'Secondly, Syria's an opportunity for us because Syria plays an important role in the Middle East, particularly right now. Syria is Iran's only ally in the Arab world. It's their route to the sea. It’s the route for them to arm Hezbollah in Lebanon, which threatens, of course, our ally Israel. '
On the face of it, I wasn't too terribly inclined to get all up in arms about Mitt's naming Syria as Iran's "route to the sea". A slip of the tongue, a tangle of concepts, that sort of thing happens in debates. It's a Ford "Poland" gaffe, or an Obama "57 states". Good for a chuckle, but not something I consider critical.
On the other hand …
– Mitt's been going on and on and on, at length, about Iran, about the threat of Iran, about Iran wanting to take over the world, and we need to be ready to attack it, and aircraft carriers and all that jazz. Certainly his Neo-Con foreign policy advisors have been ready to attack Iran for the last decade. You'd think he'd be at least somewhat familiar with the geography of Iran, who it borders, and what sort of coastline it has. I mean, this isn't a trick question about Kazakhstan or Benin.
– Mitt's also been going on and on and on, at length, about Syria — though in more contradictory terms (currently it seems to be "We should be doing more!"). So you'd think (ditto ditto ditto) …
– This isn't the first time Mitt's raised this turn of phrase as a talking point, so it's not just a slip of the tongue.
Now, Syria and Iran have been, kindasorta, allies. Insofar as Iran has any allies, and insofar as Assad can trust that Iran's not one of the backers of the "freedom fighters" in his country. So there are political ties there.
And the maps (like the one below) mocking Mitt's geographical bewilderment tend to overreach (access to the Caspian Sea doesn't really mean a whole heck of a lot, folks).
And maybe he means Mediterranean Sea, even though that ignores that Iraq (and the Kurdish areas thereof) and Turkey are in the way, and begs the issue of why Iran wants to get to the Mediterranean. Well, there's shipping to Europe and N Africa, but that can, and does, go through the Suez canal. And there's the possibility of oil or gas pipelines in the future, with the cooperation of Iraq and/or Turkey.
The explanation of the Romney campaign (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/10/22/fact-check-irans-route-to-the-sea/): "It is generally recognized that Syria offers Iran strategic basing/staging access to the Mediterranean as well as to terrorist proxies in the Levant. This is a large reason why Iran invests so much in Syria."
(Do people still actually use the term "The Levant"? Does Mitt talk about "Levantines," too?)
That's still a very odd meaning to ascribe to the phrase "route to the sea" by Romney. It's not a route. And it's a place on the sea, not to the sea. But I have to assume that's what he actually, clumsily meant. Because I can't believe he quite so stupid as to think that the conventional meaning of "Syria is their route to the sea" is actually the case, and the only other alternative is that he thinks the American people are too stupid to realize that.
Embedded Link
Flunking Geography 101
Way back in February, I remember hearing Mitt Romney claim that Syria is Iran's
Google+: View post on Google+
I think this is a non-issue. I'm not sure why anyone has seized upon it.
I think this is a non-issue. I'm not sure why anyone has seized upon it.
I suspect it's a non-issue, too, but it's it's a weird non-issue. It's like Romney saying, "The sky is green," and then parsing about sunset flashes and alien worlds and alternative meanings for the word "green."
I suspect it's a non-issue, too, but it's it's a weird non-issue. It's like Romney saying, "The sky is green," and then parsing about sunset flashes and alien worlds and alternative meanings for the word "green."
It's because the "bipartisan agreement on foreign policy" that stretches to the Cold War means there isn't a perceptible difference between Democrats and Republicans on foreign policy. So they latch on to one stupid thing a candidate says.
The few times Romney said anything substantive on foreign policy, he basically agreed with Obama.
Important questions not asked:
How do you win a war on "terror"?
Is it ok to assassinate US citizens on foreign soil without trial?
Are drone attacks an act of war? Will we continue to use them anywhere we want to?
Lost cause, but what do you think of Congress's forgoing of their right to declare war since WWII? Should the president have the unconstitutional right to put the US in a state of war at anytime?
