"The danger isn’t only regime collapse. It’s the wrong thing filling the space after."
I don't doubt there's worse things than the mullahcracy. But I'm willing to take my chances.
I mean...for all our failures and blunders in Iraq, we achieved "Objective One": we took Saddam out of play and eliminated his ability to destabilize the region.
Ditto Baby Assad in Syria. Ditto Qaddafi in Libya.
If that's all we achieve in Iran by toppling the regime I'll consider it a win.
Totally fair to call “Objective One” a win. The problem is Objective Two shows up whether we want it or not.
Iraq is the clean example: Saddam was removed, but the vacuum produced insurgency → AQI → ISIS, plus a militia ecosystem that destabilized the region for a decade. Libya removed Qaddafi, but the state fractured and exported weapons/instability into the Sahel. Afghanistan is the older rhyme: Najibullah fell in ’92, factions fought, and the vacuum eventually filled with the Taliban.
So yes—toppling can eliminate a dictator. But if you don’t manage the vacuum, you often trade one destabilizer for a more distributed one.
My point is, "the rest of it" is *not our problem*.
The job of the US government is to defend us against our enemies. Not to rebuild their countries: that's the job of the people who live there, as Trump has explicitly stated in his various appeals to the Iranian people.
Iraq is not a threat to regional stability. Ditto Syria, ditto Libya, ditto Afghanistan.
*That's* what *I* care about.
Trump is slowly taking us away from the post-War view that it's somehow our job to rebuild every country around the world into a liberal democracy.
That was a plausible argument in 1945, after which we spent half a decade turning Germany, Italy and Japan into--well--more-or-less liberal democracies.
Note the timeline: within *five years* of the War's end, we left those places to their own devices. Erhard in Germany, along with the Italian and Japanese political leadership, did the rest.
Compare that to our futile and misguided efforts not just in Iraq and Afghanistan--where we spent 4X as much time and accomplished *nothing*--but in places like Vietnam, where we diligently applied pressure to democratize *in the middle of a war*.
JFK didn't like Ngo Dinh Diem, so he had the CIA bump him off, so a more pliant leader could be put in place. That worked out well, right?
...You need to embrace your inner Jacksonian, my friend! :-)
Just as I feared. Another illegitimate war. When will we learn. Not a win. another misstep that destabilizes the world.
Great comments. Keep them coming. Thanks
"The danger isn’t only regime collapse. It’s the wrong thing filling the space after."
I don't doubt there's worse things than the mullahcracy. But I'm willing to take my chances.
I mean...for all our failures and blunders in Iraq, we achieved "Objective One": we took Saddam out of play and eliminated his ability to destabilize the region.
Ditto Baby Assad in Syria. Ditto Qaddafi in Libya.
If that's all we achieve in Iran by toppling the regime I'll consider it a win.
Totally fair to call “Objective One” a win. The problem is Objective Two shows up whether we want it or not.
Iraq is the clean example: Saddam was removed, but the vacuum produced insurgency → AQI → ISIS, plus a militia ecosystem that destabilized the region for a decade. Libya removed Qaddafi, but the state fractured and exported weapons/instability into the Sahel. Afghanistan is the older rhyme: Najibullah fell in ’92, factions fought, and the vacuum eventually filled with the Taliban.
So yes—toppling can eliminate a dictator. But if you don’t manage the vacuum, you often trade one destabilizer for a more distributed one.
I see I didn't make myself clear.
My point is, "the rest of it" is *not our problem*.
The job of the US government is to defend us against our enemies. Not to rebuild their countries: that's the job of the people who live there, as Trump has explicitly stated in his various appeals to the Iranian people.
Iraq is not a threat to regional stability. Ditto Syria, ditto Libya, ditto Afghanistan.
*That's* what *I* care about.
Trump is slowly taking us away from the post-War view that it's somehow our job to rebuild every country around the world into a liberal democracy.
That was a plausible argument in 1945, after which we spent half a decade turning Germany, Italy and Japan into--well--more-or-less liberal democracies.
Note the timeline: within *five years* of the War's end, we left those places to their own devices. Erhard in Germany, along with the Italian and Japanese political leadership, did the rest.
Compare that to our futile and misguided efforts not just in Iraq and Afghanistan--where we spent 4X as much time and accomplished *nothing*--but in places like Vietnam, where we diligently applied pressure to democratize *in the middle of a war*.
JFK didn't like Ngo Dinh Diem, so he had the CIA bump him off, so a more pliant leader could be put in place. That worked out well, right?
...You need to embrace your inner Jacksonian, my friend! :-)