David Bromwich

The War Party and the Times


David Bromwich, Sterling professor of English at Yale University and blogger at the Huffington Post, discusses the op-ed in the New York Times by Benny Morris advocating an American/Israeli attack on Iran, numerous reasons not to attack Iran, the difference between pre-emptive and preventive wars, the constant warmongering of the New York Times, the War Party and the media’s ignoring of the opinions of the American and the Iraqi citizenry and the usefulness of impeachment.

MP3 here. (34:01)

David Bromwich teaches literature at Yale. He has written on politics and culture for The New Republic, The Nation, The New York Review of Books, and other magazines. He is editor of Edmund Burke’s selected writings On Empire, Liberty, And Reform and co-editor of the Yale University Press edition of On Liberty.

10 thoughts on “David Bromwich”

  1. of coarse there is evidence we would not attack a country with out sufficient cause.
    first piece of evidence is, they deny haveing a nuclear weapons program AHA they would only deny it if they had one….. i think thats pretty solid evidence

    as far as israel is concern i beleive that reality might be setting in in the halls of poewr in israel

    first they have made no progress with in there borders and they need to cut the palistianians off because in omlerts words “very soom if they do not have there own state they will turn to a one state one man one vote postion and the israel would be an apratide-like situation.
    Lebanon – before their month long war(made in the usa) they now have the group who originally drove them out from lebanon during the first occupation, in power
    iraq – i think there is alot of really colorful language floating around about the fact that israel can now think “wow maybe saddam was not so bad” because bombing a dictator is one thing lets see what happens when it is a democratic state with the same or more powerful an army aligned with rather than apposed to iran
    iran – there is no real threat here other than israels absolute refusal to all another country to threaten its hegemony, and ending zionism( its ok to live in an agressor country when no one is stonger but does not seem very safe to move to a tiny country completely surrounded by countrys that israel has already bombed. and i beleive other than the emirites and iran israel has bombed to some degree every country in the middle east)
    so thats where we come in we sit iin iraq an no one can move against israel.

    but we pull out and at least small portions of the insurgency will most likely move to palistine and there is no longer the perception of american and israel invincibility so they lack a great deal of deterrents.
    and last point, nukes the problem with nukes and israel is that what it means to have nukes is to have suffecnt power to be able to not use them and i don’t believe israel has that kind of power and so they will use them that will end israel instantly

  2. ” of coarse (sic) there is evidence we would not attack a country without sufficient cause”… wow, the ‘logic’ takes ones breath away…we did attack Iraq, and there were no WMD…are there still people who will fall for the same exact con job?

  3. *** Benny Morris Op-ed in NYTimes is an excellent example of MAD-DOG-PLOY in action.
    The recipe: act like a MAD DOG and the world lets you get what you want, however outrageous your demands.
    In NYTimes the MAD DOG is barking in the person of Benny Morris.
    Will it work?
    The Israeli Lobby once even got President Bush to perform the MAD-DOG-GAME, when they had him threaten World War III if it allowed Iran acquire the knowledge to enrich uranium.
    The President of United States looked foolish, and the ploy brought him ridicule instead of world compliance.

    Likewise, the futile theatrics of Benny Morris turning into a MAD DOG on NYTimes will hardly convince anyone of apocalypse.

    And finally. I see no chance whatsoever of Israel attacking Iran in a big way by one hundred or more aircrafts.
    The risks of such a big operation are far too great, and their downsides far too obvious to ignore.
    There is, however, just a minute possibility of an attack by Israel on Iran. That attack will be on a very small scale and on an easy Iranian target of no real significance.
    An Israeli Syrian number on Iranian soil to shock the world and hopefully Iranians.
    Even that scenario implies too many unknowns for an Israeli government to countenance.
    So let us relax for the last few months of Bush Administration, and look forward to Beijing Olympics. 

  4. It is probably true that Israel won’t attack Iran…because they want the Americans to do it for them! That Benny Morris article is ridiculous (but scary) on so many counts; he calls the mullahs of Iran as having a “self-sacrificial mindset”. Well, if an Israeli (or American or Australian, etc) wants to get into a war with Iran, it is THEY who have a self-sacrificial mindset. I think someone else at AntiWar correctly analysed the NY Times piece as blackmail).

    The superiority complex demonstrated by these hawks who want more Middle East war is apparent by the fact that only certain countries are allowed to have nukes, and that only certain people can experience a holocaust.

    ps. I tried to avoid any sarcasm, it doesn’t come across very well in the written word!

  5. One should recognize that an attack on Iran is not governed by rational thought but by Zionist control of our “elected leaders”. Just as support of Israel has destroyed our relationship with the much more valuable Arab world (they don’t ask for billions of $$, unless it’s to look the other way regarding Israeli atrocities.) That’s why Israel is our only “friend” (as long as the $$ flows) in the M.E.

  6. “the bombings of September 11th”

    Hahahaha you rock David Bromwich! Good to know there’s some sense at Yale.

  7. Everybody please Email Senators asking them to vote No to Resolution 580 (same as 362 in Congress) because it´s virtually a Declaration of War as Congressman Ron Paul stated. In Congress 252 have endorsed it, in the Senate 41 for now. It´s the last chance !

    Peace & All the best
    Claus-Erik Hamle

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.