Rattling Apart
The reason that the conflict in the Levant is ganing so much attention is that there is a fear that the arc of the last 6 years is fading, that the loose joints and contradictions are rattling apart, and the result will be a world with grave dangers to face, and one which is without the cushion needed to deal with them.
There are indications that these fears are justified, and that, indeed, those who understand that the United States is overcommitted politically, militarily and economically are not asleep. Today's little love notes from the chaos lands comes from Pakistan's new reactor and from the collapse of the Doha round of trade talks.
I am largely going to leave it to others to write on the Levant, partially because events there have confirmed that a failure to develop Lebanon as a nation are playingout as badly as expected. Over a year ago, in a conversation with Peter Dao, I explained that there was going to be military conflict in Lebanon, because there were political pressures in Israel and the United States that would lead there. It is still my belief that more direct US involvement in Lebanon will occur as a means of "sending a message" to Iran and Syria, when everyone knows that the US has no ability to engage those nations directly. My thinking of the time was that Lebanon would either unify or divide into parts, based on its long history.
However, the Levant conflict is merely the greater political problem, writ small. "Full strategic commitment" is a term of art, it means that the resources of a nation, both in the present and in the ongoing future, are already allocated to existing projects and promises. There is no free surplus to act with. The danger of it, and the reason that sensible politicians and government functionaries of all types look on it with horror, is that there is no spare capacity to either meet unexpected problems, nor to exploit unexpected advantages.
Eventually competing interests begin to recognize that full strategic committment of the global power is a reality, and they begin to exploit what Hoffman's classic book from the last moment of full strategic commitment called Gulliver's Troubles. The solution is for a nation to work through more diffuse structures of power, which simultaneously coöpt and coral other nations into a larger consensus. However, the failure to do this leads to the circumstance where more rogue actors take advantage of the situation, and in ways designed to increase global instability in favor of the power of their own elites.
An example of this is the development of Pakistan's nuclear deterrent. All policies have a cost, and one of the costs of the Bush policy to turn the corner from Afghanistan into Iraq was an acquiescence to Pakistani nuclear ambitions and continued military dictatorship. Pakistan has responded by harboring Osama bin Laden, continuing to shelter militants, regressing from democratic institutions, and most fatefully for US interests, aggressively pursued a program of nuclear escalation and proliferation. Without Pakistan, Iran would not have a nuclear program. The Pakistan-North Korea axis is providing much of the engine of third wave nuclear statehood, with the first wave being the two superpowers, the second wave being major powers – France, Britain, China, India – and the third wave being dedicated powers. Currently Israel, South Africa, Pakistan, North Korea are "in", with Iran some distance away.
The Pakistani reactor program is about to take a very large step towards potential militarization with their new reactor, previously Pakistan lied about the development and purpose of their nuclear program, but this time they do not need to act covertly. The post report has been picked up by the major wire stories, and is going around the media space quickly.
However, what is missing from this report is some context: the Pakistanis are set to make operational another reactor next year, which is of a similar type to one they are already operating. This new reactor is destabilizing, because it is not only larger, but represents a type of reactor which is more obviously, and specifically, intended to produce plutonium. Such a reactor would mean that in the 15 to 20 year time frame, Pakistan would not only have a defensive deterrent status, but would be able to supply other nations, and construct a large enough nuclear arsenal to project force. The reactor is an airstrike magnet, waiting for the moment when India or other local power decides that Pakistan cannot be restrained by international institutions, or there is domestic political credibility to be had in acting tough. Given the Israeli public's response to a wildly indiscriminate bombing response to what is a localized problem there, do not wager too heavily against the possibility of a new Prime Minister in some nation looking for a chance to prove that he or she has the cajones to act without regard for long term consequences.
The reason for the announcement at this time should be obvious – what is who going to do about it? The political crisis of acting on Lebanon is already absorbing the attention of the UN and the major powers, there is no spare military capacity, and no one is going to push Pakistan at a moment when Islamic allies for the United States are hard to find. It is for this reason that Saudi Arabia is pushing for a cease fire, while it wants Israel tied down as much as the next arab state, the Saudis realize that the chances for new type military driven Islamic states threaten their position as an arab monarchy based on economic power.
