My friend Michael is telling us that the Battle of Fallujah was more important than we have been led to believe by the media.
Our victory in Fallujah has had enormous consequences, first of all because the information we gathered there has made it possible to capture or kill considerable numbers of terrorists and their leaders. It also sent a chill through the spinal column of the terror network, because it exposed the lie at the heart of their global recruitment campaign. As captured terrorists have told the region on Iraqi television and radio, they signed up for jihad because they had been told that the anti-American crusade in Iraq was a great success, and they wanted to participate in the slaughter of the Jews, crusaders, and infidels. But when they got to Iraq – and discovered that the terrorist leaders immediately confiscated their travel documents so that they could not escape their terrible destiny – they saw that the opposite was true. The slaughter – of which Fallujah was the inescapable proof – was that of the jihadists at the hands of the joint coalition and Iraqi forces.
Thirdly, the brilliant maneuvers of the Army and Marine forces in Fallujah produced strategic surprise. The terrorists expected an attack from the south, and when we suddenly smashed into the heart of the city from the north, they panicked and ran, leaving behind a treasure trove of information, subsequently augmented by newly cooperative would-be martyrs. Above all, the intelligence from Fallujah – and I have this from military people recently returned from the city – documented in enormous detail the massive involvement of the governments of Syria and Iran in the terror war in Iraq. And the high proportion of Saudi “recruits” among the jihadists leaves little doubt that the folks in Riyadh are, at a minimum, not doing much to stop the flow of fanatical Wahhabis from the south.
Thus, the great force of the democratic revolution is now in collision with the firmly rooted tyrannical objects in Tehran, Damascus, and Riyadh. In one of history’s fine little ironies, the “Arab street,” long considered our mortal enemy, now threatens Muslim tyrants, and yearns for support from us. That is our immediate task.
What Brother Ledeen calls for in this article is a national referendum in Iran that asks a simple question: “Do you want an Islamic republic?” Fair enough. But how can such a thing be accomplished? Michael makes the following suggestions:
Send Lech Walesa and Vaclav Havel to supervise the vote. Let the contending parties compete openly and freely, let newspapers publish, let radios and televisions broadcast, fully supported by the free nations. If the mullahs accept this gauntlet, I have every confidence that Iran will be on the path to freedom within months. If, fearing a massive rejection from their own people, the tyrants of Tehran reject a free referendum and reassert their repression, then the free nations will know it is time to deploy the full panoply of pressure to enable the Iranians to gain their freedom.
I will add one of my own. I think the blogosphere should devote itself to this, make the call for a democratic referendum in Iran one of our top priorities. We have been accused of late (falsely, I believe) of being a destructive force, of tearing things down like a mob. Surely, the call for a referendum in Iran is not that. It is the promotion of democracy at its purest. Bloggers on all sides of our political spectrum should be able to get behind that. I’m in.
UPDATE: I just appeared on Hugh’s Show regarding the Iran Referendum question. (Yes, Dr. Firoozmand, I am going to get some rest.) Let’s hope other bloggers will heed this call. Of course, it’s delusional to think the blogosphere by itself has the power to overthrow the mullahs, but spreading the word for a democratic referendum in Iran across the Internet could be tremendously powerful at this point in time.
MORE: Gary Metz logs in on the referendum and other issues concerng Iran.
I’m in, too. I may just have a wheezy-old LiveJournal account, but this is as good a cause as any (and better than most) to use it for.
I wondered how it was that the Marines managed to get their hands on that stuff. It seems the advance into Fallujah might have been more of a surprise than some commentators claimed. What was it Osama said? People like the strong horse…. and right now the terrorists are looking like they should be heading for a glue factory.
As for the bloggers being a destructive force…I guess I do not agree but it would seem to me that your idea is a good one. If the media want to talk about what bloggers are up to, let them talk about this referendum.
Do you think the people of Iran will have the courage to do what the Iraqis did and get out and vote?
I have heard that Damascus is beautiful in springÖ.
