Preemptive strikes: are they possible anymore?
The recent NIE report could be considered a sort of verbal preemptive strike on any military preemptive strike that might have been aimed at Iran’s nuclear weapons program.
I’ve already written about the NIE report itself, so I won’t repeat myself here, except to say that I fault it for its attempt to make a big deal of the distinction between Iran’s capacity to produce weapons and to use power for peaceful means. As long as a country has the capacity to enrich uranium to the proper degree it can produce weapons, if the intent is there.
And with Iran, there’s no indication that it lacks intent. Au contraire, there’s every indication that its leaders have the requisite state of mind to develop nuclear weapons and perhaps even to use them without specific provocation.
Of course, some in Iran (and elsewhere) consider Israel’s mere existence to be provocation enough. Others consider the dreadful sins of the US sufficient.
The Iraq War had an effect on our faith in intelligence about the nuclear program of a country such as Iraq or Iran. The buildup to the Iraq War did not depend solely on the intelligence that said Saddam was continuing to develop WMDs, but there’s no doubt that this was a large part of the war’s justification, at least in people’s memories. Forgotten now by most is the idea that Saddam’s lack of cooperation with post Gulf War inspections—his noncompliance with same, and the resultant difficulty of verifying whether he had such weapons or not—was enough reason for action against him, whether or not WMDs actually existed.
Why is this important? Because the state of intelligence about such closed, secretive, and hostile countries is such that it is nearly impossible to definitively prove whether a regime such as Saddam’s—or the Iranian mullahs’—has such weaponry or not. And if the standard required for a preemptive strike is absolute proof—as it seems to be, post Iraq War—then we should just give up the idea of a preemptive strike, because it won’t be happening.
Or will it? All the pundits say no; they seem to agree on the fact that the NIE report effectively takes that option away from Bush. Are they forgetting their own rhetoric describing Bush as a wild cowboy who doesn’t listen to anyone and who doesn’t believe in negotiations?
My guess is they never really believed that rhetoric in the first place. After all, if it were true, Bush would never have spent all those months at the UN in the buildup to the Iraq War, trying to convince the not-to-be-convinced (Russia, France) to go along with enforcing the terms of the Gulf War armistice, months that gave Saddam ample time to prepare for the invasion.
Preemptive wars are a hard sell, especially in this day and age. They appear to be aggressive and unprovoked because they are an attempt to prevent something terrible from happening rather than a response to an event that’s already happened. That’s why war critics are able to say “The US violently attacked Iraq and its people without any provocation,” and to believe it, and why (at least, ex post facto) Afghanistan has become their favorite war, as opposed to Iraq. It is also why any possibility of a tie-in between Iraq and the attack of 9/11 must be resisted at all costs. It is also why the bizarre idea that Bush caused 9/11 is so popular among the fringes of the antiwar crowd, because it removes the defensive nature from even the relatively “good” Afghanistan War and makes it unprovoked.
Even if the NIE had come to a different conclusion about Iran’s weapons program and had said that it was a near-certainty that Iran already possessed them, it’s by no means certain that the majority of people in the US would support a strike on that country. Under what circumstances would they change their minds? Would it require a major attack on one of Iran’s perceived enemies, the Little or the Big Satan? And if so, is it morally correct to do that and wait for millions of people to die in such an attack first, when we might have possessed the capacity to prevent it from happening by acting preemptively? And if there is a right to preemptive attack, how can we make sure the intelligence leading us to strike can be relied on?
Last night on the Sanity Squad podcast we talked about gun rights and gun control in the US, and about the NIE report. During the discussion it became more and more apparent that the two are conceptually related.
For example, how clear does the threat presented have to be in order for a gun to be used in self-defense by an ordinary citizen? We don’t want people to go around shooting others on the mere suspicion that they are being threatened by them, but we in this country (as opposed to Britain) believe we possess some right to fire at those who clearly are presenting a great danger to us. In that way we do some damage, it’s true, but we prevent an innocent person (ourselves or our family members) from being hurt or even killed. But when is the danger judged to be imminent enough to justify such a strike? The two countries define that point very differently.
In Britain, the right of self-defense seems to have been taken away almost entirely from the average citizen, and all in the name of nonviolence. But this has not led to a lessening of violence; quite the opposite. And if you think about it, that makes sense. Gun laws don’t deter criminals from obtaining weapons, but the extremely stringent British laws against ordinary citizens having guns (or any weapons at all) and using them even for self-defense (even in cases of clear and present danger), have emboldened criminals, who know they will meet with no resistance from their victims.
This sort of philosophy that says, “if good people don’t carry arms and don’t intend to ever use them, then bad people will somehow follow their example” isn’t designed to leave good people to the tender mercies of criminals. But that is its effect, unfortunately.
And it is likely that will also be the effect of taking preemptive strikes off the table for Iran, however well-intentioned and peace-loving such an act might be.
Why is preserving the right to strike preemptively so important? Unfortunately, the invention of nuclear weapons has changed the nature of war by making a single nuclear strike potentially catastrophic. Atomic bombs have only been used once—technically, twice, but within a few days of each other and as part of the same strategic plan—and although they had the effect of ending World War II and probably preventing the far greater loss of life that would have ensued with an invasion of Japan, their use was certainly not preemptive. It came at the close of a war in which Japan had originally attacked us.
For a long time it was only the USSR and the US who were in the nuclear game. But now we are in a different era, one in which smaller nations—with an eschatological and ideological agenda that is less likely to be deterred by doctrines such as Mutually Assured Destruction—are going nuclear. This is where preemptive strikes can become a useful and perhaps necessary tool to have in the arsenal in order to prevent a possibly huge loss of innocent life from a single and unprovoked attack by such a nation. But because this situation is such a new one, we have not yet developed sensible standards by which to judge when it is not only permissible to act preemptively, but when it might be necessary to do so.
One thing is clear: right now these questions are in the realm of partisan politics, and the NIE is hardly immune.
You’re looking for logic in all the wrong places.. Seeing reason in too many faces… blaw blaw blaw. 🙂
The dems convinced themselves, en mass, that Bush was going into Iran a couple months ago (I was even seeing bumper stickers, a great informal gauge of left wing ‘thought’, with the Q digit of Iraq spinning to N). This report was a reaction to that in group meme… not to the real world or the actual Bush admin… For internal consumption / needs if you will… who knows what, if anything, they thought it would actually do in the real world…
Will it make things worse? Maybe. It probably limits Bush’s maneuverability.. It would have been nice to have air strikes on the table (no need for a full invasion)… Now that’s, politically, in doubt as an option.
In weak moments, I worry. If we assume democratic peoples do not support war until war is obviously foisted upon them, then: How can a democratic U.S. can ever survive an age in which WMD which must be preventively attacked and warded off?
The solution, if there is one, is a strong Executive Branch – as opposed to the enfeebled, fold the cards at almost every provocation Executive Branch of Pres. Clinton.
Since the people will vote out a President they disapprove of:
1) the media must be taken (through free enterprise) from it’s Eurothink, leftist, passivist masters, in order that the people be fully educated about both sides of issues.
2) the public must refuse to tolerate a massive threat to life and limb. A serious WMD threat should be seen as the equivalent of a man, in a tree, with a sniper rifle aimed at school doors, from which children are about to burst forth. The man aiming the sniper rifle deserves to be neutralized. Even if the man means no harm – and accidentally selected that tree as a location from which to enjoy the view through his rifle-scope, he has sealed his fate just as surely as a man who accidentally falls off a cliff. Both men were careless, and serious injury or death is the natural result. We must, as a nation, believe that a massive WMD threat aimed right at us deserves neutralization. We must, as a nation, have the moral confidence to believe that.
Further, voters must empower the President to clean out the entrenched, Euro-think, leftist passivist core of the Executive Branch Depts such as the State Dept. and the CIA. A President must be allowed to clean out his own Executive Branch – without automatically suffering a loss in his re-election bid. Such a clean-out would occasion a firestorm in the media – and the American people must see through that firestorm to the truth.
A powerful Executive Branch is our saving grace in a world filled with WMDs + end-of-the-world religious terrorists. And a properly functioning State Dept. and CIA must be integral parts of that powerful Executive Branch.
We must not fall for the trick of doom-toned incantations against a “Unitary Executive”! Heaven forbid! An example, from Justice Alito’s confirmation hearings:
Senate Democrats, again and again, referenced Alito’s belief in a “unitary Executive.” This was referenced a dozen times – each time in an ominous tone of voice – before I finally went to the Internet to figure out what the gosh they were talking about. A “unitary Executive” means the President manages and directs the Dept’s – such as State and the CIA – which are part of the Executive Branch.
It turns out many have argued, in recent years, that Dept.’s which were created to be part of the Executive should have autonomous power, and should not be subject to Presidential management and direction. The argument is that there can be Congressional oversight; and Presidential appointment and firing of Department directors; but the Department Directors ought not be managed or directed by the President. The importance is that Dept. goals and direction would not be set by the President. Democratic Senators, whose party has lost 7 of 10 Presidential elections, seem keen on the idea that the President has not had power to manage and direct Executive Branch Departments in years – and a President would have to be a power hungry madman to try to manage Executive dept’s. Alito’s argument (and Bush’s – presumably) is that Executive Branch Dept’s were expressly created for the President to manage, and whatever customs may or may not have been followed in recent years, those alleged customs do not invalidate the President’s proper Constitutional authority.
I want, from a Christian perspective, to briefly readdress the issue of moral confidence:
Jesus Christ was not a pacifist. He believed in self-defense, and at one point encouraged the Apostles to don swords for self-defense purposes.
In the Temple in Jerusalem, Jesus physically overturned the money-changers tables, and physically threw some of them towards(or possibly out of) the door of the Temple. This was not pacifist action. Jesus Christ was not a pacifist.
Related: Jesus lived in a time when the death penalty was frequently enacted. He had opportunity to speak out against it, yet never did. In a series of non-related statements about other matters, Jesus arguably implicitly supported the death penalty at least a dozen times. *
The Sixth Commandment is properly read: “Thou shalt not murder.” To read it: “Thou shalt not kill” is to misinterpret the commandment.
Christianity sanctions self-defense. Christianity is not Ghandi-passivism. Our nation must have the moral confidence to defend ourselves against threats. We must not be cowed by misinterpretations of Christianity.
*Sister Helen Prejean, an anti-death penalty activist, is commendably forthright and confident enough to note the Bible does not condemn the death penalty:
“It is abundantly clear that the Bible depicts murder as a capital crime for which death is considered the appropriate punishment, and one is hard pressed to find [anything] in either the Hebrew Testament or the New Testament which unequivocally refutes this.”
link to more info re: death penalty and the Bible
http://web.telia.com/~u15509119/ny_sida_6.htm
I’m a Christian and personally I’ve always been dubious of scaling the teachings of Jesus to the level of International Relations.
Christ did not articulate principles that covered all aspect of life. He came for a number of reasons and primarily amoungst them was to let people know they have a direct connection to God and do not need proxies.. he stressed a message that was centered on the individual and the indivduals relationship to God, other individuals, and to his government. He didn’t say much about how governments should be .. how nations should be.
So I don’t believe we should run a Christian-based foreign policy when it comes to our enemies.
I know one thing, we certainly aren’t being Christian-based when it comes to how we abuse and betray Israel… which I think is the only International Relation that one can consider to have something said about it in the Bible.
I believe in preemption. I can’t believe we havent’ attacked Iran yet.. I’ve been frustrated all year… our intellegence is so bad that we have absolutely no idea what Iran + North Korea + Syria are up to.. and I think we’ve already waited to long. I think the dirty bombs are made already, I think they’re being positioned all around teh world waiting for the signal and the longer we wait the more deadly the consequences are going to be because the evil that eminates from Iran is not sitting idle while we fool ourselves about how moral and enlightened we are by not defending ourselves.
