THE DEMOCRATS' ROAD TO WAR
Item: Neo-con Robert Kagan throws big wet kiss to Obama.
Item: Obama calls for 92,000 expansion of armed forces.
Item: The liberal Center for American Progress hosts Colombian President Alvaro Uribe.
Item: Hillary would leave 'residual force' of U.S. troops in Iraq.
Item: Matt Stoller notes that some of Edwards' national security advisors suck.
Attesting to my own political marginality, I was surprised to read that Barack Obama had flubbed a big question in the first debate. In response to a Brian Williams "Kitty Dukakis" hypothetical about the destruction of two cities under terrorist attack, evidently Obama's crime was to lapse into rationality. He delivered a sober litany of impeccable, immediate considerations: the relief effort, intelligence to determine the source of the aggression, and the priority of rallying U.S. allies behind a response. His mistake was failing to instantly brandish the option of military response.
The public debate about U.S. national security is still idiotic.
Unfortunately, the logic of two arguments keeps the U.S. on the threshold of further precipitous, ill-considered military adventures in the future. All of the competitive Democratic candidates are captive to these arguments. It's sort of like Al Gore ascending to be CEO of Exxon. What else can he do but pump oil? The president of Empire has to run the shop. What we really need is a Gorbachev who will shut it down.
Argument I: If we leave Iraq, the region will destabilize and we will be worse off (variation: there will be genocide). This keeps most politicians from advocating anything approaching an efficient, rapid withdrawal. The logical comparison, of course, is what is happening now under the status quo, where instability and terrorism seem to grow continuously. Iraq has a 9-11 every month. There is also the democratic matter of the war being sold under false pretenses and sustained against the majority of public opinion.
The Biden plan for what you could call well-oiled federalism, wherein the major parties excepting Al Queda are bribed with oil money to leave each other alone and liquidate Al Queda, has something to be said for it. But it glosses over the extent of pure inter-communal violence unrelated to AQ. Declaring partitions of the three peoples of Iraq is a mere declaration; there is no inherent advantage over what is being attempted now. Even without AQ, there remains the huge prize of oil reserves. The only defensible, residual deployment of U.S. forces on moral grounds is to secure the Kurdish enclave (including from the Turks). The rest will do better sorting out their own differences. Any impulse to continue meddling should be discouraged.
Argument II: Iran absolutely cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons, because their leader has said nutty things about Jews. Iran has a perfect right to develop its own nukes and a compelling self-interest to do so. Said self-interest is to acquire the insulation from external assault that North Korea and Israel enjoy. Even so, that it will or could develop such weapons may be doubted. In any case, this looks to be another collision course in the making. Alterman has a good round-up.
These arguments infect the body politic. It should not be surprising to see every competitive Democratic candidate falling prey to them. They only look good compared to every Republican candidate, each of whom appears intent on attacking Iran the day after he is inaugurated.
This is not a counsel of dispair. The job is to unravel these knots in the public debate. The role of the "netroots" could prove to be crucial, or it could be inconsequential. The wrong way to proceed is via partisan sniping, Hillary v. Obama v. Edwards. (Full disclosure: my own personal preference ordering is Edwards, Obama, Clinton.) You can cherry-pick and contrast one as marginally better than another, but that is a shallow exercise.
In the same vein, we can rant all we like about the Dems’ failure to insist on a deadline for troop withdrawal, but their hesitation is a symptom of a deeper malady. What is desirable is generating a groundswell of pressure to forswear the fundamental tenets of Empire. This requires a recognition that the American System has evolved to be inclined to the easy resort to force in pursuit of crabbed notions of the national interest, often the narrow interests of its elites. The tradition of needless American intervention should be criticized, the better to repel the candidates from its basic principles.
Mike Gravel raised a good question in the debate. I would paraphrase it thusly: which nation constitutes a plausible justification for maintaining the current, bloated U.S. defense establishment (much less one with an extra 92,000 troops)? The availability of this weapon is of course an incentive to use it. What threat is suitably dealt with by virtue of this enormous armed force, fueled by resources greater than those of the rest of the world combined? Who might deserve to be invaded, and who could be assaulted successfully? There is no conceivable answer that simultaneously meets the criteria of feasibility and justification. The size of our military makes it possible to inflict extensive murder and mayhem, but its ability to achieve important political goals seems absent. After all, it has been unable to pacify two rather small countries.
The State -- don't conflate it with "America" -- discounts the well-being of foreigners in pursuit of its goals. It projects lethal force without consultation. It bribes and bullies the U.N. into agreement when it suits. It is not averse to killing dozens of civilians to get at a few bad guys. It prefers aerial bombing to deploying boots on the ground. It subsidizes and maintains close working relationships with the scum of the earth -- absolute monarchs, military dictators, religious maniacs. We are electing a president of the Warfare State.
I am not trying to stoke a Nader revival. The Nader outfit is a spent bullet, and no interesting replacement is currently on the horizon. As far as national electoral politics goes (to be sure, not the limits of political life), the cards we have been dealt are Edwards, Obama, Clinton, and maybe Gore.
We need to mainstream a new direction in foreign policy. Some desire a muscular liberalism, but the U.S. has proven itself to be muscle-bound. Bushismo is too easy a target. Let the candidates compete to distance themselves from Empire, and prove it by bidding down its allowance -- the U.S. defense budget.
Max Sowicky writes:
Make Eisenhower's Farewell Speech required reading. Read it aloud on Constitution Day. Strange, when the leading Republican of his generation has lessons for Republicans and Democrats of today alike.
aMike
May 7, 2007 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a fun analogy that I dig up every now and again: Uma Thurman has always claimed she doesn't believe she's that pretty.
Indeed, one could say she forswears her own beauty and the impact it has on men. But I don't think that makes her any less beautiful.
I'll also add this to the debate:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5308196622692748202
May 7, 2007 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Corvid
I'll offer a hearty second on reading Eisenhower's farewell speech. In fact, I've memorized the parts about the military-industrial complex and will insist my daughter do so before she's much older. But do read the whole speech; there's a lot of powerful stuff in it.
.
But what a counsel of despair from Max! Even Ike may not have anticipated that the American people would be so thoroughly shouldered aside from their own democracy. It's only more glaringly apparent in this election cycle.
.
Analysts were saying that, this time round, partly due to the front-loading of the primaries, money would be even more critical. Because of that, the Dem field would quickly winnow down to 2 or 3 deep-pocketed (ie, completely corporate-dominated candidates), thus narrowing the entire GOP-Dem political spectrum to the far-right edge.
.
But I don't think they anticipated the comical weakness of the GOP field, so much so that prominent Repubs are beginning to join the Obama and Clinton camps. What a revolting development.
.
So is Max basically saying that what Eisenhower warned about has happened? And whence would any groundswell to forswear the tenets of empire be likely to develop? There's no money in it. Quite the opposite, in fact, with the US maintaining more than 700 military bases overseas. This is quite a racket you're talking about shutting down.
May 7, 2007 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
The overwhelming majority of the working, consuming, middle class Americans will come to rue the day that did not heed Mr. Nader’s calls for a serious change in national policies. He was exactly right about who is running this country and for whose benifit and the best Democrat (as in he held/holds traditional Democratic Party) values to run for the Presidency since FDR. As Obama and Hillary began every day in every way to look like establishment flunkies who will keep us enmeshed in the blood and money consuming pit Bush and his traitorous and equally crooked Neo-Cons feloniously committed us to. If Robert Kagan blew Obama a wet kiss he should wash his mouth out before he comes down with the treason disease....or minimally hoof’en mouth.
May 7, 2007 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know much more than I ever will about politics and politicians. Can you tell me how it is possible that someone running for President could have failed to anticipate that “Dukakis moment” question and not have a better answer than what Obama and Edwards both said, effectively, “I would call for a Congressional investigation to find out what went wrong?”
What they both need is Jack Kennedy’s fake missile gap. The American people are scared and they want to be saved. Kennedy knew this so he offered a fake threat and blamed it on his opponent. Williams gave Obama the fake threat* with the frame “…we learned beyond a shadow of a doubt it was the work of Al Queda…” The answer I would have prepared to deliver: “Mr. Williams, your question is credible because the Republicans have failed to defeat Al Queda. I or some other Democratic President must do so. I would remove Al Queda from the world stage and prevent that cataclysmic loss of two cities. Nothing on my agenda stands before that.” This is empty rhetoric to be sure but we are awash in empty rhetoric like “surge” and “support the troops.” Do any of us doubt that a Democrat in the White House would be better? Vote Democratic and defeat Al Queda! (Arghh)
*I say fake threat because Al Queda is inherently an asymmetrical opponent. If we had enough aircraft carriers so that we could walk across the Atlantic Ocean, it still wouldn’t be enough. The whole reality inferred by the kind of thinking that says “it was the work of Al Queda” is what is wrong, as your comments above indicate so well. But politics is politics and the people want to be saved and they are ready to trust the Democrats. So give it to them. The nice thing about Kennedy’s missile gap was that there wasn’t one so he didn’t have to do anything about it. In asymmetrical war more is less. A few capable fellows wandering in and out of the dark world of terrorists is worth more than a division of A1M1’s. But try to tell that to the American people and well, there’s your Dukakis moment for you.
May 7, 2007 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's pretty serious, accusing a politician of not having enough bullshit.
May 7, 2007 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Touche.
In my defense I can only offer you what was my response to a friend who asked me how I felt about the results of the '06 elections. I said that I was certain of one thing. Because the Democrats had won, a few people would live who otherwise would have died. I don't know who they are, soldier or civilian, or where they are but in the end fewer lives will be lost. It is enough for me. There was a time when I wanted more but that was six years ago.
May 7, 2007 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re your comment, "The size of our military makes it possible to inflict extensive murder and mayhem, but its ability to achieve important political goals seems absent," which you conflate with Obama's goal of increasing the number of avaiable troops. The problem is not the size of our military in terms of manpower; the problem is the size of our military in terms of weapons of mass destruction.
I would hope that, increasing the size of our troop force, along with instituting some sort of draft/national service program, would have the effect of quieting the view of war as an option of first resort. If more, or better yet, most Americans had some literal "skin in the game," maybe they would understand that even a troubling event such as (horror of horrors!) a nuclear Iran don't lend themselves well to a military solution.
A larger troop force would also be better suited to enforcing the policies that seem to need military action, such as policing the crises in Rwanda, Bosnia, and now Darfur.
Finally, a weaning away from the futuristic, evermore destructive weaponry, combined with aggressive, verifiable reductions in large arms worldwide, woud walk us back from the brink of annihilation we've been poised at for the last half-century.
This is a quibble with an otherwise excellent post. It just seems that spending our military budget on troops and training instead of nuclear bunker-busters is a way to appear hawkish without ratcheting up our ability to wreak havoc on an increasingly massive scale.
May 7, 2007 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
"As Obama ...began every day in every way to look like establishment flunkies who will keep us enmeshed in the blood and money consuming pit Bush and his traitorous and equally crooked Neo-Cons feloniously committed us to."
