Whom do you trust? (or, how the NIE learned to stop worrying and love…)
The best analyses of the new NIE report on the Iranian “now we see it, now we don’t” bomb can be found at Richard Fernandez’s Belmont Club. Please take a look at any and/or all of them: this, this, and this.
Oh, and you can add this American Thinker article to your reading list, too. Then come back here if you’re not too exhausted.
Highlights of Fernandez’s thoughts on the subject are hard to summarize; almost everything he writes is a highlight. He makes the interesting point that, if Iran did indeed stop its bomb development program back in 2003 (and it is by no means certain that it did), the most likely precipitating factor would have been the invasion of Iraq. In addition, the report itself indicated that the new information leading to the NIE’s conclusions may have been a psychops by the Iranians. And, if it was not, and if we do have a reliable source high in the Iranian government, Fernandez wonders whether the gratuitous publication of some of the details as to how that intelligence was obtained has compromised the safety of that person.
Oh, but who cares, if there’s a good story, and if it appears to hurt Bush? Well worth it.
If you detect a tone of bitterness in my voice, it’s because I’m tired of the politically motivated release of classified information. If you don’t know what I’m talking about, this is what Fernandez has to say about the fact that the report was based on notes obtained “from the deliberations of Iranian military officials involved in the weapons development program:”
Hmmm. The US has a source who has access to the minutes of meetings by Iranian military officials “involved in the weapons development program”. How many persons had this access? Thousands, hundreds? Or maybe a half dozen whose names are on an Iranian counterintelligence list now?
To get to more basic questions: why should we trust this report more than the previous ones? I haven’t a clue, actually. There doesn’t seem to be a compelling reason to do so, except that some people would like it to be true, both because it would make the world a safer place and because it would embarrass George Bush (some people think those two constitute a redundancy). Some also think it would prove the triumph of diplomacy to effect this sort of change, but that makes no sense because—even if the report is true—the most likely reason for the program halt would appear have been the warning involved in the invasion of Iraq.
I have no idea whether this report is true, but I must say I find it less than compelling. My opinion on the general subject of intelligence about nuclear weapons was actually formed earlier, as an aftermath of the Iraq War and the WMD flap afterwards.
One of the most negative results of that sequence of events has been the undermining of confidence in intelligence in general. Whether the intelligence indicates that a certain belligerent country has a nuclear program or does not have one, it is logical to think that most of us have lost some basic sense of trust in the intelligence community’s knowledge on the subject.
Of course, the nature of this sort of intelligence is that it often tends to be iffy. It must be exceedingly difficult to penetrate the inner circles of a country such as Saddam’s Iraq or the ayatollahs’ Iran and obtain the truth. Intelligence is by its nature often partly guesswork, relying on sources that might not be reliable; for example, there is always the possibility of double agents and the like, even in conventional spying. And neither Saddam nor the ayatollahs have stayed in power so long by being dumb about this sort of thing.
Unfortunately, there can be enormous consequences for getting it wrong—in either direction. The penalty for a false positive is an attack, or even a war, that is built at least partly on false premises (although, as I’ve said many times, I think the Iraq War was multidetermined, and that the existence or nonexistence of a functioning nuclear program there was not as utterly vital a factor as war foes make it out to be. But I’m putting that aside here, for the sake of argument).
And what’s the penalty for a false negative? Millions of innocents dead, and the ability of a regime like Iran to intimidate neighbors who lack a bomb—and, quite possibly (if the bomb is used), an ever-escalating series of retaliations that decimate the region and make it radioactive for generations to come.
A rather high-stakes game, don’t you think?
One of the benefits of having been blogging for over two years is that many important issues that come up are ones I’ve visited before. So please read this effort of mine on the subject. I think the following is as true today as when I first wrote it, back in May of this year:
One of the many goals of the Iraq War was to serve notice to those who would play threatening Saddam-like games with the international community and/or the US that there would hereafter be a risk to such machinations; such threats would be taken seriously. The idea was that the Iraq war would have the side benefit of having a deterrent effect on others with agendas similar to Saddam’s. This worked for a while; for example, it seems to have been part of Gaddafi’s motivation to get with the program. But subsequent events in this country, including what’s happening in Congress right now and the irresolute message it sends, have utterly removed that effect.
