-nilly.

btw reportedly we also hold Iranian hostages in Iraq and gave custody of them to MEK (a terrorist organization)… oh the barbarity of breaking international law, oh the outrage. Someone should let the jawa report know that throwing a temper tantrum, whether expressed through blog postings or firepower, does nothing to help those in custody.

Adrian-

How has playing patty-cake with the Iranians helped? Hostage taking is only the latest act of war from Iran. I doubt that you will care terribly, but the Iranians have been arming, training and providing logistical support to the Shiite militias who are killing our soldiers (and Iraqi civilians) in Iraq.

While the world economy is somewhat dependent on Iranian oil, the Iranian economy is ENTIRELY dependent on oil sales. We should teach them a painful lesson.

Adrian-

This sentence had more bite than it should have: “I doubt that you will care terribly, but the Iranians have been arming, training and providing logistical support to the Shiite militias who are killing our soldiers (and Iraqi civilians) in Iraq.”

Sorry ’bout that.

“I doubt that you will care terribly”

a) wrong
b) unnecessary cheap shot

“How has playing patty-cake with the Iranians helped?”

“patty-cake” got the British hostages back last year. It got our hostages back in 1980.

I’m sure the Iranian people would rise up against their regime if we gave them the present of an economic catastrophe.

“I doubt that you will care terribly”

a) wrong
b) unnecessary cheap shot”

Which was a) why I wrote the apology. I’ll put it in BOLD CAPS next time.

“patty-cake” got the British hostages back last year. It got our hostages back in 1980.”

Actually, the fear of God (or at least Ronald Reagan) got the hostages back in 80. Are you seriously going to stand by your statement on that? Carter had no success for AGES, but the mere thought of Ronny Ray-Gun got them free.

“I’m sure the Iranian people would rise up against their regime if we gave them the present of an economic catastrophe.”

Cause they’re doing so much to rise up now, right? I don’t think we need to cause a catastrophe to get their attention. Shelling oil platforms worked in the past when they were harassing oil shipments through the Straits of Hormuz. And the target of economic hits would not be the “people”, who are a long-term hope of Iran but not the immediate hope.

It is well known that well-heeled mullahs such as Rafsanjani are leery of Ahmadinejad’s populism. If they see that his brinksmanship is going to cost them hard currency, they may pull on his reins.

I’m moving this post up to the main page. The convo is too lively for an aside.

Yo Adrian! I think I have the comment subscription thingy up and running now. . .

Didn’t see the apology, I had loaded the page before you posted it. I’m still curious as to why you wrote it in the first place.

Please don’t distort the history to glorify Reagan. The hostages were released when they were for a number of different reasons: the Iran-Iraq war, the death of the Shah, the US paying Iran $8 billion, Algerian mediation and negotiation, and Carter/Reagan’s promise to not intervene in Iran’s affairs in the future. Reagan’s rhetoric against Iran only really stepped up after he was inaugurated.

Carter had no success because negotiations through Algeria didn’t start until after the 1980 election. I’m not sure if that’s when Algeria offered, or when Iran agreed to talk, or what. But it’s not as if negotiations took “ages.”

OK now I am subscribed to comments.

Adrian-

“Didn’t see the apology, I had loaded the page before you posted it. I’m still curious as to why you wrote it in the first place.”

2 reasons:

a) I quit smoking three days ago and am amped enough to chew through saddle leather right about now.

b) Because while it may not be true about you, it’s entirely true about the Left in general. These are people who can summon a grand rage over flushed Korans but show no visible anger over Israelis and Americans being slaughtered by Iranian proxies. In all honesty, I haven’t seen concern from you about Iranian killings of Americans. Your concern was in attacking someone who WAS concerned. A bit like the anti-anti-Communists of the Cold War period.

This seems to be the norm for the Left. They never seem to have any plan for dealing with Iran themselves. They seem mostly interested in critiquing those who push for any response to Iranian aggression more virile than sitting and allowing Iranians to continue killing us unmolested. They also go in for the moral equivalency bit which holds that America is just as barbaric as Iran’s mullahocracy. For example: “btw reportedly we also hold Iranian hostages in Iraq and gave custody of them to MEK (a terrorist organization)… oh the barbarity of breaking international law, oh the outrage.”

I’ll end with this clarification — I’m not accusing you of unconcern. I’m just saying that your writings on this post look just like every other liberal I’ve met who spends more time defending our enemies than our troops.

I’ll have to get back to you on Reagan manana. It’s way late.