However it is not just in the erosion of military diplomacy that we see that the state of full strategic commitment has its costs. Economics too, shows the results of having an overcommitted United States, and a regime that requires large subsidies to hold various parts of their coalition together. One case in point is the state of agricultural subsidies in the United States. In a closed economic world, such as the one in the 1930's, it was necessary to make sure that the United Staes would always have the agricultural base to feed its entire population, without difficulty. There was every reason not to specialize in a world which was geopolitically unstable, and which was marching towards a global conflict. However, in the present environment, this very wisdom is folly. Instead of attempting to control crop prices through supports and subsidies, the United States should be funding advanced agricultural systems and traditional farming methods, in order to maintain both the social fabric and the competitive advantages of US agriculture.
However, the present executive has been among the most protectionist on record, and among the most short sighted. Trade brings advantages, the more open the trade, the more the advantages. It also brings imbalances and disruptions. These are the cost of that trade – failure to pay for the imbalances, or willingness to dump the costs on others, means that those others will withdraw. The problem with the current trade regime isn't that it is global or free, but in fact that it is neither, and has the problem of being unfair in addition. The United States does not act like a global actor in the trade debate, but instead as a self-interested actor that seeks merely to open others markets to its advantage, while not doing the same in return. The recent "deal" over lumber with Canada should provide a case in point of the imbalance in the US approach. Not only was it a bad deal for Canada, obtained because the premiere there is a man of extremely limited interests, but the US reserved the right to pull out within two years. As one Canadian blogger put it "we weren't even allowed to get peace for our abject surrender."
One of the major imbalances in the current pseudo-free trade order is the problem of agricultural development. Agriculture is not dominated by the ebb and flow of capital cycles, and it is a way of life as much as an economic activity. The problems of developing heavily agricultural societies are not trivial, and the developed nations have not solved them even with tremendous effort. In almost every developed nation a consistent bloc of the conservative coalition is an agricultural vote that wants its exemption from the free market.
This has played out repeatedly in the negotiation and implementation of a series of trade agreements beginning with the WTO itself, and continuing with NAFTA, CAFTA and subsidiary agreements. The problems of development, specifically opening the markets of developed countries to agricultural products where developing nations will have at least comparative advantage, were supposed to be the focus of the 'Doha Round" of trade negotiations. After years of near breakdown, this collapse is an indicator that, even with the self-interested continuation of the current trade order – which has benefited industrialized nations tremendously – is not enough to secure agreements that have local political cost. As the "disinflationary" effect of globalization is reduced – that is, as the cost savings from offshoring and global supply chains grows less and less, as host countries develop full scale economies, and thus become full scale competitors for resources – the need to secure the more complex gains from specialization in trade become more pressing.
But a nation such as the United States, which requires a 3.5% GDP growth just to keep people unhappy and wages stagnant, has a political coalition which will not, because it cannot, pay short term pain for long term improvements in the global economic picture.
That the US cannot exercise leadership on either the immediate military crisis – in the Levant, nor the long term problem of proliferation, nor on the pressing matter of trade to focus development on capital, rather than extractive, economics, is a sure sign that it has played all of its cards, and is merely waiting for events to trump any finesse that might be hoped for.
Why is it that this administration finds better friends in dictators and authoritarians than in the elected Democracies of the world?
July 24, 2006 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Y'know, I was going to comment on this post. It was going to be a fairly detailed commentary, dissecting the logic (such as it was), and the empty echoing vacancy. But really, why indulge in such pointless sadism. It would be like feeding a basket of kittens, one at a time, into a wood chipper. Sure, there's entertainment value. But is there a point?
Instead, I'll simply say this:
You think?
Gosh.
Wow.
Uh huh.
July 24, 2006 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
As Stirling is wont to say, "I shall do such things . . . what they are yet I know not, but they shall be the terrors of the earth!"
July 24, 2006 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm going to report this as a clear violation of the recently posted "rules of the road". Lying, ad hominem attacks and dishonourable behavior don't constitute discussion.
