Another stunningly irrelevant post from a stunningly irrelevant poster.

Have your balls dropped yet?

Posted at March 29, 2008 3:32 PM in response to The Lost Decade

Yeah right. This is just another version of the "communism really really really does work! It just hasn't been done properly yet!"

Ideology can't fail. It can only be failed. So we pick ourselves up, and try harder, on the understanding that it was a lack of faith or some missing nuance, and that greater sincerity will do the job. And we throw more billions of dollars and millions of lives on the bonfire.

Rinse and repeat as often as necessary.

In the end, a bad idea is a bad idea.

Posted at March 29, 2008 3:30 PM in response to The Lost Decade

It strikes me that this essay is less about the relationship or lack thereof between Israel and Sri Lanka, it's not even particularly about Sri Lanka's civil war (exhibiting no insight whatsoever on that score), but mostly its about rehashing some years old book's conclusions about suicide bombers.

Amusing.

Even more amusing is that some posters, like Genghis seem to have completely failed to grasp the message in anything but the most superficial way. Instead, they remain committed to their failing narrative.

I guess its true what they say. You can lead a whore to culture, but you can't make her think.

Posted at March 29, 2008 11:25 AM in response to Israel, Sri Lanka and the War on Terror

I would rather that no one died in Iraq. But if I had to put it in order of priority, I'd put women, children, old men, noncombatant civilians all ahead of GI's.

Posted at March 20, 2008 2:50 PM in response to War? What War? (At least that’s how it looks from the J-Schools)

The focus should be on the states from which terrorists may acquire nuclear weapons and the material from which they can be made—namely, failing and rogue states.

Not inherently a bad premise.

On the other hand, I have to wonder, how likely is it that a terrorist group could build a nuclear weapon.

Let's get realistic here. It's not like building a hot rod. Saddam Hussein's regime spent ten years and billions of dollars and didn't quite get there. North Korea put in a major effort and wound up with a nuclear fizzle. There's lots of hysteria over nuclear weapons, but it strikes me that its profoundly, even laughably unlikely that a non-state, non-billion dollar transnational corporation, could manage to acquire the infrastructure, technology and materials that would allow them to constitute a nuclear weapon.

Terrorist organisations do not have the sort of unlimited resources and open ended access to technical information. They recognize this. They concentrate their efforts on simple, effective projects that maximize bang for buck. Like taking over a passenger jet with boxcutter knives and flying it into a building. They invest in suicide bombers rather than exotic stealth fighter jets.

Conceivably, its possible that a state that had nuclear weapons could give it to a terrorist group. On the other hand, why would a state do such a thing? Why give away a major asset that represents a massive investment, to a third party that is uncontrolled... particularly when that asset will inevitably be traced back, through its isotopes, to the creator country and then that's all she wrote... The only possible reasons to give such a weapon away are a total breakdown of the state, or the use of such a terrorist group as a delivery system.

It's more likely that a terrorist group could acquire the raw materials and create a dirty bomb. A conventional explosive laced with nuclear material. But that, despite its shock value, is an order of magnitude, perhaps several orders of magnitude less serious.

Thus, we currently need to worry much more about Pakistan and even Russia than, say, about the nuclear weapons of France or the Plutonium accumulated by Japan.

So... Is Russia a failing state or a rogue state.

Huh?

Who defines failing and rogue states anyway?

I dunno....

And Etzioni falls off the cliff!

And he does it spectactularly.

Yes, lets remove nuclear weapons from failing and rogue states!

We'll just phone up Mushareff and ask him for it, shall we?

I'm sure Kim Il Jong will be thrilled to turn over his.

Hence, we should adopt an overarching concept of deproliferation (or ‘rollback’), in which nuclear arms are removed for failing and rouge states rather

How?

than providing better security over such weapons, by better guarding them and by inspecting dual use assets to ensure that they used only for civilian purposes. Similarly, we need less reliance on safeguarding dangerous materials and more on blending them down, or removing them to safe-havens.

Magic ponies?