Have you thought about the implications of this new era in nuclear arms proliferation, (lack of MAD style deterrence) paired with the apparent lack of support for preemptive strikes, on the issue of ballistic missile defense?
It seems to me that in this new age, we must implement at least one of these policies, BMD or Preemptive strikes. Which one we choose depends on our moral objections to them, choosing one of two perceived evils. Conversely if we have no moral objections to these two options we could double up on our coverage, and be especially secure…
What remains clear however is that we must choose at least one, BMD or Preemptive strikes, and this is why I am so disillusioned with the democratic party at the moment. If they said, ‘Preemptive strikes are morally unjustifiable because of A, B, and C… And therefore we must come to a BMD understanding with Russia ASAP’, I would respect that opinion as legitimate and would judge it on the validity of their assumptions A, B, and C.
Unfortunately all we hear from democrats is that BMD will start another arms race, and that preemptive strikes are morally unjustifiable, with no concern for what this means to our national security. It takes a mature leader to recognize that we must pick at least one of these two perceived evils, and it is time to start debating the merits of both with this understanding in mind.
I also do not believe we should run a Christian based foreign policy – especially since Christianity explicitly keeps itself apart from government, et al.
I am talking about the moral courage necessary to defend our nation. We ought neither apologize, nor hesitate about the moral righteousness of defending ourselves. Certainly we ought be extremely prudent and careful about our actions – but we need not question whether earnestly defending ourselves is somehow immoral.
I’m also talking about Christianity being miscontrued as Ghandi-esque pacifism.
gcotharn:
I’m sorry if I implied you advocated a Christian Foreign Policy… I should have been more clear that your comments were just the inspiration for me to go on a tangent.
Thank you!
This is where preemptive strikes can become a useful and perhaps necessary tool to have in the arsenal in order to prevent a possibly huge loss of innocent life from a single and unprovoked attack by such a nation-Neo
I think the last two comments from Mitsu and me details the philosophical difference on the pro-pre-emption and anti-pre-emption side of things.
Link
A lot of the considerations given into the argument concerns the “culminating point of victory” as demonstrated by Al Qaeda attacks in Sunni populated areas causing a blowback effect of allying Sunnis with americans.
My disagreement with those that are concerned with blowback, from attacking nations like Iraq and terrorists, is about taking a defensive tactic and using it as a strategy for ultimate victory.
[there was something I wrote that kept getting the comment blocked]
There are also the ethical issues that you, Neo, and Gc brought up. Is it ethically valid to adopt a strategic defense in order to wait to get hit, when you could have attacked first?
It is one thing if it is unintentional. That is just stuff that happens in war. But a choice of first strike or not is a conscious choice, not something that can be latter characterized as unintended.
But because this situation is such a new one, we have not yet developed sensible standards
I think a lot of the Cold War attitudes are still around. You wanted detente or balance of powers, not first strikes against the Russians. The threat of a first strike was really bluff, in that you would do it if the Russians started thinking about it, but they knew that you didn’t want to fight at all. At least not with nukes. If they knew that you wanted a nuclear fight, Russia would start thinking about a first strike option. So first strikes were always bluffs in the Cold War, if they ever existed at all. The key component to MAD deterence was when your cities are in flames and your hidden ICBM subs fire.
So there’s a lot of this Cold War stance that says if you strike first, then you will get blowback. The blowback that you get will invalidate any gains from a first strike.
Classical liberals like first strikes because classical liberalism is designed to destroy those obstructing human progress, whether on purpose or inadvertently. Classical liberals are in alife and death struggle; a struggle that has no option for detente or stability.
Can a slave tolerate stability with his owner? Can women tolerate stability with those that ensure they and their daughters continue to live under female genital mutilation?
Such attitudes coming from the human race breeds first strike mindsets. Precisely because such people care and because they know they cannot live while such practices and people exist.
It has only been recently that the Islamic world has become such a large threat that the United States has been forced to take notice. Now what would have been an individual crusade, such as Ali Hirsi’s, has now become a national struggle. And because the nation in question is the United States, it has now become a global struggle.
Personally, I wouldn’t give a criminal the first shot against me just because I was stronger than him. Tookie got the first shot in, you know. And the second. Course, the first shot was all he needed.
Well, in any exchange of nuclear weapons between the US and a terror state — no matter what the means of delivery — the first shot won’t be all that’s needed.
The queens that keep the pawns in check are the ballistic missile submarines — about which, you will note, very little is said.
That being a given, preemptive war is always about 15 to 45 minutes a way. It merely wants the will.
Of course it would seem, in this present climate, that the will depends upon the loss of an American city.
The NIE has been represented as putting a stick in the spokes of Bush’s policies.
Might be true. Partisans wrote the thing so that the “stopped” was the headline and the rest (moderate confidence the process hasn’t been restarted), and the narrow description of what has been stopped (solely military, not supporting civilian processes which continue) were in the fine print. And for US politics, that’s all that matters.
But. The Brits complain we got skunked.
Germany and France don’t like it, the IAEA isn’t this charitable.
Possibly it will blow away–in the breeze, in the breeze–and not be as much a hindrance as the authors hoped.
Nice post:
The Persian Gulf Arab states have the capabilities:
http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/gulf-states-recognize-iranian-threat.html
Now, if they had the will…
The recent NIE report re Iran’s capacity to enrich uranium to the point where it can produce weapons may be a red herring. The media, neocon, and except for the comment about “dirty bombs” the above commentators may have missed a possibly decisive fact.
It appears that the Iranians have the nuclear weapons in terms of delivery capacity. The neo-fact that they do not have capacity to produce the nuclear payload on their own can be assumed for purposes of this discussion. The remaining question is do they have sufficient quantities of nuclear payload in their inventory right now without having produced it themselves.
I remember watching “60 minutes” several years ago. The documentary was about the huge security lapses regarding weapons grade plutonium in the Soviet Union. At one point key security personnel had gone for months without being paid and no basis to believe that they would be paid. Put this together with Iranian oil money and a flourishing Soviet criminal underworld and its hard to believe that Iran does not have sufficient nuclear material to deliver on its present nuclear threats as of several years ago.
Leave it to the MSM to overlook this possibility for a decade.
Am I the only one in town to have made this bissociative leap?
I believe in pre-emptive war when necessary, I believe in self-defense and I believe that war should be waged with the goal of ‘victory’, not an exit strategy. That’s why I believe we should not attack Iran.
In 2001, we worried about nukes in Pakistan and nukes in Iraq. We didn’t worry about a bunch of Saudi and UAE funded terrorists hiding out in the hills in Afghanistan. That was a mistake.
The 9/11 attackers were funded and supported by the Gulf states. Those same Gulf states encouraged us to attack Saddam, and when we did, they sent their al Qaeda paramilitaries into Iraq to target our soldiers and Iraqi civilians.
Now those same Gulf state allies are getting the Shi’ites riled up, and then they’re asking us to deal with the problem.
Iran is an enemy and so are our Saudi allies. The two states are, basically, the twin pillars of terrorism in the area. If we hit one, it would only make sense to hit the other. Hitting doesn’t have to mean war and occupation – it could be done economically, or we could weaken those states. It’s just essential that we weaken the infrastructure of all the terrorist states. Well, if we want to win, that is.
Or, we could spend many years and trillions of dollars playing whack a mole with every little dictator who claims to have nukes, continuing to to ally with the supporters of al Qaeda. If we want to lose.
For a long time it was only the USSR and the US who were in the nuclear game. But now we are in a different era, one in which smaller nations–with an eschatological and ideological agenda
Although your first bit is right, but things here it’s changed as “smaller nations” have com to the party like Iran, there it is very obvious and understandable there are fears in between these “smaller nations” which be approved by NIE report when Iran feared and stopped or Libyan surrendered to US of their ambitions of nuclear power.
These supposedly smaller powers “smaller nations” knew that if they hold it they can not use it against big players specially in the region like Israel, the use such weapons how big they have it’s mean their death and their finish from this life.
As much these “doctrines” likes power and over control their immediate area of power “their nations or people” in same time they are very careful of facing the big guys who they knew very well it will their last day in their life.
There is very interesting view about the story behind NIE report written by Gideon Rachman in FT,
He said:
Being of a western cast of mind, I incline to a mixture of theories one and two. This looks like a declaration of independence by America’s intelligence services, whose full ramifications for US policy may not have been completely understood.
So where does that leave us? Unless Iran does something really stupid, Mr Bush will not be able to bomb. Much tougher sanctions are also out. So that leaves talking.
i hate to go on a limb and give any credit to Bush.. but I reject the notion that Bush would be restrained from attacking Iran BECAUSE of the NIE.
If Bush has made the decision not to attack, itwon’t be because of the NIE. And if Bush makes the decision that military force is needed, the NIE is not going to prevent him.
The elected politicians set the policy and make the decisions.. not the unaccountable staff. The people who wrote the NIE were acting way beyond their pay grade.
Hopefully our President still has his balls and that they’re not in Condi’s or Nancy Stretch Pelosi’s purse.
it could be done economically, or we could weaken those states.
Hummm does the shaking US dollar related to this “economically weaken” them?
So that why then some ME investors (unannounced the name) have rush to support the shaky US dollar with bond to US bank to help hold them in recent show, is that planed to suck those billions from high oil prices?
I honestly can’t believe the Democrats are actually stupid enough not to see the danger from Iran. They’re smart enough to get elected, after all, which means some basic understanding of how people think. Yet they’re willing to accept Iran’s transparently false assurances and ignore Iran’s transparently hostile actions.
The only conclusion which makes any sense at all is that the Democrats actually want to see an attack on America or Israel. They’re so far gone in their anti-American and antisemitic attitudes and fetishization of victimhood that a new Holocaust in Tel Aviv or Washington is somehow desireable.
They are madmen and traitors. We shouldn’t be talking about their role in government, we should be talking about the most efficient way to get them locked up so they are no longer a danger to the rest of us.
Despite my remarks in the “surge” topic in which I outline my reasons for opposing the Iraq war, I do happen to agree here that the threat from Iran is greater, and I am also a bit concerned that the NIE might serve to take political pressure off of Iran. Despite my remarks in opposition to preventive war (which is to say, an all-out war to invade and occupy a foreign country in order to prevent a vaguely defined possible future threat, as opposed to a concrete imminent threat of attack), I think that narrowly-focused strikes against the nuclear facilities of a country we have reasons to suspect may be developing nuclear weapons is not necessarily a mistake. As in all things, one has to look, I believe, at the details.
To summarize my argument in the surge topic: the two main justifications for the Iraq war, in my view, were 1) to prevent Saddam from acquiring WMDs, and 2) to remake Iraq in our image to provide a reliable democratic ally in the region. I believe Saddam was deterrable and the fact that he allowed random intrusive unannounced inspections was further evidence, I believe, he was afraid of us — and I think that the second goal was unrealistic given the political environment in Iraq at the time we went in (this is not to say that I think Iraq will never stabilize — it eventually will, but we will still have paid in my view too stiff a price in terms of blowback as well as diverted attention from more pressing security needs).
But Iran is a different situation in a number of ways. First, their movement is far more ideological than Saddam’s Baath Party — Saddam was basically a petty self-interested dictator, deterrable precisely because he wanted his own survival and self-enrichment. Iran, however, is motivated by religion, which can justify suicidal actions, and thus they are at least in theory far more volatile.
President Clinton threatened bombing North Korea’s nuclear facilities if they did not submit to IAEA inspections — as we all know this did not entirely stop their nuclear program but it certainly slowed it considerably. I believe this was an appropriate tactic and a similar threat from the United States towards Iran may be justified if they do not accede to international demands to submit to IAEA inspections.
However — the fact that Iran likely suspended its nuclear program in response to political and military pressure in 2003 does indicate that they may not be quite as suicidal as one might imagine could be possible given their ideological stripe. Despite the fact that they are more ideological than Saddam was, they are still, nonetheless, a state, and a strike from them (if we determined it came from them) on either Israel or the United States would certainly be met by disastrous consequences for them. It does appear that Iran responds to pressure, in other words, and to threats.
