A lot of fuss is being made of President Bush's purported plans to move chess pieces in Iran. Supposedly, the President has been biding his time, waiting for the election to be consummated by his second inauguration, and then he's off to dispatch the Mullah's isotopes. Indeed, his war map seems ever expansive.
Nearly as much ado has been made of Seymour Hersh's article on the subject of the Bush administration's strategy for Iran, The Coming Wars. Hersh has a long record of investigative journalism that exposes the unsavory nadir of American policy abroad. Of course, there's been plenty of worms and vipers to be found, all quite alarming. He is adept at his craft -- he covered the Mai Lai massacre story in 1969, earning him a Pulitzer. More recently, he added his weight to expose the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse case in Iraq. So Mr. Hersh's report on American plans to subvert Iran's nuclear program should come as no surprise. The release of his article in The New Yorker, some argue, borders on treason since it flutters closely to violating the Espionage Act.
The Espionage Act outlaws anyone in a time of war from conveying false reports with intent to interfere with a military operation, or in any way promoting the success of the enemy. Hersh's supporters say that he only was being a good investigative journalist, and that the facts are unsavory but true -- and that a free society should know its government's bidding. His detractors argue that he is aiding and abetting the enemy by revealing our military's offensive strategy -- an enemy that is on the threshold of becoming a nuclear power, with the will to wield such power in ways that will change our lives forever.
Watching the Hersh Ping-Pong ball go back and fourth highlights an essential divide within the West, and within America. People either believe we are at war with an enemy who wants to dismantle our secular, liberal and democratic system -- or they don't. It seems that mere individual predisposition points the weather vane towards war or to a new wrinkle in the status quo. Each side has a mountain of facts and opinions to back up its view.
People who gloss over that we're at war downplay the intent of the Jihadists, and their unique grip on the West's underbelly. If they spent more time absorbing Islamic agitprop, took a look at European demographics, and fascinated themselves with the full breadth of Western rot that is exploited by eager volunteers ready to die, a bleak picture emerges -- one that is not unlike Nazis gallivanting in the streets of Berlin in the 1930s. Or perhaps German tribesmen baring down on Adrianople in 378. There are many signs -- indeed, actions on the Jihadist's part -- that point to a cogent enemy strategizing to bring down the West in an era of individual empowerment.
People who insist that we're at war often gloss over the post-modern qualities of the current conflict, seeing it analogously to past wars. Yet this war defies maps, armies, and battle lines. Nihilism bares no flag; and it is well-served by the technology of this age, which enables insidiousness on a grand scale alongside the blessings it bestows. Gone are the days of the panopticon mass media -- useful for rallying the troops and targeting the ire of the masses towards a common foe. Asymmetrical warfare is the child of cheap, clever technology. This war will remain undeclared, and highly evolutionary. This is not your father's war, and no amount of flag-waving or Bush-worshipping will change that. A war that defies maps and battle lines -- and even a declaration -- also defies suasive rhetoric to mobilize a unified nation.
There are many indications that in the world of media alone, the future promises as many channels as there are possible broadcasters. Text and photo blogging are scratches on the surface of the coming mediasphere that leverages broadband, high quality and low cost production tools, and persuasive voices that have something to say. As we enter the trillion channel universe, war and status quo will be wrestling in a glue of nuanced opinion, where consensus never arrives. Take away the Internet, television, cell phones and the tabloid press -- and we could have Roosevelt again, chatting to us at the fireside.
This blogger believes we are in a war -- very reluctantly so, and hopeful that it can be won. But he is not deluded. As much as Victor Davis Hanson writes beautifully eloquent essays on the historicity of this conflict, and America's central role in safeguarding the world's freedom, the precedent for our crisis is scant, and grows wanting as we advance ever further into a novel world of unknowns brought about by proliferating technological prowess that is outside of anyone's control.
Seymour Hersh is right that we are setting ourselves up for becoming a society of secret warriors, obsessively bent on the destruction of our enemies. And that it is ugly, cruel and unfortunate -- besmirching many of the values our free society holds close. The alternative to confronting Medieval men with nukes seems as elusive to Mr. Hersh as whether or not he believes we're in a real, justified war. It is, for now at least, a matter of opinion.
