Yeah, Ahmadinejad wasn't even elected by the people in the first place. Most people in Iran just make fun of him (and the Supreme Leader). The way elections work in Iran is that individuals must submit their names to the Guardian Council, which is controlled by reactionary Islamists, in order to just get on the ballot. Afterwards, agents of the Supreme Leader can manipulate the vote itself. For example, the first round of the election cycle in '05 originally pitted a reformist vs. Rafsanjani (a corrupt former president), yet the next morning people woke up to see that the second round of the election would actually be between Ahmadinejad vs. Rafsanjani. So, the whole point of this is that Iran is basically a dictatorship under the rule of the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, and a couple other influential clerics. Elections are just used to settle small debates between the Islamists. Iranians are actually a pretty progressive people and most don't like the government, yet when the government has repeatedly used massive arrests and torture against its opponents the people do not have much choice. McCain is basically an idiot in regards to his knowledge of Iran, first his statement that Al-Qaeda is in Iran, now this... The internet here is pretty slow (they have DSL but I don't feel like getting it), but I will definitely post pictures of some of the sights of Tehran on webshots or something once I get back.  

So I went to this cafe with my aunt the other day in Northern Tehran and I saw all these guys who were being REALLY touchy feely. So I asked her, "Are guys in Iran usually like that?" and she goes, "Haha...you can't tell? This place is a pretty big hangout for gay guys, but the foods really good so I always come here." So there you have it. Another reason why the President of Iran is basically a psycho who doesn't even know what's going on in his own country.

Anyway, just a little more than 2 weeks until the Byrne-Connolly primary. Everyone better vote (for Byrne)!

Beats the sh-- out of me why the US can't marshall the thousands of Iranians in the U.S. to develop better relations/understanding with this key regional power. It just seems there are so many bright educated Iranians in this country that we ought to be able to make something positive happen! Maybe invite Khameini over for some shish kebab at Moby Dick's (one of the best NoVa fast restaurants) I bet our relations will improve! (especially if he tries the chicken)
The point remains that McW doesn't know squat about foreign policy and international relations--Lowell, isn't it really defense and national security, to make an important distinction, that are his strengths? After all wasn't he at the top of his class at the Naval Academy? (I wonder what his grades were!)
One final point on McW--his nickname at prep school was McNasty--and you saw that side of his personality in his vitriolic utterly shameless and incoherent response to Obama on the GI bill. (Would anybody who read that really want McW to be their President?) Meanwhile Obama is the cool smart guy. These are the lasting images-- angry mean old fart v. young dynamic fun nice guy that are going to help build our Democratic Perfect Storm this November!  

is displayed in McCain's remarks, it seems to me. You want an elitist, there he is... another entitled legacy with an attitude, sorta like the guy in the Oval office with whom he is now so buddy buddy.

That this comes straight from my dad, now 85 and a veteran of WWII much of these same arguements were said about Hitler in German in the 1930's by many countries. Now I realize today we have progressed in terms of information and its speed as well as intelligence capabilities but he respectfully makes a valid point. Hitler was underestimated by the world until it was too late and the thing we need to do as Americans is put our differences aside and come to grips with the fact that we should not underestimate anyone nor what power we may think they they have or do not have. We should endeavor to be cautious with any person who makes the threats that he does and not underestimate any resolve he may have.
I of course was not around in the post depression years leading up to WWII, but I feel it best we respect those those that did experience that and leverage that experience to better guide our future.
There is not many of them, the WWII vets, left you know.  

underestimating the opposition is why we are in the messes in Afghanistan and Iraq that we are in today.  The bush-cheney completely underestimated the opposition that would be against us in both countries.  In fact doing a frank analysis of the risks is part of The Powell Doctrine.  Instead bush-cheney chose to go with an unproven fantasy doctrine from rumsfeld and his neonuts, which apparently assumed that after we won round 1, the opposition would just disappear, never to be heard from again.    

rather than simply "underestimating" are more like it. Our military did very well in accomplishing their original missions in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and by no means "underestimated" the enemy. But then the damfool political leadership, full of hubris, their arrogance exceeded only by their ignorance, changed the mission. I say again, had Bush come into office with the express purpose of weakening/ruining America, he could not have done a better job of it than he has so far. Please see my comments below on comparing the 1930's with today.