I do think that an all-out invasion of Iran would be disastrous for a wide variety of reasons — but it may be that threatening them with focused strikes on their nuclear facilities is not necessarily a mistake, in order to force them to accept IAEA inspections. Even if the NIE is correct it’s fairly clear that we need to keep up the pressure on Iran, and that may include threats and it certainly includes sanctions. I’m not certain we *need* to threaten military strikes (of a limited scope, as we did with North Korea) but it may be justified if Iran remains unwilling to submit to an ongoing inspections program.
Pingback:House of Eratosthenes
So that why then some ME investors (unannounced the name) have rush to support the shaky US dollar with bond to US bank to help hold them in recent show
Wealthy Saudis remain the chief financiers of worldwide terror networks, extremist Wahhabi clerics provide a stream of recruits to some of the world’s nastiest trouble spots, Saudis make up 55% of foreign fighters in Iraq. They are also among the most uncompromising and militant. Sheikh Saleh al-Luhaidan, the chief justice, who oversees terrorist trials, was recorded on tape in a mosque in 2004, encouraging young men to fight in Iraq.
And they financed 9/11. But we should be pathetically grateful because they backed up their considerable investments in the dollar?
Well, actually, our government is pathetically grateful. After Pearl Harbor, the government demanded that we join together to defeat our enemies. After 9/11, our government told us to shop.
Sorry, but if we’re going to fight a war, we should fight all of our enemies. We should fight the enemies who are causing us and our trusted allies the most damage. Even if they did get nukes, Iran couldn’t cause as much damage to us and to Israel as Saudi Arabia is doing now, with their support of worldwide terrorism, the spread of extremist, pro-Palestinian ideology and Hamas. We can’t win a war if we’re allied with the worst of our enemies.
I’ve been calling for a coup since Feburary when they started to play games with the emergency war funding.
Passive. Pacify.
I wrote: “passivist.” I am embarrassed!
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Back to subject
Vanderluen spurs this thought:
Happiness is a warm ballistic missile submarine – if it represents an actual deterrent – which it currently does, b/c of that accursed Cowboy President and those accursed red states which elected him. If it wasn’t for those bloodthirsty red states, a Mullah wouldn’t have a care in the world.
>They are madmen and traitors
I have to say, reading comments like these is truly bizarre. While I happen to disagree with both Democrats and Republicans on many issues, it’s beyond hyperbole to suggest that people who view threats differently from you are “madmen” and “traitors” who want the United States to be attacked. The fact is, in my view, as I’ve explained at length, I believe much of the foreign policy of the current Administration has been a huge waste of resources and may have actually increased the probability we will suffer a devastating attack in the future. It certainly hasn’t been by any means the best policy for reducing the chances of an attack.
Those of us who disagree with many of the Bush Administration’s moves may similarly wonder if Bush has the destruction of the United States as his goal … given the fact that I personally think his foreign policy moves have been so generally misguided. However, no matter how wrong I think Bush has been on so many points, I have to believe that he, like you, THINKS he is doing the best he can to protect this country. I just happen to think he is very wrong.
Those of us who disagree with Bush also want the best for the United States. We simply have a different view of what is likely to produce that outcome. I think the results on the ground show at the very least that the predictions of the Bush Administration have not come to pass, except recently with the surge (which I happen to think had a chance of succeeding, in fact I even promoted the idea long before Bush even proposed it).
I personally disagree with both Democrats and Republicans on foreign policy, but I don’t think that you or the Democrats are traitors just because I think you’re both wrong on different aspects of the issues. I just think you have different assumptions, different views of the world, and different models of politics and war. I happen to think MY view is the best, of course, just as you think yours is best, but I don’t think you’re a traitor and believe me, I would be very offended if you came over to me and tried to tell me to my face that I am because I think your policy is harming the nation. That sort of talk is exactly not what this country was founded on, and I have to say it’s speech like that which is truly un-American.
What is the evidence that the Democrats are pro-national defense? The only time they speak about the war is to either deny there is one, or to declare it lost, or to decry a war action Bush has done.
Their declaration that the war is lost is direct aid and comfort to the Jihadis … confirming their idea that the US is a paper tiger.. that we’ll be easier to defeat than the Soviet Union was.
By airing all our dirty laundry and tactics they are transmitting to the enemy our methods against him , this leds to them defeating our measures.
Their playing around with the budget and declaring time-tables creates more stress on our troops which makes them less effective and bolsters the enemy’s confidence.. leading to more attacks.
With every attack the enemy does, the Democrats latch onto it and declare the event is yet another reason why we must leave the battle.. thus by being receptive to manipulation , they create an incentive for the enemy to kill innocent people.
They consume the resources of the Executive Branch in order to conduct useless show trials.
They declare to enemies like Iran that they will restrain the Presidnet from defending the US
So yes they are traitors. I would have no problem with action which forcibly removed them from power.
>I would have no problem with action which forcibly removed them from power.
Well, you are voicing a view in which you would like to violently overthrow the Constitution, the democratic process, and the foundations of the Republic. I happen to vehemently disagree with you pretty much wholeheartedly, and would like to point out that your views are, pretty much by definition, traitorous.
Setting aside that point, however. I’ve argued at great length in the “surge” topic why I believe the Bush Administration has likely harmed our national security, and certainly has done a lot less than it could have to protect our national interests, by focusing our military force on targets that are far removed from the most effective targets from a security perspective. So as I’ve said before — many of us who disagree with Bush see exactly the same thing: a government which seems hell-bent on damaging the security of the United States. Who’s right? Well, obviously I think we are.
I actually don’t happen to agree with the Democrats that withdrawal per se is the main thing to focus on. Yes, I think the Iraq war was a monumental mistake, for security reasons — setting aside moral concerns — but at this point we’re stuck with it so we have to make the best of it. It is true, however, that the war is costing us a HUGE amount of money and lives, so we do need to wrap it up at some point, but I agree with some critics of the Democrats that we have to make sure we don’t leave things worse than before we went in (one of the major reasons the war was a huge mistake: we have, in many respects, made things much worse than they were before, bad as Saddam Hussein was he was a containable threat and the terrorists who have both flooded into Iraq and been recruited because of Iraq are far more of a long-term threat to us than Saddam ever was.)
Currently my favorite Democrat with I believe the most serious take on security is Obama. He is arguing forcefully that we should be spending much more effort on tracking down terrorists in the de facto safe haven of the Pakistan territories. I happen to agree with him. That is a very pro-defense posture which I think will lead to tangible security dividends for the United States. Many of his critics suggest we can’t be so aggressive with an ally (Pakistan) but I happen to think that US national security requires a bit of an aggressive stance when it comes down to it. I just think Bush put that aggressive stance in precisely the wrong place.
“Currently my favorite Democrat with I believe the most serious take on security is Obama. He is arguing forcefully that we should be spending much more effort on tracking down terrorists in the de facto safe haven of the Pakistan territories. I happen to agree with him.”
Much as I agree that Pakistan is their safe haven, and that I would very much like to go after terrorists there, to do so would be opening up another front in our war on terror.
If Obama is serious in this, just how the hell does he plan to pull this off? We’ve already 2 fronts now. Is he planning bombing runs or troops on the ground? Has he really thought through all the implications of this or is this more meaningless posturing to win the election?
I honestly haven’t heard any decent info as to how he would deal with all the results and consequences of a Pakistan campaign, which is why he’s on my least-likely-to-vote-for list.
Back on Neo’s original topic: A very well thought out piece, Neo. In regards to Iran, we’re in a damned if you do, damed if you don’t situation. I fear it will soon come to a head.
Why do I think if a Democrat has the presidency when it does, the media would find less blame for a first strike?
Lets not forget that Afghanistan is Landlocked and the only way to access it is via airspace over Pakistan.
>If Obama is serious in this
He proposes to do it primarily by repositioning military forces as we gradually withdraw from Iraq. He would do it by pressuring Pakistan to step up its efforts — or risk us going in ourselves. He would move in with American support for Pakistani efforts. He would toe a hard line with the Pakistani government to force them to accept our involvement in tracking down terrorists in the tribal areas. Sure, all of these moves are risky, but they’re risky moves in defense of American security, and they would have a hell of a lot more positive impact, I believe, than the years we have spent in Iraq.
Of course these moves would be done with a combination of diplomacy and threats. But I think this direction makes far more sense than what we have been doing. These are the people who attacked us on 9/11, and they’re still running free. They’re training new terrorists, with near impunity, in the tribal regions of Pakistan. They’re taking advantage of the fact that the Afghan government is also weak, and reestablishing Taliban influence there. It’s a bad situation and I believe it needs a lot more attention than we’ve been giving it — because we’ve been mired in Iraq.
Yeah it makes a lot of sense to invade one of the three Axis of Jihad countries… the one that is nuclear armed.
/s
Currently my favorite Democrat with I believe the most serious take on security is Obama. He is arguing forcefully that we should be spending much more effort on tracking down terrorists in the de facto safe haven of the Pakistan territories.
Yeah, start discussions with Iran and Syria while bombing one of our allies!
With Obama al-Hussein Barrack, you can never be sure it’s not just a Shi’a vs Sunni thing…..
>Yeah it makes a lot of sense to invade one of the three Axis
>of Jihad countries… the one that is nuclear armed.
It’s remarkable how easily you guys support strong military action against an irrelevant sideshow like Saddam Hussein, but shrink back at the prospect of seriously going after the people who actually attacked us.
Mitsu: It’s remarkable how easily you guys support strong military action against an irrelevant sideshow like Saddam Hussein, but shrink back at the prospect of seriously going after the people who actually attacked us.
What’s remarkable is how easily some people think they can armchair-general as complex a situation as this, in the first place, as though they’re really privy to stacks of analyses of conditions within Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, not to mention detailed knowledge of all actions, communications, etc. in and with surrounding states and other parties throughout this extensive region. And then, given all that inside information, how remarkably simple-minded is their “strategy”: Hey, let’s just get the guys that did this! You know, like in the movies!
Now, it’s certainly not the case that this administration hasn’t made mistakes. But this sort of naive, simplistic reflex behavior, which is so characteristic of so many of its critics, makes those mistakes seem small in comparison. Yes, it would be fine to “get the guys that did this (9/11)”, but it’s vitally important to get some kind of handle on the nature and scope of the actual problem here. And in that context, the people who actually attacked us on that particular occasion are a very small, and by now mostly insignificant, part of the problem — many, if not most are already dead or caught, and the rest are holed up and largely out of action. But the real problem of islamist terrorism remains — that problem preceded al Qaeda and Bin Laden, and it will persist after they’re gone. And you won’t begin to be able to come to grips with that problem until you realize that what lies at its heart is the active or passive state support of that terrorism in any of its forms. That, in other words, the various states and terrorist gangs in that region have an effective, though often covert, working arrangement, regardless of doctrinal or other disputes, an operational arrangement that greatly amplifies the power and reach of both state- and non-state-actors. And once you’ve digested that possibility, you can make a start in understanding why forced regime-change in Iraq was a natural, and even necessary, strategic starting point. As for Iran, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, and others — all in good time.
>But this sort of naive, simplistic reflex behavior, which is so
>characteristic of so many of its critics, makes those mistakes
>seem small in comparison.
Ha ha ha — this has truly got to be one of the most astounding remarks I’ve heard anyone make about the situation we face today. One of the things that always shocks me about most people who discuss politics (and this applies both to the left and the right, and applies in ample amounts to nearly everyone posting here) is how people like to identify with a team, be it the Republican team or the Democratic team, and feel they need to rationalize or defend nearly every move by “their” team and be critical of nearly every suggestion by the “opposing” team. It’s highly unlikely that, in fact, the optimal strategy happens to be associated with just one of two “sides” — there are a vast array of possible strategies to choose from, yet nearly everyone I read praises their “side” to the sky and denigrates the other “side”.