- J.

echoing pgepps above, “neutered”, “missile”, now “virile” responses…

One of the many reasons I think bombing Iran is a bad idea under present circumstances is precisely out of concern for US troops in Iraq, who are vulnerable to both increased direct attacks (imagine if Sadr had MANPADs) and to Iran cutting logistics lines that flow through southern Iraq (Basra and Umm Qasr).

There are tools of foreign policy that do not include killing large numbers of people. They might not be “manly” enough for insecure conservatives but they are oftentimes more effective and do not carry the risk of killing innocent civilians (the ones conservatives want to liberate).

Also for the record, the latest post on my blog (3 days ago) is on the conditions at Fort Bragg (http://a517dogg.blogspot.com/2008/04/im-mad-as-hell.html).

Adrian-

You: “One of the many reasons I think bombing Iran is a bad idea under present circumstances is precisely out of concern for US troops in Iraq, who are vulnerable to both increased direct attacks (imagine if Sadr had MANPADs) and to Iran cutting logistics lines that flow through southern Iraq (Basra and Umm Qasr).”

Me: I agree that there are both benefits and dangers to escalating matters with Iran. But I have no doubt that even if things grew ten times worse than they currently are with Iran, the Left would still REFLEXIVELY oppose any sort of response.

At this point, it is clear that Europe won’t be backing real sanctions in our lifetime. It -may- be time to pursue more direct action. This should be done in calculated manner, of course. But it is worth considering.

YOU: “neutered”, “missile”, now “virile” responses…”

Me: I was quite aware of the connotations of “virile” when I used it. I’ve spent enough time on college campuses to have a healthy disrespect for the masculinity of American leftist males. I can’t see how any self-respecting man could ever belong to such a nannyish philosophy. It’s not my own masculinity I’m “insecure” about (I think my Obama video demonstrated just how secure I am! LOL) I’m worried about the future masculinity of American men generally, given the effete nature of our elite culture.

You:
“There are tools of foreign policy that do not include killing large numbers of people. They might not be “manly” enough for insecure conservatives but they are oftentimes more effective and do not carry the risk of killing innocent civilians”

Me: Right. And they’ve been tried. We’ve talked. We’ve pushed for sanctions. We’ve talked some more. Meanwhile, Iran continues to arm and train Hezbollah and do the same for American-killing militias in Iraq which are now our primary adversary. Tell me again, which of these ‘tools of foreign policy’ were you expecting to help, and in what sort of timetable?

I agree that we shouldn’t bomb innocent civilians. My uncle was a gunner’s mate during the shelling of Iranian oil platforms back in the 80s. We warned the Iranians ahead of time so they could get their people out of harm’s way. They same could be done again. And if we needed to send a bigger message, we could warn them to clear out a refinery or two.

I agree that this course should only be taken judiciously. But the Left isn’t interested in judicious consideration of various options. Many are for peace at any cost and the rest aren’t for peace, they’re just on the other side.

You: “Also for the record, the latest post on my blog (3 days ago) is on the conditions at Fort Bragg”

Me: Actually, that’s the kind of “support” which makes many soldiers despise the Left. The “support the troops, work for peace” type of support. It is of a piece with a billion other such hits on the military establishment and the administration that the Left has lobbed since the beginning of the war. It’s part of the “pity the poor troops” narrative which portrays soldiers not as dignified, well-trained adults in a challenging calling which they have chosen, but rather as victims either too poor or too stupid to do anything else.

Do Ft. Bragg living conditions sometimes bite? Definitely. I was stationed there for quite some time back in my Army days. The Air Force lives in palaces, Joes live in squalor. Such it has always been.

But such heartfelt concern looks a lot more genuine when it comes along with support for the actual mission of the troops. I love the liberal approach to troop support — “I’m doing everything I can to undermine public support for the mission you believe in and are fighting and dying to achieve, but I support you!”

Your writings on the Surge are typical — our troops achieved something dynamic, and you term it a failure and attribute any temporary benefits achieved to “luck.” The grit and resourcefulness of our troops and junior officers get summarily dismissed. I’d also point out that the December post you highlighted on the Surge isn’t aging well. The Surge turned out to be a lot more meaningful than you gave it credit for.

Oh, and to clarify — the part about killing Ahmadinejad with a cruise missile was tongue-in-cheek. I wrote it up as an aside — virtually no one sees the headlines on those. I think assassinating the head of state of another country is a really bad road to go down. The enmity brought about by such an action would linger well after the fall of the mullahocracy.

