Jan 11 2008
Greenwaldian Foreign Policy
Glenn Greenwald–who I consider a generally reliable resource on matters of domestic politics–brings the same abundance of outrage when he writes on foreign policy, but for whatever reason forgoes all of those annoying things we call facts.
Take, for instance, this post from yesterday on the American-Iranian incident in the Strait of Hormuz. Let me just preface this by noting that Greenwald offered nothing terribly “new” to the discussion, and instead echoed the same Left-Wing conspiracy theories on what happened there that day. This gem starts us off:
Those are the two “facts” that infused the story with such a sinister tone — explicit threats from the Iranian boats to destroy the American ships, followed by their dropping of unidentifiable boxes, which, one was supposed to infer, could easily have been explosive devices.
But the first “fact” seems almost certainly false, and the second one is highly questionable. Iranian Hooman Majd at The Huffington Post noted that the voices on the tapes issuing the melodramatic threats were unquestionably not Persian. As he put it: “the person speaking doesn’t have an Iranian accent and moreover, sounds more like Boris Karloff in a horror movie than a sailor in the elite branch of Iran’s military.” A regular Iranian commenter at Cernig’s blog made the same point. Listen for yourself to the audio and see how credible the threats sound.
This is, in sum, insane. For starters, it’s not only logical to infer that the boxes were explosives, it was in fact the appropriate Naval response following the JAG investigation of the USS Cole bombing. This forced the Navy to account for how our ships–whether docked or in motion–should deal with such attacks. Well built ships and training wont suffice, in cases such as these, you need to give your sailors the leeway to respond appropriately. Many of Greenwald’s fellow citizens were on those ships, yet their immediate security apparently took a backseat to the dangers of inference. The good sense of Stuart Koehl was apparently lost on Greenwald.
But the insanity continues. Not only does Greenwald not trust his own Navy, but he instead opts to defer the whole matter to someone who’s sole credential is the fact that he’s an Iranian-American. Not only that, but he is an Iranian who has served as an advisor to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. And what does this expert bring to the table?
“the person speaking doesn’t have an Iranian accent and moreover, sounds more like Boris Karloff in a horror movie than a sailor in the elite branch of Iran’s military.”
I don’t know about you, but I love to outsource all of my linguistic needs to Manhattan-based writers and entertainment gurus. I mean, to simply watch the video and make such an inference is remarkable. But what, incidentally, is an Iranian accent? Does he mean Persian? Aren’t there numerous variations in Persian dialect? Aren’t there Khuzestani Arabs? Can we really infer from one video that this was a poorly done accent?
I could keep picking, but he really goes nowhere. He proceeds to cite Cernig of The Newshoggers over and over again, who is a great resource if you can’t be bothered to read Fars News on a routine basis. But here’s the crux of their argument: Despite the fact that the IRGC violated international law in order to kidnap 15 British sailors as retribution, we should believe them over President Bush. Despite the fact that Iran forcefully seized Abu Musa Island from the UAE–a case which still stands in dispute–we should still believe them over President Bush. And yes, despite the constant bullying of their Caspian neighbors in Azerbaijan, we absolutely must believe Iran over President Bush.
Such a case of BDS takes exceptional levels of gall and gullibility. Not only does it require you to ignore the Shi’a tradition of Taqiyya, but essentially requires you to believe in a massive top-to-bottom conspiracy that runs from the White House all the way down to the sailors themselves. Evasive measures were taken in order to account for these little “cigarette” boats. Such activity must be recorded, documented and approved for transparency. This would require the kind of coordinated conspiracy that would make a Truther proud. But I suppose reason is the first casualty to such a blurring hatred. Your president is a liar, your government is comprised of liars and the men and women serving for your protection are a bunch of liars, too. Who do we believe? Well, Ahmadinejad and his advisors, of course.
The incident in the Hormuz may well have been minor, a prank even. But the sailors reacted appropriately in our defense and theirs.
UPDATE:
Gracias to Glenn Reynolds for the link.
Oh, and see Fred Kaplan for some more good sense on the matter. I’m glad someone at Slate is thinking clearly.
UPDATE II:
Slate, Salon…same thing. 
I love all of my new Instapundit friends. I hope you come back. But please, don’t gang up on reader Chris. He’s a loyal PoliGazette reader, and we’ll never see most of you folks again! Check out Chris’s blog WhyWeWorry if you’re looking for some Liberal fightin’.