Now that we can possibly add the mullahs to Gaddafi as having been deterred in their nuclear programs by the Iraq War, we can also say that subsequent events in this country—including the release of the findings of this recent NIE report—would tend to give a very warm glow to those very same mullahs, amplified by the warm glow of the uranium that is still being enriched in their facilities.
[NOTE: The title of this post comes from this.]
Wasn’t there an Iranian agent that was previously involved with their nuclear program that defected recently? I seem to remember that his information was a bit dated. Could he be the source?
We need a cultural shift regarding interpretation of intelligence reports generally. The movies lead us to believe that such reports are Holy Writ; the more appropriate standard is probably “more likely than not.” The odds on the validity of a report’s conclusions are not 99:1, but probably more like 60:40, bearing in mind the other side is doing its level best to obfuscate the issues.
Here, as you say, neo, having to make a literal life-or-death decision on a 60:40 proposition must be nerve-wracking. Why anyone wants to be President baffles me.
Four year ex post facto high confidence estimates which contradict interim estimates cannot do anything but discredit any estimates, especially contemporaneous estimates – which I had apparently wrongly assumed to be the point of having “Intelligence” to begin with.
But while this NIE serves well to discredit itself, still it does function to stimulate people like Wretchard, et al, to produce some very insightful thoughts on our current predicaments. So my thanks go out to the Intelligence Community for their NIE, at least on that score – and probably only on that score.
But somehow, the “outing” of Valery Plame was a dangerous breach of national security. I guess this works if your priorities are party first, America a distant second.
Great post, Neo. I never miss Fernandez.
I’m wondering if you feel the same sense of deja vu that I do … especially thinking back to the Baker-Hamilton report of about a year ago. Then, as now, the report of the “experts” was so nakedly pessimistic and accommodationist that it effectively made the case for the opposite course of action.
Reports that back the democrats are important and right… that do not back democrats, they’re created by ‘the man’ / right wing CIA guys.
I think it is possible that it is true, but until and unless the Iranians do what Gaddafi did and work with the international community in an open manner…we just have to keep doing what we are doing. We have to assume they are up to no good, and keep the pressure on them. But I don’t think a military strike is likely. And I am not so sure that is a bad thing. The American people are in no mood for it, bomb or no bomb.
If you detect a tone of bitterness in my voice, it’s because I’m tired of the politically motivated release of classified information.
Such is the price of having a domestic insurgency and not smashing it when you could.
It is also why Fallujah was the price of not exerting American forcefullness and excellence for fear of being called “Imperialists”.
The price is almost never paid by the leaders in power. The price is almost always paid by the powerless and the ones that actually have to slop up the mess left by the politicians.
The odds on the validity of a report’s conclusions are not 99:1
Desk jockey reports are always mostly useless. You need the assessment of the operators on the ground, not back in DC smoking joints and hiring prostitutes.
Was it Reagan that said “Trust but verify.” I like the verify part, particularly since the Iranian gvmt doesn’t.
What does this video say about Iran’s motivation and honesty
http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/805.htm
Transcript
http://www.memritv.org/clip_transcript/en/805.htm
This is just the beginning of the clip/transcript:
The following are excerpts from an interview withIranian chief negotiator on nuclear affairs, and member of the Iranian Supreme Council for National Security Hosein Musavian, which aired on Iranian Channel 2 on August 4, 2005
Musavian: Those (in Iran) who criticize us and claim that we should have only worked with the IAEA do not know that at that stage — that is, in August 2003 — we needed another year to complete the Esfahan (UCF) project, so it could be operational. They say that because of that 50-day (ultimatum), we should have kept (the UCF) in Esfahan incomplete, and that we needed to comply with the IAEA’s demands and shut down the facilities.
The regime adopted a twofold policy here: It worked intensively with the IAEA, and it also conducted negotiations on international and political levels. The IAEA gave us a 50-day extension to suspend the enrichment and all related activities. But thanks to the negotiations with Europe we gained another year, in which we completed (the UCF) in Esfahan.