Okay, now I really am going to sleep. As always, I enjoy sparring with you. Have a great night!

I agree that the zoomies live in palaces. I lived in one after all But, I do have to question the pictures in that video.
1.) Shower curtains and their hooks are generally the responsibility of the current tenants. I was Air Force and, given the “palaces” we lived in, we were still responsible for both of those items.
2.) The “southern-engineered” toilet seat costs about $10 to replace. The current tenant most likely broke it during a drunken fit (Some of us know how that can happen in the military). If he trys to get the Army to replace it, he can get written up for destruction of government property. Replace it already.
3.) The overflowing toilets could be an isolated incident. Who’s to say that it happens regularly? These are young military men. I’ve seen worse happen in my time.
4.) All the other pictures could very well be from a condemned building. Who’s to say for sure?

I guess where I’m going with this is that you shouldn’t base arguments on information gleaned from videos you find on Youtube. The basing of an argument on incomplete evidence is called supposition. Big no-no! If you can find the same exact story with the same exact pictures in a reputable journal, then I’d be more apt to lend credence to what you have to say. Until then, please refrain from posting links supporting your arguments, when they in fact do quite the opposite.

Otherwise, I’m enjoying the bandying.

Post on.

So basically, you don’t support the troops unless you are in favor of the war, agree with the military analysis of Fred Kagan, and don’t criticize the Pentagon. It is a shame that so many of the Iraq vets I know hate themselves on all counts.

There is myth that “The Left” does not support the troops - I think it comes from Vietnam where there were hippies spitting on soldiers, etc. That was then, this is now, soldiers don’t get spit on in airports, they are applauded, nobody wears bell-bottoms anymore, I think it is time to update your stereotypes.

It’s funny to see conservatives claim that “we’ve tried to talk with the Iranians and it’s failed, so bombs away.” What have we tried exactly? “Do everything we say or we will bomb you.” Shockingly, that’s failed. The U.S. has engaged in low-level talks while limiting their scope to the area where we can offer very little, keeping what’s important to the Iranians off the table, and have largely negotiated so that we can bomb them later while saying that “hey we tried.”

you: “The grit and resourcefulness of our troops and junior officers get summarily dismissed.”

me: “Credit, instead, should go to the mid-level officers who helped facilitate the tactical alliances with Sunni tribes in Al-Anbar…” (the last sentence of the analysis you think hasn’t aged well)

you: Many are for peace at any cost and the rest aren’t for peace, they’re just on the other side.

me: this is of course an accusation of treason… perhaps some examples would be in order? and the Bill O’Reilly method of searching for comments from nobodies at Daily Kos doesn’t count.

Lt. Col. Paul Yingling wrote, “Armies do not fight wars; nations fight wars. War is not a military activity conducted by soldiers, but rather a social activity that involves entire nations.”(http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2007/05/2635198)
Whether you like it or not, your legally and duly elected representatives decided to start this war. The soldiers are the sword in your hand. By criticizing the war you are criticizing your elected leaders and the soldiers who fight. Justify it in your mind all you want.

You: “What have we tried exactly?”
Me: Try reading this: http://www.state.gov/t/ac/rls/rm/45419.htm
I would consider this a very reputable source. Iran has been, and currently is, in violation of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. Low-level talks, high-level talks, pleading, begging, paying them to stop….who cares? They have blatantly disregarded an international treaty, thumbed their noses at the UN (international community), and are itching for a fight. I say bring it.
You: “Credit, instead, should go to the mid-level officers who helped facilitate the tactical alliances with Sunni tribes in Al-Anbar…”
Me: You presented material with no references, so I will do the same. But, I will point out that the information is out there. I just can’t find it at the moment. Junior-level officers are indeed making mid- and upper-grade officer decisions on the ground in Iraq. They’ve made tactical alliances and deal with local leaders on a daily basis with no input from their higher-ups other than to take credit when the violence decreases. I have no idea what any of this has to do with this thread as a whole, but you threw it out there with no attempt of substantiation, so I thought I’d reply in kind.