Evidence, please?
May 7, 2007 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
and furthermore this "spent bullet" concept perpetuates the myth that Alderman and many espouse: Nader shot his wad at our expense.
Flags are bits of coulored cloth that governments use to first, shrink wrap people's brain's and then as ceremonial shrouds to bury the dead....Arundhati Roy
May 7, 2007 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
The cards we've been dealt?
I'm going to play another game. I'm no longer voting for who I've been "dealt". The only way any of this changes is for people to refuse to vote for it.
If neither major party represents you, vote for a different party, but vote. Let them know you are out there.
May 7, 2007 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have trouble telling black from white as well?
May 7, 2007 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Corvid
He's proposing to boost the military by some 90,000 troops and favors a policy of unilateral and pre-emptive action overseas.
May 7, 2007 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Iran has a perfect right to develop its own nukes and a compelling self-interest to do so. Said self-interest is to acquire the insulation from external assault that North Korea and Israel enjoy.
While the perception of an Iranian interest in developing nuclear weapons may be understandable, Iran does not have the right to develop nuclear weapons. It is a signatory to the NPT and has pledged not to develop these weapons. The goal of the international community should be to persuade Iran that its long term interests lie in preserving its adherence to the NPT, despite potential short term temptations to go in another direction.
That said, it is very hard to convince states to uphold their weapons treaty obligations when other powerful and antagonistic countries are practicing a policy of preventive intervention and foreign regime change.
The United States is also in a terrible position to be a forceful advocate for adherence to the NPT so long as the US is moving in reverse with regard to its own NPT obligations. At this point, the main basis for the US appeal to other countries on the Iran situation mainly rests on immediate-term considerations of the separate national power and security interests of the cooperating countries. That approach may be a short-term winner, but it's a long term loser, as perceptions of national interest are constantly shifting. Subjecting the cause of non-proliferation to transient coalitions of agreeable states means to hold them hostage to interstate rivalries and changing power-balancing aims.
I really wish Democrats could get themselves in the habit of addressing these issues within the context of international law, and the network of existring international treaties and mutual commitments that our forbears have worked so hard to negotiate and enact, in their efforts to preserve the peace and save mankind from the scourge of war. So many Americans, from both parties, seem to have internalized the right-wing's traditional and reflexive anti-internationlism, exceptionalism and sovereignty-obsession.
Multilateralism is not enough. A preference for catch-as-catch-can multilateral coalitions is not genuine internationalism. A visionary internationalist policy commits itself to the propogation of the instruments and institutions of global governance, always striving to enhance the strength and credibility of those international legal arrangements which already exists, and bring the centuries-long hopes and aspirations for an international rule law to a continued flowering in reality.
Non-proliferation and related issues should be a huge issue for Democrats. I hope Democrats press their candidates to answer these sorts of questions: What is their position on the current US nuclear posture? On missile defense? On battlefield nuclear weapons? On space weapons? How do they understand US obligations under the NPT? Are they personally committed to these obligations? How do they intend to restore US credibility and leadership in global non-proliferation?
May 7, 2007 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Iran has a pefect right to develop its own nukes"? What you're really saying is that the current dictatorship running Iran has a right to develop its own nukes. Is it really necessary to point out to an adult that nukes are a hell of a lot more dangerous in the hands of a dictatorship -- any dictatorship -- than they are in the hands of any stable democracy? The multiple reasons are really not that hard to figure out; they'll be left as an exercise for the readers.
May 7, 2007 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you confuse "right" with "obligation under terms of a treaty". Of course Iran has a right. It has a right to renounce the entire signed treaty. This is not something that has never been done before. The US has pulled out of numerous treaties when it has served its purposes and dragged its feet on numerous other treaty obligations (some you report). The Iranian government's primary obligation is to protect its citizenry from the real threat of American intervention. If it is in the least bit responsible it will do what is necessary toward that end. American foreign policy has not made nuclear weapons obsolete; it has increased the need for nuclear weapons. Like you I would hope that this would be changed before proliferation becomes widespread.
May 7, 2007 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
No one is truly being honest about Iraq. America has fourteen enduring or permanent bases in Iraq, - not too mention a billion dollar embassy, and walled citidel commonly known as the GreenZone, or the Emerald city. Then there are those huge oil reserves beneath the land of the two rivers, and all the unknown unknown regional economic, political concerns to add to the calculus, - so it would seem to anyone caring to analyze the underlying math, or the realworld factbasedrealities concerning America's interests, (in terms of security, politics, and economics) - that America is NEVER leaving Iraq.
Democrats need to be honest in articulating that point which the fascist warmongers, profiteers, and pathological liars in the Bush government will never admit.
Democrats must force redeployments, a significant reduction of the US military face and footprint in Iraq, and an immediate cessation to the costly, reckless and ghoulish waste of blood in treasure forcing our soldiers to roam he streets of Iraq like legionaire policing civil war. The Iraq war is a catastrophic FAILURE, that cannot now, and never could be won in any sense of the word either militarily, or politically.
America must extract itself from the day to day military operations in Iraq, protect our interests, (oil), assist in the formation of the THREE autonomous nations that will certainly emerge in Iraq, and resume hunting, capturing or killing ever single jihadist mass murderer, and all those who aid and abet them on the planet.
That said, - America (some relatively significant military force) is never leaving Iraq.
I challenge you to apply your own standards to America currently Bruce Moomaw and get back to me.
America democracy is in peril. The threat to our democracy matastiziing in our government is a far greater threat to our liberties, security, and prosperity, than anything that has happened in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, or on 9/11.
America's current government is ruthlessly commandeered by warmongers, profiteers, pathological liars, and under Bush and Cheney particularly - a cabal of fascist tyrannical dictators who account to no, and do not abide by the rule of law, the laws of the land or the Constitution.
This fascist cabal shamelessly and dismisses the American people as a "constituency group", our fellow Americans opposed to the fascist cabals fascist policies as unpatriotic anti-Americans giving aid and comfort to the enemy and most telling and alarming - refers to the Constitution as "just a goddamn piece of paper."
The fascist cabals in the Bush governmen claim unquestionable kings rights, are accountable to no-one, operate continually above, beyond, outside, and in total disdain of the rule of law, and the Constitution, and have perverted, betrayed, dismembered, and re-engineers the Constitution, and the core principles upon which this nation was founded, in rabid pursuit of the fascist cabals fascist machinations and designs.
America has more nukes than the rest of the world combined and those nukes are in the hands of fascist tyrants who repeatedly and insistantly break the laws of the land, and lie to American people on a daily basis.
The greatest threat to America's unique experiment in democracy is not Iran, or the socalled "evildoers" (excuse me while I laugh my ass off) or insurgents, or whatever is defined by the socalled neverendingwaronterror - - the greatest threat to America is the tyrannical fascist totalitarian dictatorship that is the Bush government; the warmongers, profiteers, and pathological liars commandeering our government, and the fanaticus ignorant wingnutsia truebelivers in redneck amerika supporting, defending, apologizing for, and cloaking them.
May 7, 2007 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
General Zinni, who opposed the plan used for the war with Iraq and whose plan for an invasion of Iraq orginally called for 500,000 soldier, believes the U.S. will be in Iraq for 5 to 7 more years. He told Wolf Blitzer they maybe there more as advisers but they would still be needed.
There should be a explicit debate. Does not U.S. want to take the path it took after WWI and largely disarm until Pearl Harbor. Should the U.S. really retreat and leave the world to its own devices or should it play the role only the U.S. can play, world policeman, hopefully with more global help? Does the existence of both threats to world oil supply and al Qaeda as well as the discovery that high tech militaries can destroy a lot but can hold very little mean this is the time to curtail a "boots on the ground" military.
As an aside it would also be useful to have a debate over creating an office of reconstruction. In the State Department headed by a general with a police officer as his second with engineers, teachers etc as part of the office it would be in charge of nation building. It would be designed to coordinate with U.S. and Nato military commanders, local leaders and be answerable to the President of the U.S.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
May 7, 2007 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
So ---
If we get rid of Bush and his "fascist cabals" in '08, is everything hunky-dory?
May 7, 2007 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm thinking that the 72% of Americans who are fed up with the Commander in Chief have figured out that there is no free lunch for the global policeman.
May 7, 2007 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
General Zinni . . . believes the U.S. will be in Iraq for 5 to 7 more years.
I'm sure we can do better than that. How long was Syria in Lebanon?
Question for Bronto1: So; is Zinni right? Got anything interesting to say, bub?
May 7, 2007 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
What threat is suitably dealt with by virtue of this enormous armed force, fueled by resources greater than those of the rest of the world combined? ...There is no conceivable answer that simultaneously meets the criteria of feasibility and justification.
Taiwan. But we're not really having that discussion, because discussing it openly, as everyone recognizes, is itself a needless and destabilizing provocation.
Accumulating Peripherals
May 7, 2007 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nope.
I fear that even our side will maintain a US presence there in the name of "responsibility."
And, by "responsibility" I mean "in opposition to what the people want."
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
May 7, 2007 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
"rue the day"
Do you mean like way we "rue the day" Nader decided to undermine Al Gore's campaign for President an throw the election to Bush.
May 7, 2007 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
He did shoot his wad at our expense. His egotistical campaign doomed this nation to enduring the Bush administration. Nader deserves no respect and neither do those who continue to support him.
May 7, 2007 7:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
perhaps this part of Obama's foreign policy speech
It's important to note that most things Kagan praised were taken out of context.
May 7, 2007 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
You make a good point. I thought the weakness of both Obama's and Clinton's responses is that they failed to highlight the many ways in which Republicans have dropped the ball on the National security issue. Every Dem needs to be willing to ask "Where's Osama?" when GWOT questions come up.
May 7, 2007 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is your evidence that Iran is in a dictatorship?
May 7, 2007 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stable Democracy USA dropped TWO nuclear weapons on Japan. The Dictatorships of the USSR and China have not dropped any.
May 7, 2007 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hardly endorse the Administration in terms of military policy, but the numbers of nuclear weapons are reducing. It was interesting to hear the head of Strategic Command suggest recently that he was of the general opinion that fewer than 2000 nuclear weapons might be adequate; the number in the stockpile is around 6000. Yes, there are some proposals for new warhead development, which might be warranted for replacing existing weapons. Nuclear weapon subsystems do have various shelf lives, and while some are periodically overhauled, there are components whose lifetime really isn't understood. While underground testing was still being done, it was found that a large percentage of early Polaris warheads wouldn't have worked, because a glue, of all things, lost strength over time.
I would take issue that weaponry is "futuristic, evermore destructive." If anything, new weapons tend to be less destructive. I find much of the nuclear bunker buster discussion at odds with reasonably well known principles of weapons engineering, as well as a lack of a requirement. Current and reasonable-term developments in Iran don't justify them, as shown by some MIT researchers who modeled a hypothetical non-nuclear Israeli attack to take out Iran's nuclear facilities. More advanced US precision-guided (conventional) bombs, dropped from B-2 stealth bombers against which Iran would have no defense, would be even more potent.