[…]
There was a time when we said we would not work with Europe, the world, or the IAEA, and that we would not comply with any of their demands. There were very clear consequences: After 50 days, the IAEA Board of Governors would have undoubtedly handed the Iranian dossier over to the (U.N.) Security Council. There is no doubt about it. As for those who say we should have worked only with the IAEA — this would have meant depriving Iran of the opportunity to complete the Esfahan project in the one-year extension.
harry9000 Says:
“December 7th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
But somehow, the “outing” of Valery Plame was a dangerous breach of national security. I guess this works if your priorities are party first…”
valery worked her desk job in the iraq section for quite some time, indicative of the marginal state of our intelligence in iraq and the intelligence beuracracy in general…. what a fantasy world the democrats would have us live in, until like 911 it blows up in our face…..
“intelligence” is pretty much always iffy – even if they included a 100% accurate estimate of how likely the stuff is to be true (that is, when they classify something 60/40 it actually comes in at being around that ratio over time) it *still* wouldn’t matter. Many, if not most people read no further than to see if some part of the print agrees with their idea of the world and then they walk off comforted knowing they are “correct”. Add in that the media (on nearly every single side) doesn’t report things like how confident the reports are.
I rather suspect that the report is true but the one liner catchphrase of the report isn’t. In fact, the substance of the report isn’t terribly different from the last one – which the same people who say this one is perfectly on tract said the other is totally wrong, the ones that agree with the last say “lets give it some time and see, we hope”. Go figure, one side is only about being politically correct and the other actually cares if they are correct in the real world.
It says they halted it in around 2003 but have kept it at the ready to go again when they feel the political climate will not get them wiped off the face of the earth. The last report headlined the latter part of the conclusion, this one the former, and it makes for the opinions on the report quite funny (if we can even call them that – they are simply opinions on the world and the report is irrelevant).
No change whatsoever, other than now we may give them the political environment wherein they can make the thing and send a really large mushroom cloud up in some other place. Then, of course, those that are currently telling us that the Iranians are safe cuddly little kittens will try and convince us (and will convince the True Believers) that those evil conservatives should have taken care of it, never mind that the liberals wouldn’t let them and fervently hope that everyone else forgets that they were the main ones blocking it.
The leak of the NIE enables Iran to restart its nuclear weapons prgram if it so chooses. (Note that Iran’s nuclear program has never stopped.)
The Arbiter of Truth (the NYT) has declared that Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons. This will be accepted as common knowledge until there is a small seismic event coincident with the breathless announcement of Iran’s successful nuclear test. I won’t even try to predict the outcome if that occurs.
Wretchard is a treasure. His “throwaway” lines in the comments are often incredible gems. Tonight he compared the Left to vaporware, asked if religion was vaporware as well, and then said, “That’s why the hallmark of any true religion, political philsophy or software product for that matter, is not necessarily perfection but a positive product in the here and now…That the truly divine must leave a faint shadow of goodness upon the world. That the Redeemer must suffer the little children to come unto him; not send them across a minefield to clear a path; that the real Redeemer should die for our sins; not order us kill for the spread of his name. For unless He brought a little heaven to earth, what would we have but vaporware? What would he be but a father of lies?”
Later, he said, “The real test of faith is to understand that you’re not in control and look forward to life anyway.”
The report does not seriously address the question of why Iran would spend huge amounts of money on a nuclear program if its intentions were peaceful. From a strictly economic point of view, the money would be much better spent on oil-fed process plants–refineries, plastics manufacturing, chemicals. **At a minimum,*** Iran is buying itself a “real option” to move quickly from fuel encrichment to bomb assembly.
During the 1930s, when Germany was forbidden to develop an air force, it aggressively developed civilian aviation through the encouragement of giding as a sport, as well as airline expansion. A glider pilot can become a military pilot much more rapidly than someone off the street; this is even more true of an airline pilot. The present situation in Iran is similar.