You: this is of course an accusation of treason
Me: Peace through superior firepower. Peace only lasts as long as it takes your enemies to become unafraid of you. That’s the problem with lefties. They effeminize the US in the eyes of our enemies. We don’t mind if you disagree with our tactics, just support us when we use them. Churchill spoke of a united front. Only by showing our enemies that we stand together and will not back down can we beat them. They see the dissension inthe ranks and it emboldens them. Here’s an example. Take it how you will. When the Soviets controlled Chechnya, they had nary a problem. As soon as the Evil Empire collapsed, however, they became emboldened by the internal political strife and flailing economy and decided they wanted a country separate from Russian control and ruled by Sharia. It’s been well over a decade, and the Russians haven’t been able to put an end to the fighting. Under the Soviets, they had a “united front” whereby all Russians were wholeheartedly behind the control of the region. Once the Chechens saw they’re opening, they took advantage, and have been taking advantage ever since. The times we live in now make it paramount that we show a united front whether we all agree or not.

I hope I didn’t ramble too long. I’m better at saying these things out loud than writing them down.

Frank - good points, I added them to my entry. My rebuttal would be that the Walter Reed thing has deprived the Army of the benefit of the doubt. But it’s true that I largely posted them without reflecting on the possibility that it was unrepresentative. Hopefully some newspaper does some investigation to get to the bottom of it.

I like how you say “Some guy named Frank.” But, I appreciate the fact that you can at least see my point of view. As far as Walter Reed is concerned, I can understand that casting a shadow of doubt on my arguments. I haven’t been to Walter Reed since right after 9/11, but I think it’s safe to say that it was an isolated incident and is not indicative of 99% of military facilites.

I find it deplorable and reprehensible to think that our soldiers are being treated that way. If in fact they are, it’s just a matter of time before someone writes a legitimate news piece about it. Until then, I’m not holding my breath.

Adrian -

The Youtube video has now been confirmed by a legitimate news source. Fort Bragg personnel say that the soldiers arrived a month early and that they were only given 72 hours notice to get the repairs done that were supposed to take a month. Needless to say, they weren’t completed in time.

Watch the news clip:
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2008/04/28/baez.nc.fort.bragg.wtvd

Frank-

“Fort Bragg personnel say that the soldiers arrived a month early and that they were only given 72 hours notice to get the repairs done that were supposed to take a month.”

Way to make with the fact-checking. Nicely done. You might have thought that the distraught father would have, I dunno, MENTIONED the month-early-72-hour-deadline thing.

Adrian-

“So basically, you don’t support the troops unless you are in favor of the war, agree with the military analysis of Fred Kagan, and don’t criticize the Pentagon.”

Not at all. John McCain has vocally criticized the Pentagon. And there are HUGE areas in which the war has been badly managed and should be critiqued.

But any honest observer can see that the Left is anything but a supportive critic of the war effort. Left-wing opposition to George Bush has made them reactionary, and the troops suffer as a result. On Iraq, they have become Mill’s Stupid Party - they propose nothing and oppose everything.

It is specious to say “I support the troops” while systematically undermining their mission. The Left has no serious alternative to victory in Iraq - withdrawal will only lead to a many-fold increase in the very civilian deaths they claim to worry about. Yet they minimize and dismiss at every turn the hard-won victories of our soldiers.

It’s a bit like what I’ve said about the GOP and Latinos — many Republicans claim not to be anti-Latino, yet they never have anything but negative things to say about Latinos. It’s thus hard not to infer an anti-Latino bias. The Left is the same way about the efforts of our troops.

“It is a shame that so many of the Iraq vets I know hate themselves on all counts.”

I’d point out that Vietnam had John Kerry and this war will have some equivalents. Scott Beauchamp springs to mind. Just because someone served doesn’t mean they place loyalty to their fellow Joes above their political agenda. And I’m sure some vets are opposed to the war. With so many hundreds of thousands serving, you will of course have legitimate differences in opinion.

I’ll take your “so many Iraq vets” at face value, but point out that they’re in a great minority. U.S. military retention rates are incredibly high these days. In a volunteer military, the ultimate indicator of what our troops actually believe about their service can be found in their reenlistment rates.

My little brother ships out in December, and he is MUCH more excited about going now than he was two years ago. He and his fellow jarheads believe a corner has been turned. My buddy Frank here has actually re-enlisted after a stint of civilian life expressly to go to the big sandpile - and as a grunt rather than a Zoomie this time. Maybe they know something you don’t?

“this is of course an accusation of treason. . .perhaps some examples would be in order? and the Bill O’Reilly method of searching for comments from nobodies at Daily Kos doesn’t count.”

Not really. The legal standards for treason are quite high and difficult to prosecute. It’s an accusation of moral blindness.

A short list of those terming the murderers of our troops “freedom fighters,” “patriots” or something equivalent include Rosie O’Donnell, Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, Ted Turner, Bill Maher. These are off the top of my head; I could find plenty more.

