Huh?

I think Joe Lieberman has been spending way too much time with John McCain.

Well, I think that – let me say generally that Sen. Obama doesn’t come to this debate with a lot of credibility…

If we did what Sen. Obama wanted us to do last year, Al-Qaeda in Iran would be in control of Iraq today. The whole Middle East would be in turmoil and American security and credibility would be jeopardized.

Right, because it’s the guys who think Al Qaeda is working inside Iran to operate in Iraq who have a stranglehold on credibility when it comes to Iraq.

6 thoughts on “Huh?

  1. You really ought to listen carefully 9or at all) to the tape before deriding the “Al Qaeda in Iran” comment”.

    Saying more would spoil the surprise.

    Like

  2. Well, I now see that Fox News changed their transcript to read “Al Qaeda and Iran.”

    That’s only somewhat more coherent than their original transcription. In what scenario would be two enemies control Iraq together?

    Like

  3. “In what scenario would be two enemies control Iraq together?”

    Why together and not a de facto partition? Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia gets a safe haven in Sunni-land, Iran gets the Basra area, after their combined but uncoordinated effort to destabilize the central government succeeds.

    I would question “control” even in that context – one might wonder whether Al Qaeda even “controlled” Afghanistan when the Taliban ruled it and gave them safe haven; but the meaning is clear enough.

    Like

  4. Sorry Tom, I just don’t think that’s a plausible scenario. I don’t see a relatively powerful state actor making a truce with a non-state agent that is an enemy over control of a country that predominantly the same ethic group as the powerful state.

    The Taliban is not a relevant comparison to Iran, as the Taliban are Sunni Muslim.

    I think you’re right about the problem of the word “control.” It’s not really suitable to this discussion. That’s certainly one place that Lieberman went wrong in his comment (no matter how in/and is transcribed).

    Like

  5. “I don’t see a relatively powerful state actor making a truce with a non-state agent that is an enemy over control of a country that predominantly the same ethic group as the powerful state.”

    I don’t see Iran even attempting to subdue the Sunni portions of Iraq; they would run the Shia portions the way Hezbollah runs parts of Lebanon, and leave the Sunni bits alone.

    It would be a “let sleeping dogs lie” notional truce – an Iranian push into the Sunni portions might trigger war with Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and other Sunni Arabs nations. A de facto partition would let everyone pretend that all was well.

    The Taliban comparison is that the Taliban gave Al Qaeda safe haven in Afghanistan just as the Sunnu chieftans might choose to give Al Qaeda in Mesop safe haven in their territories; they would unite against the Shia dominated central government and the Iranian-backed Shia militia.

    Like

  6. Ok I see the distinction you’re trying to make. In any event, this is a counterfactual. Lieberman cannot prove what would have happened had Democratic policy visions for Iraq been implemented.

    The Bush administration’s policies of prolonging US involvement in Iraq would be continued by McCain. Iranian influence with Shia parties in Iraq is already established. We can walk away from whether or not Lieberman misspoke or whether his comment was inaccurately transcribed and still be able to conclude that his unmitigated support for continued US involvement in Iraq is contrary to our security needs.

    Like

Leave a Reply to Tom Maguire Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s