Stirling Newberry http://www.bopnews.com
July 24, 2006 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Powerful states are often making deals with the devil. From Athens' supporting of puppet Democracies forward. "Realpolitick" has come to mean the willingness to strike bargains with those whose policies or governments you abhor.
But you do have a point, this executive seems to have gone out of its way to offend allies, insult democratic decisions, and antagonise states which, while they may not agree with us on many issues, are committed to working through the kind of democratic process that we enjoy here, mostly, and want to spread to other nations, at least in theory.
Pakistan is the sore thumb of Bush's policy - it is a nation which meets most of the criteria which he held against Saddam - including support for terrorism, pursuit of WMD, protecting Al Qaeda members and willingness to proliferate - all under an undemocratic government which overthrew a civilian regime which, while far from perfect, was an islamic democracy.
So your question is well taken - why is it that this executive seems to be better able to deal with countries whose ideology is farther from our own, and whose goals are in conflict with the security needs of the US?
Stirling Newberry http://www.bopnews.com
July 24, 2006 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
For some reason, when I look at this thread, the theme song from Gilligan's Island plays in my head. That's not intended to be pejorative or anything, it just is. Peculiar.
Please let me offer my apologies to Mr. Newberry if I have wounded his feelings with my cutting but lighthearted remarks.
For the record, I don't consider feeding kittens into a woodchipper to be truly entertaining.
But Jesus H. Christ on a crutch man, what are we thinking here.
"Lebanon will either stay together or it will split apart."
That's not what anyone would call trenchant observation, you know what I mean?
Of course, I shouldn't be too harsh on that. I mean, I say six boneheaded things before breakfast every day, so no man should be judged for where his prick leads him... No wait, that's from the movie Tequila Sunrise. I meant to say, 'no man should be judged for on occasional goofy bon mot.'
But geez, let's take a look at the rest of this piece.
What arc? You mean the one way trip to palookaville by the idiot's express called the Bush administration.
I dunno, this whole talk of 'arc' suggested to me a clear direction of foreign relations among various parties which was proceeding in certain ways but which is losing force and effect.
The better assessment is that the accumulating missteps and bad decisions of the last six years are continuing. The arc is culminating, not fading.
If you're going to argue or suggest a fading arc, I'd like to know what you're talking about.
Okay, if I understand this correctly, you are claiming it was the decision to switch to Iraq that lead to these concessions?
I'm pretty sure that's not accurate, and a reading of recent history shows that to the extent there was acquiescence, that acquiescence came about through the alliance with Pakistan to go into Afghanistan in the first place.
In short, and I could stand to be wrong, but your history is back assward.
What you talkin' about, Willis? Seriously, do you believe this?
As I unravel your passage, you seem to be saying that the decision to shift from Afghanistan to Iraq lead the US to make major concessions to Pakistan, and that in return or perhaps reprisal for these concessions, Pakistan sheltered Osama Bin Laden.
What the hell??? That's just deranged stuff.
And factually, it doesn't hold up. Osama Bin Laden may be within Pakistan, but if he is, then he is in an area of Pakistan beyond the control of the military government. I don't think that there's any issue of 'harboring.'
Again, I gotta take exception to 'shelter'. Pakistan has, to its credit, made great efforts at taking down Al Quaeda members.
In terms of homegrown militants, if you're talking Pakistani politics, that's politics. There are fundamentalist extremists who are legitimate politicians. There are covert activities and terrorists in Kashmir that relate to a long running local problem. There are militants in the military, obviously. But obviously, at this point, I'm guessing, because I really don't have a clear idea of what this article is asserting.
All of which were well under way prior to 9/11. All of which the tacit consent to arose when the United States needed to make a Devil's bargain with Pakistan to attack Afghanistan. None of which comes about, or even significantly exacerbates, with the shift to Iraq.
I think you've got some sort of argument that when we switched to Iraq, we took our eye off the ball. Okay, granted. But the reality is that all the critical mistakes with Pakistan, if they were mistakes, come down to accepting the facts that already were on the ground and which the US had no control over in the first place. So they acquiesced to a situation in pursuit of further strategic advantages, which then forestalled further activity there.