Then you have the hundreds of thousands of “peace” protesters led by the hard-left ANSWER coalition. Have you seen the signs they carry? “Support our Deserters”; “We Support Our Troops Who Shoot Their Officers”; “I Love New York Even Better Without the World Trade Center”; “Support Resistance in Iraq”; “Support our Mutineers”; “Long Live Fallujah” and on and on and on.

Perhaps these are only a minority voice among the hundreds of thousands protesting. I don’t think that helps your case. They are warmly accepted within the anti-war community. No one bats an eyelash at signs reading “Nazi Kikes out of Palestine.”

Then you have the Code Pink crowd, which are the useful idiots of the War on Terror era. They are trying to close down recruitment centers which funnel reinforcements to our fighting units. THAT’S supportive. And you have the leftwing university leaders which bar ROTC programs in many elite schools, meaning that our best and brightest are deterred from joining the military as officers. That’s another novel approach to supporting the troops.

Then you have the spate of Hollywood movies (and NYT articles) portraying U.S. soldiers as demented killers, rapists, and thugs. In addition to Hollywood you have Gary Busey and Billy Zane starring in a vilely anti-Semitic and anti-American film IN TURKEY.

You have Jack Murtha summarily judging our troops after a questionable shooting, stating that our troops killed Iraqi civilians “in Cold Blood.” (at present, all but one of the Marines have been cleared in Haditha.)

You have Moveon.Org taking our full-page New York Times ads terming Gen. Petraeus, a man who has done more to help the troops in Iraq than anyone else, “General Betray-Us.” Yeah, that’s supportive.

The majority of Dems aren’t actively rooting for the enemy. They instead occupy the exact spot they did during the late Cold War. During the late Cold War they were anti-anti-Communists — constantly undermining our efforts to confront Soviet expansionism and always making moral equivalency arguments which portrayed the U.S. as AT LEAST as evil as the Soviet Union. I see the same dynamic these days whenever the U.S. and Iran or the U.S. and the insurgents are brought up.

You said that things have changed since Vietnam. I agree. The Left realized how much public support it lost by attacking the troops personally and by loudly voicing its support for Uncle Ho. So they changed their rhetoric. They’ve now utter an “I support the troops” shibboleth every time before attacking the troops, their mission, military leaders, the war, the United States, etc.

Frank answered you well on the Iran diplomacy angle, so I’ll await your answer to him before piling on that point.

A demain!

I’m in the middle of my thesis final draft, so some stream of consciousness responding here.

Frank: “Only by showing our enemies that we stand together and will not back down can we beat them.”

Me: I think your comparison between what you think American politics should look like and the former Soviet Union makes my point for me. But there is a larger point. In my humble opinion the whole “clash of wills, the more manly will triumph!” is rubbish. Flip it on its head – the people we are fighting are splintered into dozens of factions, constantly fighting each other not only with words but with bullets and bombs, and have conflicting goals (one example is the alliance between GSPC/AQIM and AQ in Pak). By your logic, this should embolden us. Instead we ignore it.
Moreover throwing away American values because we are scared of some angry engineers living in caves across the world seems pretty obscene.
Its a myth that the US has ever fought a war with a totally united front. Even in WW2, which comes the closest, FDR was shutting out media and the media was yelling about it, FDR stuck factories in his political allies’ districts, Senators yelled at FDR for ‘ignoring’ the Pacific to strike at Germany, etc.
Let’s look at some countries that have won foreign COIN campaigns. The UK in Malaya and Northern Ireland – they did not see the need to shut down debate. Yet in the Soviet Union, totalitarian control over the public debate did not help them win in Afghanistan. When Israel was occupying southern Lebanon, the Knesset didn’t bother to have any debates and public opinion never really forced the govt’s hand. Yet they failed as well.

Regarding Iran, this is what I see if we bomb Iran:
Pros: We will probably knock their program back a few years, putting us in the same situation in five years, of whether to bomb or negotiate.
Cons: We give them much more incentive to actually get a nuclear bomb, whether building it themselves or buying one from someone else (the result of Israel’s Osirak strike was similar). Iranian citizens rally around their government, whoever it happens to be at the time. We inevitably kill civilians, or even if we don’t, Iran kills some themselves and blames it on us, which creates sympathy for Iran elsewhere in the world, especially Shias in Iraq, and isolates us from our allies. We start taking more casualties in Iraq, with more EFPs, with MANPADs, artillery, maybe even chemical weapons. Iran attempts to cut the logistics flow from the south up to Baghdad, which draws our forces away from COIN operations. Hezbollah cells strike American targets, possibly even in the US.