With increasingly precise guidance, the high explosive yield of bombs is going down, because a small explosion in exactly the right place achieves the same result, with much less collateral damage, than a larger bomb. The advent of precision guided munitions largely obviated any justification for tactical nuclear weapons. Indeed, there are some designs that use concrete-filled warheads, where the impact alone achieves the desired damage.
I am totally opposed to a draft/national service requirement as a deterrent to military means, based on involuntary servitude for young people with little "skin" in the political process, as opposed to getting more responsible politicians at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. We will probably start with Congress acting responsibly and deliberately in authorizing military action.
At TPMcafe, I have made numerous posts dealing with details of Darfur, for which I see a military solution as incredibly unwise -- and as ineffectual as the sanctions and ICC route. Good soldiers are not good peacekeepers/police, and vice versa.
There are things that could bring great pressure on the Sudanese factions that created the problems in Darfur, although factional fighting there is showing signs of being dangerously self-sustaining. The most effective interventions, I believe, center around not sanctions, but selective investment in South Sudan.
What would a larger US force have been able to do about Rwanda? The Canadian-led forces there begged UN headquarters to let them take control of arms dumps and radio stations that were key to the genocide, but New York would not give permission. Once the fighting started, do you have any idea how many troops would be needed to have controlled the situation, and, in particular, how you would have gotten them into a landlocked country with no serious airports?
Without trying to be too cynical, if there is a rationale for a draft, it might be to get more Americans educated about military realities. Before suggesting intervention in Darfur, Rwanda, or a number of other places in Africa, I suggest a better understanding of logistics, peace enforcement (a different mission than peacekeeping), and the potential role of regional peace operations.
Ummm...at what brink of annihilation have we been posed?
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
May 7, 2007 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
And? The death toll from conventional bombing on Tokyo was less than that at Hiroshima. In the European theater, RAF Bomber Command deliberately targeted German civilian housing, as opposed to the US daylight attacks that at least attempted to hit industrial facilities, within the limitations of the technology of the time.
Perhaps the USSR didn't drop nuclear weapons. They didn't need to do so, given the retail killing of far greater numbers in Stalin's Great Terror. It's harder to determine how many were killed in Mao's Cultural Revolution, but conservative numbers put the death toll higher than at Hiroshima, Tokyo and Nagasaki combined.
Did you have a point beyond nooklear weapons are eeeevil?
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
May 7, 2007 8:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
No I meant exactly what I said. That's more of the same nonsense, Gore lost because he could not muster even a small landslide against the worst candidate the Republicans have run in my adult life.
All Nader did was run and tell the truth about the sham our national politics has become. It been said by Nader and others now and most know it to be true whether they are willing to admit it or not and that smelly polecat will never be put back in the box. Attacking Nader or those that agreed with him won't change the truths he brought to the public forum. The only good answer to the Issues he raised is serious reform starting with the Democratic Party and its unrepresentative leadership. I except nothing from Republicans who are what they have always been the party of the privileged selling soap to narrow-minded dupes.
May 7, 2007 9:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bull!
You cannot blame Nader for GW and his Neo-Cons it just won't wash no matter how much you bitch and whine. Nader called the turn on the duopoly's dog and pony show and with every passing day he just looks more correct in his assessment. No one has successfully attacked his arguments about the state of American politics, they have only belched out that same old BS that he is responsible for Bush which he was not. The lack luster, no real difference, Democrat candidates just lost against the poorest candidate the Republicans could field, and that is the real truth. Disillusioned Democrats did not come out and vote because they were offered nothing and a man, Nader, they were told 24/7 by the media and the DC Democrats could not win. I voted for Nader and I’m damned proud of my vote he was the only good Democrat in the race...TWICE! I rather lose with a winner than win with a looser. Since you want to throw insults around I will also, It is IMO you that deserve no respect. Nader gave his life to public service, had little ego compared to the clowns currently leading both national parties who could give less of a damned about the general welfare and was rewarded by being personally insulted by a bunch of posers who would not know what liberalism or a liberal policy was if it bit them in their overly padded arses. Shame on them!
May 7, 2007 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
The U.S. has now, again, become a colonialist empire. I have little faith that any Democratic candidate will dare to mention this fact. For this reason, they are all pathetic.
May 7, 2007 10:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ridding the fascist in the Bush government through the 2008 elections process is cold comfort, and will do nothing to remedy their death grip (firmly entrenched openended, multihundred million dollar nobid contracts) on the military industrial complex, the intelligence industrial complex, and the media industrial complex, or right the terrible wrongs they have wrought, and heaped on our children.
The only hope for America is impeachment, holding these criminals accountable, and if convicted of crimes - sending them to jail.
If not, - then the fascists with slither back to thier private citidels, and oligarchs and continue perverting, betraying, dismembering, re-engineering, and pillaging America in the dark and secret confines of the corporate board rooms of select oligarchs.
Pretending we can paint lipstick on this pig, or place band aids on the bullet holes inflicted by the fascist warmongers, profiteers, and pathological liars in the Bush government by electing democrats, and allowing these criminals and shaitans to slink back into their respective keeps is a recipe' for certain disaster.
If this is the course Americans choose, - then we deserve whatever fiery pit and hell the fascist warmongers, profiteers, and pathological liars in the Bush government hurl us into.
May 7, 2007 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
The facts are very clear and simple - if Nader had apologized to his Tantrum Party and dropped out of the race, Gore would have been in office and the Iraq Quagmire would never have been, while the US would not have thumbed their nose at the Kiyoto Protocol, etc. etc. etc.
May 7, 2007 10:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well I'm a Democrat alright. But since I am anonymous and am no guest blogger by any means, I have more freedom to throw stuff out that might be apple cart upsetting.
So here goes. First off I agree that we should get out of Dodge City (Iraq) - and just see what happens. We could always go back after giving our troops a much needed break back home.
But, I might have been one of the first ones to propose, I think it was on TPM, that the real hidden reason for the Iraq War might have been to provide a honey pot for terrorists (I used those same exact words back then) so that we'd have terrorists blowing up muslims. And that this would eventually lead to the reversal of support from the muslim world to such terrorist organizations. Which would implode the terrorist organizations. We are seeing more cases now of Iraqis battling Al Queda in Iraq. This would mean the Iraq War was a psychological war primarily, and a coup to plant a democracy secondarily.
Another point I'd like to make about the many military bases overseas is it may not be as much evidence of the US as evil empire as it is a strategy to put our eggs in many baskets. If there is a real concern for briefcase nukes and what not, there is also a need to spread our military around the world so that if a few bases are blown up, our military can still persist.
I'm complaining about the Iraq War just as much as any other Democrat, and that is all part of the politics game. But to be honest I do wonder about these two bullet points often times. I'm not really sure what point I am driving at and I don't know if this is the best thread/comment to comment in, but I guess this spot is as appropriate as the next.
If I am right, the entire George Tenet soap opera may be just that - a soap opera scripted to distract the world from the real reason for the war. The CIA may have drawn up this plan a long time ago. Dubya would actually be the fall guy also with this plan.
But I'm voting Democrat as I always have been even if these things are true as there are other issues that need to be addressed to say the least besides military related issues.
May 7, 2007 11:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
"HIs egotistical campaign doomed this nation..."
if ONLY Nader hadn't run the Dems would have...
yeah, if ONLY a frog had wings it wouldn't bump it's arse.
May 7, 2007 11:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Odd bullet point CtlAltDel, and curiously similar to the partisan bruting and pipedreams of the fascist warmongers, profiteers, and pathological liars in the Bush government and the fanaticus wingnutsia truebelivers defending the indefensible, excusing the inexcusable and ignoring the math, and the costly, bloody, FAILING events in the field.
The socalled "honeypot" theory is not only ghoulish and macabre in light of the callousness and wanton disregard for those tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi's, and 3370 soldiers and 600 American contractors who have lost their lives in pursuit of this strategy. I won't even mention the 24000 soldiers, 2000 plus contractors, and untold numbers of innocent Iraqi's maimed - or the half a trillion dollars of the peoples treasure expended in this bloody endeavor. Whatever merits you apply to this theory are a grotesque FAILURE, and a reckless and grotesque misallocation of American blood and treasure.
With regard to Iraqi's killing al Quaida, - I applaud their efforts. I question however if Iraqi's killing foriegners (al Quaida) who blow up their children would happen with or without the American face and footprint in Iraq.
Finally whatever the merits of the "honeypot" strategy, may have been, - they are now a proven catastrophic FAILURE. Terrorists have increased, not decreased. Muslims in massive majorities the world over despise America and with good well justified reasons. There is now, and will not be in the forseeable future any democracies aborning in the ME, as the entire region is falling into marked divisions along deeply entrenched sectarian and tribal lines.
You point regarding "a strategy to put our eggs in many baskets. If there is a real concern for briefcase nukes and what not, there is also a need to spread our military around the world so that if a few bases are blown up, our military can still persist." is also flawed in light of the 4th generation warfare realities America must confront. Armies, huge land forces, mechanized armor, air power, missile shields, and all our brilliant weapons will not prevent or deter "briefcase nukes". Preventing that kind of threat will require police actions. Overt, and covert operations, the use and deployment of special ops, ninja's, secret squirrels, and all goodies in the American blackworld woodshed. Americans in uniform traveling in huge armored columns through the streets of occupied nations, whose people despise our presense, is a fruitless, impotent, and wildly grotesque waste of time, treasure, and American blood.
Defeating our jihadist enemies and those shaitans who deploy briefcase nukes, or worse on civilian populations without restraint will require our most excellent intelligence and police work, and employ individuals fluent in the appropriate languages who act, look, think, and move like our enemies. Our soldiers roaming the streets of occupied lands like legionares terrorizing the innocent population, destroying infrastructure, and chasing nebulous 'evildoers" (excuse me while I laugh my ass off) is a recipe for certain DISASTER.
Bush proclaimed we are either with him, or against him. I am firmly and proudly against him, and his fascist cabals ruthless perversion betrayal, and pillaging of America.
I reject the socalled neverendingwaronterror as a partisan fiction and sloganeering tactic to ghoulishly exploit the horrors and dead of 9/11 for purely partisan political and economic gains.
Every American, myself included fully supports the unrelenting hunting, capture or killing of every jihadist mass murderer and all those who aid and abet them on the planet. Just as any American would support the hunting, capturing, or killing of a serial mass murderer in our own cities - so do we support our government efforts to snuff out the wahabi nurtured, Saudia Arabian funded jihadist mass murderers that threaten our children. We do not need to pervert, betray, mangle, dismember, or re-engineer our core principles, and certainly not the Constitution to defeat this depraved and malignant enemy.
The Bush government ruthlessly deceives America day after day after day, with absolutely zero concern for America, Americans, our troops, or anyone outside the select coteries, cabals, klans, cronies, and oligarch, in, or beholden to the fascist warmongers, profiteers, and pathological liars in the Bush government.