And I can't believe you have me defending the Bush administration... I must curse you for that, Gilligan.
That's just not true. Iran's nuclear program derives from Europe. There likely has been some technology shared from Pakistan, but strategically, Pakistan and Iran are at odds, so the Pakistani's are extremely unmotivated to share stuff. Certainly if the Pakistani's were selling their secrets, the Iranians would be a lot further along.
And yes, I'm well aware of Khan. Khan does not justify your statement.
Your 'first' 'second' and 'third' wave construction of nuclear powers is interesting, but apart from nice semantic categories, does it move understanding forward?
With reference to your comments on the Pakistani reactor, you're on slightly firmer ground, but still:
If you're going to say things like this, then you need to do a little more to support them.
As I understand it, Pakistan already has nuclear weapons, and in fact has a fleet of about 30 to 50, capable of reaching pretty much anywhere in the Indian subcontinent that it wants. Since its almost uniform geopolitical issue is with India, that's all it wants or needs.
So, it already has a deterrent and already has a capacity to project force, for all practical purposes. So you should be saying that they will have *more*.
Now maybe Pakistan will in ten years decide that it's bete noir is New Zealand, and decide that it needs ICBM's and MIRV's and really big boppers. But frankly, I don't see that happening. I don't even see them picking a fight with Indonesia.
So either you've got a spectacular misreading of Pakistan going on, or you haven't explained yourself adequately. Important thoughts may go on in your head, but if they aren't properly communicated, they don't count.
'Other local power' Sri Lanka? Azerbaijan? Bangladesh? Nepal? What were we thinking here?
And you do realize that Pakistan's already existing nuclear weapons would be a pretty effective deterrent against the very idea of such an airstrike. I couldn't imagine how such an airstrike would not potentially invoke a nuclear response.
But I get that you are concerned about Pakistan and very rightly so. It's a scary part of the world and getting scarier by the day, not least that as Pakistan climbs technologically higher it becomes more and more politically and socially unstable.
You fail to address the manifest instability and weakness of the Pakistan government, which I feel contains the true threat. But fair is fair, you're writing what you think is important, rather than what I would have written.
But then, you take this whiplash turn into agricultural policy, and it doesn't even make sense:
You mean subsidizing two contradictory agricultural models? This makes my brain hurt. (spoken like Mr. Gumby in Monty Python).
Not necessarily.
Prime Minister. At the Federal level, its a 'Prime Minister' at the Provincial level its 'Premiere'. It's sort of like President and Governor.
But anyway, I'm quoting this to show you that there's something I agree with.
As nearly as I can tell, you've got the germ of an idea here. And that idea is that the United States is so strenuously overcommitted or overtaxed by events that it is losing its capacity to respond to circumstances effectively.
24/7 holding on, and no acting or reacting left.
Not a bad idea, worth exploring, but unfortunately, not really fully developed, and you've piled on a whole heap of goofy stuff. You seem to lose control of that notion early on, drift into Pakistan, and then just sort of disintegrate into blather about trade policy and agriculture which, while possibly interesting if it was an essay in its own right, demolishes your through line and leaves you adrift on an ice flow heading over the falls.
Now, look at all this you've put me through. Are you happy? Probably not. Probably stings quite a bit, and you think I'm an even bigger jerk than originally. Did your piece deserve this dissection? Well, probably, but that's not the point. It wasn't actually necessary.
Look, from time to time, we all say stupid things. And once in a while, we compound that by saying a whole lot of stupid things all at once. It's not a mortal sin to write a bad incoherent essay. Happens to the best of us. The best policy is to recognize it, hold your nose, and try and write a better one next time.
And I was happy just to say "gosh." Why couldn't we have left it at that?
Now, I'm sorry if I'm being mean to you but... be better.
July 24, 2006 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
So your question is well taken - why is it that this executive seems to be better able to deal with countries whose ideology is farther from our own, and whose goals are in conflict with the security needs of the US?