I think you’re ignoring a key part of his post about the boxes. GG said this:
And I would indeed agree that our President is a liar, as are most of the people who directly serve at his behest. As for the people in our military, I’m not going to make blanket statements about them, but I don’t trust the armed services’ PR wings since they’ve been infected by Bush.
On your point–the PR wing can’t just fabricate what the sailors recorded seeing that day. All of these manuevers, and the decision on how to respond to the boats, need to be in compliance with Naval procedure and approved through the chain.
Thus, if the naval personnel recorded seeing these boxes, and in fact lied for the sake of some conspiracy, it would have required a coordinated scheme, with hundreds of men and women agreeing to put themselves in a position of career suicide in the process.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think there is some vast conspiracy here. Also, I’m not sure why it requires the compliance of hundreds of people to "modify" the reports. If you can make the leap that not all of the protocols were followed to the letter, it’s not too tough.
Anyways, it is interesting that even the Pentagon is calling into question the veracity of the sailors’ accounts.
Finally, I think it’s a tad offensive to insist that questioning the military’s account of something is tantamount to having more faith in the Iranian government than our own. It’s that sort of Rove’ian you’re with us or you’re terrorist lovers sort of nonsense that I’d like to see everyone avoid.
But the problem is the gut reaction to grant legitimacy, or benefit of the doubt to one actor, and to then simultaneously reject the word of your own government. I don’t think what Iran did was tantamount to war, but I also think it makes perfect sense to repudiate them for their actions. They have a history of acting like sea pirates, and we simply cannot tolerate it in a post-Cole world. What the sailors did, as they reported, was reasonable and fair. To assume a nefarious plot is a direct slap in their collective faces all for the sake of getting a cheap shot in on the president.
And there’s a broader picture here: The Iranians called the incident minor and downplaed it. We disputed the normalcy argument, and with good reason. The Left is often eager ot look under every rock for Dick Cheney and the Neocons, but sometimes other countries simply do bad things without our provocation.
I don’t think what Iran did was tantamount to war, but I also think it makes perfect sense to repudiate them for their actions.
Which is exactly what I did on my own site where I said "it’s an incredibly reckless move by Iran." Glenn Greenwald also had this to say in the post you cite:
I think we’re being more even-handed than you think. And more importantly, I’d love to believe my own government and military. My first gut reaction was to say to myself "idiotic Iranians," but given recent history (and some big examples in the past, like the Gulf of Tonkin incident), we can’t afford to be unquestioning of both sides.
This would require a much greater conspiracy than Tonkin, and it couldn’t simply be assumed that the president is lying. It would require a chain of lies, formulated by men and women willing to risk their careers in order to provoke an incident. I’m not being too hard on you, I’m being hard on Greenwald. Everyone will grant thetoken "oh boy, the Iranians sure are fishy too" line, lest they risk being called unpatriotic or something. But the energy dedicated to smearing the military far surpasses the suspicions against the Iranians, and has shown a complete disregard for their record of naval games such as this.
I’m not going to argue that "the left" spends a lot of time vetting the claims of our own government, in the aftermath of no-WMD at the very least. I think that’s the prudent course of action, especially as a counter-weight to "the right’s" eagerness to whitewash our own problems by focusing on the latest over-hyped threat to civilization.
We can’t very easily influence Iranian public opinion or their government’s actions by calling attention to their lies. However, we can, and I would argue it’s our responsibility, to keep our government acting in an open and honest fashion. That way, at least one side is well informed and acting logically.
I love how you’ve inserted "modify" into the narrative. Nevermind that you of course have absolutely no evidence to even suggest that the reports coming from our sailors have been tampered with in any way.
ChrisWWW uses as facts his own assumptions and assertions about Bush, Cheney, "Gulf of Tonkin", etc. Anyone who argues with his own assertions as facts isn’t worth listening to except by the people who agree with those unproven "facts". "Gulf of Tonkin"? I was there. There are many liberals who try to argue that it was some kind of fabrication, even down to the very messages that the North Vietnamese sent, ordering the attacks. The point that gets overlooked was that the North Vietnamese were anxious, and had been for some time, to make some sort of coup against the Navy… so I’ve never seen what the point was in arguing that the Gulf of Tonkin incident in any way represented some sort of false representation of the truth. Iranians would love to do something to the US military and in fact they do it almost daily in Iraq. People like ChrisWWW really don’t care about that… their hate of "Bush" is so great that they’d rather see the US military killed or humiliated rather than be on the side of the US. Who needs ‘em?
