Scott Ritter lecture
Scott Ritter's talk was held in a very congenial venue: the auditorium at the William Mitchell College of Law, in St. Paul, not terribly far from the Xcel Center. It was an appropriate venue, since the bedrock of Ritter's talk, indeed his mission, is the Constitution. The talk was sponsored by U.S. Tour of Duty, Women Against Military Madness (WAMM), Veterans for Peace, and some other groups.
Ritter has very much the demeanor of the former Marine that he is. (Check out his full bio at the Tour of Duty site.) At some points his delivery was a little bit that of the macho football coach, at others the professional military briefer. But he was also very passionate, almost like an evangelical minister in style.
He began by driving home the point that he supports the military; he's not a pacifist. He even chuckled a bit that he was being co-sponsored by WAMM. But he was quick to explain that his support for the military was as a bulwark in defense of the Constitution, which he said was what made our country what it is. He reminded us that the call to arms is a somber and serious affair; the day we commit our troops to a just fight should be a day of mourning, not cheerleading and jingoism. I think he thereby drew a connection with WAMM...that war IS madness and, while not always avoidable, should be truly a last resort and not to be gloried in.
He took to task folks who had "Support the Troops" stickers on their car, yet knew nothing about where those troops were or what they were doing. "Where's the 3rd Brigade, 4th ID currently fighting?" "ummm I dunno." Where, in relation to Baghdad, is Fallujah?" "ummmm not sure"... and so forth. He also gave an extended metaphor for supporting the troops: support your local firefighters. You want firefighters; you want them to be the best at what they do; you want them to have all the equipment they need, and the best equipment, right? You love firefighters...but that doesn't mean you love fire!
He forcefully put forth the idea that, as some serve in uniform, we all should serve as active citizens, knowing our Constitution and actively participating in the government that is meant to serve it. By way of demonstration of what he meant he asked the audience a) how many have read it, and b) whether, having read it, you could pass an exam on it. Quite a few hands up on a) from this liberal activist bunch; quite a few less on b).
Ritter talked at some length about how ill-informed most Americans are. How many knew anything of the vast history and culture of Iraq, the complexities of that society? Rather, we let the war boosters just boil it all down to a single mean-looking man with a moustache. Easy. He also pointed out that many Americans don't have passports, which is to say they have never been out in the wider world to see how others live. So they can't make nuanced judgements about foreign affairs.
This brought him to the meat of his topic: the current threat against Iran. He pointed out how with Iran many of the same things are happening. Again, many Americans have little knowledge of the history and culture of the country, again content to have the conflict boiled down to one wacky guy in a windbreaker -- Ahmadinejad. (I would add, though he didn't specifically talk about it, not many Americans are conversant with our 20th century history with Iran -- the overthrow of the Mossadegh government, the close relationship of the CIA with the Shah's secret police, the SAVAK.) Speaking of Ahmadinejad, Ritter suggested suggested we find Iran's constitution online and read it. Under their constitution, he pointed out, the President has no significant power (see Articles 123-128). He does not have the power to order attacks on another country. (This is not to say that his oral output is not awful!)
Getting to the heart of our current problems, the nuclear threat, Ritter pointed out that Iran, as a signatory to the UN Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT (note: this is a pdf document) has the right to a nuclear energy program (see Article IV) and explained why they might need one, namely, that their "vast" reserves of petroleum are running out. He claimed this was shown in a study during the Ford administration and its conclusions were signed off on, i.e., acknowledged, by Dick Cheney as Ford's chief of staff!
In response to a question about news reports that the IAEA had made some statements suggesting that Iran wasn't in full compliance, Ritter explained the Jekyll-Hyde nature of the IAEA. There's the legal track under agreements stemming from the NPT, with which Iran is so far in full compliance; there is no evidence of a nuclear arms program. But there is also a political track, where political pressure comes into play. As an example, he talked about a laptop supposedly stolen from Iran which hints at a secret nuclear program. This track, he claims, is the source of the confusing reports about Iranian non-compliance.
I thought one of the most interesting remarks he made came in response to a question about whether Israel might attack Iran on its own. His claim: that Israel is not capable of launching a strike against Iran on its own. This sounds somewhat shocking to my ears, since I'm accustomed to thinking of Israel as a mighty military power. I mean, they struck Iraq's reactor in the ... 80s?? And more recently, they bombed ...something... in Syria. But Ritter claims that Israel is a regional power not a superpower. He then proceeded to explain in some military detail, almost like a briefing, exactly why Israel would not be able to do it. He forcefully pointed out that it would be a losing proposition for Israel in every way. He claims that Israel's statements about doing it are bluffs to get us to do it.
He made another statement which caught my attention, given talk in some circles about whether the Joint Chiefs or other commanders might refuse to follow orders to attack Iran. His view is that if the military were ordered to attack iran, they would do so without hesitation. This comes from the career military officer, and someone, I think, who has his ear a little bit to the ground on current thinking inside the military. So... so much for the idea of a mutiny. And he said this is the way it should be, that the military should be apolitical in that way, that it should have an advisory role, not a decision role. But when asked about the military's view on Iran, he said that while the ground services (the Army and Marines) were against an action, the air and naval services were in favor. The reason is that they have been largely out of the fight in Iraq and have seen funding go to the ground services. Now they're yearning for a war to demonstrate their usefulness and the need for new weapons systems.
On that note, someone asked how he might reduce the Pentagon's budget if he could. He said he strongly favors an increase in conventional ground forces, and he said he could pay for that by cutting missle defense and nuclear arsenal and delivery systems and some other wasteful weapons systems, and still allow for a 30% cut in the overall defense budget! How interesting is that?!