I think its important for us to grasp the fact that every military engagement in history (again lets set politics aside for a second) engages in quite a bit of ignorance...hence that is why in term sof military ops we use things like recon teams and other methods to feel out the oppositions capabilities and stengths. There is always a level of ignorance when planning a mission to an extent, but the difference seems to me, now politically, our elected official appointees do not seem to want to either engage in a little recon (explore the issues and its ramifications) before taking action. They seem to craft policy in a house with no windows or phones. The other side of it is the military takes any info garnered by recon and uses it to modify and create better planning, apparently our civilian leadership chooses not to do and remains determined to the ends without analyzing the means of which to get them there nor the fallout(causalty) of such an end.

OaktonResident and I were having the same discussion on May 20th.  

during the Depression, but am not quite as old as your father, but I do remember the Spanish Civil War, Mussolini in Ethiopia, Anschluss with Austria, Danizg Free State, and Chamberlain at Munich, giving the Czech Sudetenland to Germany for the sake of "peace in  our time." My father was a Reserve Officer and mounted a map of Europe on our living room wall, outlining the German Reich and adding every little accretion to it because he fully expected we would go to war, and we (that is, my parents) discussed the news every night at dinner, when I was permitted to sit at the adult table.

The sentiment among many in England and the US (among many of those Americans who paid any attention) was often in favor of the Nazis because they were anti-Communist, had tackled the problem of horrendous unemployment resulting from the Great Depression, and (in Italy) actually "made the Italian trains run on time." These sentiments were especially strong among wealthy business people--- even JFK's father and the Bush family dabbled in supporting the Nazis and, for what it is worth, the business class also sold scrap iron to the Japanese who were invading Manchuria (which they called Manchukuo), and then China.

Did the fat and lazy "West" underestimate Hitler? Probably; I believe that many businessmen in Germany as well did so, thinking they could use Hitler (remember that "Nazi" was short for "National Socialist" party, and thus short circuit the Communists. Soviet Russia had recently assassinated Trotsky in Mexico, and established Stalin as their chief when Lenin died--- remember that the Spanish Civil War pitted Franco against the "republicans" in Spanish parlance, who generally were Communists, and Germany supported Franco while the Soviets supported the "republicans;" American Communists sent earnest young idealists to fight in the Abraham Lincoln Brigade on the side of the Communists in Spain, thus confirming the opinions of those American businessmen who feared a Communist takeover in America--- business people generally considered Roosevelt a traitor to their class and a socialist, if not a secret communist.

It's a little more complicated than "underestimating" Hitler, just as today is not comparable to the situation in the 1930's. I do not think engaging in diplomatic contact automatically means you underestimate the outfit with whom you are talking. I also remember, of course, that we were "talking" with Japan right up to moment they bombed Pearl Harbor (I think one of their two diplomats doing the talking was Admiral Nomura, but I could be wrong). Today we are armed to the teeth; in 1941 we were somnolent, although my father had been called to active duty in 1940 and we were beginning to mobilize; Roosevelt had sent Britain several "over aged" destroyers on Lend Lease, over the objections of Republicans (many of whom still supported Hitler, or, at least did not support Britain, and were strongly isolationist, unlike my parents). The atom bomb was only an idea floating around in esoteric physicist circles; today we have thousands.

Well, I've run on too long, but Nasty McCain (his nickname at Annapolis) is not exactly reliable on this matter, and I would not want him in charge of our foreign policy.  

thanks for the excellent discursion. Would that we had more frank discussions of real history as part of our politics and in our national discourse, perhaps we'd make fewer mistakes as a nation.

The part with the Hitler comparisons that defies parody, though, is the way every tinpot dictator is compared to him. It's completely untethered from reality to even make such a comparison. Germany had the largest and most professional military in the world and the second largest economy (behind the US) when WWII commenced. To compare a poor state like Iran to Nazi Germany is to completely misunderstand what exactly made Germany so dangerous.  

And we gave the gripless Iranian leadership the hand they needed to bring the country in line. President Bush is a uniter after all.

Your discussion is simply brilliant. Thank you.

is the fact that Iran actually helped th U.S. when we went into Afghanistan after the Taliban, partly because the Iranian Shia despised and feared the Sunni Arab-dominated Taliban. The American military accomplished its first mission in Afghanistan, which was to crush and expel the Taliban, and were closing in capturing Osama bin Laden when our civilian political leadership suddenly (inexplicably to most) withdrew resources and diverted them to the invasion of Iraq. Once again we foolishly closed yet another window of opportunity with Iran.

It is true that many of them were Communists, but the main meaning of them being republicans meant that they were against the monarchy. There were many socialists (not the same as communists), centrists, anarchists, and regional nationalist parties from Galicia and Catalonia, which enjoyed autonomy under the new Constitution.