May 8, 2007 12:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Or maybe -
if Nader had apologized to his Tantrum Party and dropped out of the race...
Jeb Bush and the Florida GOP would have realized that they had to steal a few more votes for George and simply gone out and done so while the numb-nuts Democrats would have put up the same lame-o "fight" they actually did put up and the results would have come out the same.
I'm not saying that Nader did no damage but I'm so sick and tired of people eight years out STILL using Nader as an excuse to shut down any and all serious discussion of the weaknesses of the Democratic party. Nader did not create those weaknesses. Get over it. Nader did not cause the Democrats to lose in 2004. If they lose in 2008, he won't be the cause of that either.
Will we still be doing this in 2012, 2016, 2020, 2024?
May 8, 2007 12:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
While I choose to use less dramatic language, let me attempt some perspective on the Orwellian constant war model being pushed by some, in and out of the Admininstration. I'm afraid my mind doesn't work in revolutionary jargon.
I reject the idea that there must be an Orwellian infinite war on terror, requiring suspension of civil liberties. As I have posted before, I believe a public health model is most appropriate, which recognizes that only one disease has ever been eradicated, and focuses more on preventing outbreaks and minimizes their impact, always recognizing that there will be some outbreaks. It seems unlikely that terrorist operations in the US will approach the death toll from motor vehicle accidents or cardiovascular disease, but we have no War on Cars or War on Cholesterol.
Briefcase Nukes
Allow me to make some observations on the plausibility of this threat. The smallest nuclear device that the US ever built was the W54 core, which weighed about 50 pounds but, with external equipment such as batteries and firing circuits, could be up to 100 pounds. From unclassified photos, the core, which again needed additional equipment, was about 5 inches in diameter and 11 inches long. Different versions had yields between 10 and 600 tons of TNT; for reference, the Oklahoma City bomb was about 4 tons of a somewhat less powerful explosive, while Hiroshima was around 20,000 tons detonated in a more destructive airburst.
For technical reasons, it's unlikely that the Soviets built anything significantly smaller. We do know that while the US was testing nuclear weapons, even smaller weapons failed to work.
It also can be said, with high confidence, that building a weapon this small requires a large engineering staff and substantial testing, testing which may not need actual nuclear bursts but still tests requiring high explosives and extensive test equipment. In other words, it's not within the capabilities of non-national terrorists, the US weapons of this class have been dismantled, and even if there were Soviet weapons of the type still around, their limited shelf life components would probably need factory overhaul.
Briefcase nukes are not a realistic threat. The most likely terrorist-built nuclear device is something like the Hiroshima or Nagasaki bombs, every efficiency improvement making it less likely to work without a testing program. Such devices will be physically large and weigh perhaps 5-10 tons.
Honeypot Theory
The idea that we can draw the world's terrorists into a killing zone and deal with them only there is rather unlikely. Note that during Iraqi operations, there were large scale attacks in the UK and Spain, involving multiple near-simultaneous bombings, which has been a al-Qaeda signature.
Apropos al-Qaeda, no serious analyst believes it is a Pentagon in Pakistan, a nerve center for worldwide operational control. Funding and training, and some recruiting, yes. It is more an umbrella for regional terrorist groups, which do include Iraqi ones.
As the I-P situation was used for recruiting, so is the Iraqi campaign.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
May 8, 2007 3:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, it would be a start. There are many problems, challenges, policy debates, etc. that face Amercia, but the threat posed by the current administeration outweighs them all.
I realize this is getting to be my standard response. I don't really buy into the Great Man theory of history. But at certain times, certain people can have an enormous impact on the world. In this case, it's Bush/Cheney and their circle. The problem is this group is totally unfit for this role. They're either narcissitic fools or just plan bent. Breaking the immediate hold on the levers of power that these clowns have has to be the first priority. The Bush administration, one way or the other, has to be reduced to effective impotence at the minimum. Even success in that won't be much fun. It would effectively paralyze the American government for two years. The alternative, thouh, is worse.
May 8, 2007 5:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Howard, I agree with your general point that conventional means of killing can be just as effective as (or even more effective than) "advanced" means if the conventional means are applied with a sufficient degree of ruthlessness.
However, I think Kosmotropic had a pretty good point in rebuttle to BruceMoomaw's statement that dictatorships are more likely to use nuclear weapons than democracies. In fact, the empirical evidence points in the other direction, since the only country ever to use nuclear weapons was a democracy and so far all the dictatorships with nuclear weapons have exercised restraint. I think Kosmotropic does a useful service in pointing out how flawed our conventional wisdom about ourselves often is. This unchallenged conventional wisdom can allow us to kill without questioning ourselves, since we assume we are not killing to the degree that others are. In fact, the opposite is often true, and we really might benefit from greater and more honest introspection.
One other point: Sawicky, you're brilliant! A great post . ..
May 8, 2007 6:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
A quick list for you:
An un-elected Supreme Leader with unassailable authority.
An election vetting process that basically pre-selects the candidates that can run.
No freedom of speech, assembly, press.
An army of jack-booted regime-sponsored militia that (just this week) attack any regime protestors with impunity and sometimes murder them.
I've got more if this list is not enough
May 8, 2007 7:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Who is protecting the Iranian people from their own government? This regime has been waging war on their own people for 30 years and the numbers killed are certainly in the 10's of thousands.
This week student protestors at Iran's Polytechnic were assaulted by regime Hezbollah thugs -- stabbed with knives and beaten with chains.
I'll quote the grandson of the Ayatollah Khomeini who told an Arab newspaper: "Bush should invade my country to get rid of the tyrants running it".
Nukes in the hands of this government will serve only one purpose: to keep tyrants in power.
May 8, 2007 7:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dan, the problem with internationalizing solutions to problems is you end up with non-solutions. Darfur is a good example.
The only way you can have effective int'l law is if you have an effective int'l enforcement body whose authority is recognized by every nation.
In the abscence of that you have the US military and to a lessor extent NATO, and these institutions keep a lot of mischief and miscreants at bay. Containing North Korea is a good example.
It's easy for people like Max to come out here and point out our military follies. What's much more difficult is for him to show us what the world would look like if the US military never intervened or even had the power to do so.
He seems to argue that if we reduce our local police forces -- there will be less crime in our neighborhood. Nobody believes that, until you extrapolate the idea to the entire globe -- then it suddenly seems sensible.
May 8, 2007 7:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Apparently only in some folk’s minds and of necessity quite simple...spare me the empty Lord Haw Haw etceteras.
May 8, 2007 7:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm afraid I still don't understand the premise about nuclear weapons. Much was unknown about them at the time of their first use, and one major part of the decision was whether they would force a Japanese surrenders, as opposed to the DOWNFALL/OLYMPIC invasion in active preparation, an invasion that would have been incredibly bloody for both sides.
If Japan or Germany had had nuclear weapons in 1945, is there any serious doubt they would have been "more restrained"? No, I'm sorry. Based on the information available at the time, I see, in the midst of a vicious war, no additional sin committed by using nuclear weapons. They were aimed at military targets inside the boundaries of cities.
Had the US had modern precision-guided weapons in 1945, had the US had the knowledge still lacking a few years later of the dangers of radiation, then I might agree that the US was more unrestrained than other powers of the time. Germany and Japan, with lesser success, were actively working on nuclear weapons, as was the Soviet Union. The timing worked out that the US both had the weapons, and a reason to use them, in August 1945. The other powers would have used them under the same conditions.
Again, I find it bizarre to speak of a country that killed millions of its own citizens in the Great Terror, and consciously sacrificed large numbers more in the scorched-earth retreat from the Germans, as showing any trace of restraint.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
May 8, 2007 8:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Howard, maybe I misunderstood your point and I certainly don't mean to claim that China or the Soviet Union have shown admirable restraint in the use of violence. Quite the contrary. All I was saying was that the assumption implied in the following question asked by BruceMoomaw isn't, in my opinion, obviously true. In fact, the empirical evidence that we have actually contradicts it as Kosmotropic pointed out:
Is it really necessary to point out to an adult that nukes are a hell of a lot more dangerous in the hands of a dictatorship -- any dictatorship -- than they are in the hands of any stable democracy?
I think a stable democracy that feels threatened, is led by people like Dick Cheney and George Bush, and has a massive nuclear arsenal with advanced delivery systems may indeed be more dangerous than many dictatorships. Certainly, the US under Dick Cheney and George Bush has killed a lot more people than Iran has under Ahmedinijad (spelling?). I don't think it's at all obvious that Iran would be more willing to use its nuclear arsenal than the US. This isn't to claim that the current leaders of Iran are some wonderful peace-loving flower children. It's merely intended to point out that we democracies aren't really as peace-loving as we like to claim. Before we start congratulating ourselves on our remarkable restraint, we'd best actually start showing some more restraint . . .
May 8, 2007 8:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
“I reject the idea that there must be an Orwellian infinite war on terror, requiring suspension of civil liberties”. I too reject the idea that there MUST be such a war, or some other kind of war, but I also recognize that there is good reason to believe, based on their underlying philosophy, that the neocons believe the opposite. A foreign war is one of their methods to control the domestic population. A sub-method is the “Noble lie”. Their influence on US policy has been somewhat greater than yours or mine, Howard. We are now at war and the overwhelming majority of our population supported the war in the beginning and would support it again, regardless of its actual utility or morality, if they perceived that we were winning; thus the lies about progress and success that we are fed. I despise the neocons because of their cynical and egotistical philosophy but I sometimes, actually often, fear they are correct, the common man can not, or will not, handle the truth.
May 8, 2007 8:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
The fact that no nuclear weapons were used since 1945, I believe, does show restraint. I think this is less due to the political system that had them than the understanding, by those systems, of the danger. I do not believe it is fair to consider August 1945 decisions as examples of lack of restraint, when there were very serious tradeoffs about the total casualties, American and Japanese, from either an invasion, or the possibility nuclear weapons could force a surrender. The DOWNFALL operational plans have been declassified, although they aren't online AFAIK. Incidentally, there were plans to use up to nine nuclear weapons to support the first part of DOWNFALL, the invasion of southern Japan, Operation OLYMPIC.
There were, indeed, proposals to use them, but, at various places in the system, someone said "no". For example, the French asked for military assistance at Dien Bien Phu, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff recommended a package including nuclear weapons. Eisenhower rejected it.
Later, Eisenhower cracked the whip on LeMay and the Strategic Air Command, who believed they were the sole authority on targeting and use. Near the end of his administration, he sent science advisor George Kistiakowsky to Omaha, essentially with orders to cooperate or resign. SIOP-62, the first attempt to rationalize targeting, was issued under Kennedy, but built on this showdown.
On several occasions, both on the US and Soviet sides, the command posts received what turned out to be false warning of a nuclear attack. The relevant control officers chose to wait for confirmation, even as alerts went out.
When the Egyptian Third Army was trapped by the Israelis in the Yom Kippur War, the Soviets sent notice that they would not accept its destruction and the humiliation of its client. Reports differ if the Soviets actually unloaded tactical nuclear weapons, or brought them into the theater, but the US became aware and went into high alert. Nixon and Kissinger, not always exemplars of restraint, still held back.