More seriously, I cannot imagine mullahs ever agreeing to such referendum ñ why should they? What is in it for them? Tyrants are not interested in hearing the voice of the people. In any case, since they control the ballot box they also control the outcome of the referendum, presence of Havel and Walesa notwithstanding. Also, there are ways to make sure that people will vote the way you want them to vote: international monitors will be gone in short time, but people who go to the voting booths have to continue with their lives: jobs, health, future of children may be at stake. I think that a lot of good people in the West underestimate the power of ìpersuasionî that tyrants hold over the civilian populations: unless driven to utter desperation people just want to live, so they can go a long way submitting to the will of the tyrants. No matter how much they may yearn for freedom in their hearts.
I do not believe anymore in an internal change in Iran, without external circumstances that will give ordinary Iranians the big push. I believe that establishing real democracy in Iraq is a part of such external circumstance. I would love us to take on Syria militarily and force a change in Saudi Arabia (whichever way). However, politically, I just cannot see how either can be accomplished.
ìI would love us to take on Syria militarilyî
I expect you will get your wish in less than two weeks. The Bush administration is obviously fed up with Syriaís Baathist leadership. We will probably not send in troops, but merely bomb from the air. A slap in the face should be sufficient. Baath Party members do not merely wish to survive—they desire to live the good life. Fighting the United States military is not conducive to leading an affluent lifestyle. They will almost immediately start behaving themselves.
Nice thought, but Katherine has a grasp of the real issues and properly emphasizes the true importance of a functioning democracy in Iraq. The pathway to change in Iran comes through Iraq.
David, how is it possible in todayís political climate? I mean, if your scenario plays out, the Dems will move heaven and Earth to impeach Bush. I understand that he has political capital, but bombing Syria will empty his bank account quicker than the first bomb reaches its target. And the man needs to stay in the office for, say, another 3.5 yearsÖ
Somewhere along the way today, I read how the Lebanese were hoping Rafik Hariri would be their Yushchenko. I so hope the parliamentary elections take place as scheduled in May 2005 and that the Lebanese insist Syria comply with Resolution 1559.
If this could all take place without the US striking Syria militarily, if the Lebanese could follow in the footsteps of Ukraine’s peaceful demonstrators and Iraq’s courageous voters, it just might embolden the internal opposition within Iran to chart their course and demand that referendum.
I think the blogosphere should devote itself to this, make the call for a democratic referendum in Iran one of our top priorities….Bloggers on all sides of our political spectrum should be able to get behind that. I’m in.
Yeah, right. And if anything comes of this blogosphere campaign I’m a dutchman.
Roger,
I believe the Blogos has the ability to focus the attention of the Free World on the Mad Mullahs of Iran. The MSM is ignoring the stories coming from the people of Iran via blogs.
The Mad Mullahs will melt like the Wicked Witch of the East in the Wizard of Oz when the light of the free world shines on them.
See my novel suggestion in:
IRAN – MULLAHS ABOUT TO STONE 13 YEAR-OLD GIRL
at:
Link Here
Hugh Hewitt is talking about this right now. I need to catch up…
Katherine,
I find the position of the Kurds in Syria interesting. I suspect that stirring up unrest may not remain a Syrian monopoly.
Roger,
On a related note you should read this on what our friends the Saudi’s have been up to:
Link Here
Sorry to hear about your gall bladder experience. Must have been pretty bad for them to yank it immediately. They sent me home for two weeks and then pulled it out. Not a pleasant experience.
OK Roger, I’m in.
Prepare to be “lynch mob”ed Mullahs!
Roger,
You’ve got to get the blogosphere going on this! Let’s flood the mullahs with letters demanding a referedum! And I know people like us don’t really go on peace marches anymore, but how about a tasteful NY or DC meetup with pro-freedom forces, speeches? One more for the gipper?
Chuck,
An interesting thought.
I suspect our, the blogger’s, sense of importance in the grand scheme of things is greatly inflated. A more realistic approach involves realistic pressures. I don’t think we are as a nation prepared for that.
Hmm. Double post. Roger? Can you fix? I’m not sure what I did.
Are the security interests of the US served by a democratic Iran with nuclear assets? Certainly, better than a mullacracy but does anyone think that Iran’s neighbors will sleep better with nuclear weapons in the hands of even democratic Iranians?