The Communist Party around the world have tended to be rather small in most countries before taking power, if they ever did. They played a disproportionate influence in history because, although small, it tended to be very disciplined and well organized, and when disruption came, they were often the only people with enough organization and leadership skills to take take over resistant movements.

was indeed more complicated than I made it sound (for reasons of limiting my already prolix response), so thank you for your comments. Also, more complicated was what was going on in America, too, including The German-American Bund and the KKK burning crosses in front of my hotel in Charleston, S.C. I did not mean to over-simplify, just give a broad brush and, of course, I did not personally know or understand all that was going on at the time.

We of course did not have television, but we did have real "foreign correspondents" who filed outstanding news reports with major newspapers (see William Shirer's Berlin Diary, for example), and then there were "newsreels:" grainy, often sepia-colored short clips of world events which regularly preceded the main attraction at the movies. This was where I saw Hitler orating to roaring, appreciative crowds, Chinese peasants dying of famine, Nazi stormtroopers marching into Vienna and being welcomed by little blonde girls with bouquets of flowers, violent strikes and labor union sit-ins or management lock-outs in Gary, Indiana (for example), and so on.  Oh yes, and FBI gang-busters going after Al Capone and other mobsters

It was a different world, and not by any means as simple and idealic as some pretend it was.  

Was we were for the most part still living in a very condensed demographic in terms of how the country experienced distinct immigration patterns and by the late 1920's it was not uncommon to have those within America of German descent in large pockets scattered throughout the country, think central PA and Shenandoah Valley, that may have supported socialism as home since it appeared to solve many of the issues which drove them to immigrate to America in the first place.  It was not surprising to find those in America, even after our own Depression finding solace in the "words and visions" of Hitler.
Its the "words and vision" we need to get our teeth around. We all have our own realities. We chose to believe in something or someone. You can believe in a movement per say but not believe in the figure head or leader at the same time.
In Washington leading up to 1930's there was still great animosity towards even England amongst politicians and possibly anyone given what many saw as the folly of the League of Nations ideaology of Wilson a mere twenty years before that rippled through. These to be sure became the isolationists that blinded themselves as to Hitlers rise out of a politcial position of isolation and non-involvement. They became so entrenched with a political philosophy they failed to see and thus permitted to grow unchecked until it was too late.

**an example for another time would be China now and its military.They are undergoing major changes and developments as did Hitler with his military for a reason...the similarities are striking if you break it down..on the one hand you see some promise of economics and then on the other you see the under current of a massive military buildout.**

We are living in a time now where we are experiencing here at home another political blinding or shortsidedness as well that may also be similar in nature though not political philosophy as to that of the isolationsits.

The option here are not very bright. You have McCain and then you have Obama. I believe Mccain as the life experience and military background that traditionally has been beneficial though argueably and then you have Obama without any real practical experience. Either way I wish we could learn who these guys invisioned for cabinet spots before the election because that will be key.

For example if McCain had someone like a Joe Biden as Sec State would not that I think change some dynamic a bit on relations with foriegn goverments. Obama the same thing.

After an arguement for Obama is Ronald Reagan had no real experience on these fronts when he had to deal with the Soviets. His cabinet and appointees were critical is seeing and addressing the capabilities and strengths of the opposition and he benefited greatly from those folks.

for Obama? I do not agree here. McCain flew from a warm, clean dry bed on an aircraft carrier into a filthy prison cell, where he spent the remainder of the war, period (often tortured personally, true). Compare, for example, that with Jim Webb, platoon commander in the rice paddies, responsible for the lives of young Marines while accomplishing many on-the-ground missions, mingling with a frequently hostile population for month after month after month... that is far more "practical" leadership experience, IMHO. Compare all that with Obama, being from another generation, who actually lived on the economy in a foreign country, dealing with different life styles, then earning (not inheriting as a legacy) an education at a top American university, choosing to work successfully for many years on the ground with poor and disadvantaged inner city people, dealing with big city politics, serving in his state legislature...

That sounds to me like exactly the sort of resume we need from some one interviewing for the top leadership slot at this point and time in our history.  

