Ye Olde Weekly Standard: Regime Change

I’m shifting back over old issues of the Weekly Standard, reading how they wrote up advocating for a War in Iraq. These paragraphs struck me as something worth noting:

The destruction of Iraq’s military force structure would create the opportunity for regime change as well, since it would eliminate some or all of Saddam Hussein and his regimes’ ability to control the population. Simultaneously or prior to the attack, a major covert operation could be launched, utilizing Iraqi exiles and dissident forces trained during the period of diplomacy. This effort would be based on the Afghan model that led to the fall of the Taliban in 2001. Not only would the overt and covert attacks weaken the ability of Iran’s leaders to carry out offensive operations in retaliation, they would cripple the leaders’ power to control their own people.

Iraq’s leaders have threatened to unleash a firestorm of terrorism in the event military action is taken against them. Any country involved in the attack would be subject to retaliation by Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and al Qaeda, the Iraqis have claimed. If nothing else, this threat demonstrates how closely tied Iraq is to terrorist groups. The United States and its allies would have to be prepared for stepped-up terrorist acts. Iraq could also project forces into Palestine, but this is unlikely because they would encounter the full strength of the American military. However, Iraq might encourage proxies among

Okay. This is getting a little strained. Changing Iran to Iraq is obvious, and I think changing Iraq to Palestine was an inspired stroke of genius on my part. But were there supposed “proxies” of Iraq in Palestine? This oh-so-ironic remix of mine ceases to make any sense.

Iraq’s militant Shiites. Coalition forces in Iraq would have to be ready to respond.

The madness continues in the proper cover story “To Bomb or Not to Bomb”, the story of which is pretty much given away with this line:

America is, so CNN says (and the Iranian English-speaking elite faithfully watch CNN), tied down in Iraq.

Oh, Mercy me. If only the Iranian English speaking elite would watch Fox News, they’d know the truth about our cruising success in Iraq.

At any rate, countering the idea that a strike (Nuclear, mind you. Nuclear on the table) would have an averse effect on the Secular or Moderate Iranian dissidents, they have history as their guide.:

In any case, it is highly unlikely that an American strike would arrest Iran’s intellectual progress away from theocracy. This process has been going on since the 1980s–Iran’s loss to Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war was an important catalyst to questioning and dissent.

Wait. Who won the Iran – Iraq war anyways? I thought Iraq was pretty much spent after that one. They invaded Iran, trumpted about because their military might dominated Iranian’s military might, and then they got dragged down because the Iranians didn’t like foreign invaders, and the initial feelings of triumph just became a slow simmering unnverving attrition. Thank you, wikipedia.

The war was disastrous for both countries, stalling economic development and disrupting oil exports. It cost Iran an estimated 1.5 million casualties (1, p. 206), and $350 billion (1, p. 1). Iraq was left with serious debts to its former Arab backers, including US$14 billion loaned by Kuwait, a debt which contributed to Saddām’s 1990 decision to invade.

Much of the oil industry in both countries was damaged in air raids. Iran’s production capacity has yet to fully recover from the damages during the war.

The war left the borders unchanged. Two years later, as war with the western powers loomed, Saddām recognized Iranian rights over the eastern half of the Shatt al-`Arab, a reversion to the status quo ante bellum that he had repudiated a decade earlier.

I guess I’m looking forward to this week’s issue. “Who’s Your Dada?” indeed.

Leave a Reply