All in all, I think the important thrust of his talk, and his work, is to promote an active citizenry that believes the government is by them and for them.
Ritter has very much the demeanor of the former Marine that he is. (Check out his full bio at the Tour of Duty site.) At some points his delivery was a little bit that of the macho football coach, at others the professional military briefer. But he was also very passionate, almost like an evangelical minister in style.
He began by driving home the point that he supports the military; he's not a pacifist. He even chuckled a bit that he was being co-sponsored by WAMM. But he was quick to explain that his support for the military was as a bulwark in defense of the Constitution, which he said was what made our country what it is. He reminded us that the call to arms is a somber and serious affair; the day we commit our troops to a just fight should be a day of mourning, not cheerleading and jingoism. I think he thereby drew a connection with WAMM...that war IS madness and, while not always avoidable, should be truly a last resort and not to be gloried in.
He took to task folks who had "Support the Troops" stickers on their car, yet knew nothing about where those troops were or what they were doing. "Where's the 3rd Brigade, 4th ID currently fighting?" "ummm I dunno." Where, in relation to Baghdad, is Fallujah?" "ummmm not sure"... and so forth. He also gave an extended metaphor for supporting the troops: support your local firefighters. You want firefighters; you want them to be the best at what they do; you want them to have all the equipment they need, and the best equipment, right? You love firefighters...but that doesn't mean you love fire!
He forcefully put forth the idea that, as some serve in uniform, we all should serve as active citizens, knowing our Constitution and actively participating in the government that is meant to serve it. By way of demonstration of what he meant he asked the audience a) how many have read it, and b) whether, having read it, you could pass an exam on it. Quite a few hands up on a) from this liberal activist bunch; quite a few less on b).
Ritter talked at some length about how ill-informed most Americans are. How many knew anything of the vast history and culture of Iraq, the complexities of that society? Rather, we let the war boosters just boil it all down to a single mean-looking man with a moustache. Easy. He also pointed out that many Americans don't have passports, which is to say they have never been out in the wider world to see how others live. So they can't make nuanced judgements about foreign affairs.
This brought him to the meat of his topic: the current threat against Iran. He pointed out how with Iran many of the same things are happening. Again, many Americans have little knowledge of the history and culture of the country, again content to have the conflict boiled down to one wacky guy in a windbreaker -- Ahmadinejad. (I would add, though he didn't specifically talk about it, not many Americans are conversant with our 20th century history with Iran -- the overthrow of the Mossadegh government, the close relationship of the CIA with the Shah's secret police, the SAVAK.) Speaking of Ahmadinejad, Ritter suggested suggested we find Iran's constitution online and read it. Under their constitution, he pointed out, the President has no significant power (see Articles 123-128). He does not have the power to order attacks on another country. (This is not to say that his oral output is not awful!)
Getting to the heart of our current problems, the nuclear threat, Ritter pointed out that Iran, as a signatory to the UN Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT (note: this is a pdf document) has the right to a nuclear energy program (see Article IV) and explained why they might need one, namely, that their "vast" reserves of petroleum are running out. He claimed this was shown in a study during the Ford administration and its conclusions were signed off on, i.e., acknowledged, by Dick Cheney as Ford's chief of staff!
In response to a question about news reports that the IAEA had made some statements suggesting that Iran wasn't in full compliance, Ritter explained the Jekyll-Hyde nature of the IAEA. There's the legal track under agreements stemming from the NPT, with which Iran is so far in full compliance; there is no evidence of a nuclear arms program. But there is also a political track, where political pressure comes into play. As an example, he talked about a laptop supposedly stolen from Iran which hints at a secret nuclear program. This track, he claims, is the source of the confusing reports about Iranian non-compliance.
I thought one of the most interesting remarks he made came in response to a question about whether Israel might attack Iran on its own. His claim: that Israel is not capable of launching a strike against Iran on its own. This sounds somewhat shocking to my ears, since I'm accustomed to thinking of Israel as a mighty military power. I mean, they struck Iraq's reactor in the ... 80s?? And more recently, they bombed ...something... in Syria. But Ritter claims that Israel is a regional power not a superpower. He then proceeded to explain in some military detail, almost like a briefing, exactly why Israel would not be able to do it. He forcefully pointed out that it would be a losing proposition for Israel in every way. He claims that Israel's statements about doing it are bluffs to get us to do it.
He made another statement which caught my attention, given talk in some circles about whether the Joint Chiefs or other commanders might refuse to follow orders to attack Iran. His view is that if the military were ordered to attack iran, they would do so without hesitation. This comes from the career military officer, and someone, I think, who has his ear a little bit to the ground on current thinking inside the military. So... so much for the idea of a mutiny. And he said this is the way it should be, that the military should be apolitical in that way, that it should have an advisory role, not a decision role. But when asked about the military's view on Iran, he said that while the ground services (the Army and Marines) were against an action, the air and naval services were in favor. The reason is that they have been largely out of the fight in Iraq and have seen funding go to the ground services. Now they're yearning for a war to demonstrate their usefulness and the need for new weapons systems.
On that note, someone asked how he might reduce the Pentagon's budget if he could. He said he strongly favors an increase in conventional ground forces, and he said he could pay for that by cutting missle defense and nuclear arsenal and delivery systems and some other wasteful weapons systems, and still allow for a 30% cut in the overall defense budget! How interesting is that?!
All in all, I think the important thrust of his talk, and his work, is to promote an active citizenry that believes the government is by them and for them.
Labels: politics "Scott Ritter" Constitution military Iran citizenship
posted by Your_pops at 8:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home