Well Gulf of Tonkin incident happened. But it it was only one fight early in the day and one hit was made in a US ship. The second fight did "happened" in the sense that US ships were fighting against radar echos. Latter it was understood that it was only fog of war but i dont know when that understanding happened.
"I’m not going to argue that "the left" spends a lot of time vetting the claims of our own government, in the aftermath of no-WMD at the very least."
Do you also vet the claims of everybody else who thought Iraq had WMD? If so, you probably don’t do much else.
Ri-ight…your continual attacks against the integrity of our own government and military are merely designed to keep us "well informed and acting logically".
At the time, always give the benefit of the doubt to our enemies.
Anyone claiming that sailors would keep a staged ‘Gulf of Tonkin’ incident secret hasn’t met very many sailors. Junior sailors talk when they shouldn’t and senior sailors have had so many briefings on the military’s lack of sympathy for the "I was just following orders" defense that one of them would blow the whistle. Three ships with a combined crew of over 1000 men and women, and you’re talking about a conspiracy. I and my sons may have defended/be defending your freedom of speech - but don’t expect us to agree with patently silly ideas.
The first time my ship went through the Strait of Hormuz, we spent four hours at General Quarters because the Iranians had just built launching sites for their Chinese missiles. I have listened to the water lap against the hull of my ship as we maneuvered around an Iranian mine in the Gulf - reflecting on the fact that there were only two 30 foot steel ladders out of there and I was senior, so I’d be the last one out.
Frankly, if I had been the Officer in Tactical Command - I think I would have shot to kill as soon as I received a report that they were dumping objects in the water in front of us. You see ships don’t have brakes, you can make the screw turn backwards, but you don’t stop or turn on a dime. You have to allow for advance and transfer when you’re maneuvering a vessel, meaning how far forward will I go on my current course before I can stop or turn.
There’s another aspect to this: sailors talk to one another. They e-mail families and friends. Word gets around. If this was ginned up into another Gulf of Tonkin, word has to get out that it didn’t happen the way it was reported. Easier back in the ’60s, but nowadays? Bunk.
Trusting the Iranian government’s version of events over what our Navy reported "requires a willing suspension of disbelief."
re ChrisWW
You don’t have a clue about how a professional military person performs his duties. I served under every president from LBJ to Clinton and politics is Bullshit to most of us. We perform our duties to the utmost of our abilities like our lives and the lives of our fellow crew members depend upon it. Inside the Beltway politics and being at the pointy end of the spear are two different things. We lost 17 dead and 39 injured on the USSR Cole because somebody feel asleep at the switch.
Incidentally, if the Bush Administration is so hell bent on war with Iran and the military is so complicit, why didn’t the Navy blow the Iranian boats to kingdom come when it had the opportunity?
Here’s hoping you are never in a decision-making position where servicemen’s lives are at stake.
Viridian,
What do you suppose my intentions are? MikeS outrageously claims I want to see people die or humiliated. Do you agree?
re ChrisWW You don’t have a clue about how a professional military person performs his duties. I served under every president from LBJ to Clinton and politics is Bullshit to most of us. We perform our duties to the utmost of our abilities like our lives and the lives of our fellow crew members depend upon it. Inside the Beltway politics and being at the pointy end of the spear are two different things. We lost 17 dead and 39 injured on the USSR Cole because somebody feel asleep at the switch. Incidentally, if the Bush Administration is so hell bent on war with Iran and the military is so complicit, why didn’t the Navy blow the Iranian boats to kingdom come when it had the opportunity? Here’s hoping you are never in a decision-making position where servicemen’s lives are at stake.
Iran has been at war with the United States since 1979. So far, without much effect, because Iran is weak and stupid.
It would make sense for us to recognize the state of war exists.
Seriously, how Ugly American is it to assume all Iranians speak English? They were probably lucky to get one who learned his diction from old Universal movies even if he lacked an accent.
As a 22 year veteran of the US Army, I can vouch for pretty much everything ChrisWWW asserts. Every video recorder, every digital camera, even every cell phone capable of taking video and stills, owned by every soldier now serving in the military, is digitally connected to the White House, as per Army Regs (see AR 25-1, Army Knowledge Management and Information Technology Management). They all go into the BushChiplerPretzelBurton filter; that’s the same one that monitors every single telephone call made by every single American. That way, if Bush or Cheney find a need to squelch the truth, they not only control every single facet of digital media that might have been taken of the event, they also can automatically erase any proof that ever existed. And of course every single serviceman or woman now serving is immediately given the White House talking points within 2 hours so that they can unquestioningly swear to the new "truth". Didn’t you guys read that part of the Patriot Act?