Because the faction that controls the GOP and America's National Security apparatus are conservative authoritarians. Their commitment to American democracy is normative not principled. They support America's democracy because it is the traditional thing to do. Yet notice how their legislators and legal arm (Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies) actively try to have the constitution interpreted in the most authoritarian and restrictive way possible.
In light of this, can it be at all surpirsing that the conservatives in control of America's National Security apparatus instinctively respect the foreign leader who "has to do what must be done" for the sake of his Nation? Thus they "understand" dictators and monarchs. Also, foreign democracies are more open about expressing their disapproval of American policies. This is inconvenient to American conservatives, who would rather subvert and sweep away inconvinient democracies rather than negotiate in good faith. (Iran in 53, Guatamala in 54, Chile in 73, all come to mind.)Those they can not destroy, such as Canada on the softwood lumber file, they ware down through interminable hardball negotiations.
What I find interesting now is that, as your last series of posts suggests, world events are slipping out of Washington's control because of Republican misgovernance.
They intentionally blew apart the post WWII international system by unilateraly going into Iraq. And as the United States becomes more nakedly conservative, which is to say selfish and unilateral as opposed to generous and multilateral, we see the end result: Chaos.
Chaos because other nations in the world will not stand still as America acts, the other players will act too. What amazes me is the the conservative brain trust that put so much faith in force and unipolarism did not anticipate that other nations would imitate America. After all, monkey see, monkey do.
As America abdicates its international leadership in favor of national interest politics the world will become more dangerous and chaotic. The neo con radicals think that the instibility provides opportunity to change things. I say they will lose the ability to dictate the rules of the game and reduce America's influence and power.
We can see it already.
July 24, 2006 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
"And I was happy just to say "gosh." Why couldn't we have left it at that?"
Well one good way of proving that you don't have anything to say, is, indeed, to say it length. This reminds me of abusenet discourse, where the first tactic is to insult, the second is to snow with vast amounts of empty verbiage.
In debate, you'd have lost already on the "quality of debate" point, so let me take one example of the beneath contempt level which your thinking reaches:
That's not what anyone would call trenchant observation, you know what I mean?
For those of us who were not born yesterday, and have some understanding of history, the situation in Lebanon has been neither of these two choices. Instead, it has been a series of semi-feudal solutions. Lebanon, for most of modern history, has been a geographical expression. This, not unity, nor has it been a quasi formal partitioning.
The observation that this nearly 2 century status quo cannot continue is, in fact, important.
Your attack is an example of the "fallacy of the excluded middle", you argue that my statement is tautalogical - that it includes all, or almost all, probable states. But in this you are both incorrect and misinformed, and since you engage in sneeringly contemptuous attacks - rude as well.
The article of that time - posted on the UN Dispatch - argued that either Lebanon needed to have full scale economic development and inclusive democracy, or there would be an inevitable sliding in chaos. We did not have the first, and we see the results in the second. Such a prediction - made amidst much flag waving over the "Cedar Revolution" and the complacent assurance among American public opinion and government leadership - was against the grain of its moment, and has turned out to be accurate.
You have done more than say stupid things, you have repeated them, and then attacked me for being concise.
And this is merely one point out of several in your post where you sneer, insult, misread or engage in straw man attacks.
Stirling Newberry http://www.bopnews.com
July 24, 2006 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Prime Minister. At the Federal level, its a 'Prime Minister' at the Provincial level its 'Premiere'. It's sort of like President and Governor"
"premiere", lower case, is a generic term for a head of executive who is head of the legislative. Please learn to read.
Stirling Newberry http://www.bopnews.com
July 24, 2006 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sadly, my assessment of your essay was that it constituted 'empty verbiage.' I certainly did not have any sense that it was concise.
That said, it's your baby, and you are proud of it. Well, that's nice.
I continue to assert that your observation with regard to Lebanon was trite and obvious on its face. It strikes me that you are overreaching badly if you're casting all the way back to 18th century lebanese feudal politics under the Ottoman regime. For all relevant purposes, the meaningful period of Lebanese history was after the French departure in the 40's, when Lebanon was conceived and operated as a unitary state. You could argue that the Civil War was a feudal epoch, I would call it a civil war. Following that civil war, the outcome was reduced to either/or.