As it relates to foriegn policy and international affairs. To imply because Obama lived overseas somehoe garners him "practical" political experience is baseless otherwise myself and countless veterans who spent tours of duties in the military sometimes stationed overseas for four or more years could claim the same exact thing.
I was in fact not stating that to be a negative per say if you follow the Reagan analaogy, but the difference only is Reagan had run a State and not just anyone at that but CA, which was and still is very complicated an endeavor. Not that McCain has neccesarily run anything either on this point which is why I felt that neither seem poised to fit the times solo. We will need them to have a balanced, informed and objective entourage of cabinet officials that are the backbone of the executive vision.
If Obama is make the kinds of changes he speaks to he cannot and will not be able to go it alone and other than the VP rumors we have not heard one thing about who either of these guys would put in vital positions.
Which is why I think at some point in the future people may just get around to demanding that these things be proposed before an election.
Knowing who a nominee would pick for cabinet positions I think is a big indicator as to the judgement they have more so than a bill or peice of legislation.

and it would be good if we has a better idea of who would compose the "brain trust" for any new administration. I can see McCain appointing Joe Lieberman as Secretary of State, can't you? Brrr.

I agree that the experience in Somalia (I had forgot the 1st Bush, but to me East Africa was getting rather like Haiti, in-out-in-out-in-?) and what we did there was probably also colored by what happened in Beirut under Reagan when we lost almost 300 Marines at one fell swoop when the barracks was blown up--- Raegan withdrew American forces abruptly, i.e., cut and ran, didn't he?

Does anyone remember (back in the 1960's-70's-part of the -80's) the huge sign in a pasture along Route 29 just before you reached Fairfax Circle which demanded "GET US OUT OF UN?" Isolationism was still alive and well.  

I have spoken with  a few independents who feel that the the one risk of an Obama would be one very similar to what Reagan made in Lebanon or gets us political entanglements (code I think for supporting the UN openly). I guess it is rooted in the "inexperience" equation in dealing with international dynamics. I have no idea what the excuse is/was for Bush but I am sure there is one- they just haven't figured it out yet.

He'll do anything, say anything to win this election, and he's totally unqualified.

Watch Tim Russert take McCain to the woodshed.  An oldie but a goodie:

is mainly OIL first (which Somalia did not have and Iraq does), and the fact that Clinton was President when we went into Somalia for his reasons, while Bush was President when we went into Iraq for Cheney's reasons. But McCain cannot point that out because that would open an, ah, oil drum of worms. By the way, this is an old clip; doesn't McCain look much healthier then than he does now?

President Clinton and Les Aspin can be criticized for their handling of the Somalia mission, but for the sake of historical accuracy, the U.S. got into Somalia during the last six months of the first President Bush's term:

Operation Provide Relief began in August 1992, when the U.S. President George H. W. Bush announced that U.S. military transports would support the multinational UN relief effort in Somalia. Ten C-130s and 400 people were deployed to Mombasa, Kenya during Operation Provide Relief, airlifting aid to remote areas in Somalia and reducing reliance on truck convoys. One member of the 86th Supply Squadron, USAFE's only contribution to the operation, was deployed with the ground support contingent. The Air Force C-130s delivered 48,000 tons of food and medical supplies in six months to international humanitarian organizations trying to help the over three million starving people in the country. When this proved inadequate to stop the massive death and displacement of the Somali people (500,000 dead and 1.5 million refugees or displaced), the U.S., in December 1992, launched a major coalition operation to assist and protect humanitarian activities, Operation Restore Hope, under which the United States would assume the unified command of the new operation, in accordance with Resolution 794 (1992). The U.S. Marine Corps landed with the 15th MEU in Mogadishu and secured nearly one-third of the city, the port, and airport facilities, to facilitate airlifted humanitarian supplies in two weeks time. Elements of the 2nd Battalion, 9th Marines quickly secured routes to Baidoa, Balidogle and Kismayo, then were reinforced by 3rd Assault Amphibian Battalion and the US Army's 10th Mountain Division.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...

See also http://www.history.army.mil/br...

The experience in Somalia I think has heavily influenced the thinking about Iraq, and was part of the basis for the argument that we cannot just withdraw from Iraq lest we leave a "failed state" in a vital strategic position in the Middle East.  

I agreed with that argument for awhile, but not anymore.  Now, Iraq is making so much money in oil revenues -- even with its capacity still crippled -- that I don't think there is any possibility that it could become a "failed state" even if we withdrew everybody.

Before anyone blows up, from a military perspective there were countless things asked for and demanded by military officials to make that mission in Somolia a success that were not granted by the Clinton administration. Right or wrong the fact that the military did not get them and the result that occurred may have played a factor ten years later for the military getting too much of what it demanded of the Bush adminsitration.

Interesting though with the manner in which insurgents fought there given the fact they knew we were part of process there along with mostly Pakistani forces that they did not simply go away--as apparently voices in Bush adminstration believed would happen in Iraq.

I really wanted to find a carpool to Puerto Rico to canvasss for Obama.......

...carpool into the 11th CD and canvass for Leslie Byrne! :)