The Samson Option, or whatever it may have been renamed, has been Israeli policy of ultimate deterrence. Israel is a democracy, with what is estimated as in the top 5, perhaps top 3, numbers of warheads, with advanced delivery systems.
US nuclear launch procedure require military crews not to launch if they believe an order is not valid. In certain cases, such as Minuteman ICBMs, a combination of other crews can override the veto, but the point remains that considerable safeguards have been built into the system. In Nixon's last days, Haig, Kissinger, and Laird all took careful steps for inappropriate orders from Nixon to be reviewed, and stopped if necessary.
I am less convinced than you that the military would accept a use of nuclear weapons, especially when precision-guided conventional weapons could take out the Iranian facilities, if the idiotic decision to do so were made.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
May 8, 2007 9:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
So what happens if the President does make the idiotic decision and orders a nuclear attack, or even a conventional attack, on Iran, which might ultimately be as catastrophic, and the military commanders in the position to do so refuse to carry out the order. That is, what happens if the US military rebels against their Commander in Chief?
Would it then be necessary to either remove the CiC or purge the upper ranks of the military? In the process would general be pitted against general with the outcome in doubt?
Between the CiC and the military rebels, who would you hope would prevail?
May 8, 2007 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
In a nuclear war situation, I put the advantage with the military, if for no other reason than the military has true access to the command and control networks, and the weapons and delivery systems themselves. A President can have a high-level Emergency Action Message issued, calling for various plans to be invoked. The crew of a number of delivery platforms can deliberately enter a weapon arming code incorrectly, a certain number of times, and the Permissive Action Link in the weapon will disable it short of factory overhaul.
It is a very difficult scenario, and I think that it would be much more likely that a conventional attack order on Iran would be obeyed, than a nuclear attack. I cannot overemphasize the belt-and-suspenders culture than surrounds the use of nuclear weapons; the unwillingness of crews to launch has long been debated in strategic analyst circles.
Given the demonstration of idiocy in invading Iraq, there might be more pushback. This came close in Vietnam: see HR McMaster's Dereliction of Duty, with respect to how close several senior generals came to resigning and going public with protest. The Army Chief of Staff, long afterwards, rues his decision that he could exert more control from the inside.
Recently, there have been more and more signs of pushback. Senior retired officers such as Odom, Zinni, Hoar and others are much more vocal than in the past. Abizaid questioned policy while he was still serving, although his retirement was planned. Shinseki testified, while Army Chief of Staff, against the Rumsfeld proposals.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
May 8, 2007 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen
May 8, 2007 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Our soldiers roaming the streets of occupied lands like legionares terrorizing the innocent population, destroying infrastructure, and chasing nebulous 'evildoers" (excuse me while I laugh my ass off) is a recipe for certain DISASTER."
They do make a helluva honeypot as well though, you must admit.
We will never know if a honeypot strategy - real or imagined - ever worked until after our troops come home. If Al Queda is still at it in Iraq when that happens, then we still need to wait and see what the outcome of such jihadist on muslim conflict will be. It could very well implode the support structures for such psychopathological guerrilla forces in my opinion. Or it could very well not. One thing I agree with is it would be quite a risk to take on a dicey plan, but if you don't have a lot of options, it might be a risk a (Bush) administration takes.
I agree that we need to put more money into clandestine operations, but I'm not convinced undercover agents are all that easy to procure in the extremist islam community. And if you do procure undercover agents with cash, how do you know they aren't double agents, helping to fund with their cash the very terror groups you are after? It would appear to be easier said then done fighting terrorist groups when all is said and done. Which further implicates a psychological war.
The way to beat terrorism at it's roots is to have a counter jihad IMO. And in order for this to happen the islamic community needs to see the false jihadists for what they are, and that may only happen if their own people start getting blown up by those false jihadists.
Macabre? Sure. But in the long, long run such a honeypot strategy could in fact reduce casualties.
However, the main problem I see with "honeypot" as a possible explanation for the Iraq War is that the sectarian conflicts complicates such a strategy quite a bit. We don't know who is blowing up whom. It isn't a clearcut Al Queda vs. Iraq, at the moment anyways. I'm certainly no expert - maybe it'll morph into that and this is the reason we are still in Iraq is to keep the honey pot in Iraq until it gets to the point of Al Queda vs. Iraq. (Or Islamic State of Iraq or whatever the jihadists are calling themselves. It's more like Dodge City. Such a high stakes wager on a psychological war could have been dependent on a "unified iraq" taking hold, rather than a Iraq in chaos.
May 8, 2007 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
The villain in Blazing Saddles was Hedley Lamarr. The incumbent National Security Advisor is Stephan Hadley. Coincidence? You decide...
May 8, 2007 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would agree that if the military refused to drop a bomb that it would not get dropped. G. B. sure isn’t going to don his codpiece and go do it.
The more important questions to me are whether he could maintain his office if he had lost command of the military and how the situation would play out. If Bush lost his presidency over the refusal would the generals who had refused the order then be obligated to resign? Would they do so? How deep would the purge go? How deep should it go?
May 8, 2007 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obviously, it's hard to predict. One very key factor would be the role of Congress. Since this would be a clear Constitutional crisis between the civilian policymakers and the uniformed policymakers, one possible outcome might be accelerated impeachment, perhaps even with dealmaking to give Bush and Cheney an exit in return for nominating an acceptable successor. Yes, I know that would be frustrating for many who want to see punishment, but punishment of the few may not be as important as sanity for the many.
Typically, senior officers that refused a policy have resigned, as in the "Revolt of the Admirals" in the early fifties. As I've mentioned, Army Chief of Staff Harold Johnson came very close to resigning; see HR McMaster's book for a detailed interview.
In other cases, such as MacArthur, the officer involved accepted being fired.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
May 8, 2007 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely none. However, a Pax Americana, that maintains a certain level of order in a chaotic world has many advantages especially for Americans.
As the dominant commercial nation who's currency is the reserve currency of the globe and who's bonds are the default safe investment Americas are the primary beneficiaries. The problem is one of freeriders and to a lesser extent it might make America a greater target.
However, the latter point is open to question. American culture and its means, movies, music, the internet, fashion, and liberalism are all anathema to those who want to maintain traditional societies.
One can only hope that when Bush goes the go it alone crowd goes with him and we turn back to a selfinterested globalism which is supported by most of the world.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
May 8, 2007 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Any limited military action will need greater ground forces. Unless you accept the use of either nuclear weapons or such powerful non-nuclear weapons that will lead to the utter annihilation of any enemy then the U.S. needs to build-up the Army and the Marines.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
May 8, 2007 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
"He...favors a policy of unilateral and pre-emptive action overseas."
This is simply a gross distortion of the man's stated positions, and you know it. I guess his failure to advocate a "Department of Peace" makes him unacceptably hawkish in your opinion.
May 8, 2007 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your failure to respond with evidence proves my inference that you don't have anything substantive to back up your smear.
At a minimum, you could cherry pick some quotations out of context to make Obama seem the warmongering tool of the military-industrial complex that you see him as.
May 8, 2007 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
By honeypot theory I don't imply the Bush "we'll fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here" strategy.
I meant that strategy leading to "they'll fight them over there" - muslim on muslim conflict.
Which isn't the end strategy either. The end game would be that 2nd strategy leading to an erosion of support and recruitment as the tide turns from jihadist attacks against the West to jihadist attacks against other muslims. The likely scenario then being that you have a "counter jihad" of muslims defending themselves against the extremists. At that point I would think it would be harder for the extremist islamic jihadists to get support and recruitment. You now have a region taking care of it's own problem. The adventurousness and sense of purpose a young muslim might be seeking when they join an extremist terror group would be replaced by the very same thing but by joining the counter jihad.
Granted, and saying it again, such a honey pot strategy would be a dicey wager indeed. Particularly when the sectarian conflicts are taken into account.
May 8, 2007 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not to interrupt these various digressions, but I believe the author's topic was the prospects for real change in American Middle East policy were any of the three frontrunners in the Democratic Party to win the White House. As the article correctly notes, Obama, Clinton, and Edwards all appear to be in thrall to the two propositions that the US cannot withdraw from the Middle East without inviting disaster, and Iran cannot be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. I had expected different from Edwards, who had repudiated his vote to authorize the us of force against Iraq, and perhaps from Obama, who had opposed the invasion from the start. Yet, both seemed eager to guarantee to supporters of Israel their readiness to attack Iran, remain militarily involved, and what not, in order to secure Israel's interests and ambitions. Clinton's views were a foregone conclusion. Surprisingly, Israel was not mentioned in the column or in any of the responses, but it is not possible to understand their positions on Middle East policy without taking account of their commitment to Israeli interests.
Given that, the frontrunners' efforts to outdo one another in putting 'all options on the table' in regard to Iran follows. But then I don't see how these candidates can reconcile their readiness to engage hostilities against Iran with proposals to withdraw completely from Iraq. Surely, they have looked at a map.
The reconciliation of the apparent contradiction may come in the actual content of the Democratic leaderships' proposals. That is, as Clinton has said, American troops would stay in Iraq while attempting to back out of the civil war. Permanent bases and a role for American advisors would be fine, along with deployments of special forces for 'anti-terrorism' operations (no clear indication as to in which country these operations would occur). This, in turn, will leave Iraq as a staging area for operations against Iran, meaning that they endorse at least one of Bush's war aims: to establish a permanent US military presence in the heart of the Middle East. Evidently, all three frontrunners agree on this. I do not think this is the dramatic change of course most Democrats are seeking, offering little more than Lieberman-lite.
Thus, if Democratic voters are to have a real choice, we have to break out of this notion that the money and media-annointed candidates are our only 'realistic' choices. Of the other candidates in the debate, Kucinich and Gravel represented credible viable alternatives, with Richardson and Dodd perhaps arrayed somewhere between the frontrunners and those two. Kucinich holds positions that are most in line with the Democratic Party faithful. Unfortunately, I have already heard people saying they will vote on the basis of which candidate is 'electable,' a criterion that has yet to produce positive results for Democrats. Nonetheless, such armchair political strategizing appears to sway enough votes that Democrats will not vote their convictions but instead their sadly errant political instincts.
May 8, 2007 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's the fun of being President if you're not allowed to wield the Big Stick? Coolidges come along only once in a hundred years.
"Four-fifths of all our troubles would disappear, if we would only sit down and keep still." Calvin Coolidge
May 8, 2007 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
You raise several good points. The regime certainly is not good, certainly not ideal. I think you can say that about just about every tyrannical government in the Middle East: Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the previous Iranian regime (the American supported Shah). I do not have any great illusions about how an intolerant religious regime operates. My estimate is that the Iranian government is not more oppressive than the three governments above. I thought Khatami briefly was a promising development.
I do not see how nukes in the hands of the government protects the rulers from their own population. It did not help the Soviet rulers and they had nukes. So what do you mean here? To my mind the nukes they want are to protect them from the very threatening moves of the US in the region.