Now, I have no particular interest in engaging in a pissing match. You've obviously formed opinions of me and of my comments. In turn, I have very clear views of your essay and I may be forming opinions as to you.
I propose we leave it at that, and let the readers judge our respective commentaries for themselves. I'm perfectly willing to sit before that jury.
And with that, I think I'll leave this discussion.
It's not personal, guy.
July 24, 2006 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
>> coöpt and coral
i love the little dots on the o.
so "new yorker."
the one r... well, no one's perfect.
July 24, 2006 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
"It strikes me that you are overreaching badly if you're casting all the way back to 18th century lebanese feudal politics under the Ottoman regime."
From someone who hasn't managed to prove one of a series of extremely strong attacks, this is something close to a last straw. The dynamics of politics in the region largely have not changed in some time. This is because of facts of geography - control of Mt. Lebanon is a feature so important that Assyrian kings boasted of conquering ittwelve centuries BC. The overland nature of the Beka valley makes it geopolitically important in wars dating back to Ramses. Some of the features of the current conflict don't just go back to late Ottoman politics, but to the bronze age.
"For all relevant purposes, the meaningful period of Lebanese history was after the French departure in the 40's, when Lebanon was conceived and operated as a unitary state. "
Again for those of us who have read something about the conflict and have informed opinions, such a statement is beyond absurd - in that many of the ethnic groups engaged in conflicts now refer back to pre-1940 history for the legitimacy of their claims and for the justification of their actions. You might like to ignore the Druze-Christian-Arab conflicts of the 19th century, but the players in the region have not. Atrocities are sometimes, hard to forget.
It is also relevant to note that population settlement patterns predate the founding of the current state. And even within the context of post-colonial history, the polity of Lebanon was divided along ethnic lines, in the constitution. Which, as I've now stated several times, because every piece of evidence supports it, was the status quo which is no longer even marginally viable. The failure of the Ceder Revolution to achieve a workable integration, but instead falling back on the divided polity which has been the status quo for over 200 years, is an important element of the ability of Hezzbollah to maintain fiat and set up a quasi-state control over portions of the region, and use this as a base of operations to grow their organization and as a staging area for atrocities against Israeli civilians.
The combination then, of long standing geo-political factors, and the entrenched nature of sectarian settlement which date long before Lebanon being a fully independent country, make the examination of pre-colonial history of the region relevant. The failure to overcome these factors is now writ in blood on current events.
Stirling Newberry http://www.bopnews.com
July 24, 2006 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
No offense intended, but I must note:
It's "premier", not "premiere".
And "gaining", not "ganing".
And remember Shakespeare's advice: "brevity is the soul of wit."
July 24, 2006 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brevity may be the soul of wit, but modern politics is far to concerned with promoting wits, and not enough with observing patterns which need to be addressed.
And for those that missed it, this was a short historical outline of the history of sectarian conflicts in Lebanon from the medieval period, with notes on how there are echos to the present circumstance:
http://agonist.org/node/14224/print
Including, for reference, the Congress of Europe backed peace keeping occupation of Beirut - in 1860. Anyone who fails to observe the long trend of history in the Levant is bound to end up repeating it, whether as tragedy or farce.
Stirling Newberry http://www.bopnews.com
July 24, 2006 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL. No offense taken, guilty as charged. Perils of living in a bilingual country.
July 24, 2006 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
The reactor is an airstrike magnet
I found Sterling's essay valuable if only for that observation.
Pity the Valdron/ Stirling exchange followed it. As I read each volley my sympathy switched to the victim.I suppose that under the "Well who started it? " rule Valdron is the more guilty but Stirling's both guns blazing response was , to use a word sadly now in vogue , disproportionate.
July 24, 2006 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm one of those dumb and self-centered Americans who can't remember whether Canada is headed by a premier, a prime minister, a president or a poohbah. So I won't be able to add anything to that important debate.