More here:
http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/was-president-bush-behind-nei-report_08.html
Keep on ’em, Neo!
It might be worth looking a little more closely at the portions of the report we can access. First, just to put its conclusions in its own context, here’s how it explains some of its own rough measures of accuracy:
Given that, here are some of its current “judgments”:
Compare these judgments with those of just two years ago — that is, 2005, not 2003 — for a sense of how even “high confidence” assessments can shift:
“Assess with high confidence that Iran
currently is determined to develop nuclear
weapons despite its international
obligations and international pressure, but
we do not assess that Iran is immovable. “
Later, he said, “The real test of faith is to understand that you’re not in control and look forward to life anyway.”
That would be suicidal for the Left, given national socialism, communism, and democratic socialism’s need to force people into cooperating for the greater good.
Imaging how relieved Powell must be this morning that he didn’t go in front of the U.N. General Assembly and claim that Iran is actively pursuing a nuclear weapons program.
The latest National Intelligence Estimate on Iran only covers its nuclear intentions and capabilities, but one suspects that another estimate that debunks the Iran arming/training Iraqi insurgents myth will follow shortly. Porter decisively refuted administration claims on that score in September 2007. In a nutshell, the “evidence” consists of:
http://zenhuber.blogspot.com/
Carolyn Glick’s important latest, find and read the rest of this if you have time, i’ve quoted one paragraph here:
Dec 6, 2007 23:04 | Updated Dec 7, 2007 15:50
Column One: The abandonment of the Jews
By CAROLINE GLICK
“For their part, the Iranians are celebrating the NIE’s publication as a major victory. And they are right to do so. With the stroke of a pen the US this week has let it be known that it doesn’t have a problem with Iran acquiring the means to carry out the second genocide of the Jewish people in 70 years.”
This article is just as profound:
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/7603
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2007/12/atlas-in-israel.html
United States: State Sponsor of Judeophobia
by Pamela Geller
A terrible line was crossed at Annapolis.
Last week, a line was crossed. A terrible line was crossed at Annapolis. With the world looking on, the President of the United States sponsored Judeophobia. Jew-hatred was okay, understandable even.
Under the auspices of a global “peace” conference, the White House sanctioned Jew-hatred. The Jew is contemptible, inferior, ignorant, politically and socially disenfranchised: separate entrance ways, service entrances for the Jews, refusal to touch or shake hands with a Jew, refusal of audience members to wear the translation earphones when Ehud Olmert spoke.
It seems to me that the press and popular view of the NIE is amazingly simplistic and in the end has less to do with a Iranian project being stopped than it reflects the Iranian mind set of husbanding resources in a logical way that will result in a bomb at the right time. The “how to” part of making a bomb is amazingly simple and the almost cook book, widely disseminated and readily available for anyone interested in making a bomb. The bomb mechanism can be any of several designs and materials. The Iranians, more technological than scientific, could have acquired a desin or designs from Pakistan, the rouge Russians, North Koreans, or the internet.
But to get that bomb to work, there needs to be an adequate amount of fissionable material available.
This is where the Iranians were delayed. Secondly, they need a delivery method. The Iranians are processing the fissionable material now in ever increasing amounts. They also now have a means to get the bomb to a target–mid-range rockets (accuracy is of less important with a nuke and anywhere within a 3 mile area is sufficient for destruction).
I suspect the Iranians made the choice to wait on the easiest part of the equation, building the actual warhead. They need fissionable material and that is the most difficult part of the program. A missile to carry the warhead was next on their list. They have given up on thinking about carrying a weapon in aircraft (survival would be zero for Iranian aircraft), and they have no cruise missile capability. So, now they have the rocket; next is the fissionable material (2-3 years) and then the bomb itself, or more likely 3-5 bombs as well as more chemical warheads. they will go with a mixed attack, 1 nuke and several chemical, likely masked by the nuke, but very lethal.
The Iranian action is not stoppage, I suggest, but sequencing to maximize effort and expense.
And what’s the penalty for a false negative? Millions of innocents dead, and the ability of a regime like Iran to intimidate neighbors who lack a bomb–and, quite possibly (if the bomb is used), an ever-escalating series of retaliations that decimate the region and make it radioactive for generations to come.