ISTM there’s a difference between "vetting" claims and reflexive assumption of dishonesty.
What do you suppose my intentions are?
I "suppose" that you, like Greenwald, are a juvenile partisan axe-grinder, masquerading as an earnest civil-libertarian watchdog, who is perfectly willing to give our real enemies abroad every benefit of the doubt in an effort to gin up the outrage that you feel ought to be directed toward your domestic political opponents.
<i>MikeS outrageously claims I want to see people die or humiliated.</i>Don’t think that is what he claimed. Also don’t agree with what he <i>did</i> claim, but you sure do seem exercised about this.<i>And I would indeed agree that our President is a liar, as are most of the people who directly serve at his behest. As for the people in our military, I’m not going to make blanket statements about them, but I don’t trust the armed services’ PR wings since they’ve been infected by Bush.</i>That sort of bilge doesn’t make you look too reasonable. So much so, in fact, that one could argue that you are not looking for the truth, just some sort of confirmation of your preconceived notions.
Another thing to bear in mind, folks, is that a state of war has existed between the United States and Iran since November 1979. We like to think that the matter of the Iranians taking over our embassy back then was closed when the hostages were released in January 1981, but normal relations were never restored.
It’s like Trotsky was supposed to have said: "You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you." To our credit, we’re not very interested in war, but war (in the form of Iranian provocations) seems very much interested in us.
“…is a liar, as are most of the people who directly serve at his behest.” Whosoever the President, the Constitution grants him authority as sole Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States. All in uniform, pledged to obey authority and defend and protect the Constitution might be said to “serve at his behest”. What an enormous cavalcade of liars, eh? Reading such assertions as these quoted assures me of the infinite mercy of God, that He chose not to make ignorance painful.
Heh. Maybe I should use your formatting tags.
This is an interesting debate, but a rather silly one, I think. ChrisWWW - your interest in holding the government’s feet to the fire, so to speak, is fine, but it seems that you assume the Bush administration is lying, presumably about everything. And your dislike (hatred?) of Bush causes people like you and Greenwald to then give our enemies equal credibility with our government. That’s silly. It’s also, frankly, juvenile. I get sick of the constant conspiracy theories spun by opponents of this administration. An incredible amount of time is spent - wasted - trying to figure out the “Diebold angle” on every damn thing that happens. And the danger is that this mentality creates real problems, which is the point that the other MikeS seems to be making. It must be clear to those pulling the strings in Iran that attiudes such as those expressed by you here have considerable political traction in the US. Ahmadinejad’s regime can, therefore, safely conclude that pushing the envelope a bit more will be permitted - permitted by the American people, that is, many of whom have become so poisoned by BDS that even a real attack on an American ship might be brushed off as not worth responding to. So I don’t think you want anybody to be killed, but I think that you have effectively hidden from your own conscience that that is the practical result of your views, since they are widespread.
Hey - I supported and continue to support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I know that innocent people have been blown to pieces by US forces as a result of these wars. I don’t try to assuage my conscience by denying that. I also know that young men and women more worthy of life than me have given theirs defending a cause they believe in. I admit that. You, and others like yoou, however, occupy a moral world where, apparently, there are no negative moral consequences as the result of your views. This is simple-minded and intellectually dishonest.
So maybe that is whatt MikeS meant. And, by the way, thank you MikeS, sir, for your service.
Many people have no experience with the Navy. There is always something recording an event. Logs, video, data streams. I HIGHLY doubt that the Navy made up somthing. It is too easy to find the truth.
I think ChrisWWW main argument was that 1. Our government has lied to us in the past 2. Kevin’s assertion that it would require a VAST compiracy to cover up a few exagerations or falsifications of what the Iranians did untrue.
I agree with him on both points. However, I don’t believe that those points result in a credible argument that the Bush and the ARmy PR people exagerated or lied about the actions of the Iranians.
It might not require a vast conspiracy, but it would require decent sized one put together in 12 hours or less (unless you think the Iranians were actually following the orders and time table of OUR government which WOULD have required a vast conspiracy).
The point I’m trying to make is that if what the Army PR people lied about what happend, all it would take is 1 single sailor out 200 aboard the closest ship to say, "Well no, we didn’t actually any boxes dropping into the water". Those sailors who actually saw what happened would tell there shipmates as soon as they had a chance to talk with them, and what actually happed would probably be all over the ship within an hour.