But I would like to return to one of Stirling's central contentions: that the reason we are hearing now about this new reactor in Pakistan is, if I understand him correctly, that the world's attention is absorbed by Lebanon, and US and other military forces are overextended. He says:
The reason for the announcement at this time should be obvious – what is who going to do about it? The political crisis of acting on Lebanon is already absorbing the attention of the UN and the major powers, there is no spare military capacity, and no one is going to push Pakistan at a moment when Islamic allies for the United States are hard to find.
However, in reading the news report, I didn't notice any discussion of an announcement by Pakistan. Instead the source of the story is a technical assessment released by Institute for Science and International Security in the US. The Post was apparently given a copy of this assessment, and had it checked out by two independent experts who endorsed its findings. They then sought official confirmation, and received the standard "neither confirm nor deny" official response, along with anonymous confirmation from a senior Pakistani. So there is no evidence that Pakistan was seeking to take advantage of a propitious time for an announcement. The timing of the news report was determined by the timing of the ISIS report.
It is interesting that Pakistan no longer feels the need to lie about their program:
"The fact that the roof is still off strikes me as a sign that Pakistan is neither rushing nor attempting to conceal," said Albright of the institute.
But perhaps to mildly alleviate our depressing worries about the growing nuclearization of South Asia, we can take cold comfort in the fact that Pakistan has chosen to follow a path of unofficial openness, by exposing the facility's construction to satellite photography.
Now you won't get any argument from me about US overextension. But I'm not sure that is related to Pakistan's new comfort level about its nuclear program. US indulgence is based on Pakistan's post 9/11 security relationship with the US: it's making available bases in Pakistan and its cooperation in locating and apprehending al-Qaeda and other Islamist extremists. Although much of Pakistan's assistance is surely covert, one gathers that the US government is rather happy with the level of cooperation it has received, and the 500 or so fugitives it has turned over to the US, since Colin Powell went to Islamabad and issued his "with us or against us" ultimatum in the days immediately following 9/11. So even if Iraq had gone just fine, and US forces were not tied down there, it is possible we would be seeing a very similar US policy toward Pakistan.
July 24, 2006 8:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stirling
The odds of the U.S. entering the 'new' Middle East war are very small (Bolton and Rice have both stated this outright).
I believe your above post is a bit paranoid when taking a few things into consideration.
1)It is unwise and patently incorrect to state that a lack of U.S. initiative in negotiating a peace is the result of spent diplomatic capital. Though this is a favorite among leftist talking points, anyone who understands the situation can figure out for themselves that the Bush administration is not truly seaking to promote any sort of peace. At least not right now. Condi Rice's unrealistic demands today all but prove that.
2)Insinuating that the U.S. is near a financial crisis is also not particularly accurate. Many Democrats cry aloud that if China and Japan were to stop buying U.S. bonds our economy would collapse under a weight of debt. While true, China and Japan's economy would similarly collapse without American dollars and trade. It's a bit of a symbiotic relationship.
3)Stating that the U.S. has seen a reduction in world power is absurd. Europe clearly lacks the ability to lead in times of international crisis; we are seeing that clearly right now. Even if Chirac is still bitter of the Iraq War, he'll get over it (in fact he already has). Britain and Germany (the latter now under Merkel) have ties with the U.S. which are as strong as they were in 2003 prior to the Iraqi invasion. That leaves Russia. Seeing that Moscow is more tepid over China than is the U.S., I don't think there is anything to worry about on that front.
Iraq continues to be the biggest problem for the U.S. The Israeli offensive actually does not stand stand to harm the U.S. in the long term. Even under a doomsday scenario in which a region-wide conflagration burns the entire Middle East, the U.S. would be the first in line offering supplies, aid, and reconstruction funds (just as we were following World War II with the Marshall Plan).
July 24, 2006 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
A proverbial Martian listening to a speech by Stockwell Day might suspect you are trilingual.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
July 24, 2006 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not exactly sure what Stockwell Day is. And this is after years of patient observation.
July 25, 2006 8:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
According to your logic allowing a strategic area to descend into chaos, and having democracies go to war with each other is wise and correct.
That about sums up why people aren't listening to right wing talking points these days.