Hyperbole and baseless speculation frequently go hand and hand. As you yourself say, what’s the penalty for a false positive? The war in Iraq. And yet this provides no incentive to not go rushing into another war over exactly the same issue. Incredible. Incidentally, this report probably was released because opponents of the hawks gained the upper-hand in the administration, and they probably did so because the intelligence was extremely convincing. I suppose it does give the “mad mullahs” a warm glow, knowing they and their people won’t be bombed for something they don’t have.
Anyway guys, the pell-mell rush to bomb Iran is dead. I’d advise you to get over it. After all, we can always bomb Pakistan or somebody or somesuch.
That would be suicidal for the Left, given national socialism, communism, and democratic socialism’s need to force people into cooperating for the greater good.
That’s interesting, as it wasn’t “democratic socialism” that employed the tools of propaganda to oversell the war in Iraq, for the purpose of convincing Americans of the necessity of preserving our national security…or the “greater good”, as it were.
The price is almost never paid by the leaders in power. The price is almost always paid by the powerless and the ones that actually have to slop up the mess left by the politicians.
Y, I don’t know how it’s possible for you to write some of the things you do without triggering some critical mass of irony that obliterates you where you sit. You are aware that what you wrote there, is exactly what I could have written about people having to clean up the mess in Iraq, right? Which implies that what you write isn’t actually supportive of your point about “smashing” the domestic “insurgency”, right?
Anyway, you will succeed in destroying domestic political opposition when you can convince a majority of Americans that fighting endless wars that are justified by a variety of shifting rationales, is actually good for our country. Good luck with that, I say.
“For their part, the Iranians are celebrating the NIE’s publication as a major victory. And they are right to do so. With the stroke of a pen the US this week has let it be known that it doesn’t have a problem with Iran acquiring the means to carry out the second genocide of the Jewish people in 70 years.”
Shorter: “Despite the fact that Iran isn’t actively trying to acquire nuclear weapons…we must do everything in power to prevent Iran from actively trying to acquire nuclear weapons.”
Honestly, some of you guys just don’t know what to do with yourselves if there isn’t someone to bomb.
X: … and they probably did so [that is, the “hawks” “probably” “gaining the upper hand in the administration”] because the intelligence was extremely convincing.
X just a sentence or two earlier: Hyperbole and baseless speculation frequently go hand and hand.
I’d say ’nuff said, and leave it at that, if I didn’t think it were necessary to make explicit the nature and direction of the “baseless speculation” in which X indulges here — he clearly would base decisions about our country’s security and future on a rosy hope that current estimates are too dark, rather than on preparation for the possibility that they’re too light.
Hope is fine, certainly, but it’s no substitute for clear-eyed and skeptical realism, when basic security is at stake.
X: Honestly, some of you guys just don’t know what to do with yourselves if there isn’t someone to bomb.
Well, some of you guys wouldn’t know what to do with yourselves if there wasn’t someone you could flee from, surrender to, or prostrate yourself before.
X’s concern is to make sure he gets emotional satisification by engaging in the tactics of an obnoxious school girl.
gloating
>Anyway guys, the pell-mell rush to bomb Iran is dead. I’d advise you to get over it. After all, we can always bomb Pakistan or somebody or somesuch.
Hyperbolic fiction
>That’s interesting, as it wasn’t “democratic socialism” that employed the tools of propaganda to oversell the war in Iraq
Category error
>Anyway, you will succeed in destroying domestic political opposition when you can convince a majority of Americans that fighting endless wars that are justified by a variety of shifting rationales, is actually good for our country
Sanctimonious incredulity
>Honestly, some of you guys just don’t know what to do with yourselves if there isn’t someone to bomb.
those that are currently telling us that the Iranians are safe cuddly little kittens …
And who would that be? I suspect that, with a lot of web surfing and delving deep into You Tube, one might be able to find a clip of some clueless coed with neo-hippy, anarchist leanings making a comment about what a hottie Ahmadinejad is; “Oooo, he’s so cute, I wanna cuddle him like my kitty cat.” Otherwise I don’t think anyone is leaping to the mistaken notion that, because the new NIE has a revised opinion about the current state of the suspected Iranian atomic weapons program, the Iranians are therefore no longer a threat to the stability of the ME and western interests there.