May 8, 2007 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
there is another issue here -- that being Ahmadenijad's promise to share nuclear technology with Islamic countries. This sounds like proliferation.
The int'l community has actually supported Iran's nuclear program with a pretty darn generous incentives package -- in exchange for Iran giving up enrichment.
We just don't know what Iran would do if they did develop nukes, who they would share the technology with, or if their capability would spark a regional arms race. Shouldn't we err on the side of caution here?
May 8, 2007 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Gore had worked harder to inspire the left, he wouldn't have had to worry about Nader.
There's a big fat lesson there for Hillary. If she sews up the nomination in 02/08, there's a nice long time for a 3rd Party candidate to exploit the pathetic lack of vision in both parties.
May 8, 2007 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did we err on the side of caution?
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
May 8, 2007 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pakistan got their nuke tech from China who wanted a counter-balance to India.
AQ Khan is the kind of loose cannon we have to worry about. Is it hypocritical to tell Iran they can't enrich uranium -- yes, but nuclear technology is not comparable to a breakthrough in medicine or physics or auto engineering. Once Iran acquires the knowledge, it's feathers in the wind. Given their track record of grossly irresponsible leadership, they've abdicated any right they have to enrich uranium. Bush should be making this case, but he's not perceptive enough to make it.
May 8, 2007 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Once Iran acquires the knowledge, it's feathers in the wind.
I thought that Iran already had the knowledge of how to enrich uranium and that it was simply a matter of time to acquire the necessary amount. This is part of what I find confusing about anti-proliferation discussions. After all, the original atomic bombs didn't require any fundamental scientific breakthroughs, once fission had been recognized.
May 8, 2007 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm amazed at the emphasis on uranium enrichment, when, with the exception of South Africa, every nuclear power concentrated on plutonium. While some advanced designs use both, it's generally possible to get better performance from plutonium than uranium.
There are indicators that Iran is working on plutonium reprocessing. Nevertheless, there would be other technologies far more significant in terms of weapons development, such as hydrodynamic test facilities.
I have no idea what point you are attempting to make about nuclear technology versus medicine versus auto engineering...and how nuclear technology is different from physics. You and Bush can go make a case about uranium enrichment, but I'm less worried about that than several other weapons-related technologies.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
May 8, 2007 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
"there is another issue here -- that being Ahmadenijad's promise to share nuclear technology with Islamic countries. This sounds like proliferation."
To whom did he make this promise? or did he swear to Allah on his life that he would share nuclear weapons with any muslim jihadist who wanted a bomb? seriously, what are you talking about? What was the context?Is this some comment you learned from Fox "news"?
I asked a similar question earlier about your incomprehensible remark that nuclear weapons helped protect the Iranian leadership from their populace. You might have overlooked it so I am asking you again. How does Iran's possession of nuclear weapons protect the leaders from their populace?
May 8, 2007 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
quote:
A quick list for you:An un-elected Supreme Leader with unassailable authority.
I agree that Ayatollah Khameni is the "Supreme Leader" if that is who you are referring to, and yes he is not elected by the populous, that refers to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and he was elected with over 60% of the vote.
But to correct your statement, the Ayatollah Khameni was elected by a congressional body of mjtahids, or islamic lawyers, that form the Majles-eKhobregan (assembly of leadership experts).
Now, if you disagree with their method, that is one thing. Parliament seems strange to me too, but do you call Tony Blair a dictator, or Queen Elizabeth a dictator?
The Majles-eKhobregan is a body of 86 Islamic lawyers who elect and supervise the "Supreme Leader" and they also hold the power to dismiss him according to Constitutional law.
The president of iran is elected by direct vote of the public.
The command of forces and declaration of war or peace is in the hands of the Supreme Leader.
But so far,....not unassailable as you claim.
An election vetting process that basically pre-selects the candidates that can run.
You mean like Primaries? in the US we have an election vetting process that PreSelects candidates that can run, didn't you watch the "debates" this last week? (they weren't really debates, but thats what they called them)
No freedom of speech, assembly, press.An army of jack-booted regime-sponsored militia that (just this week) attack any regime protestors with impunity and sometimes murder them.
Those cops in LA were lookin good last week shooting rubber bullets at protesters, weren't they. This is relativist view of a culture you don't seem to know much about.
I've got more if this list is not enough
Here's a list for you:
Summary of the 17 and 24 June 2005 Iranian Presidential election results
Candidate Names
Votes 1st round - %
Votes 2nd round-%
Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani
6,211,937 - 21.13
10,046,701 - 35.93
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
5,711,696 - 19.43
17,284,782 - 61.69
Mehdi Karroubi
5,070,114 - 17.24
rnd2--
Mostafa Moeen
4,095,827 - 13.93
rnd2--
Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf
4,083,951 - 13.89
1,713,810 - 5.83
Mohsen Mehralizadeh
1,288,640 - 4.38
Blank or invalid votes
1,224,882 - 4.17
663,770 - 2.37
Total (turnout 62.66% and 59.6%)
29,400,857 - 100
27,959,253 - 100
_____________________________
What more do you have? Dictator?
May 8, 2007 9:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I need only look at the historical record....only a democracy has used nuclear weapons, and that would be with 2 nuclear bombs, and a plethora of nuclear ammunition in this current war.
What else?
May 8, 2007 9:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Buy a mirror...and get a new act that high school Harry prove it schlock is tiresome as hell. There is no need to prove the self-evident or reason do so if you are dealing with a shill… or a fool.
May 8, 2007 9:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Howard,
thanks again for the education, this time on
Briefcase Nukes.
As to al Qaeda, the news media, especially Wolf Blitzer, seem to like hearing themselves say the words "al Qaeda" every chance they get. The latest story on the Fort Dix attack concerns an "al Qaeda inspired" group, just like the "cell" discovered in Florida a year or so ago.
and..
I too wondered how al Qaeda could have attacked in Spain and the UK while we were "fighting them over there."
May 9, 2007 5:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
csampson,
excellent tutorial on Iranian elections, thanks.
People should look at Iranian elections with the same uncritical eye they use to look at ours.
May 9, 2007 5:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary wasn't duped, she did what most other Democrats who voted for Bush's Folly did, she cast a political cover your ass vote. She and the others saw the war being an easy victory, over in a month or so, and to them a 'Yes' vote was a win\win situation. Hillary and the other chicken shit Democrats didn't give a goddamn for what happend to the troops during that month or so it took to win.
Now that the war turned out the way it did they can't run away from their votes fast enough. A pox on them!
May 9, 2007 6:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have never heard a suggestion that al-Qaeda is centralized and its operational headquarters is in Iraq. In Vietnam, we fell into the trap of searching for COSVN, what we thought of as a "Pentagon-in-the-Jungle", which was never more than a small and highly mobile command group. al-Qaeda appears to be more of a coordinating than a command group, linking up recruiting, training, funding, and possibly logistics, but operations appear to be decentralized to regional teams.
From WWII, think of SOE, or the OSS Jedburghs or Operational Groups. Later, think of Special Forces in the guerilla role. The individual units are fairly autonomous. Modern communications also allow the command itself to be decentralized.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
May 9, 2007 7:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nuclear ammunition in the current war? Huh?
Depleted uranium is not "nuclear". It has hazards and tactical benefits like any other weapon, but calling it nuclear does not demonstrate much knowledge of the subject. It does suggest that you are happily using slogans and memes, and do not understand what is actually happening on the battlefield.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
May 9, 2007 7:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
The issue is that Ahmadenijad has been very effective at using the current debate to imply that the West is trying to deny the Islamic world their right to scientific progress. It feeds into the "war against Islam" conspiracy theory. This isn't true, because the West is heavily invested in the Islamic world's development on many fronts.
Ahmadenijad's claims are met with silence by the Bush administration -- who have proven to be completely incompetent in communicating with the Islamic world. He hasn't even really bothered to make the case to the American people as to why he is opposed to Iranian enrichment.
May 9, 2007 7:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ahmadenijad makes these comments in every Islamic country he goes to. His emphasis is to unify and strengthen the Islamic world. He has offered to share nuclear technology with Islamic countries on more than one occassion. Whether this is a serious offer or not cannot be determined.
This is an excerpt from a ME newspaper:
"Iran’s supreme leader, meanwhile, said in a meeting with the president of wartorn Sudan that Tehran was ready to transfer its nuclear technology to other countries."
What i said was that nukes will only serve the purpose of keeping the regime in power. I didn't say it would protect them from the wrath of their people, but they've got a very effective internal security apparatus for that. Nukes would prevent any attempt at military regime change -- at least in the minds of the mullahs.
May 9, 2007 8:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Corvid
It's not a distortion. You might be confusing
"pre-emptive" with the Bush administration's "preventive." In practice, though, it's way too easy to conflate the two, as we've painfully learned.
.
And I'm not sure how expanding a military that already has more than 700 bases in 130 countries, plus 6,000 bases in the U.S. and its territories is in any way a good idea. Obama is simply playing the fake-missile-gap game that John Kennedy, to his everlasting shame, played in 1960. It's unconscionable and dangerous, buying deeply right into the very peril that Eisenhower warned about.
.
The United States has a very long record of backing dictators, overthrowing popular governments and installing thugs and generally mucking things up, all the way from Hawaii and the Philippines right up to Vietnam and Iraq. We haven't been universally wrong, but the bloody record since the late 19th Century is heavily, heavily against us. If you're unaware of this, I'd suggest you gently introduce yourself to the history of the 20th Century.
.
A Department of Peace might not be such a bad idea. But you seem to favorite the opposite, a kind of Team America, World Police.
May 9, 2007 8:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the serious reply. I find your comment "Nukes would prevent any attempt at military regime change--at least in the minds of the mullahs" unpersuasive. Why would the Iranian military fear the nuclear weapons of the leadership; who if not the military is going to deliver the weapons? The mullahs? You foresee them setting up an Islamic nuclear bomb unit with direct connections to the mosque? Sounds farfetched. I also am not so very much in favor of the Iranian military as you seem to be. I repeat the example of the Soviet change is instructive. I again repeat that I have very little indication that the Iranian religious regime is more oppressive than that of the Shah; the reports I have read from Western journalists, even MSM hacks who need to tailor their reports to the dominant political outlook (which you seem to have bought uncritically notwithstanding a good deal of readily available literature and news reports to the contrary), seem to indicate quite the contrary. Of course like you I do not like theocracies of any stripe; I would love to see an internal change (without ANY American involvement, which I think is improper and counterproductive.
Your comment on Ahmadenijad's quote is welcome. Thank you. I would appreciate the ME newspaper and the link if you have one. As you say the context is hard to determine. I would also add that if one were to bundle all the anti-Iran (even anti-Moslem)rhetoric coming out of powerful and seemingly (in today's bizarre political climate) reputable American political sources (even Democratic), beginning with Bush and his axis of evil talk, this would make a packet of such a threatening and bullying nature that in fairness Ahmadenijad's obnoxious rhetoric seems small potatoes. You acknowledge throughout your comments that power in Iran resides in the religious leadership; Ahmadenijad while devout is not a cleric; do you have any quotes at all, even one, of these religious leaders threatening to share ANY nuclear technology? I doubt it. But if you do, please let me know.