Stirling Newberry http://www.bopnews.com
July 25, 2006 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
The largest problem for the US is, as the piece outlines, full strategic committment. While Iraq is the largest military reason for this, it is not the only reason, nor is it even the largest reason.
And your logic is fatally flawed, simply because the Levant isn't the largest problem - and I never said it was - doesn't mean that it is not a sign of the problems caused by full strategic committment.
Ex-cathedra bombast.
Stirling Newberry http://www.bopnews.com
July 25, 2006 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
You should read the piece again, a Pakistani official confirmed that Pakistan's nuclear program had undergone an expansion, which, since it is not a statement against interest, is an announcement, not a leak.
You should be, because it is what the fact I outlined leave as the simplest alternative that fits all of the facts.
Stirling Newberry http://www.bopnews.com
July 25, 2006 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am sorry you find the facts disproportionate.
It's also flattering to draw so much attention from every intellectually dishhonest troll on the site. I must be doing something right.
Stirling Newberry http://www.bopnews.com
July 25, 2006 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your usage is idiosyncratic. Journalists receive anonymous confirmation for reports on government actions all the time. But the word "announcement" is reserved for official public declarations initiated by the government itself. If Donald Rumsfeld anonymously confirmed a clandestine US weapons sale to Saudi Arabia, nobody would report this as "US announces weapons sale to Saudi Arabia."
And it's failure to constitute an announcement is independent of whether or not the confirmation of the report serves US interests. I'm not sure what the significance of "interest" is here, whether we are talking about leaks, announcements, or the varieties of statements that are neither. Some leaks are contrary to the interests of the government in question, and some are favorable to those interests. But what makes something a leak is that it is a disclosure of privileged information, by a person who is not officially authorized to disclose it. There are lots statements by government officials that are neither leaks or announcements.
The most important fact here is that, however you choose to describe the confirmation, the timing of this revelation was not dictated by Pakistan, but by the release of a report by a US-based organization. The Pakistani official merely confirmed a report whose source was elsewhere. Since the reporters had received a consensus judgment on the significance of the photos from three independent experts, they surely would have gone with the story whether Pakistan confirmed or not.
The responsibility for the timing clearly has some relevance to the question of whether or not our coming to know this fact now has something to do with Pakistan's determination to take advantage of various current crises in in the world. Since Pakistan did not prompt the disclosure of the information, this explanation is implausible.
Also note that the facility was not hidden from the skies, and must have been known to US officials for quite some time - before there was a war in Lebanon. This suggest to me we are just seeing the continuation of an existing policy, and not some new departure. Pakistan has had an important strategic relationship with the US since September of 2001. In 2004, the US declared Pakistan a "major non-NATO ally", just two months after the revelations about the the Khan network. This declaration made Pakistan eligible to recieve piles of US defense hardware and technology.
The simplest explanation of all this, to my mind, is that in exchange for being good boys in the war on terror, aligning themselves with the US, and buying a bunch of our weapons, the US has in turn cut Pakistan a good deal of slack with respect to its nuclear program. This is a strategic determination the US administration has made that is independent of the events of the past week.
July 25, 2006 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stirling
Have you seen the cover of this week's Time magazine? It's a picture of a thoroughly destroyed Lebanese street with a single man walking in the rubble.
Who do you think is going to rebuild that city when the bombing stops? My guess is it'll be mostly U.S. companies. I won't use the H word.
July 25, 2006 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
SN,
I don't think it's your fault. Someone at tpmcafe should proofread. It is very difficult to catch all the minor errors in one's own writing.
Writing for the web should be held to more relaxed standards. But the longer the piece, the more care should go into editing it. It is simply a matter of being polite to the reader.
In the first paragraph there is a spelling error. One easily detectable by computer. "ganing"
In the fourth paragraph there is an "either/nor" error. The error is repeated in the final paragraph. ("either" goes with "or", "neither" goes with "nor")
In the fifth paragraph we have "committment" and we have "coral" rather than "corral".
Then there are the comma splices (everywhere), and using "which" when "that" is required.
In my opinion, your writing would benefit from simplification. This is a matter of taste, and doubtless others disagree.
July 26, 2006 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink