War can be better–ask argyle sweater!

(my deepest apologies for interrupting all the discussion about blog civility, which, given the state of things these days is absolutely crucial.)

Fresh from covering Hillary’s flank with his endorsement, War-is-Wes jumps guns to lay out his Sec’y of Defense duties.

There will be war!!!!!!!!!! Count on it. Know why?

“Today, the most likely next conflict will be with Iran, a radical state that America has tried to isolate for almost 30 years and that now threatens to further destabilize the Middle East through its expansionist aims, backing of terrorist proxies such as the Lebanese group Hezbollah and Hamas in Gaza and the West Bank, and far-reaching support for radical Shiite militias in Iraq. As Iran seems to draw closer to acquiring nuclear weapons, almost every U.S. leader — and would-be president — has said that it simply won’t be permitted to reach that goal.”


Wes and Hill can just state it more eloquently than bushco.

Watch Wes rub his hands—it reminds me a lot of my brothers when they were kids–they’d take their bedcovers and arrange them into fighting terrain for their plastic soldiers–and woe to the one who messed up the keen set-up!:

“The next war would begin with an intense air and naval campaign. Let’s say you’re planning the conflict as part of the staff of the Joint Chiefs. Your list of targets isn’t that long — only a few dozen nuclear sites — but you can’t risk retaliation from Tehran. So you allow 21 days for the bombardment, to be safe; you’d aim to strike every command-and-control facility, radar site, missile site, storage site, airfield, ship and base in Iran. To prevent world oil prices from soaring, you’d have to try to protect every oil and gas rig, and the big ports and load points. You’d need to use B-2s and lots of missiles up front, plus many small amphibious task forces to take out particularly tough targets along the coast, with manned and unmanned air reconnaissance. And don’t forget the Special Forces, to penetrate deep inside Iran, call in airstrikes and drag the evidence of Tehran’s nuclear ambitions out into the open for a world that’s understandably skeptical of U.S. assertions that yet another Gulf rogue is on the brink of getting the bomb.”

But here’s the real height of arrogance:

“The U.S. public is more likely to sour on a conflict when it sees the military losing blood, not treasure.”

You editorialize in the Washington Post, yet refer to the U.S. public as if they might not be people reading it. Yes, you are talking amongst yourselves.Hillary is in to win and Wes is the best in destruction.


Skip to comment form

    • melvin on September 16, 2007 at 19:39

    you to the front page, Miss D?

    • pfiore8 on September 16, 2007 at 19:43

    it’s the one-two punch… she says it one way, he echos it back, fleshing it out

    so what is the back story here… the dems folding under Bush… what’s really going on, in your estimation…

    just how fucked are we

    • on September 16, 2007 at 19:44

    teh cleavage again…?

  1. http://www.political
    >cross-pisseded at pff

  2. war and the machinery of its implementation is pretty much all that remains of domestic manufacturing sector.

    think that that cash cow will be dry of teat any time soon? i sure as hell do not.

    war is business, and business is booming.

    p.s.–hey, miss d. good to see you ’round these parts!

  3. as if…  Iran is just another leg of the same war, the war to possess all the dinosaur juice, the war on the third world that happens to occupy the sand above the black crude.

    Brace yourselves kiddies, it is going to be a long, bloody and brutal ride and it matters not one bit whether the next Fearless leader is a Republican or Hillary Clinton when it comes to foreign policy.

    There would be significant differences domestically in important areas, but not when it comes to pleasing the oil cartels and engaging with China and Russia.

    I agree with your assessment of Wes, Miss Devore, regarding the position he now appears to be seeking. That assessment may be wrong, but his particular use of that phrase, the parroting, makes me think not.

    • Turkana on September 16, 2007 at 20:26

    that the only reason anyone op-eds in the wapo is so that they can stay in the good graces, and on the cocktail party invite list, of sally quinn.

    • robodd on September 16, 2007 at 21:30

    The one thing the U.S. should have learned these past five years is that just because “we” think something is wrong “we” have no right to do anything preemptively, much less unilaterally.

    The arrogance is the unstated and unexamined presumption that this is “our” decision to even make.

    • Armando on September 16, 2007 at 21:36


    The irony drips.

    • sharon on September 16, 2007 at 21:50

    hillary will be the death of us.  christ, even tom friedman sees bush as abdicating to the dems. even, nadler, who i’d love to see on a white pony, beats the drums of war over iran.

    his dem predecessor saw things very differently:

    We find ourselves involved in a war solely because of Presidential action. The Supreme Court has effectively destroyed the War Powers Act as a Congressional check on illegal Presidential wars. Pundits are saying that Congress must find a new way to play a part in war-making decisions – must strengthen its oversight and rely more heavily on the power of the purse. I agree with these cream-puff remedies but suggest emphatically that what is more important is that Congress comply with the provisions of the safeguarding package that our Founders provided in the Constitution for keeping a bridle on the chief executive, of which the provision for impeachment is an essential part. Is it responsible for Congress to use all of the safeguards except the one the Founders considered most important? The truth is that when the decision is whether to wage an undeclared war, Presidents can do as they please. The Senate and House Intelligence Committees and the Congressional military committees will be told something about it, usually after the fact and only when public hysteria has reached a level where criticism will be stigmatized as un-American. A few members of Congress will complain in unnoticed speeches. The big newspapers will mention the actions “with some concern.” A majority of the public will support the President, chiefly because the war has already begun and the “enemy” has been identified by the President as a serious threat to our nation. So, what are we to do? I suggest a conservative return to the remedy suggested in the Constitution…. If we do not, all future Presidents will be able to claim immunity for unlawful conduct of foreign affairs. We have a responsibility to draw this line in the nuclear age.

      — Rep. Don Edwards (D-CA)
      Chairman, House Subcommittee on Constitutional and Civil Rights
      The New York Times, August 9, 1983

    what the hell happened to the u.s.?

  4. and certainly not since he endorsed Hillary, but after reading the article, I’d say you selectively quoted what he said. After talking about what strategy might be developed to attack Iran, he says this:

    But if it’s clear how a war with Iran would start, it’s far less clear how it would end. How might Iran strike back? Would it unleash Hezbollah cells across Europe and the Middle East, or perhaps even inside the United States? Would Tehran goad Iraq’s Shiites to rise up against their U.S. occupiers? And what would we do with Iran after the bombs stopped falling? We certainly could not occupy the nation with the limited ground forces we have left. So what would it be: Iran as a chastened, more tractable government? As a chaotic failed state? Or as a hardened and embittered foe?

    Here’s how he ends the piece:

    But the big lesson is simply this: War is the last, last, last resort. It always brings tragedy and rarely brings glory. Take it from a general who won: The best war is the one that doesn’t have to be fought, and the best military is the one capable and versatile enough to deter the next war in the first place.

    I find his military posturing as detestable as anyone, but lets at least be fair about what he’s saying.

    • mattes on September 17, 2007 at 00:50

    and arab blood.

  5. about the possibility of getting a job in the Hillary administration, but I did not think his article was all gleeful about war and endless war.  I actually thought it was a pretty good article, and that he had pretty insightful things to say.  I’d say he has a pretty good understanding of what is happening with the war in Iraq, the US military, and the potential for war with Iran, making the point that anything can happen to alter the equation at any time.  I did not get the impression that he was some kind of war monger at all.  A general, yes, but not all gung ho for war.

  6. But the big lesson is simply this: War is the last, last, last resort

    did you not get Miss Devore?

    • boran2 on September 17, 2007 at 04:17

    Just above, a trip down memory lane.  It warms the cockles of my heart, whatever they are. 

Comments have been disabled.