It’s so rare to come across people who really do think independently, for themselves.
To me, this leads to nearly nonsensical debate — people who cheer on while Rumsfeld drives the Iraq war into the ground, and then cheer on again when Bush appoints a new SecDef and new generals who reverse that ineffectual policy. Yet the new policy is largely a repudiation of the old, but people who have taken Bush’s “side” decide, hell, he was right before, and he’s right now. No — he was wrong before … and, thankfully, he’s at least appointed competent people now.
I, on the other hand have been both critical and supportive of various moves, depending on my own independent analysis of the situation. I thought some sort of surge was probably the best option at this point — though I thought it should be larger, as I’ve said — even though most Democrats opposed the surge. I thought Democratic opposition to the surge was wrongheaded, even though I agree with them that the Iraq war as a whole was a terrible mistake.
I know you’re trying to be reasonable about this Sally, but what you say above is simply laughable. You’re speaking as though the Bush Administration has some amazing track record of dong careful, thorough analyses of foreign situations and they’ve been making careful moves based on deep and thorough review of intelligence reports and a profound understanding of the threat we face. Yet all the objective evidence we have flies in the face of this characterization — in fact I suspect you yourself are far more astute than the vast majority of people who originated the Iraq policy in the first place. Bush himself didn’t even know the difference between Shiite and Sunni (as evidenced by his response to some questions on the subject after the war began). The war’s architects made prediction after prediction which turned out to be ludicrously off base, and clearly they had not done even the most superficial homework regarding the history and politics of Iraq, the internal situation there, nor the likely outcome of an American invasion with insufficient troops and nearly no planning for the post-war aftermath.
Yes, I, like you, am an armchair general. Unlike you, however, my thought process is independent — I’m proud to support the Democrats, overall, but I’m not afraid to disagree with them. If Bush were saying, yes, let’s go after Osama bin Laden I’m certain most of you would be coming up with reasons why this in fact was the totally rational policy to follow. It’s absurd!
Let’s get back to the main subject here: terrorism. The issue is not merely state “sponsorship” of terror — 9/11 was an operation that involved a lot of careful planning but very little in the way of expensive funding. They used box cutters and took some flying lessons. What really helped them was the fact that they could operate training camps for terrorists, they could recruit and train terrorists, they had a base of operations and the ability to organize unimpeded. In other words, they were operating in a region of the world where they were mostly undisturbed. That’s what Afghanistan provided for them.
Right now, they’re operating in the Pakistani tribal areas with impunity for the most part. The Pakistani efforts to track them down have been paltry at best. Musharraf is hampered by domestic resistance to his efforts. So, while they can’t operate quite as freely as they did in Afghanistan, they have a tremendous degree of freedom to plan and operate — and this is a major security risk for us.
We have a tremendous degree of leverage with Pakistan — far more than we have been using. They are afraid of us (just as Saddam was) and we can pressure them to go after Al Qaeda and the Taliban with much greater force. They can even use American pressure as an excuse to mollify their domestic critics. Yes, such a policy has its risks but it’s quite amazing to me how neocons imagined the risks of going into Iraq were for some reason negligible, yet trumpet the risks of pressuring Pakistan which is much more central to the war on terror in my view.
Regarding your general idea of a project to remake the Middle East, one country at a time — as I’ve said before, such a strategy is based on a notion that completely ignores the blowback inherent in moving in that direction. Politically speaking, for change in the Middle East to work in our favor, it has to appear to be their idea, not ours. If we impose it by force, we will simply be seen by a significant number of people there to be violent occupiers, thereby justifying their campaign of violence against us. Overturning the Taliban didn’t have that effect because everyone could see we were attacking directly those who had attacked us — that’s how the Bismarck strategy works. Overthrowing Saddam, bad as he was, backfired and will continue to backfire because the invasion was clearly unwarranted in the eyes of the world, and of the Iraqi people, and of Muslims.
Terrorism is a political weapon. You have to fight it on both political and military terms. I really do respect the fact that you’re trying to argue reasonably, Sally, but it is you who are naive, not me, when it comes to your analysis of the situation there (in my opinion).
but it’s vitally important to get some kind of handle on the nature and scope of the actual problem here.
The actual problem is OBL, he is the gang leader who looks for fame who have a lot of money he still in large which look very unbelievable case here.
But the real problem of islamist terrorism remains – that problem preceded al Qaeda and Bin Laden,
You need to be very specific her who are those “islamist terrorism ” who create them, who are the handler and support them?
the active or passive state support of that terrorism in any of its forms.
Offcourse you knew which state is and which group/tribe/families who support OBL and the rest of these criminals but what we see they are still VIP to your administration with worm relations and links to them, Isn’t?
If you look one of the cases that US did and doing in Iraq using “collective Punishment” like what’s happen in the city of Fallujah in Iraq when US destroyed complete town because the people who” who actually attacked us “ in Fallujah were “a very small, and by now mostly insignificant”
Thus why US did not used the collective punishment and punishes OBL family/tribe for his criminal act? Can you give use details why that off the table?
But the fanny things here GWB and the rest of US administration continue and support OBL family, even Al-Saudi regime which is responsible for crating as evidenet those “islamist terrorism ” mindset spreading Al-Saudi’s Madrasah in Pakistan in South East Asia even in US as recently there are talk to close one of Al-Saudi support Madrash in Washington DC imagine after six years there are no actions against Al-Saud with their sick mindset of deformd version of Islam which is similar to Iran’s Mullah version of Islam but in different version.
Right now, they’re operating in the Pakistani tribal areas with impunity for the most part.
And you know this how?
The Pakistani efforts to track them down have been paltry at best.
You’ve been briefed on this, have you?
Musharraf is hampered by domestic resistance to his efforts. So, while they can’t operate quite as freely as they did in Afghanistan, they have a tremendous degree of freedom to plan and operate
Evidence of this “tremendous freedom”? Those smuggled out Bin Laden tapes, perhaps?
We have a tremendous degree of leverage with Pakistan – far more than we have been using.
He says, taking off his senior intelligence analyst’s hat (which had previously replaced his Pentagon general’s hat), and putting on his State Department one — now, he not only “knows” what “leverage” we have been using, but knows how much we could be using but for some reason — probably just incompetence — aren’t.
Yes, such a policy has its risks
Ah, says the armchair expert, but my risks really are negligible….
…but it’s quite amazing to me how neocons imagined the risks of going into Iraq were for some reason negligible, yet trumpet the risks of pressuring Pakistan which is much more central to the war on terror in my view.
… whereas the risks actually undertaken by those with real-world experience and track records, with immense resources at their disposal, and with real responsibility and public accountability for their decisions — well, those risks are bad ones, and just invite “blowback” (not like mine).
Yeah, right. Look, Mitsu, it’s a good thing to be of an independent mind, but that doesn’t mean that you can invent facts or concoct states of affairs to suit your “independent” theories. All of us are armchair commentators, it’s true, but not all of us pretend we’re privy to information and conclusions that only detailed, expert, and often classified analysis could provide. Instead, we base our views and critiques on our broad assessment of the overall conduct and strategy, not on trying to second-guess every decision and tactic. On that basis, I and most people here would be happy to support any Democratic administration, for example, that gave credible evidence of, first, having an understanding of the nature and scope of the problem, as opposed to a crude whack-a-mole notion of merely running after every ragtag gang of jihadis that pops its head up for a minute, and second, of having the will, courage, and flexibility to pursue its strategy even in the face of fierce opposition and real setbacks.
On the basis of such a broad assessment and understanding, then, your view of Pakistan’s centrality to the (misnamed) “war on terror” is just a version of whack-a-mole — Pakistan, even as a hide-out for one gang of islamists who got in a good punch, is peripheral to the region in focus, but Iraq is at its heart. And “blowback” is just a scarecrow of a term for the simple fact that force is resisted and is destabilizing wherever and whenever it’s used (Pakistan included). For the rest, see previous arguments.
Kudos to Mitsu from another independent, I’ve never belonged to a political party and find plenty of things in each party to either agree with or find troubling. Like Mitsu I thought going into Iraq was a mistake, but agree that the surge has been militarily, tactically, successful. It has not, however, been followed up strategically … which is to say diplomatically. This failure is of a piece with the Bush administration’s binary thinking biases (‘You’re with us or against us, there’s good and there’s evil) and preference for military answers to diplomatic problems. I think the Dems should be pushing much harder for a diplomatic ‘surge’ rather than demanding a withdrawal timetable. In that they are allowing election cycle politics to get in the way of doing the job they were elected to do.
As to the original topic of the post, the real issue is not pre-emptive strikes, but the radical Bush-Cheney idea of preventative military action. Historically preemption has been about being on the brink of a military clash with an adversary and choosing to be the initiator so as to control the time and place of the first battle. This administration articulated a very different notion of using military means to prevent a potential enemy from growing strong enough to become a viable threat. This edges way too close to the historic pattern of an empire expanding through conquest rather than justifiable self defense or aid to allies.
CW, I see, continues to wave around the word “diplomatic” as though it were a magic wand, without the slightest indication that he knows what it might actually mean in this context, even if it were a wand. Pretty cheap and easy criticism, don’t you think? And then, having solved the problem with a flourish of his wand, he sits back and pats himself — and fellow armchair all-round masterminds — on the head for being “independent”. No, sorry, you’re not — you’re just banal, short-sighted, and wrong.
As, for example, these sentences indicate, in distinguishing pre-emptive war from preventative:
This administration articulated a very different notion of using military means to prevent a potential enemy from growing strong enough to become a viable threat. This edges way too close to the historic pattern of an empire expanding through conquest rather than justifiable self defense or aid to allies.
The enemy, of course, was actual not potential. And acting to prevent such an actual enemy from growing stronger is — under any circumstances, let alone in the new and much more uncertain context of asymmetric war and covert action — so obvious and so justifiable a strategy, that comparing it with empire-building is just an offensive absurdity.
whereas the risks actually undertaken by those with real-world experience and track records
Ha ha ha —- Sally, you keep making these comments which I’m sure to you sound very reasonable, but to me and I think most people at this point, I’m afraid, are unintentionally funny … track records? These are the same people who failed to plan for the post-war occupation (and in fact thwarted efforts to do so), who thought we’d be able to draw down our forces within several months, who didn’t anticipate a significant guerrila insurgency, who thought we could secure Iraq on the cheap, who claimed, years ago, that the insurgency was in its “last throes”, who failed to mobilize the FBI and CIA to actively search for terrorist plots even in the face of intelligence reports indicating they might be planning something significant, and on and on. This is all a matter of well-known public record. Yes, they sure do have track records, and I’m afraid they are track records of utter incompetence and lack of foresight.
In any event, it doesn’t help much that they had access to classified intelligence when they have a “track record” of both ignoring our best intelligence sources and trusting bogus intelligence (everyone from Curveball to Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi).
The amusing thing is, without access to these vaunted classified intelligence reports, I and many others were able to predict, in advance, nearly all of what has transpired, which you favorite analysts with real-world experience completely missed. The only thing that has really surprised me so far is the lack of evidence of WMD efforts by Saddam — I thought he was hiding something (and perhaps he was and we didn’t find it somehow). And it is not as though I always predict failure for the Bush Administration — I also predicted the Afghan war would succeed, and in that case I even praised Rumsfeld’s “war on the cheap” tactics at the time (little did I know he’d inappropriately try to do it again in Iraq, a vastly different situation). Naturally, I’m basing my analysis only on news reports and what I can find online, but if I don’t say so myself, I think I’ve had a pretty good track record.
From my perspective, these fellows remind me of a bunch of pimply-faced teenagers playing a version of foreign policy Dungeons and Dragons, living in a fantasy world, thinking we’ll be greeted by flowers and cheers, with very little comprehensive understanding of military strategy or tactics, in my view.