I could imagine supporting a democracy movement which supported a nuclear weapons free Iran but that support would have to be conditional upon unhindered inspection of the current program as it was dismantled and unfettered access by an inspection group headed by the US thereafter. Barring those conditions being met, our security interests would be better served by the reduction of the current Iranian nuclear program by military means (after diplomatic entreaties have been sufficiently rebuffed).
In short, first a nuclear free Iran, then freedom for the Iranians. Iran is not Poland, neither Ronald Reagan nor Margaret Thatcher nor the Pope are available to aid the Iranian people in their struggles. It is doubtful that a Velvet Revolution or a strong trade union movement’s unwavering support for freedom and justice will prevail in Iran. Freedom in Iran is going to require the tyrants and the patriots blood in great amounts. To date we have seen little to none of either. At the least the Iranian people could mount a general strike, if they are in fact truly desirous of change.
Wow. The revolution starts here, guys. Right from Roger Simon’s Hollywood home! Whatever next?
Whatever next?
We follow tradition and start making a little list of reactionary enemies of the revolution.
I don’t recall where I saw it, but someone has a To Do list for bloggers posted somewhere.
Chuck
While I was mulling, you were writing…
Excellent response!! LOL
Let’s see, we can support, even if with slight chance of success, the idea of a “democratic referendum,” or we can wait for a plan from the opposing side of the aisle. After all we know how much they love to talk about ‘plans’, though without much detail.
ìBarring those conditions being met, our security interests would be better served by the reduction of the current Iranian nuclear program by military means (after diplomatic entreaties have been sufficiently rebuffed).î
Who will do it?
Can anybody imagine the reaction of Dems/MSM to Bushís request for money to fund military strike against Iran? Especially if he tries to justify it by nuclear (i.e. WMD) threat?
I am sure that it was very important to bring Brits on board wrt Iraq, but that pre-invasion UN-dance will have cost us dearly in the end.
A democratic Iran with nuclear weapons is preferable to a Mullocracy with nuclear weapons,at least the deranged howling for the blood of Israel might cease.
A more open society will be more amenable to the normal dipolomatic dialogue and the officials who the west deal with will be in charge rather than front men for the Mullahs.
Why shouldn’t the revolution begin at Citizen Simon’s Hollywood home?
Katherine,
Causus belli still exists from the taking of our embassy, among other things. Should the new, freely elected Iraqi government enter into a formal security arrangement with the US then their current attempts at destabilisation would also be sufficient.
Our efforts need not be much more than we exerted in routing Milosevich. The MSM seemed to think that was OK.
Do you think that the MSM/DNC will actually back the mullahs? That would be very entertaining. I’d love to see a “Democrats for Theocracy” movement.
An essential early step I should think would be to start interacting with Iranian bloggers. Here’s a list of English language blogs.
And this is an interesting fellow. Highly placed government official (cultural affairs and diplomacy), associate of Khatami. A paragraph at the end of his bio states:
He’s also an artiste, Roger, maybe you should contact him. (Warning: The paragraph above the one quoted reads as follows: I have been a member of the Central Board since the establishment of Rouhanioun Council. It is about two years now that I spend a part of my time in the Internet. I try to scrutinize the news items and other important items, which is shaping our modern world. I also take care to read the messages of our dear citizens. I enjoy reading some of very interesting messages of our dear Iranians. Hmmm)
BTW, you sounded well and strong on the radio.
The general concept of “democracies don’t” applies, but I tend to think a more Ukrainian reaction after another attempt by the mullahs to hold tightly marshalled elections woudl be the better path.
Kyda, I’ve added your Iranian blogger list to my post. Thanks.
If you are unhappy with the Iranian government, why not politely, but firmly, tell them so.
Iranian Interests Section
2209 Wisconsin Ave NW
Washington, DC 20007
(202)965-4990
or in Britain:
The Embassy of Islamic Republic of Iran
16 Prince’s Gate
London, SW7 1PT
England
020-7225-3000
info@iran-embassy.org.uk
or Canada:
The Embassy of Islamic Republic of Iran
245 Metcalfe St.
Ottawa, Ontario
K2P 2K2
Canada
(613)235-4726
iranemb@salamiran.org
consulate@salamiran.org
ambassador@iranembassy.org
And if you think it would be best for all involved if Syria were to remove its troops from Lebanon, why not tell them as well. Again, polite but stern; hostility is generally ignored and sometimes can add to problems.