It is my understanding that Hersh was a prime mover of the Abu Ghrab story. The investigations were ongoing and then the pictures got released via a defense lawyer who had ties to both Hersh and Col. Hackworth USAR Retd). Hackworth, at the time, was luxuriating in the fact that he had been part of an expose of a cover up of higher authority trying to blame the little guy for practicing what was policy.
The decision to get the photos out to the media was a defense tactic.
Was a defense tactic worth the effort.
Fabian leftist dont expose the true aims of their efforts, the unstated cause, that is the real motivation.
Let all the trees burn, fine, but dont harvest any, for that violates the actual agenda to cut America off from her resources.
Amerio is the enemy, and all the efforts of the left is about tieing her down in a quagmire of her own institutions untill she can no longer move, thousands of liliputian strings.
Success in Iraq is bad for them, America in disgrace and a few million Iraq dead is good for them, so that is what they are bringing about any way they can.
They dont care a wit about our troops or the people in Iraq,
Mass graves of children in Iraq, but not usefull for political gain, so the dead kids dont exist to them.
Dead Jew kids ? same thing.
Any time they hint at actuall caring about life or death, its a political calculation, if it helps them to power or can be used to shame the USA, then they care, otherwise if the dead are not usefull, they dont care.
America is the enemy, for ALL of those in the anti war camp .. thats all that matters.
Its occams razor, all the conveluted unparsable temporary standin fashion of the week reasons they give are all false fraud fake ..
Just look at it as a mix of self hatered and America hatred, with the only object of merit their beloved Socialist utopia, and then it all makes sense.
They still push the communist manifesto, they still follow the steps laid out in the Communist goals for America.
All the fake complexity,, its all a smokescreen, its chaff and misdirection, that it dont make sense stand up to scrutiny or seem well reasoned, is .. well congrats you have nailed em, because thats the truth of it.
They are frauds, they cant come out and say what their real motivations are or what they really think, or what the goals are,
Fabian socialists they are. whats so hard to understand ?
We heard all the same stuff during the Afgan war, same stuff,
according to them, All woulf be right with the world if the Jews would simply allow them and the world to exterminate them. add up what they demand, and does it not add up to that very thing?
Is it not universal the same people refuse to condem Castro, Mugabe ?
Chaves looks to become the Robert Mugbe of south America, its starting, not exactly "moderate" eh ?
There is no such thing as moderate, its a name that a Communist calls himself but its deception.
We see so called moderates sleeping with hard core stalinists and trotskys and sharing political planks and venues, and we are asked to consider them seperatly, but its a sham and a scam.
Now all of this is quite Hyperbolic, exagerated, fine, but to far less degree than you can find absolution for them with,
Cicero,
I'd agree that to some extent the historical parallels drawn by Hanson et al are somewhat overstated. Nonetheless the conflict we face is not exactly sui generis either. There are facets of the current conflict which have echoes in World War II, and the Cold War, and also Algeria, Lebanon, and yes even Vietnam. But only facets, and only echoes – not entire narratives drawn with isomorphic precision. Yet some choose to latch themselves to their sacred signifier and swing from it as from a chandelier, as some comment posters here will no doubt subsequently demonstrate.
That said, one thing we cannot have is cynical triangulation: outrage at the lack of WMD intelligence, and outrage against any attempt to gather such intelligence.
Intelligence requires espionage and covert ops. Espionage and covert ops require secrecy. Secrecy is a threat to a free society. So is flying blind. These are aphorisms, but worth reviewing.
lewy14
And Yet the USSR, a regime that spent 70 years exterminating some 62 Million of their own to maintain terror, and fell apart when they had lost the will to continue killing, whos dreams of smashing the USA was destroyed when they saw 2000 lb bombs flying in thru tiny vents in bombproof bunkers, finnaly crumbled on their own.
Perhaps Bush is right, if we are able to prop up Iraq untill they can stand on their own, if it becomes a beacon for the rest in the middle east, and the people of Iran throw off the yoke of the Mullas .....
There is hope we might not need to set a single overt American boot tank and bradley on the soil of Iran ..
Find the nuke labs and make sure they dont get the bomb in the meantime.
With all the uncertainty, its still possible we might avoid invasion of Iran.
Our troops could use a break, but allowing Iran to go Nuclear is not an option.
If Hersh is a traitor, you going to have to lock up a goodly portion of The Washington Times staff as well as Eli Lake.
>>The Espionage Act outlaws anyone in a time of war from conveying false reports with intent to interfere with a military operation, or in any way promoting the success of the enemy.
For the 10^9th time, the USG is not in a legal state of war with any other nation, and no congressional Letters of Marque and Reprisal have been issued against anyone, not even bin Laden. Anyone who goes after Hersh on "legal" grounds, as if such things like "rule of law" really mattered, would be wise to keep that in mind.
I, for one, would feel safer if I still had my share of the defense budget, which I could use to purchase whatever personal defenses I deemed necessary. I have no respect whatsoever for the ability of the current clowns to protect me from bin Laden or anyone else for that matter. 500 billion dollars a year either hasn't been able to neutralize a relatively small band of lunatics, or these lunatics weren't much of a threat in the first place. Either way I want my money back.
I agree it's a balancing act but at least there is sme free choice which is better than none at all.
Yes, Hersh may be a little revealing but to whom is another matter. I would be surprised if the Mad Mullahs of Iran did not anticipate this and it's the driving force in their play with the UN, IAEA, and Europe. To drive a wedge in the West and stall for time.
For further see anthology of essays posted at:
Read More
And yes VDH historical perspective is dead bang.
Nothing in the Constitution requires specific wording in a declaration of war. Like it or not, when congress authorizes warlike acts they are declaring war. We are at war. Anyone who doubts that is invited to visit Fallujah and walk down the street wrapped in our flag.
I, for one, would feel safer if I still had my share of the defense budget, which I could use to purchase whatever personal defenses I deemed necessary
So we should all abandon the defense offered by one of the most intelligent and well organized military forces in the world and embrace vigilantism? That’s an interesting solution.
Personally, I’ve been wondering if the people who keep dropping filled dog poop bags in our garbage pail overnight are al Qaeda. They’re not Muslim, but we all know about al Qaeda’s recruitment program in Europe. And we all know how antagonistic Eurotrash can be. Imagine their surprise when I open my garage and confront them with my legally-purchased 155MM Self propelled Howitzer. Yippie kay-yay.
I was under the impression that Fallujah had been "secured" by Our Awesome Might and that it was now safe for Americans. Perhaps I overestimated the efficiency and competence of our glorious Marines.
Perhaps the local cops might get some of my share of the defense budget. They are at least minimally competent. Maybe some half-decent security guards. Likely some better guns.
So far I've seen a lot of money flushed down the drain for Homeland Security, and even more money sunk into Iraq with very little return. In the case of Homeland Security, I'm getting negative return: a total inability to stop minimally intelligent terrorists combined with the infrastructure needed for a future police state to oppress me. Yay.
Look, if the USG was serious about, for example, terrorists getting nukes, it would use its vast resources to buy up all the stray nukage. The CIA could offer $X/kg of plutonium, no questions asked. If there's one thing the USG should be able to do to terrorists, it's out-bid them. I see no evidence that this is going on. It's not a matter of secrecy -- the CIA could take out an ad in the bloody paper. These guys just aren't smart enough to do simple things right, much less complicated stuff like nation-building.
The military establishment could turn around. They could clean up their act and become competent enough to deserve my financial support. But then they wouldn't need to forcibly tax me, would they?
>>Imagine their surprise when I open my garage and confront them with my legally-purchased 155MM Self propelled Howitzer.
It's my understanding that howitzer ownership is legal in Switzerland, along with mandatory machine-gun ownership for male heads-of-household. Observe how Switzerland has descended into a nightmare of gang warfare and anarchy as a result of these policies.
About Swiss weaponry, I recently took a ski trip with a young man fresh from his training in the Swiss Army. While weapons and training are universal, strict controls are also in place. He told me he was responsible for every bullet and unauthorized discharge of even a single round could be cause for serious legal consequences. Sounds like a "well regulated militia" and the weapons are definitely for use under a carefully controlled command structure rather than for personal use.
Has anybody seriously considered the idea that the Pentagon fed the story to Hersh, and is using him as a tool in a carefully-coordinated campaign of misinformation?
Hersh blew the lid off Abu Ghuraib and My Lai before that. Heck, he even exposed Glomar Explorer. Yet there have been times when he's been famously wrong. What about his accusations (on dubious grounds) of war crimes committed by Gen. Barry McCaffrey and his men during Operation Desert Storm? Or his pronouncement on March 31, 2003 that the invasion of Iraq had become a stalemate thanks to the efforts of the Fedayeen? Hersh isn't infallible; he's only as smart as his sources.
The Pentagon has plenty of good reasons to spread the story about covert ops in Iran, even if they deny it in public. The mullahs may be forced to make bad moves and expose their vulnerability if they become paranoid with the thought they're being spied on. They may even reveal new details about their nuclear program if they feel it's already been compromised.
Further about Swiss weaponry, I'm sure your ski companion was referring primarily to the issued war-reserve (or whatever they call it) when speaking about the ammunition. If called out for official service, they are required to have that minimum issue, and punishment would follow if that issue were missing or short.
Any Swiss militia soldier can get very inexpensive practice ammunition, which they are supposed to use (and use up) at the designated range, or buy un-subsidized ammunition at any gun shop and keep and use the weapon and ammunition in any legal manner. Crimes, of course, are treated as serious matters; crimes with militia weapons are almost unheard of.
Sometimes it seems the Swiss are more sane than the rest of us, as a national character trait. Other times one can look at the remarkably similar record of low crime with machineguns legally in civilian hands in the US and believe good behavior can be found across national boundaries.
It's my understanding that howitzer ownership is legal in Switzerland, along with mandatory machine-gun ownership for male heads-of-household. Observe how Switzerland has descended into a nightmare of gang warfare and anarchy as a result of these policies
Right. Observe how Switzerland sent one of their aircraft carriers to Indonesia to provide millions of gallons of desperately needed fresh water.
Oh, wait a minute, they don’t have any aircraft carriers. If the Indonesians were depending on the Swiss for help, they’d be dead now.
Observe how Switzerland brought an end to Nazi domination of Europe. Observe how they also fought oppressive Communist regimes that inflicted death and starvation on an unwilling population.
Oh, gee, that wasn’t Switzerland. That was the most powerful and well organized military in the world, the one you’d like to sack in favor of a nation of Dirty Harrys.
I have nothing against Dirty Harry (one of my favorite movies) but the idea that vigilantism or a beefed up police force should replace the best military in the world is ridiculous. Our leaders have made mistakes, but that’s no reason to scrap our defense.
And your idea that al Qaeda is a “small band of lunatics” is also absurd. Dan Darling wrote an extensive post about how this state-sponsored worldwide Paramilitary organization is a threat to the US and many other nations.
"As much as Victor Davis Hanson writes beautifully eloquent essays on the historicity of this conflict, and America's central role in safeguarding the world's freedom, the precedent for our crisis is scant, and grows wanting as we advance ever further into a novel world of unknowns brought about by proliferating technological prowess that is outside of anyone's control."
Precedents are thin on the ground, I agree...and have been since Muhammad IV got his clock cleaned at Vienna by Jan Sobieski and company.
Unfortunately, the time for a turnaround was in the 1930s; Thursday was merely the admission that Spengler was right about the West collapsing into its imperium mundi in this century (although he was wrong about Germany being the nucleating state for that empire). Tranzis have long since given us the vision of their T'ai P'ing; that Bush declared that Americans rather the Davos people will administer it may be criticized as self-interested, but no more than may be offered to the EUnuchs' vision that they would be the nomenklatura of the World Soviet Socialist Republic.
I worked, and had quite a few beers, with a Swiss national for about 3 years.
Your understanding is wrong. Must be part of that "reality based" understanding.
They don't own the "machne-gun", the government does. The guns are kept at home but are locked in semi-automatic mode.
Hersh? Did outstanding investigative reporting in My Lai; hasn't done much since then except repeat what his sources tell him. He's often the conduit for the CIA sources, so he's not always right.
However, I can well imagine that if he gets some Covert Ops people killed, there will be a MASSIVE lawsuit against Hersh and the New Yorker.
We don't have any real intelligence about how much Iranian nuclear ambitions have gone. The only way to get it is to send folks to see.
A nuclear Iran? That's not good and there seems no indication that diplomacy will work whatever. Iran wants the US Navy out of the Gulf and to control the Gulf, including the Arabian Peninsula and Iraq. They can't defeat the US with conventional arms (they tried and lost in the 80s) but nuclear blackmail against US cities (with maybe a demonstration strike) is highly likely if they get nukes. It would be very good to know in any case just what they have and where it is.
>>They don't own the "machne-gun", the government does. The guns are kept at home but are locked in semi-automatic mode.
Very well then. I stand corrected.
>>Observe how Switzerland brought an end to Nazi domination of Europe. Observe how they also fought oppressive Communist regimes that inflicted death and starvation on an unwilling population.
I'm going to state that Switzerland wasn't involved in either Operation Keelhaul or Dresden and leave it at that.
>>Oh, gee, that wasn’t Switzerland. That was the most powerful and well organized military in the world, the one you’d like to sack in favor of a nation of Dirty Harrys.
Are we talking about the US Army or the Soviet Army? I always get those confused when we talk about the "who handed the Nazis their ass" bit. I'll leave the discussion of W. Wilson's involvment in WWII for another time.
>>I have nothing against Dirty Harry (one of my favorite movies) but the idea that vigilantism or a beefed up police force should replace the best military in the world is ridiculous. Our leaders have made mistakes, but that’s no reason to scrap our defense.
What defense? Please explain to me how the billions and billions of dollars spent so far on defense would stop a committed terrorist of average intelligence from killing, say, 100 US civilians? Or perhaps you're referring to defense against the conventional military threat posed by Canada, Mexico, or Cuba?
>>And your idea that al Qaeda is a “small band of lunatics” is also absurd. Dan Darling wrote an extensive post about how this state-sponsored worldwide Paramilitary organization is a threat to the US and many other nations.
Yes, this terrible threat that's somehow unable to smuggle explosives into the US next to the tons and tons of heroin and cocaine. This terrible threat that can't manage to infiltrate a dozen snipers in among the hordes of illegal immigrants.
I'm real scared now.
Yes, some of them succeeded in blowing up some big office buildings. Eventually more may show up to do more damage. It would be nice to have a sane, efficient defense in place, but since the current clowns can't even keep uranium from being smuggled in, I'd much rather take my chances on my own. Unfortunately, I'm forced at gunpoint to pay for their idiocy. This doesn't do much to convince me of their benevolence (or competence.)
I'm going to state that Switzerland wasn't involved in either Operation Keelhaul or Dresden and leave it at that.
No, they were too busy safeguarding large quantities of Nazi blood money. Not surprisingly, the Swiss banking industry is still cluttered with fascists
Seymour Hersh is so used to treating our government as ‘the enemy’, he ignores the existence of a genuine threat. The Iranian government has been at war with us for more than thirty years. They shout Death to America in their parliament. What part of ‘Death to America’ doesn’t he understand?
Al Qaeda is a state-sponsored military organization, which means that we are at war with the states that support them. (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria) If our military was allowed to actually fight these terror supporting states, it would be a fairly short battle. These armies are among the weakest in the world.
Despite the weakness of the Iranian and the Saudi army, I doubt that you, T. J. Madison, could fight them single-handedly, but I could be wrong.
Unfortunately, I'm forced at gunpoint to pay for their idiocy.
That’s the great thing about America – nobody’s forcing you to do anything. You can leave any time.
I was watching the movie 'Truman' last night. There was a point in the movie where President Truman needed to fire Macarthur for wanting to go into China from North Korea, advocating flinging lots of nukes at Chinese cities. Macarthur wanted to win the war on the Peninsula, like any good general. Truman knew that nuclear weapons made all wars conditional; that they could only go so far or all hell would break loose.
I don't think it is a coincidence that every war since 1945 has been conditional, not unconditional. And that no war since then has been officially declared. Identifying enemies like Iran, Saddam's Iraq, and the DPRK as merely evil without declaring war on them highlights the conditional nature of post-nuclear conflict. No matter how much rhetoric comes from the President's bully pulpit, waars remain conditional.
That's why Hersh's essay is not treasonable. Because Iran, technically, is not an enemy of the United States, since no congressional declaration as such exists. It may be evil, as President Bush says, but Americans can go there on vacations if they like; they can phone relatives and friends in Teheran; the Iranian regime can be negotiated with; and all sorts of normalized relations can take place amid the specter of their being evil and our being the Great Satan. With a declaration of war, none of those things would take place---any more than Americans thought they could go to Berlin on holiday in 1943.
There will never be a declaration of war. Not against our most oppositive foes. And so treason will always be a matter of debate, and nuanced opinion. That's what my essay is about.
>>No, they were too busy safeguarding large quantities of Nazi blood money.
They were busy safeguarding large quantities of everybody's money. It's called "neutrality." It happens sometimes. What they weren't doing was slaughtering hundreds of thousands of innocent people, unlike, for example, all the other parties to the conflict.
>>The Iranian government has been at war with us for more than thirty years.
Hmm, the Iranian government was at war with the USG in 1975? News to me.
>Al Qaeda is a state-sponsored military organization, which means that we are at war with the states that support them. (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria) If our military was allowed to actually fight these terror supporting states, it would be a fairly short battle. These armies are among the weakest in the world.
The Syrian army is fairly weak. Underestimating the Saudi army is a bad idea, they use mostly US equipment, and many have received US training (paid for by, among other people, ME). As for the Iranian army, well, such things have been said before, but not by you.
As for Al-Qaeda being a state-sponsored military organization, well, we should wish all our enemies should be so incompetent. Again, these Al-Qaeda guys have to be either really dumb or much poorer than Mexican illegals in order to explain their present state of efficiency. If I was one of these states supposedly funding Al-Qaeda to mess with the US I'd want my money back.
>>Despite the weakness of the Iranian and the Saudi army, I doubt that you, T. J. Madison, could fight them single-handedly, but I could be wrong.
Let's just say that if Texas became occupied by the Iranian army, life for the occupiers might be, well, interesting. At any rate their army would have to get over here first. My guess is that left to their own devices, the Saudi and Iranian army would have better things to do. In fact it's far more likely that the Saudi and Iranian militaries would end up fighting each other than send conventional forces to the US.
>>That’s the great thing about America – nobody’s forcing you to do anything. You can leave any time.
So if I show up at your house and shove a gun in your face while demanding your money, it's no problem, because you're free to leave at any time? Riiight.
I've considered leaving before, but then I think about being forced out of my home town by the policies of these disgraceful liars, thieves, and murderers, and it makes my blood boil. So I think I'll make my stand here, on my home turf.
How often have the 'disgraceful liars, thieves, and murderers' of the USG shown up at your house and shoved a gun in your face? Once, twice, three times?
Obviously you despise the US government & our liberal democracy. Which current state & form of government do you approve of?
TJ's problem is symptomatic of the Left, which is a willful denial of reality.
There really are people who hate us, who have hated us for a long time, and want nothing more than to kill as many of us as possible. They believe that in doing so we will either collapse entirely as a society, or at the very worst (from their perspective) withdraw from the huge swath of the Muslim World. By "withdraw" I mean no more Coca-Cola; movies, blue jeans, noxious ideas about women's rights, equality of minorities, freedom of religion, democracy, and other things that contradict the Taliban's vision of humanity. The radical Muslims want a total refashioning of the Islamic (and eventually, the entire) world to return to the Seventh Century.
With even a weak and remote regime like Afghanistan to provide shelter, support, and state protection, folks like Al Qaeda are immensely dangerous. That TJ dismisses over three thousand dead Americans as insignificant, being nothing more than "a few office buildings" shows the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the Left.
The first order of business for any government is the providing for the common defense. To simply hope that paying off the Al Qaeda, Taliban, Saudis, Saddams, and Mullahs will stop them defies common sense and history. Every wealthy society that paid off the raiding barbarians eventually fell to them. Every wealthy society that raised an army and defeated them found peace. Ceding NY to the gangs and criminals led to the apocalyptic "Taxi Driver" version of the city; Guiliani's get tough policy starting with squeegee men and ending with the murderers led to a renewed NY.
The moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the Left in the most important part of government, defense, leaves them an ever-marginalized part of the political spectrum regardless of what else they offer. They deny that the problem even exists because they are unwilling to confront true evil even when it's come to our doorstep. They'd rather live in a fantasy world of yester-year.
Al Qaeda's attacks have steadily escalated; the next attack is likely to be nuclear, with the material given to them by Iran (which also believes that freedom and democracy is corrupt and an affront to God, who demands the stoning of women and gays and everyone else not "pure").
A confrontation with Iran is inevitable. Unlike North Korea they have no China holding their leash. Unlike Saudi or Pakistan they have willingness to bargain. "You submit or we slaughter" is their argument, and they will have to be killed (the regime, that is) for Americans to be safe.
mary writes:
I think TJ disapproves of all of them, and pretty much any government that has ever existed.
And Jim Rockford writes:
Having read TJ's comments for a while, I'm pretty sure he's a hard-core libertarian, not a leftist.
>>Has anybody seriously considered the idea that the Pentagon fed the story to Hersh, and is using him as a tool in a carefully-coordinated campaign of misinformation?
Hersh blew the lid off Abu Ghuraib and My Lai before that. Heck, he even exposed Glomar Explorer.<<
You mean the Glomar Explorer wasn't a mining ship?!? :O
Actually, I'm pretty sure the Glomar Explorer was intentionally leaked to Hersh, too, through the CIA. John Piña Craven had some interesting things to say about that in his book. Craven is sure that the construction of the Glomar Explorer was unnecessary from a technical perspective - but recovery of the K-129 wasn't really the point of the exercise. Rather, Craven believes that there is a chance that K-129 sank as a result of unauthorized activity on the part of it's crew i.e. that it attempted to launch its missles.
Now, he wasn't sure about this, and the US gov't wasn't sure about this, but the USSR couldn't be sure about it, either. The mere possibility that it might be true, and the consequences of revelation, was enough to get the Russians at the negotiating table. At least, that's Craven's view.
So the role of the Glomar Explorer was a very public (and verifiable through intelligence means - i.e. Russian sattelite photos) threat to raise the K129 and reveal its supposed activities to the world. So, yeah, you'd want a big, not-covert covert operation conducted on the surface of the ocean, as opposed to doing the whole thing underwater.
However, there were a few other odd comments of Craven's that make me think that the primary mission of the Glomar Explorer was indeed manganese nodule mining. It was designed to do that, and do it very poorly:
"In the meantime, the CIA took charge of this operation, actively excluding others. The agency did not coordinate its strategy with the State Department, the DIA, and other government authorities who had a need to know. The false cover story about the manganese nodules would wreak great damage. It would, as will be seen, result in worldwide misunderstanding of the limits of ocean resources and the waste of precious developmental resources. Gagges by security restrictions, my inability to reveal the truth when the truth would have made a difference would become an albatross around my neck. I did not know that my future professional activities would place me in positions where my oath of silence would make me an unwilling participant in the distortion of America's foriegn policy, obstructing its ability to develop ocean resources, and hurting its accomplishments in inner space. But all that was coming."
The Silent War John Piña Craven. p.222
Some time ago, Glenn Reynolds wrote that he'd heard rumors that the U.S. gov't wished to move nanotechnology, a favorite of his, into the black world. That got me to thinking on how one might accomplish such a thing in a free society. Perhaps the best methods are not legal or physical barriers, but psychological and economic obstacles. Final frontier, indeed.
My first foray into this blog, and have enjoyed the whole read.
A couple points:
1. There has been a rather hysterical painting of Al Quada as pure evil by the establishment. 'You can't reason with pure evil. If you even try to understand it you are a willful fool.'