One of my distant relatives is a defense policy analyst in the Pentagon, a lifelong Republican and ordinarily quite conservative on most issues — he does have access to classified intelligence, and over Easter dinner we were talking about the fact that, at the Pentagon, he was one of the few who was predicting what ended up happening in Iraq. A lone voice. A very smart man, he was shunned by his colleagues, people who supposedly had access to all this “intelligence” as well. But what happened? Now, his colleagues all tell him he was right, after all, but they still shun him because he had the temerity to speak up before, so he’s still seen as “not a team player”. Insane? Yes, but that’s the way bureaucracies work, even military bureaucracies.
I have no doubt that someone very intelligent who did have access to the classified reports could in fact do a much better job than I can predicting what is going to happen. But our job in the public is to make the best assessment of what is going on based on what we know. I have to say your invocation of “secret knowledge” that you think these guys are basing their Delphic predictions on hardly impresses me given their absymal track record so far.
On what do I base my assessment of Pakistan? Like you, I base in on the information I have available to me, in public. I think my assessment is more accurate than yours, which seems to be based almost entirely on your, to my mind, wholly misplaced faith in people who I think don’t deserve the respect you’ve accorded them.
The idea was to get rid of Saddam BEFORE he came too hard to deal with.
Who knows the number of lives we saved by preventing Saddam from throwing off the chains of sanctions and rearming.
If UK/France did to Germany what we did to Iraq millions of lives would be saved.
Sally: I agree with your posts 100% you put my thoughts down on paper much more eloquently than me.
>throwing off the chains of sanctions and rearming
He was containable and deterrable, therefore he could never use the WMDs against us. He may have wanted to use them to deter us from attacking him, or to use them in his regional ambitions, but certainly not for offensive operations of any kind against us, because that would have been suicidal. It’s a trivially obvious bit of game theory.
I’ve already stated my opposition to the preventive war strategy — used by the Nazis to very bad effect, and many others previously. I still haven’t seen you guys give a coherent counterargument to the reality of blowback, other than simply ignoring it or claiming it won’t be a factor.
Look at what happened in Iran, for instance: the current government there is a reaction against the Shah, who we installed after engineering the overthrow of Mossadeq. What we wouldn’t give for a Mossadeq instead of an Ayatollah now!
Mitsu: Ha ha ha
Well, as an argument, that’s maybe a step up from LOL, but not much of one. And, in the end, that pretty much sums up M’s argument as a whole by now, doesn’t it? He mentions some purported “predictions” of his that, amazingly, were right every time — for which we just have to take his word, since there’s no way to check, but, I mean, it’s not like there are gameboys all over the country who like to brag how unerring they are in all things military, now, is it? And a while ago he apparently had a conversation with some guy who he thinks had some security clearance at the Pentagon, and who also was always right, just like M, but who was a “lone voice”, just like M! Well, ’nuff said! (See, M is an “independent” thinker, but still one who likes to comfort himself with what he thinks “most people” think. Wouldn’t it be interesting to see what happens to these self-described “independents” if the polls and the media were to flip-flop?)
Anyway, I guess in his grade-school civics class world, policy makers never make mistakes, just like he doesn’t (in hindsight, on blogs). In the real world of adults, however, mistakes are unfortunately common, particularly for anyone trying to accomplish anything more than merely making sure their own ass is covered. The essential thing is to have the vision to see where you need to go, the flexibility to adjust when things go wrong, and the toughness to see things through reverses — qualities this administration has demonstrated repeatedly. In the real world, it takes more than “ha ha ha”, in other words.
>it takes more than “ha ha ha”
Indeed it does, which is why I’ve given so many detailed arguments about why I think what I do, which, unlike Sally, you haven’t even bothered to reply to or address. Sally and I have at least attempted to have a discussion here, though I do think some of her appeals to authority are amusing (given the terrible track record of the authority figures she is citing).
My comments and predictions are scattered around the Internet including on my own blog, but I don’t want to get into some sort of “prove you actually made these predictions” debate simply because that’s pretty much irrelevant and an appeal to authority argument which is a fallacy anyway. My point is not that you should listen to me because I’ve made good predictions but that I don’t find appeals to the authority of those who have clearly made a ton of bad predictions very persuasive. I have my arguments about the situation now (which as I posted above — do not entirely agree with the current Democratic party line, with respect to Iran).
The larger strategic dispute between Sally and myself centers on the wisdom of preventive war. I oppose it on pragmatic grounds: it engenders far more opposition than the security benefits you may achieve, as has been demonstrated time and again, historically. Jack Snyder wrote about this eloquently in the National Interest back in 2003:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2751/is_2003_Spring/ai_99377573
[quote]
America has no formal colonial empire and seeks none, but like other great powers over the past two centuries, it has sometimes sought to impose peace on the tortured politics of weaker societies. Consequently, it faces many of the same strategic dilemmas as did the great powers that have gone before it.
….
Typically, the preventive use of force proved counterproductive for imperial security because it often sparked endless brushfire wars at the edges of the empire, internal rebellions, and opposition from powers not yet conquered or otherwise subdued. Historically, the preventive pacification of one turbulent frontier of empire has usually led to the creation of another one, adjacent to the first. When the British conquered what is now Pakistan, for example, the turbulent frontier simply moved to neighboring Afghanistan. It was impossible to conquer everyone, so there was always another frontier.
[end quote]
This is the crux of our disagreement. I believe Snyder’s analysis captures the problem very well, aside from all of the tactical blunders this Administration has made, I think the overall strategy is not in our national interest as well.
(I should also note that Vince P has engaged me on the issues as well, which I also appreciate.)
Whups, I misread your post, Sally, I didn’t see it was written by you! Well, as I’ve said, I’ve given ample arguments for my positions, and I’m disappointed that you aren’t bothering to address them in your last response, which is entirely devoid of rational argument. I suggest you read Snyder’s article if you really want to have a substantive discussion of the issues, but if you’d rather not continue doing so, that’s up to you.
All I can say is, I have plenty of rational arguments for my position, some of which you’ve responded to and some which you’ve ignored. However, your appeal to authority isn’t going to carry weight with me, at least (nor would it with most people at this stage of the game).
And, since you seem to sneer at my claims of correct policy positions, here are some links.
Supporting the Afghan war:
http://www.syntheticzero.com/sep2001.php#September28C_2001
Concern we wouldn’t stay the course in Afghanistan:
http://www.syntheticzero.com/oct2001.php#October1_2001
Long article opposing the Iraq war and why:
http://www.syntheticzero.com/nov2002politics.php
More comments by me (Mitsu) regarding my opposition to the Iraq war:
http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/003006.html
Supporting the idea of a surge back in November 2006:
http://www.belgraviadispatch.com/2006/11/iraq_a_final_bipartisan_push.html
I could go on … but I’d rather talk about the situation as it is now, than old posts by me on other blogs in the past.
Pingback:Webloggin - Blog Archive » The Danger of Non-Preemptive Policies for Defense
Whups, I misread your post, Sally
You’re misreading a good deal more than you think, Mitsu — I make no “appeal to authority” in my primary arguments, I simply say that your own invention of various details concerning operations within the tribal regions of Pakistan, for example, or behind-the-scenes communications between states, has no basis in anything. I see you’re letting go of your claims regarding your own predictive abilities, and that’s good, but I’d also say, as just unsolicited advice, that trying to sound like you have more information than State Department or Pentagon insiders simply makes you look juvenile.
As for your “plenty of rational arguments”, well and good — stick with that level. We’ve been over that ground a fair bit, but at least the topic of this post introduces a new element that might be worth exploring. At this point I’ll just say that the issue of preventive war is not at the center of our disagreement as I view it, but is rather one of those abstractions that play much better in classrooms than in the world — but I’ll have to finish that thought later.
Yeah it makes a lot of sense to invade one of the three Axes
Yah let attacked the less dangerous and the weakest Axis one? Isn’t?
But History tells that all Empires along the history believed to control the world from four directions they should invade Baghdad!!
The idea was to get rid of Saddam BEFORE he came too hard to deal with.
Its nothing to do with his danger as such, all of them they knew he is weakened to his knees, his the country suffer hugely because of his stupidly even those close ring to him who protecting his regime start distance themselves left him so he brutally made changes in his closed circle which he believed the danger there for them to his power from that direction not from US,
Mitsu
Remember Tony Blair statements
!!!!!! Why NOW?
Then another Tony Blair statement
!!!What JOB?
Yah, mass murders Iraqis (remember Jerry Bremer statement let make Iraqis 5Millions!!) destroying all Iraq, looting its asset and resources from the Oil to the reset of it that ‎lost in 1950 after Gen. Abdul Kareem Kassim revolution and nationalised after in 1971 when Iraq hold all his assets by its own
So sally what’s make you believing in Lies by Lies
Presumably if your employee found that you lie what he will do? And what you referee will tell about you?
Afghanistan and Iraq
Must they be wars without end?
In name of Sally’s “islamist terrorism” and her supporters
>I make no “appeal to authority”
I am suggesting, Sally, that your primary argument for why we should not intensify our efforts against Al Qaeda is that we are not privy to secret information the government is privy to, and they, in their wisdom, have decided not to pressure Pakistan more than we are already. I.e., don’t judge the government because they surely have more information than we do, and we should just trust them to know what they are doing. That claim, to me, is quite humorous — it’s interesting to note that I heard (not from you, since I’ve only just “met” you) very similar remarks in the build up to the Iraq war, and we can all see the results of that — the intelligence these Administration analysts were relying on turned out to be bogus for the most part, their analysis biased, their predictions mostly very wrong. So, as I said before, no, I don’t trust their judgement now any more than I ought to have trusted it before.
>you’re letting go of your claims regarding your own
>predictive abilities
I’m not “letting go” of these claims so much as saying that this is not the basis for a serious discussion. I certainly did make the predictions I’ve noted in previous posts (that is to say, prior to the events in question, not merely “in 20/20 hindsight” as you keep saying), but I’m not about to base my whole argument on the fact that my predictive record is pretty good, when it comes to war, at least. However, just because I’ve been right many times in the past doesn’t mean I’m right again now, though I can produce plenty of blog posts, comments, etc., to back up my predictive claims (a few I listed above) — I think this is a rhetorical sidetrack.
>trying to sound like you have more information than State
>Department or Pentagon insiders
What are you talking about? It may be that you’re not keeping up with the news, but everything I said is widely available public information that has been reported in the international press for months. I’m simply talking about information gleaned from public statements and interviews with American and foreign officials, news reports, etc., which I’ve been reading regarding the situation in Pakistan. This has been going on for years and has been widely reported. Yes, I disagree with the *policy analysis* of Pentagon and State Department insiders, to the extent that this policy analysis has resulted in a relatively anemic stance on our part with respect to Al Qaeda, but that’s not to say that I think my raw information is more comprehensive than theirs — it’s to say that I don’t have much faith in their analytical abilities, even given the obvious fact that they theoretically have more data at their disposal. Furthermore, there are analysts who do agree with my conclusions — they just don’t hold sway at present.
Okay, Mitsu — you in your armchair, keeping up with the “news”, and with your self-satisfied, “pretty good” predictive record, are better able to assess the situation on the ground in Pakistan than all those intelligence and military analysts who “hold sway” at present. I don’t know — maybe that constitutes an “argument” among your “pimply-faced adolescents” as you called them, but among adults it’s just laughable, and a waste of time. If that’s all you’ve got, spare us and go back to your video games. If it’s not all you’ve got, leave the vain boasting aside and try arguing on a more appropriate level.
Which, for example, the the Jack Snyder article you pointed to represents at least. Frankly, I found it a long-winded disappointment, which got off on the wrong foot at the start, and then pushed its misapplied analogy at tedious length — but it didn’t pretend it was trying to correct intelligence analysts or give directions for “intensifying” our efforts against Al Qaeda, etc. Snyder, like most (but not all) liberals, makes the mistake of thinking of Iraq in isolation, and then trying to cram it into the procrustean form of realist “balance of power” strategies — but it’s not in isolation, it’s a part of an asymmetric war involving its entire region; and realist “balance of power” is even older and more outmoded than liberal, Wilsonian internationalism. Snyder’s whole refrain of an incipient, over-stretched imperialism is just an irrelevant phantom conjured up by his imagination.