Embassy of the Syrian Arab Republic
2215 Wyoming Ave NW
Washington, DC 20008
USA
(202)232-6313
info@syrianembassy.us
In Britain:
Embassy of the Syrian Arab Republic
8 Belgrave Square
London SW1X 8PH
UK
020-7245-9012
In Canada:
Embassy of the Syrian Arab Republic
151 Slater Street
Suite 1000
Ottawa, Ontario
K1P 5H3 Canada
(613)569-5556
syrianembassy@on.aibn.com
syrianconsulate@on.aibn.com
In the pocketbook:
Ministry of Tourism
Victoria-Barada Street
Damascus, Syrian Arab Republic
(11)223 3183
min-tour@mail.syr
I sense a military engagemnet with Syria in the offing. Dipolmacy has tried and failed. Terrorists (of various nationalities) are coming into Iraq through Syria intent on killing Americans. These terrorists have the implicit approval of the Syrian Gov’t. We’ve spoken softly to no avail. Now it’s time for the stick.
With regard to an organized effort on the part of the blogoshere calling for a referendum in Iran: though it may not work I think the effort should be made. It’s a good cause.
From Amir Taheri Iranian commentator:
This has some ring of reality. It does seem hard to conduct fake elections this year.
Rick:
You can already read a version of liberals for Saddam in the LA Times. In the book review section two weeks ago in a group review of three books on the War in Iraq the reviewer started going on about the positive aspects of Saddam’s regime. They mentioned that he did a great job roadbuilding and how well women were doing during his regime,(I guess he never read about the rape rooms). It was an updated version of the “at least during Mussolini’s Italy the trains ran on time” cliche. In their hatred of the Bush presidency they will back any disgusting regime that Bush goes against. The Mullah’s and the Dear Leader will soon be getting the Mussolini meme treatment.
Rick Ballard ó Hell, we had one in the 70′s. Judging from the crowd across the street every week, I’m sure they’ve still got the banners in the attic with their Earth Shoes…
Rick,
I have not thought about the embassy takeover, but you are right, formally we do have casus belli.
Re: Dem/MSM taking the side of mullahs ñ sure they will do that. They will be defending the sovereign right of Iranian regime to resist colonial aggression of imperialist AmeriKKKa to steal Iranian oil (the headlines, they write themselves). Just look at the way they treat terrorists in Iraq: sure the ìinsurgentísî methods are a bit crude, but they are fighting against capitalist aggression, so they are on the side of the good guys and we need to support them as much as we dare, no?
We have seen the ìDemocrats for Talibanî, ìDemocrats for Saddamî, so why not ìDemocrats for Theocracyî (though the last one is truly extra-special in delicious irony).
Somewhere along the way today, I read how the Lebanese were hoping Rafik Hariri would be their Yushchenko
The Lebanese ex Prime Minister and Damascus antagonist al-Hariri was assassinated in an explosion as he motorcaded in Beirut yesterday, and the US today recalled its envoy to Syria to protest its occupation of Lebanon. My guess is that we’ve been doing special ops, exerting pressure and offering inducements to undermine Damascus and bolster opposition parties there and in Beirut, and Assad must be getting nervous. Looks like things could get very interesting soon.
I would think we’re doing similar things in Iran, too, because, while Bush has declared that we won’t tolerate the mullahs getting nuclearized, it would help if we don’t alienate US friendly and reform minded Iranians too much if/when action is taken to cripple their production facilities. The Iranian reformists are getting stronger, but hardly constitute a revolutionary movement just yet, so can we afford to wait and see? I think the administration’s thinking is that we cannot and that they are laying the groundwork fast and furious all over the region just now for events to come. Perhaps Iraq is now serving as a decoy “news” front when the real action is happening all around.