Accordingly, we need to immediately supplement and gradually replace the regime of inspections—which seeks to ensure that assets that can be used for both civilian and military purposes will be used only for civilian ones—with one that seeks the removal of all such assets and their replacement with assets such as LEU and light water reactors, which cannot be directly used to make nuclear arms.

Very nice.

There are important precedents for such a deproliferation approach in the removal of nuclear arms from Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine,

Former parts of the Soviet Union that had nuclear installations that they didn't actually want?

in past successes dealing with Libya,

Let's be serious. It was still in crates.

in the (yet to be tested) current progress dealing with North Korea,

Yet to be tested.

Nations leading such deproliferation efforts should be encouraged to proceed with all deliberate speed by offering nations of greatest concern various positive incentives,

Such as?

such as other sources of energy or support to convert or shut down facilities using HEU.

Ah, we're back to magic ponies.

Other sources of energy? Are we promising them oil and gas? To subsidize their oil and gas? Perhaps we'll build lots and lots and lots of hydro-electric stations. Maybe we'll just ship over lots of firewood. Windmills? Solar power cells?

Let's get serious.

If a nation is willing to put on the table its nuclear weapons program in exchange for a non-aggression treaty and other assurance that its government will not be overthrown by the use of force, as has been repeatedly reported that both Iran and North Korea suggested, this is a deal well worth exploring.

But what's George W. Bush's guarantee worth?

And really, what's the threat worth? We're going to bomb countries to save the world.

Here's where Etzioni gets insidious. What about these rogue and failed states that worried Etzioni so much... this is the beauty. He'll create them. States which do not cooperate will be rogue. They will then be reduced to failed states. That's what we're talking about with the threat of force and forcible overthrow.

The norm that condemns nations who set out to develop nuclear arms should be reinforced and not undermined. This is especially needed now as a new nuclear ‘itch’ is in evidence. Japan, several nations in the Middle East and several in Latin America (such as Brazil), are all reconsidering their nuclear postures.

This is based on what?

Oh never mind. So are these rogue states or failed states?

I strongly reject the notion that “good” governments can be trusted with nuclear arms. Any proliferation anywhere is a threat. All nations that are considering nuclear arms production should be persuaded and otherwise discouraged from pursuing such nuclear ambitions

Does this include existing nuclear states? Or does Etzioni restrict his ambition.

I dunno. Typical Etzioni. But kind of fun.

Posted at March 20, 2008 12:06 AM in response to Testimony Before the House, "Six Years Later: Innovative Approaches to Combating Terrorists."

Killing 10% of the Vietnamese population didn't work in Vietnam. Indeed, the rate of fatality in Vietnam may have been as high as 13 to 15%. It's more extravagant when you consider the mortality rate under the Japanese (as much as 10%, in part due to famine), and the Post-War French.

I don't know that there's a set number that we have to extirpate. But we probably got off pretty light with the Phillipines.

Posted at March 19, 2008 9:23 AM in response to Reports and Analysis

I tend to disagree that the history of colonial empires, such as the British, French and Dutch have much useful to offer in terms of the Iraq venture.

Instead, I'd argue that the period of European colonialism occurred during a period of historical fluke, in which the technological gulf, a gulf that included weapons, communication, transportation, commerce and forms of organization, between European societies and soon to be colonial ones was vast.

So, consistently, it was the extraordinarily strong preying upon the extraordinarily weak. Spain overrunning plague decimated stone or copper age societies in the New World in the beginning, and British gatling guns slaughtering Zulu armies in the end.

The picture is more complicated, of course. Indonesia and India were relatively advanced societies, though still backwards compared to European advantages. Still, Britain, France and the Netherlands did not so much overwhelm these states as take advantage of their political discords and insert themselves. As models go, this might be analogous to globalism and concepts of neocolonialism, but certainly it has nothing to do with Iraq.

Where European states went up against societies with comparable levels of organization and technology, the results were often unhappy.

Spain's colonial adventures in Europe, such as in the low countries, failed spectacularly even while succeeding in the New World.