>If that’s all you’ve got
Sally, I don’t know why you keep bringing this up — you are the one saying we ought to trust a set of analysts with a proven track record of abysmally bad predictions. I am simply saying that I, and many others, with only access to public information, have been able to out-predict these guys you trust so much pretty much the whole time they’ve been in power. That’s obviously not the only argument I’ve made, it’s simply my response to you bringing up the idea that we ought to “trust” the powers that be, because surely they know better than we. I see no reason to trust a bunch of analysts with a proven track record of bad calls — it’s like saying, invest your money in this mutual fund that’s lost 80% of its value in the last 4 years, because they are financial experts with far greater knowledge than you, and the last 4 years were just a fluke: “mistakes were made” (as many neocons today like to say — using the passive voice, since they would never want to admit, it seems, that THEY were the one who made the mistakes).
Are you disputing the fact that the Pakistani tribal areas are largely operating outside of the control of the Pakistani government? Do you dispute the fact that American intelligence analysts believe Osama bin Laden is there, or that the Taliban is increasing its power base there and in parts of neighboring Afghanistan? Do you dispute the fact that Pakistan’s military and police have suffered setbacks in the region and have been unable to strongly enforce central government control? You deride what I’m saying simply because I am “an armchair general” (like you), yet where’s your evidence that these widely-reported facts are wrong? Are you saying that the omniscient analysts in the Administration probably have access to some secret intelligence that overturns all of this?
>realist “balance of power” is even older and more outmoded
I’m afraid it’s neocon “naive optimism” that’s outmoded at this point, Sally. Balance of power is not something you can ignore simply because you want to wish it away. I don’t agree with realist theory in every respect, but they’re not called realists for nothing: their view of the ease with which one can remake the world is pessimistic, but they have good reason to be. There are many countervailing forces one has to deal with, and increased resistance to your actions if you are overly aggressive without direct provocation is one of them. It is a real phenomenon, one which the architects of our current policy ignored.
You’re not, in fact, making an argument at all: you’re just asserting that his argument is “an irrelevant phantom” — yet we have plenty of evidence that our incursion into Iraq has created a huge wave of resentment around the world, and there are many reports saying that it has greatly aided our enemies in their efforts to recruit followers. And this doesn’t matter — why?
The only conclusion which makes any sense at all is that the Democrats actually want to see an attack on America or Israel. They’re so far gone in their anti-American and antisemitic attitudes and fetishization of victimhood that a new Holocaust in Tel Aviv or Washington is somehow desireable.
That is one of the stupidest freaking things I have ever heard in my life.
They are madmen and traitors. We shouldn’t be talking about their role in government, we should be talking about the most efficient way to get them locked up so they are no longer a danger to the rest of us.
No – the traitors are the ones who are looking to put half their fellow citizens in jail … or worse…..
So yes they are traitors. I would have no problem with action which forcibly removed them from power. -VinceP
Violently overthrow the legitimately elected government of the US? You want to start a civil war? The only traitor here is you.
I’m just advocating that our military implement the part of the oath that calls for them to defend the Constitution against internal enemies.
When you have a cabal that controls Congress which seeks to tear the Constitution asunder by assuming the role of Commander In Chief, abdicate its responsibility to fund the military in a time of war, to defend the people we are fighting, to engage in sedition.. then the only responsible course of action is to remove this existential threat to the survival of the Republic.
Mitsu: … you are the one saying we ought to trust a set of analysts with a proven track record of abysmally bad predictions.
No, I simply said that our intelligence analysts and policy makers have a track record, not to mention information, and actual responsibility, in contrast to you, who have nothing but your own inflated, self-serving statements about how often you read the news, or make “predictions” that have no consequences whatsoever. As you’ve admitted yourself, neither of those “qualifications” constitutes an argument of any sort, so asserting them repeatedly is silly and pointless at best. Just so is it to pontificate on matters you clearly have no way of knowing anything of significance about, such as how much “leverage” we’re currently exerting on Pakistan (on who or what in Pakistan?), or much much we could if only everybody would listen to you.
That aside, your defense of the Snyder paper is at least on a level where you could potentially have something competent to say. Alas, it just isn’t very helpful. The word “realist” in foreign policy theory should always have quotes around it to indicate how ironic it is in current historical contexts. And “balance of power” is a policy objective, however outmoded, not a trivial observation about force creating resistance. As a policy objective, even in its heyday, the 19th century, “balance of power” really only made sense in a context of competing, similar European nation-states — in an era of competing ideologies and nuclear arms, its practice turned into a very dangerous, always threatened stalemate, until Reagan finally had the nerve to abandon it; and with the rise of global fanatic terrorism, suitcase nukes, etc., its revival would be just an irrelevant distraction. There are other problems in the world than islamist terrorism, of course, but this world has simply become too small and too complex for it to be carved up according to the hegemonic implications of “balance of power” — it’s become just a relic of an earlier era.
As for the simple point that force creates resistance — aka “blowback” — well, yes, that’s always true or potentially so, at all levels, whether it’s a cop arresting a felon, a nation declaring war on another, or one nation providing support to terrorists that attack another. This resistance occurs whether the agent using the force is “overly aggressive” or underly aggressive, or just-right aggressive, and it’s significantly independent of which side is the more moral or just — bullies’ resistance is stimulated by force used against them just as are victims’. So, apart from saying that, (a) force is something that should only be used when necessary, in the first place, and (b) when it’s necessary, it should be used in the full expectation that it will create resistance, i.e., “blowback”, which will need to be planned for, there’s nothing more that this obvious observation can add.
What would be more to the point here would be to add the idea that morality and/or justice should be wrapped into the definition of the “necessity” of force.
Well, you are voicing a view in which you would like to violently overthrow the Constitution, the democratic process, and the foundations of the Republic.
The US Constitution demands the death of Benedict Arnolds. There is no situation in which Benedict Arnold could have been kept alive while still keeping the US Constitution viable.
Even Bush’s current actions are only possible because of the many other people who died and fought in America’s past.
>No, I simply said that our intelligence analysts and policy
>makers have a track record, not to mention information, and
>actual responsibility, in contrast to you, who have nothing but
>your own inflated, self-serving statements about how often
>you read the news, or make “predictions” that have no
>consequences whatsoever
You keep repeating the same absurd comment — why should I or any other American voter care what “policy makers” with a proven track record of absymally bad decisions think? They’ve had their chance to prove themselves and time and again they’ve failed. The fact that they happen to be in power now — for the time being — is hardly evidence that we ought to take them seriously, given the events of the past several years. It’s essentially an argument with no content whatsoever.
Do you actually read the news about Pakistan? So far you haven’t posted any evidence that what I’ve been claiming is wrong, except for the fact that you don’t seem to think you need to think for yourself, because you trust this Administration to handle things for you. Yet the same argument would apply if it were Barack Obama or any other Democrat in power — would you say the same thing then? Just trust the government and don’t bother to form your own independent opinion, because they know best? Why bother voting at all then, or thinking, for that matter?
Seriously — I suggest you actually read the news once in a while. I know Bush doesn’t bother but it’s pretty obvious you’re intelligent and could benefit from reading it yourself. What I’m talking about is hardly classified intelligence.
>the simple point the force creates resistance
Snyder’s argument is not merely that “force creates resistance” but that this effect typically dominates when one engages in preventive war at the borders of one’s sphere of influence. The argument describes quite well the situation we faced and still face in Iraq. His thesis is that preventive war, therefore, not only creates “resistance” but that resistance is, eventually, usually stronger than the threat one was originally trying to neutralize via the preventive war in the first place.
(By ‘read the news’ I mean read the news about Pakistan. It’s quite interesting — and obviously I don’t claim to have access to classified intelligence — but there’s plenty of data out there which is publicly available and, I assert, enough for interested Americans to come to their own reasonable, at least somewhat informed conclusions which may well differ from those of this Administration.)
Good night, Mitsu. Yours is “essentially an argument with no content whatsoever”, apart from your mindlessly repeated slogan that the bulk of current intelligence analysts — who by and large also constitituted the bulk of intelligence and military analysts under the Clinton administration — are idiots, and anybody “reading the news” would know better than they. Sorry to be blunt about it, but that’s just stupid. And I notice you have nothing else to say, which is just as well. Stick with your fanboys.
>the bulk of current intelligence analysts
I never referred to the “bulk of current intelligence analysts” — I am referring to the neocon policy makers who make the final decisions in the Bush Administration with respect to policy, and their absymal track record. Naturally there are plenty of intelligence analysts in the government who are not idiots — many of whom were completely ignored by this Administration’s policy makers, as we all well know.
>anybody “reading the news” would know better than they. …that’s just stupid
It would be stupid if that’s what I said — since it isn’t, however, I’m not sure who you’re debating. What I said was, more precisely, that many Americans, including myself, made far better policy calls than the neocon policy makers who had and have access to classified intelligence but used it very poorly indeed. I have no reason to be impressed with neocon policy makers with such a poor track record, so why should I change my vote or my opinion based on mere appeal to their ridiculously bad judgement?
>I notice you have nothing else to say
How about: do you have an actual argument to refute Snyder’s contention that preventive war tends to create a larger counter-reaction than the threat ostensibly thwarted by the preventive action? Historically this has been the case, so why would the current situation be different?
Regarding Pakistan, from a publication I imagine you might like, the Weekly Standard, from an article written in April of this year:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/457rzpvh.asp
[quote]
The security situation in Pakistan’s North-West Frontier Province continues to deteriorate. Once again, Western pressure on the government of President Pervez Musharraf has failed to prevent Pakistan from handing over territory to the Taliban, this time to a group called the Movement for the Enforcement of Islamic Laws…..
…..Under the leadership of Faqir Muhammad, whom the Pakistani government refuses to arrest, Bajaur has become an al Qaeda command and control center for launching operations into eastern Afghanistan. Kunar, the adjacent Afghan province, is one of the most violent in the country….
….The situation has gotten so bad that in February, Lieutenant General Karl Eikenberry, outgoing U.S. commander in Afghanistan, called “a steady, direct attack against the command and control in sanctuary areas in Pakistan” essential to preempt the expected Taliban spring offensive. Senator Carl Levin, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, voiced similar concerns last month, saying, “Long-term prospects for eliminating the Taliban threat appear dim so long as the sanctuary remains in Pakistan, and there are no encouraging signs that Pakistan is eliminating it.”…
….Now, the Taliban and al Qaeda openly rule in the tribal lands. Terror training camps are up and running, secure from harassment by Pakistani security forces. Al Qaeda leaders are thought to be sheltered in the region, as Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence, confirmed in February….
…The United States smashed al Qaeda’s base of operations in Afghanistan in 2001, only to see it transferred to northwestern Pakistan. The refusal of the Musharraf regime to deal with this situation, and the active participation of elements of the Pakistani military, intelligence, and political elites in supporting our enemies, are worrisome for our efforts in the war on terror–and threaten the very existence of a non-jihadist Pakistani state.
[end quote]
I really think it’s pretty silly to defer to the infinite wisdom of the Bush Administration when even its erstwhile allies at the Weekly Standard write articles such as the above. So, yes, to circle back around to the original thread of this — I do believe Barack Obama has a more serious plan for dealing with our enemies than does either the current administration or most of the other candidates from either party.
So Mitsu is getting his policy positions from the Weekly Standard now?
>policy positions
Like I said, I’m open to views from both left and right. However, the above article isn’t so much a policy paper as just a description of the dire conditions in Pakistan. But, if you prefer, here’s an article from the Christian Science Monitor:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0717/p03s01-usfp.html
[quote]
Washington’s intelligence and security agencies say they’ve watched with increasing frustration in recent months as Al Qaeda’s central leadership has reestablished core functions in Pakistan’s tribal areas.