The idea that the Bush administration could put together a decent sized conspiracy on the fly, threatening at least 5 -10 sailors who probably witenessed the event with their eyes with ruin of their career and even threat to their families, and just trusting the entire credibility of the whole administration that none of them would go to the media and spill their guts (not including all the higher ups would have to suddenly be in on it) . . . all for what, so that the Iranians could be made to look a little worse. You have to be kidding me.
Without analyzing the situation in any detail, you can kind of squint your eyes and say, "Well maybe it was just a little conspiracy theory." However, any logical detailed discussion of what you would have to do to pull it off makes the amount of work and risk seem ridiculous compared to the small payoff. I’d say the chances there was a little bit of exageration (much of it by the sailors themselves in their excitement and fear) is probably pretty high. I say the chances it was some kind of organized conspiracy to make the Iranians look bad are probably less than 1%.
Damn, BC Spot on!
The less one knows about something or someone, the more likely one is to accept patently false or ludicrous assertions about them. That’s why the increased partitioning of our political lives make it easier to believe conspiracies about our political opponents. Clinton in the 90s/Bush in the oos. But more worrisome is the extreme decline on the left of military membership. They now accept the most childish of accusations precisely because they know no one who is or was in the military. Sad day for a Republic that has always had to fight to exist.
The attack dogs are certainly out in full-force today.
Don’t you find it the least bit ironic that you’re all willing to jump to conclusions about my personal beliefs and motivations while critizing me for doing the same concerning the leaders of our government?
Didn’t notice your latest update. Thanks for the plug Kevin
Don’t you find it the least bit ironic that you’re all willing to jump to conclusions about my personal beliefs and motivations while critizing me for doing the same concerning the leaders of our government?
Because the conclusions you’re jumping to are cheap, glib, and presuppose a conspiracy that is unlikely, from a practical standpoint, to have existed.
Don’t you find it the least bit ironic that you’re all willing to jump to conclusions about my personal beliefs and motivations while critizing me for doing the same concerning the leaders of our government?
The situations are distinguishable. On the one hand, the United States Navy. On the other hand, some random Greenwald-worshipping crank in the comments section of a weblog.
Personally I don’t think you can really argue with the accent thing. That’s pretty conclusive, isn’t it? Hell, for yours I thought Henry Kissinger, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Tom Lanto were Americans, but now that I think about those accents, there’s just no way they could be.
Because the Bush administration has never overhyped threats in the past *rolls-eyes*
Yes, please backup your personal attacks with more of them. I’m not attacking you, so I don’t see why you feel the need to attack me.
Yes, please backup your personal attacks with more of them. I’m not attacking you, so I don’t see why you feel the need to attack me.
Care for some cheese with your whine?
As was noted above, there’s a big difference between (a) a little healthy skepticism and (b) reflexive assumptions of dishonesty. You’re exhibiting the latter, and demonstrating not the Navy’s bad faith, but your own. Try re-reading Kevin’s original post and assessing the quality of reasoning in it compared to your, "The President and his advisors are warmongering liars, and so everything the government claims is suspect," inclination.
Gotta give credict to ChrisWWW for continuing to post comments without becoming a blowhard. I don’t share his views, but I’m happy to read his posts because he is not making his arguments overly personal and sarcastic.
I still don’t believe the administration could have fabricated events that some sailor knew didn’t or did happen because they saw the events with their own eyes (or at least thought they saw them). However, exageration is certainly plausible.
Given that a military confrontation with the US would actually help many Iranian leaders stay in power longer and stave off eventual revolt by their own people, it is easy for me to believe they may have made tried to provoke the US Navy into a confrontation, especially after what happened to the British sailors.
By the way, Rosi O’Donald said the whole incident with the British sailors was another ‘Gulf of Tonkin’ incident. I guess it didn’t work out because we have not invaded Iran.
As an international airlines pilot who overflies Iranian airspace every few months, I frequently hear Iranian Air Traffic Controllers who do not have any thick Persian accent, and in fact sound much like folks who picked up their accents in the UK or the States.
"The President and his advisors are warmongering liars, and so everything the government claims is suspect," inclination.
The first part of that statement seems to be established fact and I think the second part is true of any government, anytime, anywhere. Maybe that’s an unhealthy viewpoint, but it’s hard for me to ignore a long history of lies from our government and others. We should be extra cautious when dealing with claims from any government that could be used as a reason/excuse to start killing people.
[…] on) notes the holes in Greenwalds argument about the recent incident in the straits of Hormuz with this bit of understatement: This is, in sum, […]