I doubt we’re going to not seal the deal of pushing security and reform in the ME because our demagogue Dems will loudly object. Many Americans realize they protest anything that Bush does and manage to be on the wrong side of everything foreign policy-wise. (I think domestically they’re not so hot, either, but don’t want to open a second front here!) At any rate, if a second term Prez can’t take big political risks to address important long-term security issues, then who can?
ìAt any rate, if a second term Prez can’t take big political risks to address important long-term security issues, then who can?î
I agreeÖ but the Congress approves money. Without money there is no military action. Will there be enough votes to support the Prez? Think about all those Republican wusses who ìjust want to get alongî.
It does seem hard to conduct fake elections this year.
The Democrats seem to have gotten away with it in Wisconsin this year (altho there is still hope that a few of their operatives will be convicted of vote suppression felonies) but it didn’t wind up doing them any good.
When the Afghan war was concluded I thought that, finally, the left would see that the results of our efforts there were good. The Taliban were deposed, people were flying kites, and schools for women were opening. By the time the Afghan elections had peacefully occurred, I no longer was so naive. By the time the Iraqi elections rolled around it didn’t suprise me at all that so few on the left admitted they’d been mistaken about them; I was simply grateful for the relative silence on the left, post-election.
And so, Rick Ballard, I think we can safely say that, indeed, the left would defend the theocratic thugs in Iran, even if they have to turn themselves into pretzels to do so. Remember, to the left the US is always wrong, and so its opponents, by definition, are always right.
Kyda Sylvester,
Here’s another Iranian blog which wasn’t on your list.
Katherine,
You ask about Congressional approval and monies for action we might take against Iran. I don’t envision a ground campaign or anything in Iran- just some sabotage of their facilities coordinated with air strikes that happen without a Congressional vote, if that’s even possible. (What do I know- I’ve just sat on Officer Wives boards that don’t discuss anything so interesting as strategy and tactics.) Seems the dollars spent on such an action wouldn’t be anything like the staggering amounts needed for the Afghanistan and Iraq campaigns. And given the risks posed by an anti-American and anti-Israeli Iran that has nukes, we may not be able to afford NOT to expend some bombs and risk the lives of brave special ops working with Iranians on the ground. A nuclear mullahcracy could bully a democratic and pro-US Iraq and Afghanistan into seeing things their way and undo all of our costly efforts in both places.
Perhaps a limited military strike to slow the mullah’s reckless drive for the Big One would actually encourage Iranian dissenters and reformers. Or, maybe they would be disaffected by such action. It’s a tough call, but a somewhat separate one from the nuclear WMD issue, imo.
I could be wrong about US or Israeli intentions to militarily strike Iran’s facilities. Bush and Rice may have decided to wait and see if the mullahs can be convinced to drop their nuke aspirations (oh, sure) or if the reformers can take hold of the government before the mullahs have and use/sell nukes (Ledeen’s hope?). But I certainly don’t think this administration believes that the EU and UN will join with us in sanctioning the mullahs until they yield to our demand that they not nuclearize. Europeans and UNers may think US policy is incontinent, but we know their “soft power” is decidedly impotent.
If the Dems wish to play Tyrants R’ Us, who are we to criticize them? It’s a free country and if they want to run an Adopt a Mullah program, it’s their decision. Why, I’ll bet Howard Dean really does hate Republicans about as much as Kim Jong Il does. Maybe he can set up conference calls with some mullahs, Assad and Kim and they can enjoy a two minute hate together every day! Ko$ could offer technical advice on how to do it, for a nominal fee. Maybe they could Podcast it so that it became a daily devotional for loyal party apparatchiks.
Charlotte,
I am not trying to deny the desirability of the scenario that you outline, I am just worried that after Iraq the nuclear threat, no matter how real, will get laugh out by the demented opponents of the administration, for whom nothing matters but the defeat of Bushitler and his dread neocons.
Judging from the stand of the Democratic leadership, vide the shameful speech of Ted Kennedy 3 days before Iraqi election (American troops are the problem in Iraq), the Dems have chosen the ground, dug up trenches and are determined to fight it out.