I'm a Democrat, but a ton of important issues get ignored because both parties are ok with the status quo.
It's because the "bipartisan agreement on foreign policy" that stretches to the Cold War means there isn't a perceptible difference between Democrats and Republicans on foreign policy. So they latch on to one stupid thing a candidate says.
The few times Romney said anything substantive on foreign policy, he basically agreed with Obama.
Important questions not asked:
How do you win a war on "terror"?
Is it ok to assassinate US citizens on foreign soil without trial?
Are drone attacks an act of war? Will we continue to use them anywhere we want to?
Lost cause, but what do you think of Congress's forgoing of their right to declare war since WWII? Should the president have the unconstitutional right to put the US in a state of war at anytime?
I'm a Democrat, but a ton of important issues get ignored because both parties are ok with the status quo.
I would certainly have enjoyed seeing any of the above questions asked (let alone answered), +Jesse Butler. A "foreign policy" discussion of climate change would also have been welcome.
I will note that the Obama Administration phased out the term "War on Terror." It's just the New Normal now.
I would certainly have enjoyed seeing any of the above questions asked (let alone answered), +Jesse Butler. A "foreign policy" discussion of climate change would also have been welcome.
I will note that the Obama Administration phased out the term "War on Terror." It's just the New Normal now.
There were a bunch of questions submitted by reporters that never got asked. The debates have been pretty softball for the last two decades since the two parties tool control of the debate commission.
There were a bunch of questions submitted by reporters that never got asked. The debates have been pretty softball for the last two decades since the two parties tool control of the debate commission.
I don't think it's the most elegant in terms of getting the point across but, again, non-issue in my book. Apparently, the campaign thinks it has some sort of meaning to keep using the phrase.
Though I think Biden's "Syria is five times the size of Libya" gaffe is a very clear case of 'geographical bewilderment'.
I don't think it's the most elegant in terms of getting the point across but, again, non-issue in my book. Apparently, the campaign thinks it has some sort of meaning to keep using the phrase.
Though I think Biden's "Syria is five times the size of Libya" gaffe is a very clear case of 'geographical bewilderment'.
I think it goes beyond "inelegant" to simply bewildering. But the Romney campaign hasn't shown a lot of flexibility in changing its phrasing and claims, even when clearly incorrect.
Yeah, no idea what Biden was thinking with either the size or population (Syria has about 3.5x the population, a bit over 1/10 the size, vs. Libya).
I think it goes beyond "inelegant" to simply bewildering. But the Romney campaign hasn't shown a lot of flexibility in changing its phrasing and claims, even when clearly incorrect.
Yeah, no idea what Biden was thinking with either the size or population (Syria has about 3.5x the population, a bit over 1/10 the size, vs. Libya).
Iran’s leadership has said and done some despicable things, and they should not be excused. And a nuclear weapon is bad enough in the hands of American religious extremists or neo-cons; it’s a lot scarier in the hands of a Muslim dictator.
Still, it’s interesting to look at the picture from their point of view: They have Iraq on one side, which was conquered by the US. There’s Afghanistan on the other side, which is full of US troops. That’s what you call being boxed in.
If we had Chinese armies in Canada and Mexico, don’t you think we’d be doing everything we could to develop weapons that could protect us? We’d have to think we were next. . .
If I were the Iranian government, I would certainly be exploring all such options — especially if you add Iran’s relations with the West in general and the US specifically over the last century (losing side of Great Game wars with Russia and England, Anglo-USSR overthrow of the monarch in 1941, Anglo-US overthrow of the government in 1953, US support of the Shah until the Revolution and sheltering of him thereafter, US support of Iraq in their war against Iran, consistent US rhetoric against the country, plus the noted US armed forces in neighboring Iraq and Afghanistan and NATO forces in Turkey).
Which, as you say, doesn’t make them white hats by any means, and I would applaud a revolution there as much as the next guy. But when it comes to their official belligerence against the US and the West, it’s not at all surprising (even if you leave out how having such a great set of enemies justifies your autocracy and builds internal loyalty).