Indeed, the record showed that wherever the playing field started to even up in any substantive way, things started to go south pretty dramatically.

The Haitians were able to throw out the French in 1804. Spain's latin America possessions broke away in 1820, and with the exception of Mexico... neither Spain nor any other European state was ever able to reassert control... the playing field was just too level.

The only efforts that were partially successful - the United States and then Frances depredations on Mexico illustrated the strengths and weaknesses. The United States used technological and organizational superiority to successfully rape away hinterland territories. On the other hand, France was able to use the same technological and organizational superiority to temporarily take over Mexico, but it wasn't able to hold it in the face of a determined insurgency. By the time the US Civil War ended, the French were about to throw in the towel. The writings of French commanders in that theatre are occasionally quite reminiscent of those from Iraq. Juan Cole might be better served studying the adventures of another Napoleon in a different land of Pyramids.

Lagging but organized states were able to consistently resist European colonialism. In the 19th century, both the Italians and French failed dramatically in Abyssinia. Thailand, Japan and Persia avoided colonial subjugation, as did China (with compromises). Islamic mediterranean societies mostly held out until the late 19th and early 20th century, and were often the most restive. The British occupation of Iraq commenced 1918 and immediately ran into trouble.

Essentially, the closer the technological gulf became, the less effective was colonialism.

Today there's an immense technological gulf between Iraq's resistance with its IED's, rockets, mortars, suicide bombers, RPG's and Kalalshnikov's on the one side... and armour, air superiority and stealth fighters on the other.

But it's not nearly as wide as it appears. For one thing, America's advantages are incredibly expensive. Those stealth fighters cost as much as if they were made from solid gold. On the other hand, Iraq's resistance technology is incredibly cheap. Factor that into each side's effectiveness, and things flatten out dramatically.

Moreover, the sharp or killing edge of the technological gulf only tells a part of the story. Such things as cell phones, photocopiers, computers, techniques of organization, dissemination of information, planning, communication and local transportation mean that in crucial areas there is very little gulf.

The European colonial era had many astonishing successed. But it also had its share of humiliating failures. Ultimately, the question is, how close is the resemblance to those humiliating failures...

Pretty close, I'd say, in far too many respects.

Posted at March 19, 2008 9:18 AM in response to Reports and Analysis

Okay, I'm not sure how you feel that this is contentious in any way. Your comments are thoughtful and finely balanced, and you're not pushing any specific form of conclusion. The principal subtext of your discussion seems to be an urge to consider the situation with more nuance and less heat.

That's always welcome.

Posted at March 18, 2008 1:44 PM in response to Reports and Analysis

For the record, let me give you all the short version. Polk is selling a foreign policy panacea, as people of his class are wont to do. Polk had previously tried to sell it directly to Clinton's administration, several months previous, but Clinton didn't buy. Polk now attempts to sell to the public, or anyone willing to read it.

And what is Polk's foreign policy panacea? Cutting to the chase, Polk argues that Saddam Hussein cannot be gotten rid of and will continue to be a bad guy. However, he can be dealt with, particularly through his fear of Iran. Polk's solution is to sponsor a regional wmd free zone and guarantee the security of all borders. Polk also argues for ameliorating sanctions and bombing in order to improve the lives of Iraqi people and allow for the creation of incentives.

At the end of the day, it's pretty thin gruel. Workable perhaps, with various caveats. I really don't understand how Israel fits into his wmd free zone. But his heart is in the right place.

But before we get there, Polk puts on a whole dog and pony show, citing the political history of Saddam Hussein (warlike), his personal character (bad), his goals (world domination or some equivalent, basically evil for the sake of evil), the current situation (untenable obviously, since the whole point of his article is to argue for a new policy. He can't very well say it's satisfactory.) and the pursuit of wmd's (relentless and unstoppable).

Polk reviews various options for dealing with Saddam Hussein, to greater or less insight.