Rather it will be argued that Iranian A-bomb aspirations are sufficiently less developed than previously feared and thus should not become the justification for widening the military theater in the ME to include Iran.
The report does not seriously address the question of why Iran would spend huge amounts of money on a nuclear program if its intentions were peaceful. From a strictly economic point of view, the money would be much better spent on oil-fed process plants—refineries, plastics manufacturing, chemicals.
Perhaps they think, recognizing that oil is a finite resource and that the world may well be on the cusp of rapid changes in its preferred energy systems, it would make sense to hedge their domestic energy needs bets by diversifying. Seems I’ve heard the same argument from the Bush administration for reviving the moribund domestic atomic energy program here in the U.S. An Iranian atomic power program would not only allow Iran to use less oil domestically, but they could also limit the amount of their oil being sold on the world market. This would both increase its value now and give Iran greater amounts of untapped oil for the future when, presumably, the value would skyrocket.
Absent attractive carrots, credible sticks eventually lose their effectiveness. If all the west offers Iran are punishments and no rewards, won’t they be pushed further into an isolation that strengthens rather than weakens the hold of extremists there? Is that in our long term interests?
Iran is eschatologically motivated. There is nothing anyone can do to get them to stop other than through force.
Perhaps they think, recognizing that oil is a finite resource and that the world may well be on the cusp of rapid changes in its preferred energy systems, it would make sense to hedge their domestic energy needs bets by diversifying.
Maybe they’re worried about global warming. /sarc
You can’t possibly really believe that Iran’s determined push to produce fissile material comes from prudent economic risk management.
How can you square that view with their frothing-at-the-mouth pronouncements about wiping out Israel? And how exactly do you think they propose to wipe out Israel?
I have every confidence that the current leadership in Iran would love to enter the nuclear club. Just as there are other countries, some whom we like, some whom we loathe, who might also be interested in joining. Since the nuclear genie was released the push/pull has been how much to attempt putting the genie back in the bottle (nuclear disarmament and anti-proliferation efforts along with backing away from building nuclear power plants) versus how to exploit and grow nuclear options, both as weapons and for peaceful purposes, while attempting to limit the nuclear club.
The questions in terms of Iran then become: How far along are they in which areas of their quest? How can we slow them down and, hopefully, keep them from ever acquiring nuclear weapons? Can we (if possible) get them to voluntarily to end their weapons program? When (if ever) should we use military attacks to accomplish this goal by force?
How can you square that view with their frothing-at-the-mouth pronouncements about wiping out Israel?
Sounds like the way ol’ Nikita banged his shoe on the table at the U.N. when the U.S.S.R. was going to bury us, back in the “missile gap” days when the NIE of the day thought we were behind in the nuclear arms race. Turned out we were way ahead, but hawks of the day thought we should go for broke and take out the soviet nukes. I, for one, think I prefer the way things went to how they might have gone had we decided to push the first button. Israel is generally thought to have nukes as does Pakistan. Iran has long been one of the dominant powers in the region and is anxious to keep that position. Putting on a good “game face” is often an attractive tactic for the player with the weakest hand.
The non-clerical governmental leadership in Tehran must be able to both rally street support and keep on the good side of the religious leadership. Making florid speeches about pushing Israel into oblivion accomplishes that. Answering them with nothing but bellicosity on our side only strengthens their hand in this regard.
As for the economics of atomic energy and oil, just because there are religious zealots at the helm it doesn’t mean there are not many, many sophisticated and intelligent Iranians fully capable of making sense out of long term energy trends and making decisions accordingly.
“Fissile is a bad term that brainess former Energy Secretary O’Leary (I reacall that is her name), seems to have introduced. The term is more at home talking about rocks such as slate or shale and usually refers to layers along which rocks split. “Fission” and it modifiers is a better term and accurate.The intent is to describe fissionable material not fissile material.