May 9, 2007 8:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is the link from the Azeri newspaper Baku Sun:
http://www.bakusun.az/cgi-bin/ayten/bakusun/show.cgi?code=9533
The quote was from Ayatollah Khameini NOT Ahmadenijad (although he says it as well), so there you have your cleric offering to share nuclear technology.
Sorry, i should have indicated nukes would prevent external military regime change NOT internal change.
My knowledge of Iran comes from a lot of first-hand accounts by Iranians living here now who were forced to flee by the brutality of the regime. You may not be aware that Khomeini had all the Marxists purged from the country in a bloody genocidal campaign -- he even went on Iranian TV and told parents to turn in their Marxist sons and daughters. They had so many people to hang construction cranes were brought in to supplement the overworked gallows.
I would rate this regime as being far worse than the Shah. He believed in modernizing, but he never threw women in jail for wearing a veil or had them beaten on the streets. We can't do anything about the grossly irresponsible Kim Jong (since he's already got nukes), but we sure as hell can prevent one more jack-booted regime from getting them, and I support that policy.
May 9, 2007 9:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm still confused about Bush's emphasis on uranium enrichment at the abovegroud pilot and underground centrifuge facilities at Natanz, and the laser separation facilities at the Teheran Nuclear Research Center and Lashkar Ab’ad. What concerns me more, from a proliferation standpoint, is the heavy water production facility, heavy water reactors, and plutonium cells at Arak. Of course, if there were evidence of specific weapons-related work as would be indicated by a hydrodynamic test facility, that would be much more of a smoking gun.
I agree the Administration is awful at making a case about anything to the Iranian people. I'm not so sure that Ahmadenijad, as opposed to Khatemei, is that important to them either.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
May 9, 2007 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nejad is despised at home but oddly very popular in the wider Islamic world. Any leader who denounces Israel is going to get a lot of popular traction.
What i'm reading is there is a lot of smoke and mirrors vis-a-vis their program. The Arak facility is not as far along as Natanz, and a lot of the equipment they got is reported to be faulty.
Just to add to the worry, 97% of Iran sits on an earthquake faultline. If they don't build these reactors right, a major earthquake could be a regional and even global catastrophe.
May 9, 2007 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
The key issue, to me, is if they don't get plutonium, it's going to be very difficult to build a uranium warhead light enough to fly on their IRBMs.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
May 9, 2007 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the references. We will have to disagree about the Shah and the mullahs. I certainly DO know about the attacks on secularists and socialists and Marxists, But I remember the brutality and the severe repression of the Shah (also on leftists of every stripe, liberal democrats, and religious leaders too). I think you are either too young to remember this or else you did not follow the sources that were well available at that time. The secret police was called the Savak; here is the first reference Google spits out when I typed in the "Shah's secret police":
"The Shah's brutal secret police force, Savak, formed under the guidance of CIA (the United States Central Intelligence Agency) in 1957 and personnel trained by Mossad (Israel's secret service), to directly control all facets of political life in Iran. Its main task was to suppress opposition to the Shah's government and keep the people's political and social knowledge as minimal as possible. Savak was notorious throughout Iran for its brutal methods.
The interrogation office was established with no limit of using horrific torture tools and techniques to break the arrested dissenters to talk in a matter of hours.
The censorship office was established to monitor journalists, literary figures and academics throughout the country. It took appropriate measures against those who fell out of the regime's line.
Universities, labor unions and peasant organizations, amongst others, were all subjected to intense surveillance by the Savak agents and paid informants. The agency was also active abroad, especially in monitoring Iranian students who publicly opposed the Shah's government.
Interrogation, torture and long term imprisonment by Savak for reading or possessing any forbidden books. The prohibited books were removed from the book-stores and libraries; even the Tozih-ol-Masael written by Ayatollah Rouhollah Khomeini was forbidden.
Over the years, Savak became a law unto itself, having legal authority to arrest, detain, brutally interrogate and torture suspected people indefinitely. Savak operated its own prisons in Tehran, such as Qezel-Qalaeh and Evin facilities and many suspected places throughout the country as well. Many of those activities were carried out without any institutional checks.
The monarchy was toppled in Iran on February 11th, 1979 (22nd day of Bahman 1357, Persian calendar). The Savak dissolved and then the Iranian people along with the political prisoners tasted the blossoms of freedom (Bahar-e Azadi) for a few months. The banned and forbidden newspapers, magazines and books started republishing until the religious dictatorship took place then Savama was created that resembled Savak in different forms of oppression. "
May 9, 2007 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
i am aware of the shah's record. My perception of the mullahs is based on their religious authority the shah never had. Twisting the precepts of a religion to justify your garden-variety tyranny is more reprehensible to me. You might disagree. It's not the first time we've seen it. There is no question that when liberal reformers finally get control in that country, separation of religion and state will be a central tenent of their reforms.
Given what you know of this government, i'm curious why you seem flippant about their acquisition of nukes.
May 9, 2007 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nailed it!
May 9, 2007 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Howard don't overthink each post. There are only two accounts of a "nuclear attack" and they are Hiroshima and Nagasaki committed by a "democracy". None by a terrorist outfit.
If you consider DU not "nuclear" then you are at odds with the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and at odds with the IAEA.
http://www.state.gov/t/ac/trt/5079.htm
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/Others/inf274r1.shtml
The results of soil samples from several groups indicate that we have toxified the ground with radioactive ammunition from GulfWar I and Iraq War GWBII. We also did this in Kosovo.
The rise in cancer rates, miscarriages, and deformities is more than a meme or slogan.
The result is not much different than our work in Japan, where people were peeling their own skin off for a long time.
Additionally, meme expert, i'm quite aware that DU is used in non-military ways. But we are specifically discussing the usage in a military sense, and yes, this is the United States' new nuclear war, sans mushroom clouds.
Take a good look at the rise in malformations reported via the Basra hospital for effects after the first Gulf War.
May 9, 2007 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
thanks John.
They may still have a dictatorship, but I'm asking for evidence of this "dictatorship" because so far I haven't seen anything that indicates a "dictatorship".
Because "dictatorship" is being used to justify violence against these countries, I think its important to find distinctions of what a "dictator" is and is not.
I'm going to fall for the propagandistic utterances of "dictator" or "terrorist" after both have been so misused.
May 9, 2007 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Overthink"? Is that something like "use correct terminology and not overload the same word for everything eeevil?"
Correct. There have been two nuclear attacks, and, based on the information available to the US at the time, I consider the decision to have been moral and wise. Had, for example, the effect of the Zacharias broadcasts been known, or if there had been enough human intelligence to know that the peace faction might well have prevailed if they knew they could preserve the Emperor, it might have been quite a different matter.
I've read the DOWNFALL plans, and know what the US expected in terms of friendly and Japanese casualties. There's no such thing as a good war, but an attempt to break a deadlock or avoid a greater catastrophe is licit.
Let's take your references to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, Article I (both the State and IAEA links point to the same Convention text)
By definition, DU is depleted in U-233 and U-235. Further, Annex I defines three categories of nuclear material requiring protection. Annex II defines them, and--surprise!--DU is explicitly placed in a fourth category.
DU is not spring water. Fine powders of DU have chemical toxicity, and, especially when inhaled, are alpha-emitters that do not cause anything resembling a radiation sickness, but do increase the likelihood of cancer formation.
Many other chemicals increase the likelihood of poisoning or cancer, without the scare word "nuclear". Somewhat ironically, the US military is converting from lead bullets to a new type called "green" or "healthy". Lead is indeed a chemical poison with long persistence in the environment, but I don't think that being shot with a tungsten-based bullet is what I would call healthy.
Just as I believe that calling any large conventional explosive "WMD", as law enforcement organizations in the US increasingly do, broadening a term of art to cover everything bad makes the term meaningless.
If you wanted to discuss the hazard and mediation pf environmental pollution as a result of residues of battle, we might agree on things worth discussing. DU is certainly not the only such pollutant. By your insistence on using "nuclear" in an inaccurate way, you avoid having that discussion. You avoid a more general and useful discussion of the issues in damage to civilian infrastructure.
I would welcome, for example, a discussion of what to do in the real and complex situation where there was damage to the Iraqi water purification system as a result of attacks in 1991, much of it secondary to militarily licit attacks on an electrical power system. As opposed to the electrical grid in Lebanon, the Iraqi electrical grid played a major role in air defense. Still, a good deal of the targeting and weapons use against that electrical system was of a type that was expected to be fairly easy to repair.
For whatever reasons, Saddam chose not to repair those electrical and water/sewer systems, causing much civilian disease. His government never requested permission to import repair parts, or dual-use chemicals such as chlorine for water purification. Was that failure on his part grounds for UN action? Was there some other way to have corrected the public health problems that could have been corrected?
Similar health problems may happen as a result of Israeli attacks on Lebanese electrical systems. It is quite appropriate for international organizations to be proactive in being sure those repairs are made, whether or not Israel cooperates. I would support foreign aid to Lebanon from the US, directed at the repair of civilian infrastructure.
No, it's not the United States' new nuclear war, by any rational definition other than propaganda. Or, if you prefer, memes. Your "peeling their own skin off for a long time" is again inaccurate; the peeling of skin certainly was a direct result of the thermal effect of true nuclear blasts, but it is not a recognized long-term effect of DU or fallout products. If you wanted to discuss leukemia, you'd have some substance. Instead, you again use an inaccurate phrase presumably to be dramatic.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
May 9, 2007 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Howard, the context of my comment was in response to the following statement above:
Is it really necessary to point out to an adult that nukes are a hell of a lot more dangerous in the hands of a dictatorship -- any dictatorship -- than they are in the hands of any stable democracy?
I to the comment that only a "stable democracy" has used Nukes in history, even if you agree with that action, which I don't.
(sidenote: students don't learn about the Russian push thru Manchuria on Aug 8. If Japan was still so mighty, why didn't they defend their territory? what about the members of the SWC like Togo, Suzuki, and Yonai, who were advocating peace against Anami Umezu, and Toyoda? what about the fact that Hirohito supported Togo's approach)
The rest of your nitpik is a waste of your time overall, because you are in a false dispute. I'm not being very very literal that this is a "nuclear war" on any comparison to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Again the context is "dictatorships" vs "stable democracies".
I think its funny that you state I'm "avoiding" discussing other areas of destruction. You might as well accuse me of avoiding talking about Paris Hilton, Mickey Mouse, and Uranus, because I didn't mention them either.
Instead of spiking the football in your inzone, you might see that I am open to discussion on what is so, not what is believed. Do you have rational explanations for the gross deformities reported in the Basra hospital? The photos of children being terrifically malformed, could have been from some other cause, but the common statement is...this is the result of DU.