Some of this might happen, or all of it, or none of it. The point is there will be unintended and unforeseen consequences, which is why launching missiles over a piece of paper isn’t worth it.

Frank: By criticizing the war you are criticizing your elected leaders and the soldiers who fight.

Me: Criticizing the leaders, obviously. Not criticizing the soldiers – they have no choice on whether to fight or not and are not involved in the decision making process except for a few at the top. The GOP has (with mixed success) tried to identify the soldiers with the war in order to make criticizing American policy taboo.

To J: ANSWER is a bunch of fools but they aren’t exactly rooting for Al Qaeda. I have seen them, I walked into a protest a few months ago on the Mall (it was pretty pathetic). But the broader point is that ANSWER, Code Pink and Rosie O’Donnell aren’t exactly representative of the Left (and Maher is a libertarian anyway). Code Pink is what, 20 bored housewives? ANSWER seems like a big deal because they get out in front of parades with big banners, but at the protest I went to there were probably 1000 ANSWER people with ten times that number hanging around in the back, more as protest tourists (which is what I was).
People I’d consider representative of the American Left would include people like Sens. Kennedy, Feingold, Wellstone before he was killed, The Nation, The American Prospect, people like Al Gore, Joshua Micah Marshall, Paul Krugman, Frank Rich and Keith Olbermann, and yes, MoveOn. MoveOn’s ad was dumb but essentially targeted a political figure. The fact is that the only people attacking “the troops” themselves are the Westboro Baptist people.

Adrian-

Thanks much for the response. It’s 3 am and I’m about to pass out. I’ll definitely respond tomorrow.

Adrian. To add to your cons: We create an international rift between us and countries that have hydro carbon ties to Iran (with China at the forefront) and drive the cost of oil to dangerous levels, driving other related resource (food, for example) difficulties to absolute crises.

“We inevitably kill civilians, or even if we don’t, Iran kills some themselves and blames it on us…”

The damn near entirety of the Islamic revolution in Iran was driven and steered through essentially blaming America. For everything. Khomeini did an excellent job of spinning any internal dispute into an American conspiracy. Quite likely what Kermit Roosevelt never imagined was the nationalistic furor that would unite secular democrats, marxists and Islamic fundamentalists.

“By criticizing the war you are criticizing your elected leaders and the soldiers who fight.”

Heh. I’m sure Thomas Jefferson would appreciate this bit of wisdom.

Last bit: Hezbollah attacking American targets in the US? Really? Hezbollah’s got it’s hands full with Lebanon. I’d hardly think they’d toss off a few actors to create an international rift by bombing an American target in some form of pro-Persian obstinance.

re: Hezbollah attacking US targets - I am not an expert on Hezbollah by a long shot, but given their operations in South America and West Africa, they do have a global presence, and given attacks they’ve pulled off in Buenos Aires, it doesn’t seem outside the realm of possibility that they could strike in the US. And their motivations wouldn’t necessarily be limited to Iranian orders - if the public mood shifts significantly against the US after bombing Iran, Hezbollah could play themselves up as heroes for standing up to the US just as they stood up to Israel in 2006.

I haven’t had time to reply to your longer post, but my response to your last comment is pretty simple and straightforward.

“if the public mood shifts significantly against the US after bombing Iran, Hezbollah could play themselves up as heroes for standing up to the US just as they stood up to Israel in 2006.”

So, we should do nothing because we’re too afraid of how our enemies will view us? Make no mistake, Iranians are our enemies. You can try to paint a picture of a radical cleric regime, but at the root of it are the Iranian people. Without them there would be no radical regime. So, again, you really think we should be concerned what our enemies think of us? I would really like to hear your response.

Hezbollah is Lebanese, not Iranian, so they would be respondent to public opinion in Lebanon, not Iran. I haven’t read the news today, but last I checked we weren’t at war with the Lebanon.

Of course the answer to the larger question is YES, OF COURSE we should be concerned about public opinion the world over. That is what public diplomacy, strategic communications, propaganda, whatever you call it is for. Influencing foreign public opinion indirectly influences the policies of their governments.

I know Hezbollah is not an Iranian group. You drew a correlation between the two in the post to which I responded.

And, again, what do we care what our enemies think of us?

Diplomacy is for those nations that are neither friend nor foe. Bombs are for our enemies. The two should never be confused.