On another matter, it is Iran’s intent to do in Israel and has been oft stated. Similarly, Norman Podhoretz is correct in stating that MAD does not work with the Iranian islamofascists–the State has little interest for them and is only a vehicle for establishing the Caliphate. It is the islamofasicst take on the Marxist whithering away of the State and besides, all who are lost will find paradise anyway.
There nukes with only modest yield will effectively end Israel (of course the fallout will take out the West Bank and Gaza, parts of Lebanon and Jordan, and even impact Syria. Israel is totally vunerable because of it size, less than 1% of the Saharan and West Asian Middle East.
The rockets to do it exist in the Iranian arsenal, and only sufficient FISSIONABLE material to make the 3-5 warheads are needed. 1-3 years for the material and another year for the warhead, especially if the design is via Pakistanian or Russian sources. With 5, two rockets can stray and 3 will work.
Sounds like the way ol’ Nikita banged his shoe on the table at the U.N. when the U.S.S.R. was going to bury us, back in the “missile gap” days when the NIE of the day thought we were behind in the nuclear arms race.
So you take their threats as bluster, then? You may be right.
Then again, you may be wrong.
In the circumstances, it seems that the prudent course is to take the threats at face value, because the consequences of being wrong are so catastrophic.
Donald: sorry, my bad. I hadn’t known the etymology of the word, and thought it was technically correct.
How far along are they in which areas of their quest?
That’s what the latest NIE attempted to assess, and concluded that they’d be able to produce a nuclear device or devices at some point between 2009 and 2015.
How can we slow them down and, hopefully, keep them from ever acquiring nuclear weapons?
It’s clear now, if it wasn’t before, that this regime does respond to threats and overt displays of military force — like thugs everywhere, that may be the one thing they do respond to.
Can we (if possible) get them to voluntarily to end their weapons program?
Only if they voluntarily change their basic nature, which is highly unlikely short of a basic regime change.
When (if ever) should we use military attacks to accomplish this goal by force?
Never, of course, if you’re a pacifist — like Gandhi, who thought that the Jews should all have just gone peacefully into the gas chambers. For everyone else — who, after all, are the only reason it’s still possible for pacifists to exist — we should use military force to accomplish this goal as soon as it’s clear that the threat of force is no longer dissuasive.
In the circumstances, it seems that the prudent course is to take the threats at face value, because the consequences of being wrong are so catastrophic.
Exactly as argued by those who thought we should have made a first strike against Moscow back in the day. I am glad cooler heads prevailed then and hope they do today. This ‘shoot first, ask questions later’ philosophy is a path to perpetual warfare with no victory worthy of the name possible.
In the end either one believes that there is a monolithic evil force with the name Islam in which case the only solution is attacking it whenever and wherever it shows fangs; or one believes that the Islamic world is as multifaceted and diverse as the West and thus can be dealt with in a wide variety of ways.
if you’re a pacifist – like Gandhi, who thought that the Jews should all have just gone peacefully into the gas chambers.
Well, kudos to Sally. I think that’s the first time I’ve seen Gandhi smeared so nastily – as a Nazi apologist no less. Can we look forward next to an attack on Jesus for his notoriously idiotic “turn the other cheek” pacifism and his “love your neighbor” idiocy?
Well, kudos to Sally. I think that’s the first time I’ve seen Gandhi smeared so nastily – as a Nazi apologist no less.
Alas, no kudos for CW — he smears nastily as a matter of both routine and ignorance. For example, he appears to regard Gandhi’s pacifist advice to the Jews as equivalent to being a Nazi apologist. That advice, in its deluded and smug rectitude, is sickening enough without adding that kind of dirt:
Deluded and smug rectitude also seems to be an apt description of CW’s attempt to caste Christ as a devotee of that sort of creepy, masochistic pacifism, a labelling that very few genuine Christians would accept.
Exactly as argued by those who thought we should have made a first strike against Moscow back in the day. I am glad cooler heads prevailed then and hope they do today.