I have never expected that the MSM will be so successful with the ìThere were no WMD = Saddam was innocentî aka ìBush Lied, People Diedî propaganda campaign ñ but it definitively paid off and almost delivered us into the clutches of one, John Kerry. We the people may score a victory ever now and then, but so far the political enemy is formidable and in no mood for surrender. That is why I expect Dems to be undermining the Prez policies even to their own and the national detriment. For these people nothing matters, but bringing the administration down. And if the country goes with it, so be it (insert the omelet proverb).
Like I said, the Britís participation in the coalition may have come with a too high a price.
Rick,
I bet Howard Dean hates Republicans more than Kim. For Kim the feeling is abstract and tempered with belief in his own godhead. Besides, we really never meddled with him for real, did we?
For poor Howard the feeling is very personal. I am not sure about the godhead thing.
Katherine,
I think the truth is that many of these people do want the country to go down. That’s their goal. It’s not that they hate Bush so much that that would be an unfortunate side effect. I think that the demise of America is the entirely desired main effect. That’s why I say these people are not “leftists” in the sense that a “leftist” is a socialist or communist who wants a bigger government in order to establish peace on earth [But what the hell is a "leftist" anyway? Beats me.] I think it’s more honest to call these people what they are: anti-Americans.
ìDavid, how is it possible in todayís political climate?î
Very easily. I donít even begin to share your concerns. Most Americans would support the bombing of Syria. The Democrats are little more than paper tigers. Attacking Syria would be considered a mere extension of our actions in Iraq. Asking congress for permission would not be required. Lastly, the Baathists of Syria will quickly back down. They donít have the will to die for the defense of Baathist values.
What? The Mullahs are still in power in Iran.
I thought Roger Simon had started a revolution to overthrow them from his home in Los Angeles.
The massive power of the blogosphere should of disposed of them by now, surely. Damn. Give it a couple of more days, then.
Even though stopping the nuclear weaponizing of the mullahs is a somewhat separate issue than that of supporting the Iranian reformers which we intend to do anyway, unless one believes we can wait for them to take power and open up Iran’s program to international inspection, it might be necessary to twin a strike and a stoking; if we don’t help reformers effect a change in government soon after hitting their facilities, we’d have to live with dangerously vengeful mullahs for a while. Even absent a velvet revolution, coup or bloody revolt in Teheran, though, it still falls to someone to stop/set back the nuclearization of the mullahs. Were they to be armed with nukes, they present an intolerable security risk to us and the region. To act is risky; to not act is riskier.
Anyway, I can’t remember whether Ledeen thinks we should try to take out Iran’s nuclear capability or whether he thinks we should wait (how long?) for reformers to ascend to power there. I think the latter. But he is always at his best when he simultaneously counsels patience with the messy reform process in the ME and insists upon faster, please! He’s right about how we need to keep pushing for more open government and civil liberties in the region using everything at our disposal. While it’s difficult to imagine his proposed Iranian referendum actually taking place, its genius might lie in the mullah’s thwarting of it which would add to the mounting frustrations of the people who are denied a free voice.
Roger’s good idea for blogs to campaign for the referendum could make a difference, if people can circumvent the mullahs’ crack-down on their bloggers and access to the ‘sphere. Men like Ledeen and Simon are not just thinkers, they suggest useful courses of action, unlike the pundits, pols and profs who envision doom and disaster scenarios for any action and new initiative the (Republican led) US may do.
More can-do, please!
Titans of Blogs vs. Mad Mullahs of Iran
Michael Ledeen issues a challenge in his latest NRO column, Watershed:
Challenge now joined by Hugh Hewitt, Charles Johnson (LGF), and John Hinderaker “Hindrocket” of Powerline.
Link Here
Good. The more the merrier. Some of us have been trying to get this idea into the public’s eye for years.
The Moderate Voice joins the Rumble
See post by Joe Gandelman, The Moderate Voice:
Link Here
LETS RUMBLE!
See Previous Post
Que the hockey music -
by Queen
We Will Rock You
Buddy you’re a boy make a big noise
Playin’ in the street gonna be a big man some day
You got mud on yo’ face
You big disgrace
Kickin’ your can all over the place
Singin’
We will we will rock you
We will we will rock you
[...]
More Lyrics
Sorry blew the music link:
We Will Rock You!