Al Qaeda now seems well settled in a haven in this remote, lightly governed area, say US officials. It’s begun to conduct more terrorist training. The flow of money and communications to and from Osama bin Laden’s top lieutenants appears to have increased.
In short, say US officials, Al Qaeda again has a headquarters, one of the main elements necessary for it to direct operations on US soil.
“We actually see Al Qaeda central being resurgent in their role in planning operations … We see that activity rising,” said John Kringen, the Central Intelligence Agency’s director for intelligence, at a House Armed Services Committee hearing last week.
[end quote]
This stuff has been reported for months — all these complaints from Sally about how we should just trust the Bush Administration are a complete sidetrack: the claims I’m making about the situation in Pakistan is not some classified secret. It’s been major news for the entire last year, and nothing I’ve been writing about it, above, is particularly controversial. My point is, given the dire situation there, I am in favor of a much more aggressive stance, which is one reason I am leaning towards voting for Obama. To harp on about how I ought to trust the wisdom of the Bush Administration is hardly a persuasive argument that I or anyone else ought to change my vote and instead support a Republican who wants more of the same thing we’ve had for years: wasted time and energy in Iraq.
Just for the record — Mitsu’s repeated claims that I have ever claimed “we should just trust the Bush administration” are complete and total fabrications — either delusions or lies. I have never once said that, nor do I think that. He, on the other hand, has repeated this invention as though he really hopes that a lie retold often enough will begin to resemble the truth. And he does this because his own pretensions to know more than his much abused “policy makers” have been exposed as also concoctions of the fevered and swollen-headed imagination of a closet gameboy — all he knows, at third or fourth hand, is part of what those same policy makers have been able to reveal.
His tactics are those of a common troll, and are no longer worth debating.
Sally, you are the one mischaracterizing me, by continuing to repeat some strange story that I am “inventing” facts that I couldn’t possibly know, when in fact I have plenty of documented basis for what I have been saying, which has been widely reported (as I quoted above!)
As for my “lies”, these are your own words:
Right now, they’re operating in the Pakistani tribal areas with impunity for the most part.
And you know this how?
The Pakistani efforts to track them down have been paltry at best.
You’ve been briefed on this, have you?
I simply say that your own invention of various details concerning operations within the tribal regions of Pakistan, for example, or behind-the-scenes communications between states, has no basis in anything.
All of us are armchair commentators, it’s true, but not all of us pretend we’re privy to information and conclusions that only detailed, expert, and often classified analysis could provide.
These remarks only go to show, as I demonstrate above, that you haven’t been keeping up with the news. As I’ve already stated: at no point have I pretended to know classified information, what I am saying is based on public quotes by US and foreign officials, intelligence reports, and our own intelligence assessments which are publicly available and have been reported on widely for the last year. The fact that YOU are apparently unaware of this (which I didn’t realize when I wrote my first remarks) doesnt mean that I or others ought to be unaware of this. At no point did I “invent” any details; I’m basing my opinions of the assessments of intelligence analysts, including remarks by the the CIA and DIA, regarding Pakistan.
You then go on to remark that I shouldn’t have an opinion about our strategy with Pakistan: “we base our views and critiques on our broad assessment of the overall conduct and strategy, not on trying to second-guess every decision and tactic.” As I keep saying, yes, I am going to “second guess” out “tactics” in Pakistan, and I think there’s plenty of unclassified information available for us to make a reasoned judgement about it, and not simply trust the “experts” in the Administration who know better than we do.
You are saying that you haven’t said we must trust the Administration on their Pakistan strategy, yet at the same time you’re saying that we shouldn’t “second guess” them regarding Pakistan — but that’s all I’m claiming you said — i.e., you are saying that we in the public don’t have enough information to form an opinion about the Administration’s strategy in Pakistan, i.e., “second guess”-ing them. That’s all I was referring to. If I can’t criticize them or form my own opinion, is that not tantamount to saying I should just trust they know what they are doing? If you didn’t mean that, I apologize, but that’s sincerely how I read your remarks.
Regardless, I’m sorry, but I think I have every right to criticize their Pakistan strategy. Iraq has been a huge distraction from our fight against Al Qaeda, in my view, and I think I have more than enough information at my disposal to be able to come to that conclusion. The fact that you seem to be unaware of these things (to the extent that you think I am “inventing” them), simply underlines my point: just because you don’t know what is going on in Pakistan hardly means that I am taking on airs — I simply pay attention to these things more than you apparently do.
No, you don’t. We all read the same kinds of things you do, Mitsu. Reasonable people, even those with decided opinions on these matters, nevertheless will want to express some qualifications about the reports they come across, recognizing that they’re third or fourth hand or worse, accepting that they often enough conflict with one another or from day to day, and acknowledging that one’s own knowledge of actual events on the ground, or of behind-the-scenes efforts, is significantly less than those charged with guiding policy, whether they agree with them or not. It’s called having a “critical intelligence”, and it bears just as much on the reading of reports that flatter one’s preconceptions as it does on listening to administration spokespeople.
Of course, I agree with that.
How about: do you have an actual argument to refute Snyder’s contention that preventive war tends to create a larger counter-reaction than the threat ostensibly thwarted by the preventive action? Historically this has been the case, so why would the current situation be different?
I do. Human history is full of nations and empires that failed due to weakness, egotistical leaders, and various other vices. America is something better than anything that has gone before. Not inspite of the horrors and mistakes that occured in the past, but because of them.
Europe, for example, should never be allowed to wage a war ever again, especially a pre-emptive war. Because Europe has never been as competent at warfare and making a better world from it, as Americans have proven to be. Pre-emption, the arguments you have listed, Mitsu, only applies to nations that have failed to demonstrate their ability to succede at war and justice. Which history is full of.
Btw, whatever Obama actually does, if he comes to power, will still be an investment of resources and a taking on of risk. The only difference to the men and women endangered by such things, is that they will receive less national, military and diplomatic support than Bush has given the people in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I really don’t see why this constitutes a less risky or more effective policy solution to you, Mitsu. The amount of investment in Pakistan required to curb the situation your sources described, is essentially another Iraq and Afghanistan Rolled Into One given the population of Pakistan.
Certainly you can risk less resources, but then you also prolong the problem and lengthen the amount of time you have to pay interest on the Pakistan problem. Afghanistan and Iraq, with its concomitant initial and continued large resource drains and risks, are incurring benefits at a far faster rate than any low resource or low intensity conflict without the committal of large numbers of US ground forces.
Even if you ignore the subject of whether Iraq is paying dividends on the initial and continued investment, you still run into the problem of how to produce more as you put in less. That runs into a law of conservation problem, which doesn’t just apply to physics particles.
Well, Ymarsakar, I disagree. I think we’re paying too little attention to Afghanistan, and we should up our “investment” there if you want to put it that way, and far too much to Iraq (though we can’t at this stage withdraw too quickly), and I actually think we’re losing far more than we’ve gained, overall, through our invasion of Iraq. It’s a losing investment, that is, in my book.
Pakistan would be a very difficult problem to solve — I am simply saying we should adopt a policy which puts far more emphasis on Pakistan, on preventing Al Qaeda from gaining and strengthening a de facto stronghold there (which, as I quoted above, many intelligence reports suggest is well underway). Obviously if possible we put significantly greater pressure on Pakistan itself, but do so with the threat that we will launch strikes and/or incursions into the tribal areas if they don’t do it themselves. Naturally, such a strategy is risky but I believe it’s well warranted given the proven nature of the threat from Al Qaeda.
Pakistan would be a very difficult problem to solve – I am simply saying we should adopt a policy which puts far more emphasis on Pakistan
If wars could be won and opponents defeated simply by getting the diplomats, bureacrats, and policy makers to put more emphasis on a certain location or problem, then I would agree with you, Mitsu. Since that is not how things work, I don’t think much can be accomplished short term or long, by putting more focus on Pakistan. You need a lot more than just focus. You need actual logistics capability, which has been increased in Afghanistan primarily because Iran and all the other terrorists are more invested in Iraq. You need combat experience with urban populations, not just mountain guerrillas and terrorists fighting in Afghanistan. Which Iraq provides, in the example of Fallujah. The ability and knowledge of a military and a nation that it can definitely take a city as fortified as Fallujah, with civilians inside or not, is a confidence that will be critical to whatever problems might occur with “putting more emphasis” on Pakistan. Pakistan has 150 million people, as I have mentioned before. Without the ability to take or secure their cities, which Iraq has taught us, how do you think you can do anything productive there even if you did focus “more emphasis on Pakistan”?
I know you recognize some of the benefits of Petraeus and his COIN strategy, yet neither Petraeus nor his COIN strategy would have existed in the form they do now without the forge of Iraq. So instead of seeing Iraq as a mistake, I see it as a learning experience that will be required to deal adequately with larger targets such as Iran, Pakistan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc.
(which, as I quoted above, many intelligence reports suggest is well underway)
If you saw the demographic map of how many people were put out in the global street during CartoonJihad, that would be obvious. The entire northern border with Afghanistan is full of terrorists and terrorist sympathizers. They haven’t been able to move south because the North is full of Marines, SEALs, and Army soldiers that would love to off some Taliban.
That’s not the problem. The problem is how you are going to deal with any of that, because terrorist cells are already strong in Pakistan. I don’t see how you could do anything effective without Iraq.
do so with the threat that we will launch strikes and/or incursions into the tribal areas
To go back to Petraeus, simply “raiding” terrorist strongholds and villages doesn’t really do anything. You have to stay there and conduct counter-insurgency operations. Install yourself as the governor, the law, and the Power, or install locals hostile to terrorists as the governor, law, and power.
The reason why I favor pre-emption is because the lethal strike cannot be counter-attacked, given the lethal strike makes you dead. It is very very hard to counter-attack when dead. Possible, but hard. However, that is exactly why I don’t favor your threats concerning launching strikes and/or incursions into tribal areas. Such things are a minor injury and people can easily avenge minor insults and injuries that were launched pre-emptively against them.
So ironically, I am against pre-emption when it is done by your beliefs and you are against pre-emption when it s done my way.
Xenophon
For example, I am against air strikes against Iran. What I am for is the Xenophon option. March 2 or 3 Marine MEUs across from Iraq, through Iran, to Afghanistan. Destroying, capturing, and defeating anything of worth while they are on the Anabasis. Such would be a very crippling wound, if not a fatal one, to Iran’s central government.
The of weapons
The d[e]p[o]s[i]t[i]ng of weapons and various other onsite support to anti-government fighters in Iraq, by US Marines, would also be a nagging thorn in Iran’s side for decades.
Because Iran can retaliate against Afghanistan/pakistan targets or other Gulf/European shipping, Iran’s naval facilities and forces must also be annihilated. Such things constitute more than any threat Bill Clinton was willing to make, Mitsu, and such things also constitute far more in terms of effective pre-emption than any strikes launched.
As I said before, I don’t believe that pre-emption will always result in greater blowback than the benefits you gain from attacking first. However, that also means I do believe sometimes that attacking first will create a greater blowback than the initial attack. And that is when you attack first, but fail to adequately damage the enemy. Such as when you threaten to bomb people and then never carry it out, or bomb people but don’t wipe them out in the process.
Both the threats of AQ in Pakistan and Hizbollah in Iran are the same threats, just separated by power and geography. Iraq is there to deal with Iran and to draw off attacks on Afghanistan. Afghanistan is there to deal with Pakistan and to serve as a logistics base, given that Iran is too busy attacking (kidnapping) US soldiers and Iraqi civilians in Iraq.
As a clarification, when I say that you will have to invest as much resources in pakistan as was invested in Iraq, I mean ground forces. Not just threats of bombing, not just raids/strikes that are temporary in nature.
You could argue that you can deal with Pakistan and the terrorists there without committing as many ground forces as was done for Iraq, but I doubt such arguments would be effective.
Also you mentioned Iraq as serving as a propaganda and recruiting tool for AQ. I really don’t see why your attacks in Pakistani tribal areas would not serve as propaganda for AQ. Remember, I didn’t deny that Iraq was being used as propaganda by AQ. I said it didn’t matter so long as terrorists die. But if you are concerned about enemies using unjustified attacks against them in order to formulate effective propaganda against us, then why would you be willing to provide them such propaganda by striking the tribes in Pakistan that are in league with Osama Bin Laden?
Bombing tribal folks won’t make them surrender, you know. Unless you use nukes. But I doubt you would wish to use nukes.
What’s the long term point in dealing with Pakistan when short term strikes won’t do anything good long term and long term military campaigns required the experience of Iraq?
That’s the critical portion of the problems with your position on Pakistan and Iraq.
People will have to excuse the number of comments I had to use. I wrote my reply in one single block, but there was a word in it that was preventing my comment from appearing.
It was necessary to figure out which word was the culprit, since the others I had found S[o]ma and So[m]alia were avoided by me.
This time it was d[e]p[o]s[i]t[i]ng
The crux of the anti-preventive war argument is not simply that you engender resistance among the people you’re attacking (which is sort of obvious), but that you turn other people, states, etc., against you, because they fear you may attack them, as well, unprovoked by an initial strike. Thus they ally themselves against you and create a larger counter-force than the original threat you were trying to neutralize. We don’t have enough forces to occupy the entire Muslim world, and even if we did, we’d inevitably engender resistance from the rest of the world even beyond the Muslim world if we tried to occupy it all.
Preventive war is an endless disaster for great powers because it creates more frontiers with more hostile forces which you then have to subdue, and the cycle goes on forever. Doesn’t matter if you “completely destroy” one country’s military — others will rise up to take their place.
Regarding Pakistan: your analysis is wrong simply because there is already, like in Afghanistan, a local force which can impose order: the Pakistani central government itself. With Afghanistan the reason it isn’t (yet) a disaster at the scale of Iraq is that the Northern Alliance was able to impose order over most of the country. But — that order is steadily weakening since we haven’t provided them with sufficient support. In Pakistan, yes, of course we can’t just do limited strikes — the area has to be pacified and cleared of terrorist camps. We can and should do this in concert with the Pakistanis — which means, if they refuse to cooperate we go in (to the tribal areas only) but afterwards we negotiate with them to take over. That would be the only sensible long-term approach in my view.
Naturally, such an approach is hugely risky and can go wrong in many ways. BUT: it is a fight against our direct enemies and thus is not “preventive” or “preemption” at all. It’s a legitimate war against those who attacked us.
Doesn’t matter if you “completely destroy” one country’s military – others will rise up to take their place.
You will never destroy terrorism with such defensive minded beliefs, Mitsu. You won’t even be able to relegate terrorism to the ash bin of history, as Nazism was. And you sure won’t faze the Islamic Jihad’s revolution to turn upside down human progress.
This is a war. Others will always take up the fight on both sides, until one side gives up. Your methods will not arrive at a decisive victory for America in this war. Her enemies will always be able to corrupt the international and Arab body, while America will try to wait for attacks, attacks that the Arab and International body will give great joy in planning, executing, and observing the results of. They will feel no fear. They will not surrender to your tactics or strategies. AQ is not the only enemy we have to face, Mitsu.
With such things as that, what does it really matter how many nations in the world resist America due to our pre-emption, Mitsu?
Our enemies are not other nations, our enemies are non-nations like CAIR, the ACLU, the Muslim Council, AQ, Hizbollah, etc. So long as non-state enemies of America exist, there will always be nations out to “resist” America. You can’t stop such things by sitting back and working up agreements to attack “only after the fact”.
like in Afghanistan, a local force which can impose order: the Pakistani central government itself.
You have got to be joking, Mitsu. The local force in Afghanistan you are refering to lead to the Civil War between Taliban and Northern Alliance. The Taliban won. And now the Taliban are in Pakistan.
The local force that is actually in Afghanistan, which you forgot to mention, is a force led, trained, and inspired by Americans. That is not the same as the local force in Pakistan.
Even still, Pakistan does not have the power or the military support to keep control of the North. Even the mighty US had to change some fundamentals just for Iraq. Which is why Iraq will give America the tools to resist, while Pakistan has not even tried to acquire such tools. Musharaffef has been too worried about appearing the military dictator to conduct truly effective operations. Although he has done some things, they just aren’t decisive.
But – that order is steadily weakening since we haven’t provided them with sufficient support.
You mean NATO hasn’t provided them with sufficient support. It is not the United States that are sitting around having parties in Afghanistan. And if you want more troops in Afghanistan, go to Germany and Korea and strip the garrisons there. If your idea about pre-emption is correct, they should be happy to help a war fought after Osama pre-empted the US.
We can and should do this in concert with the Pakistanis – which means, if they refuse to cooperate we go in (to the tribal areas only)
As Americans learned in Iraq, “going into terrorist areas” simply scatters the terrorists to places elsewhere. Not going to work. How long do you plan to stay in these tribal areas, Mitsu? 10 years?
but afterwards we negotiate with them to take over.
Negotiate with the tribal members for them to take over and then invite the terrorists back in?
Or negotiate with Musharref’s forces for them to go back into what was once a terrorist stronghold? That didn’t really work out well when US high command tried the same in 2004-5. Local forces, of whatever stripe, are worthless without US forces already there. Which means you would have to duplicate what worked for Iraq, in Pakistan. Of course, you could not do that if Iraq had never occured. Then your strategy for Pakistan would fail. And nobody would know why, because Iraq would never have occured.
Which, again, underscores why you are wrong about Iraq. Iraq has disproven every false strategy proposed against America’s enemies, and will keep doing it so long as terrorists are willing to go there to teach Americans how to fight terrorists in a guerrilla war.
>simply scatters the terrorists to places elsewhere
Of course it does. Then we have to keep repeating the process of going after them, which we failed to do after Afghanistan.
The point here is RIGHT NOW they are building terrorist training camps and training people to attack the United States. They have a command and control structure which they are rebuilding, and we’re not doing much to stop them. Sure, if we clear northern Pakistan they’ll go somewhere else, but not all of them — we will have captured or killed a number of them, and furthermore they will have lost a base of operations.
Your alternative seems to be total war against all Islamic nations — which we simply cannot do, because we don’t have the military force to do it. We will never be able to pull that off — particularly since our allies would not join us. We’d be alone, and we can’t even handle Iraq much less every Muslim country in the world.
The terrorist threat has to be handled in two ways: first, by lessening the political appeal of terrorism, second by attacking and destabilizing them. An attack directly at Al Qaeda in Pakistan would not engender the same worldwide revulsion that we’ve experienced in the aftermath of our attack on Iraq, revulsion that has helped Al Qaeda grow significantly in strength. War is politics carried out by other means: it has to appear justified or you multiply your enemies. Thus, going after our direct enemies is the best way to fight out enemies. Going after ancillary targets like Iraq will simply multiply our enemies and stretch our forces too thin.
Then we have to keep repeating the process of going after them, which we failed to do after Afghanistan.
So instead of stopping the construction of future terrorist strongholds, like what was done in Iraq, you want an endless line of Afghanistans where the terrorists always have the advantage of tactical defense.
No one here has criticized Vince P for his views, yet moderate Democrats are supposed to disown the far left?
You have no evidence that your claims are even close to right about what Vince P “claimed”. So don’t count your chickens before they exist.
The point here is RIGHT NOW they are building terrorist training camps and training people to attack the United States.
Attack Afghanistan, you mean. Which sort of brings into question by what basis you use to judge whether a person has attacked you or not. Is attacking America’s proxy ally in Arabia, Israel, enough to say Saddam attacked America? Is attacking Kuwaitt enough to say Saddam attacked America? Is attacking Afghanistan, which America has promised to protect, the same as attacking America?
By the time you have figured out all this stuff out, Osama bin Laden, not to mention Hizbollah and Hamas, would already have pre-empted you. You would forever be reacting to the injuries they inflict instead of the other way around. That’s the philosohical difference right there. You think we can win by allowing the terrorists time to think up new places from which to attack us. I, however, prefer a decisive victory in which not only current or previous terrorist strongholds are converted to our cause, but future terrorist strongholds are converted to our cause before the terrorists even get near them.
To do such things require pre-emption.
They have a command and control structure which they are rebuilding, and we’re not doing much to stop them.
The first thing you said you wanted to do about it was to get Musharaff to stop it. How is that “us doing something to stop them”? It isn’t. You mentioned joint ops, yes, but joint ops are occuring in Afghanistan and Iraq. Why is Pakistan so different? Or why should Pakistan be better than Iraq when the same methods are being used due to the nature of terrorism? You said Iraq was a mistake, yet there is no apparent difference to what you seek to do in Pakistan as compared to Iraq. Are you recommending that we make Pakistan into a mistake as well?
I say there is no apparent difference because obviously due to your beliefs, there will be a huge amount of difference in how any attack is applied against Pakistan, given the beliefs held about Iraq.
Sure, if we clear northern Pakistan they’ll go somewhere else, but not all of them – we will have captured or killed a number of them, and furthermore they will have lost a base of operations.
The same can and has been said about Iraq. Yet you make Pakistan out to be something different than Iraq, in this war of ours. Obviously, I don’t think there’s much of a difference except that we are in Iraq and not Pakistan. But you do think there is a fundamental difference about the strategy for Iraq as opposed to what you propose for Pakistan. Yet to analyze your proposals with logic, there is no difference on the surface.
Your alternative seems to be total war against all Islamic nations
Given that you have just stated that you will be chasing terrorists to where ever they flee, how are you going to NOT be in total war against all the Islamic nations? How?
You keep acting like there’s something fundamentally different about my strategy as compared to yours. That is correct, but the inconsistency is with your proposals, not mine. Because your strategy is inconsistent, it cannot win against a focused enemy.
which we simply cannot do, because we don’t have the military force to do it.
That’s like saying we can’t learn violence because people have been brought up to live in peace. Just because you don’t have a skill, doesn’t mean you should avoid Iraq and refuse to learn the skill of how to do violence in this war.
We will never be able to pull that off
You will never be able to pull it off, yes. But that is not applicable to Jacksonians or the US military.
particularly since our allies would not join us.
Why would any potential ally join you when they know you have already handicapped yourself? Allies join people that promise victory and are confident. They don’t want to get saddled up with a dead weight that is too weak to defend itself.
We’d be alone
America has always been alone.
and we can’t even handle Iraq much less every Muslim country in the world.
Yet you seem to think that there is some kind of logical consistency in thinking that and also thinking the US can handle the 150 million Pakistanis that you want to attack and disrupt. That’s cognitive dissonance.
I believe America can handle most of the world’s armies combined together. It might take 90% of the GDP and 70% casualties of the total citizens of America, but it can be done. But you don’t. Yet you think America should attack Pakistan and can win there.
it has to appear justified or you multiply your enemies.
Victory justifies war, nothing else does.
Going after ancillary targets like Iraq will simply multiply our enemies and stretch our forces too thin.
Iraq has 29-30 million people. Pakistan has 150 million. You claim we can’t handle Iraq and are stretched. At the same time you claim we can handle Pakistan by using the same or similar “joint ops” used in Iraq for the failed years of 2004-5.
I say your claims will fail before they even get into the planning stage.
Okay, Ymarsakar, we’ve expressed our views and while I continue to disagree with you, and I could certainly outline my reasons for that — we might as well move the debate to a different post since this one is getting fairly outdated. I will say this, though: I view attacking Al Qaeda in its strongholds as far more realistic than attacking and occupying the entire Muslim world. If you think that is possible, then we really do have radically divergent points of view on military strategy.
I use the rss feed Neo added, but any issues you wish to bring up in the future, just stick it to your next reply in a newer thread if you wish.
Personally, I see Iraq as necessary for conducting any military operations in the Middle East, forget whether you think the goal should be to attack all Muslim nations or not.