Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

General Abizaid: We Could Live With a Nuclear-Armed Iran

Posted by Steve Benen at 7:40 AM on September 19, 2007.


Steve Benen: Let the right-wing smear of Gen. Abizaid begin in 3...2...1....
300h
General Abizaid

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

This post, written by Steve Benen, originally appeared on The Carpetbagger Report

For a variety of conservatives, most notably Rudy Giuliani and Joe Lieberman, supporting aggressive counter-terrorism measures isn't enough. Credibility on national security is based largely on whether someone is willing to use the words "Islamic" and "terrorism" next to each other.

It's worth noting, of course, that the president, who enjoys the enthusiastic support of Giuliani, Lieberman, and others who share their ideology, doesn't use the preferred rhetoric. He used to, and the White House would make occasional references to "Islamofascism," but to the Bush gang's credit, they've moved away from that kind of rhetoric.

According to former CENTCOM Commander Gen. John Abizaid, Giuliani & Co. should follow suit. Indeed, during a discussion yesterday on the role of the military in counterterrorism, the general told at the Center for Strategic and International Studies that Giuliani's preferred rhetoric makes diplomacy in the Middle East "very, very difficult."

"[E]ven adding the word 'Islamic extremism,' or qualifying it to 'Sunni Islamic extremism,' or qualifying it further to 'Sunni Islamic extremism' as exemplified by government such as Bin Laden, all make it very, very difficult because the battle of words is meaningful, especially in the Middle East to people. And so, I do think, and I had a chance to get to know many of the regional leaders out there. They clearly understand that we, collectively, are fighting a problem that they don't want to win, that we don't want to win. The problem that we have to face is how do we work together to keep this problem from becoming mainstream. [...]

"The key is to figure out how we don't turn this into Samuel Huntington's Battle of Civilization's and we work toward an area where we respect mainstream Islam. There's nothing Islamic about Bin Laden's philosophy, there's nothing Islamic about suicide bombing. I believe that these are huge difficulties that we need to overcome, this notion of Christianity versus Islam. It's not that, it doesn't need to be that.

To hear Giuliani tell it, those who don't connect Islam with terrorism are "politically incorrect" and unwilling to acknowledge the seriousness of the terrorist threat.

Go ahead, Rudy, tell us Gen. Abizaid doesn't know what he's talking about. I dare you.

Speaking of the general, Abizaid also stepped on the neocons' talking points yesterday when he said every effort should be made to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, but if the country does acquire them, the U.S. and its allies could live with a nuclear-armed regime in Tehran.

John Abizaid, the retired Army general who headed Central Command for nearly four years, said he was confident that if Iran gained nuclear arms, the United States could deter it from using them.

"Iran is not a suicide nation," he said. "I mean, they may have some people in charge that don't appear to be rational, but I doubt that the Iranians intend to attack us with a nuclear weapon."

The Iranians are aware, he said, that the United States has a far superior military capability.

"I believe that we have the power to deter Iran, should it become nuclear," he said, referring to the theory that Iran would not risk a catastrophic retaliatory strike by using a nuclear weapon against the United States.

"There are ways to live with a nuclear Iran," Abizaid said in remarks at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank. "Let's face it, we lived with a nuclear Soviet Union, we've lived with a nuclear China, and we're living with (other) nuclear powers as well."

Let the right-wing smear of Gen. Abizaid begin in 3...2...1....

Digg!

Tagged as: iraq, abizaid, nuclear weapons, iran, middle east, giuliani, lieberman

Steve Benen is a freelance writer/researcher and creator of The Carpetbagger Report. In addition, he is the lead editor of Salon.com's Blog Report, and has been a contributor to Talking Points Memo, Washington Monthly, Crooks & Liars, The American Prospect, and the Guardian.


Dems' Godly God-Fest Ends with Prayer by Former Christian Coalition Leader
A leader among the "New Evangelicals."
Post by Joshua Holland. August 29, 2008.
John McCain is Older Than Alaska
23 years older.
Post by Isaac Fitzgerald. August 29, 2008.
Palin Thinks Hillary is a Whiner
These days Palin is all about praising Hillary's efforts, but she used to sing a different tune.
Post by Melissa McEwan. August 29, 2008.

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Rudy Pandering
Posted by: DesertStone on Sep 19, 2007 6:16 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Rudy just panders to the largely Christians Republicans that he hopes will put him in office. What he believes about Islam is unknown and irrelevant. The moral majority Christians of America don’t want to know that Muslims are ordinary people. They want demonic Muslims with horns and tails they can slay without conscience.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Finally, some sense from a military figurehead!
Posted by: Your Ishmael on Sep 19, 2007 7:04 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Cold War pretty well displayed how nuclear weapons are more of a bargaining chip, a trump card if you will, than an actual threat. The properties of Mutually Assured Destruction deter any nation from being stupid enough to launch their nuclear arsenal against anyone. I'm glad a high-ranking military official has finally pointed out this fact. In the face of what I see as ridiculous fear-mongering by the right-wing, it's refreshing to hear. Iran may be a considerably rogue state, but its leaders want power, nothing more. Nuclear arms are just their grab at more power, not a legitimate threat against the United States.
As for Iran's non-nuclear Mid-East enemies, however, their acquisition of nukes would be bad news.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Rogue State Posted by: swissliberal
I remember...
Posted by: Bbear41 on Sep 19, 2007 8:53 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...in my childhood, hearing a news comentater say that Russians would have the atomic bomb within a certain number of years. I was scard to death. We had been conditiond to believe that 'the Russians' were totaly eveil and as soon as they had THE BOMB the'd blow us up. Something called 'balance of terror' or 'mutual assured distruction' set in and nobody nuked anybody. Is Iran going to use one or a few nukes in the certain knowledge that they would be hit by many more bombs?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The main scare tactic
Posted by: hurricane hugo on Sep 19, 2007 10:45 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
this administration prefers to use in regards to a nuclear-armed Iran is the "they'll sell 'em to the terraist!" canard. Well...Pakistan is a nuclear power crawling with terrorists, and we don't seem to be threatening them. Hmmm...I wonder why?

plur

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The main scare tactic Posted by: Jeanne
We are all agreed.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Sep 22, 2007 11:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The general is correct.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This result has further importance
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Sep 22, 2007 11:59 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The importance of a nuclear Iran is that we can safely sell our
latest nuclear power plant technology to everybody. Doing so
will:
1. Prevent all future Chernobyl-type fires as soon as all Soviet
built reactors can be replaced with modern Western reactors.
Perhaps we should subsidize this process. Chernobyl-type fires
are impossible in pebble bed reactors. Remember that the total
deaths at Chernobyl was 52, and there was only a fire and a steam
explosion. There was no nuclear explosion.
2. Cut the CO2 output from coal fired power plants from
whatever it is to approximately zero. Remember that the total
CO2 from building a power plant is nearly zero compared to the 4
Million tons of coal burned each year thereafter for each 1000
Megawatts of capacity. This is the huge 34% wedge that we need
to begin to avoid extinction.
3. Replace many other sources of CO2 and smoke with clean
electric power the world over. Remember that there is no nuclear
waste in Yucca Mountain. It is fuel that needs to be reprocessed.
Once people get over their irrational paranoid fear of science,
electricity produced by nuclear power can become much cheaper
than any other source except hydroelectric. People in the Third
World should be able to heat their food with electricity instead of
burning dung.

Before replying, please read my other posts on this subject
elsewhere in Alternet/environment. I don't want to have to prove
you wrong yet again.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]