For instance, option 1 is assassinating Hussein. Which at first seems like a great idea, but it turns out that its difficult, illegal, immoral and probably wouldn't get a better regime in Iraq.

The second and third options are weapons inspections and sanctions. What was being done at the time, and what was actually working. What the evidence of the day showed was working. What turns out to have worked extraordinarily well. Polk assures us that these are not viable options because a) Saddam will not be deterred, he's baaaaaaad! and b) The US lacks the will power to keep it up.

Sadly, it's not the most persuasive part of Polk's paper, even at the time it was written. In hindsight of course, it was utterly and hideously wrong, substituting the received wisdom of beltway scuttlebutt for anything that might have actually involved actual critical thinking.

In a nutshell, Polk acknowledges that nothing is found. But he claims biological weapons can be made in a kitchen, nuclear weapons components can be bought at Home Depot, and Saddam is a baaaaad guy who has lots of strategic reasons to want wmds. In terms of his weapons claims... scary nonsense. His geostrategic analysis... unsophisticated.

In the end, Polk attributes the absence of evidence to the inherent duplicity of Saddam Hussein and of the Iraqi people, even of the arab nature...

There's a couple of little bon mots which is worth plucking out and putting up on display:

... from many accounts, cheating is a patriotic duty for Iraqis. ....I suggest that duping the arms inspectors may be the most popular single activity of Saddam's regime, not only among his own people but probably also among disaffected Arabs in other lands.

Because all Arabs are subject to arms inspectors, doncha know. Ah, the condescending prejudice of the American thinking class in the morning, it smells like... bullshit.

Now if you ask me, these passages go right up to the border of outright racism. On the other hand, if you were to ask an Arab or an Iraqi, he might be of the opinion that they go well past that borderline, and are flatly racist. Decide for yourself. Me, I'm content to call it superficial and condescending.

But let's return to our discussion of Polk's main argument on this point. Because Iraq is so naturally duplicitous, the absence of evidence of wmds is really proof of wmds. Yes folks, like so many in America's thinking class, Polk has disappeared up his own sphincter, and is now sending out postcards.

Anyway, option 4 is invading and occupying Iraq, which Polk predicts to be a quagmire, although he doesn't quite get how much of one it turned out to be. Still, I'll give him points for this obvious insight. And he does note that the Iraqi exiles, Chalabi, Allawi etc., might be less popular than they claimed.. not a big stretch, but I'll give it to him.

Option 5 is Isolation. Which is a total non-starter doncha know.

Which takes us merrily round to Polk's magical solution, which I spoke of at the beginning and he saves to the end.

Absent from Polk's narrative is any mention of a connection between Iraq and terrorism, or Iraq and Al Quaeda, largely because there wasn't one and everyone knew it. So this hardly gives one insight into the post 9/11 American narrative.

On the other hand, Polk's 'solution' speaks to a broader narrative of regional transformation and enlightenment, guaranteeing security, reducing fear and aggression, improving lives and through this project liberalizing and modernizing the region.

Bush's post 9/11 'solution' for the region also envisions regional transformation, but this is achieved through violent invasion, supporting terrorists, efforts at regime change, endless threats, sanctions, fear, aggression and punishment. On the surface of it, there's not much resemblance to Polk. And even viewed through the lens of 9/11 it doesn't seem all that rational, but there you go.

So what are we to make of Polk's writing then and now based on two articles mentioned? It's remarkable how utterly conventional it is. The man speaks, not simply the obvious, but the commonplace. In short, the articles can be relied upon in to simply voice whatever opinions are commonplace at the time of writing. Voice of the elite, with all that is good and bad implied therein.

Still, this is hardly a survey of the entirety of the man's work, and even the immortal Babe Ruth flubbed a few swings.

Posted at March 18, 2008 11:03 AM in response to So Wrong For So Long, So Why Change Now?

ROTFL

TPMCAFE is part of the U.S. media, dummy,

What a class act, all the way. LOL.

PS: My html was correct. ;)

Posted at March 18, 2008 10:13 AM in response to So Wrong For So Long, So Why Change Now?