I also know several GulfWarI vets who are currently suing the government because they claim they are contaminated, and in some cases, they have confirmed that they have DU in their bone marrow and other effects.
The official military position is that DU is safe enough and harmless enough, but this is the same military that claimed many things that weren't true later once examined. (pat tillman)
Howard, what is it you most want to discuss? my supposed memes? I don't subscribe to slogans or memes. I don't believe in the "blood for oil" mantras. What next?
May 9, 2007 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
And howard,
I've been very impressed with your thinking, patient writing, and I agree that we should say what we mean, as others might be lead away from our message by fallacies or lazy threads. We really aren't in disagreement about what is happening in Iraq, and other very pressing issues. Where we disagree, we may find more than a singular view on the same topic, and both may be correct based on our personal moral grounds. but be clear that you've earned my respect thus far, even before the above posts. so please speak to fact, and let us not treat each other with bitter challenge. and..I don't like slogans.
chris
May 9, 2007 8:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not flippant about them having nukes; I am gravely concerned. Context is everything. Given what I know about the American government (we have as you know more nuclear weapons than any other country), I am gravely concerned about our having nuclear weapons. I would like to see real nuclear disarmament. Short of that, I note that North Korea's possession of nukes probably averted unilateral American action on N.Korea; I recall that when we had for a very short period a monopoly on nuclear weapons after WWII there were constant calls to nuke Russia and China from the extreme anti-communists (curiously branding GODLESS Communism as the worst evil the world had ever seen (or would ever see).Not unsimilar to your rhetoric except now it's (for you) the RELIGIOUS evil that is so exceptionally evil). If we want Iran to disarm we have to make it in their interest to do so; right now it is clearly in their interest to develop nuclear weapons. But I do not think that is a greater threat to the world and its future peace and stability than the neocon doctrine of unilateral military action, the bullying and dominating smaller nations by American self-anointed hegemonists (PNAC and its America Abroad supporters, Daalder, O'Hanlon, Beinart). I believe in international institutions and mutual compromise (to whatever extent possible) not because I am an idealist (I think I am) but because I am a pragmatist...the unilateralist, pre-emptive, dominating approach does not work, and it would be very dangerous to all if it did.
May 9, 2007 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I tried your link. It does not go anywhere. Do you have a date. I can get into the Baku Sun archives with a date I think.
May 9, 2007 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
do this google search and the link comes up that way: +khamenei+sudan
I'm sure you're aware it was the US the fostered and charted many of these international institutions, and they would not exist without our support. Unfortunately, we still do not have a global community dedicated to the principles inalienable human rights for all. When foreign leaders talk of a mulitpolar world, what they usually mean is they want America to ask for their input on foreign policy, while they pretty much do whatever they please.
I'll offer up Sudan, Rwanda, Bosnia, and Somalia as examples that internationalism doesn't work all that well either. There are over a million dead to prove me right.
By saying you are a pragmatist, you seem to be arguing for hegemony. There is nothing more brutally pragmatic than going it alone and deciding other nations aren't that relevant to our agenda.
May 10, 2007 8:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Shall we shake hands and try to resynchronize? For ease of reading, let me split my response into two parts, the first on general terminology and WMD, and the second on true nuclear warfare.
First, let me explain why I am strict on terminology. There are US law enforcement personnel that have placed "WMD" charges on a moderate quantity of conventional explosives. There are those that labeled the hijacked airliners on 9/11 as WMD. There are those that try to use terrorism statutes for clearly domestic issues, such as the Washington "Beltway Snipers".
My concern is that if everything is called WMD, or, more specifically, if everything that involves either radioactivity or the chemical properties of elements used in nuclear (i.e., fission, fusion, or at least something where isotopes, usually unstable, are involved). As I believe I said, I am perfectly willing to discuss environmental pollution as a result of warfare.
DU is a potential environmental pollutant. In 1991, there were definite low-level contaminations from what apparently were nerve agent stockpiles. There has been significant contamination from oil spills and deliberate releases.
How detailed do you want to get on DU? For example, I can readily accept DU in the lungs of people in the battle area. Since airborne DU is usually in the form of a uranium oxide, most likely triuranium octaoxide which is insoluble in water. I have a much harder time understanding how a presumably inhaled compound, insoluble in water, gets into bone marrow.
There is no question that DU can be a hazard. See the Department of the Army pamphlet on handling DU contaminated materials. This doesn't suggest that it is harmless. There is room for discussion of whether or not it is a major problem. I'd have to see the detailed medical records from Basra to form an opinion if DU is the cause. Unfortunately, anecdote is not the singular of valid data. My not having an explanation for cases I've never seen is not evidence, one way or the other, that DU is involved.
It is possible that next-generation antitank guns may not need the physical properties of DU, but, until they do, it's unlikely any military using such weapons will abandon DU.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
May 10, 2007 8:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Apropos of a democracy using or not using nuclear weapons, once there was actual experience with them, no political system of any type used them. Japan and Germany were working on them, and I haven't the slightest question they would have used one if available.
Please help me understand your point here, especially the timeline.
Are you speaking of events before or after Hirohito made the broadcast accepting the Potsdam Declaration, or even the Supreme War Council where he stated his position on August 13? If so, there is no better explanation of why there was no Japanese resistance, after the war faction plotters had gotten no answer from Anami on the 12th, then his directives surrounding his seppuku? IIRC, it was Takeshita and Hatanaka that proposed to issue orders in his name and others, and he forbade it. Anami accepted the surrender, and then answered with his life.
After reading the DOWNFALL documents, I've never been especially impressed that the nuclear attacks were to impress the USSR. I believe that the US command was looking for any way to avoid invasion and ground combat in Japan. Remember that Second General Army commanded the areas where the first invasion, CORONET, would hit, and its command post was Hiroshima Castle. There's a fairly clear cause and effect of wanting to decapitate the southern defense command.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
May 10, 2007 9:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the further info on the link. I did find it. No one can be absolutely certain of what real motives are or what goes on under the radar but the particular article you refer to is unambiguous about the context. It states explicitly:
"Ayatollah Khamenei answered the politeness by assuring his Sudanese colleague that Iran's nuclear technology would be made available to the Islamic world. Sudan and most Arab countries are signatory-states to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, making such a technology transfer legal if the purpose is the peaceful use of nuclear technology - not the development of bombs.
The Khartoum government already last month announced that Sudan needed to look for new energy sources, not excluding nuclear power. According to calculations done by the government of the oil-rich country, Sudan may experience an acute lack of power latest in about 25 years if other power sources are not developed."
While it is always wise to be skeptical about any assurances made by almost every politician in the world, Khamanei is also clear in the following BBC report of June 4 2006:
"In his speech on Sunday, marking the 17th anniversary of the death of his predecessor Ayatollah Khomeini, Ayatollah Khamenei said suggestions Iran was pursuing a nuclear weapons programme were a lie.
"We do not need a nuclear bomb. We do not have any objectives or aspirations for which we will need to use a nuclear bomb. We consider using nuclear weapons to be against Islamic rules," he said.
The Americans, with their frenzied propaganda, want to influence world public opinion. However, they haven't yet managed to do so
The ayatollah launched a scathing attack on the US, which he said was the most hated country in the world.
"How do you talk about human rights and opposition to terrorism when your government has prisons like Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib?" he asked. "
You also raise the point about the American role in establishing many of the key international institutions (ironically at the same time you indicate the failures of internationalism). I agree with both of the above (but not fully with your formulation). The foundation of the UN was a major accomplishment of world powers particularly the superpowers and adversaries the US and the USSR after the devastation of WWII. It is not ideal but in my opinion it has functionned pretty reasonably possibly better than expected. We got through the Cold War without another world war; apartheid was ended in South Africa; many smaller conflicts were contained; not that the UN by itself did all of the above, But it certainly helped in all these cases. It also tried to derail the US unilateral action in Iraq and that was very valuable to us as Americans now suffering from an unwantede and immoral military aggression launched by rogue leaders. Certainly we owe the UN thanks for trying to steer us away from a likely disastrous move... as opposed to the contempt and disdain we owe the poodle Blair and the British government for enabling and encouraging this despicable war.
I suspect if the US cooperated more fully and energetically with the UN and other international institutions they could be made to work better. By the way, the multilateralist approach is a response to the unilateralist military approach that initiated WWII (a point repeated today by Putin comparing US military action with Nazi aggression) so if you are tallying up the devastation that both approaches have created, do not forget to include all the numbers.
Your last paragraph is silly and nonsensical and beneath your otherwise clear arguments. Either work on the idea a little so it makes sense or let it go, as you like,
Finally coming back to Iran, I will make my position clear enough. I support a more serious nuclear disarmament effort starting here with the US; I think Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons (assuming they are pursuing them) is entirely understandable; having said that it is certainly worrisome; the only thing more worrisome is the aggressive saber-rattling emanating out of rabidly anti-Iranian sources.
May 10, 2007 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
lol, well i don't know if you're married but my point about hegemony can be analagous. Life is easier when you're single as opposed to having to consider someoene else's point of view and compromise, especially if you "hold all the cards" in the relationship like power and position. Hegemony is much easier and more pragmatic.
I'm puzzled about that link. It comes up as the third article in my search, but you could do a search for Khameini and Baku and get it as well. The Iranian regime lies to their own people on a daily basis. Nothing they say can be trusted with regard to sharing technology. I hope you don't actually believe anything he says.
Putin had a surprisingly good idea when he suggested an international enrichment center overseen by itn'l agencies. Any nation wanting fuel would be supplied by this center, and it eliminates the suspicion of cover for a weapons program. The fact is the int'l community has offered Iran a very generous package to give up enrichment PLUS they guaranteed them nuclear fuel. So, they get what they say they want and a lot more -- and they still turn it down. Very puzzling.
The parallels between Bush and Khameini is somewhat disturbing. Khameini throws out Abu Gharib to deflect the discussion of his own vile behavior. People were put on trial for that tragedy. In Iran, perpetrators of evil get a promotion. American citizens do not live in fear of being dragged off the street at any moment for something they said or what they are wearing. Comparing Bush to Saddam or Khaemeni is baffling. Anyone making that comparison is reading a broken moral compass. We have every right to denounce the evil taking place in Iran, North Korea or any other nation where people are brutally oppressed.
May 10, 2007 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
in general I find a tone of moral superiority (not for you personally, but for the reigning American outlook, so-called conventional wisdom, which you reflect) underlying your arguments. I think that this is quite common and has led to much of our present problems. I think American foreign policy in particular suffers greatly from the same sort of moral arrogance. It is often dressesd up in intellectual terms, but is seen through around the world as covering up hypocrisy and double standards. Anyway I find it frightening and I think a great threat to world peace. But I think we have taken our conversation as far as it can profitably go.
May 10, 2007 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm a member of Amnesty International. I didn't realize we were all just a bunch of self-righteous warmongers, until you pointed it out. All this time we thought we were speaking out for those who had no voice.
May 12, 2007 6:40 AM | Reply | Permalink