Except that the Soviets had nuclear weapons (after 1948), and as far as we know, the Iranians don’t – yet. So we’re compariing a nuclear scenario with a conventional war one. Big difference.
I just finished reading Mein Kampf, and frankly, I’m shocked. Not by the contents, which I expected, but by the fact that the book sets out clearly and unambiguously exactly what’s its author proposed to do, and yet no one took him seriously. Cooler heads prevailed then, and ended up waving pieces of paper on a tarmac.
…the Islamic world is as multifaceted and diverse as the West and thus can be dealt with in a wide variety of ways.b>
Such as?
Bear in mind exactly the same characterization would have applied to Fascism – Italy, Germany, Spain, Vichy France, and Japan were every bit as diverse as the Islamic world today.
(Sorry about the open tag.)
You know, its probably fortunate for Ahmadinejad that he wasnt a Christian suggesting parents should be notified before condoms are handed out to 10 yr olds at school. Liberals would have fought their way to a Minuteman silo to launch a nuke at him.
And if the missiles were guarded by baby seals, they would have clubbed them to death.
That’s interesting, as it wasn’t “democratic socialism” that employed the tools of propaganda to oversell the war in Iraq, for the purpose of convincing Americans of the necessity of preserving our national security…or the “greater good”, as it were.
Forcing people to do things for your own good and trying to convince people to support actions for their own good, are two different things, Xanth.
Does your false belief for human life and liberty lack in consistency that bad?
You are aware that what you wrote there, is exactly what I could have written about people having to clean up the mess in Iraq, right?
Of course. Just as I am aware that I would support the killing of 300 Muslims in the cause of the JIhad, the same as they would support the execution of 300 Americans in the cause of liberty.
This is nothing special, X. Just because we write or do the same things, X, doesn’t mean we believe or are on the same side.
Which implies that what you write isn’t actually supportive of your point about “smashing” the domestic “insurgency”, right?
How about just wrong. Why do your beliefs dictate what I should believe? We’re not a National Socialist or Democratic Socialist country, yet, X.
Anyway, you will succeed in destroying domestic political opposition when you can convince a majority of Americans that fighting endless wars that are justified by a variety of shifting rationales, is actually good for our country
Given that Petraeus destroyed domestic Sunni political and guerrilla opposition by convincing a majority of Sunnis that fighting endless wars against America will never be justified or good for their country… that actually is a good way of putting it. Well, my version, if not yours.
I have every confidence that the current leadership in Iran would love to enter the nuclear club.-Chris
Indeed, they would be the third members to enter the club, right after Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
Big difference-Oc
Not to Chris. One nation and one war might as well be the same as another, to Chris.
Indeed, they would be the third members to enter the club, right after Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
Good one, Y!
Pingback:Holiday potpourri…playing catch-up, playing hookey…you decide…. at Amused Cynic
Oc, I cribbed it off of Chuck Ziegenfuss from Milblog conference.
You wrote:
Unfortunately, there can be enormous consequences for getting it wrong–in either direction. The penalty for a false positive is an attack, or even a war, that is built at least partly on false premises…….And what’s the penalty for a false negative? Millions of innocents dead, and the ability of a regime like Iran to intimidate neighbors who lack a bomb–and, quite possibly (if the bomb is used), an ever-escalating series of retaliations that decimate the region and make it radioactive for generations to come.
Tony Blair made much the same point in a speech to the U.S. Congress in July, 2003, shortly after the war’s conclusion. In addressing whether or not any WMD would eventually be found in Iraq and thus prove the US/UK position right or wrong, he said:
Can we be sure that terrorism and weapons of mass destruction will join together? Let us say one thing: If we are wrong, we will have destroyed a threat that at its least is responsible for inhuman carnage and suffering. That is something I am confident history will forgive.
But if our critics are wrong, if we are right, as I believe with every fiber of instinct and conviction I have that we are, and we do not act, then we will have hesitated in the face of this menace when we should have given leadership. That is something history will not forgive.
San Juan Del Sur Hotel
I am always looking online for ideas that can assist me. Thanks!