2. Strong interests in our society benefit from this. The national security industrial complex loves it, just like the prison industial complex loves the drug war.
3. But lets take a step back. Al Quada is very clear in their aims. Get the US, and its bloody support for tyrannies out of the Middle East. As usual The Onion is spot on. Remember that piece about the ten items US troops are most likely to find in Saddam's palace? One was a hunting rifle inscribed "To Saddam from George Bush Sr."
4. 3000 dead on 9-11. A months worth of car accidents. All tragic, every last one. But lets get a little perspective. We are becoming Empire. From supporting Saddam and the Shah and Suharto to supporting the Wahhabists (by deliberate policy and by every driver with every tank of gas) to supporting the Contras we build reservoirs of ill will. We are lucky to have gotten away with so little a cost. 3000 dead on 9-11? That is the price of Empire. Jim Rockford, get over yourself. You look in the mirror and see innocence. Open your eyes.
5. Yes, we need to win against Al Queda. But to throw away our principles in the process, to become a nation that tortures, to further the harm we have caused in our support of "our bastards" will be to lose.
Now, now, Mr. Synapse, we don't want to drag the readers of this blog into that nasty swamp of reality here. No, the readers of this blog are happy to believe in fairy dust, magic transformation, and despite the last two years' evidence, the potential of bombing Iran into democracy. Without FDR-style democrats, of course.
Principles? Haven't you heard? The ends justify the means.
Bombs away!
Synapse:
1. "There has been a rather hysterical painting..."
I agree, though I'd appreciate some clarification on what 'the establishment' is exactly.
2. "Strong interests in our society benefit from this. The national security industrial complex loves..."
The national security industrial complex continues to benefit, mainly, on the irrational and/or outdated decisions of our political leadership. A quick glance at some aviation programs should tell you that. The F-22 and F-35 have been continued out of pure habit. The awful Osprey was thought up long before 9-11. And yet Rumsfeld recently cancelled a huge order for C-130 airframes, varients of which have been vital to the prosecution of this war.
3. "Al Quada is very clear in their aims. Get the US, and its bloody support for tyrannies out of the Middle East."
Are you aware of what happened in Algeria in during the 1990s or did that escape your attention?
4. "3000 dead on 9-11. A months worth of car accidents. All tragic, every last one. But lets get a little perspective."
The acceptable level of terrorism - anywhere - is zero.
Even if you wish to dismiss that heinous and appalling attack on non-combatant civilians as a blip in the nation's mortality rate, 'perspective' indicates that the 9-11 attack was more that the simple slaughter of civilians. Our financial and military centers were attacked, our transportation infrastructure the instrument. A government and a people can no more ignore such an assault than a penne ante pipe bomber making a smiley face pattern in mailboxes.
"We are becoming Empire. From supporting Saddam and the Shah and Suharto to supporting the Wahhabists..."
What about supporting the Wahhabists against Saddam? Or the Shah against the pre-Saddam Baath? Or Suharto against the alternative, Sukarno? Are our leaders demigods?
I say our leaders are men. Nothing more. The United States does not have infinite resevoirs of power. American power has very real limits. To advocate disengagement with all tyranny is to advocate disengagement with half of humanity.
That might be a wise policy -- if a scheme for evacuating all liberty-loving peoples off of the Earth was included in the package. We are approaching an era when the most horrible weapons are within the reach of the very poorest nations. Which brings us back to the topic of the post.
"[supporting Wahhabbis] ...by deliberate policy and by every driver with every tank of gas..."
I assure you that, broadly, there was nothing deliberate about the evolution of the internal combustion engine or the petrolium industry. There were many small deliberate acts by individuals and governments. But there was no conscious coordination, no plan between Otto Daimler, Winston Churchill and Henry Ford among others to ensure the continued survival of the Saud clan into the 21st century.
Different gadgets and different minds might have arrived at a somewhat or wholly seperate technological constellation. I'd recommend James Burke's works for a vivid explanation human progress. But I'm afraid the horseless carriage we've got is the one we're stuck with for the time being.
>>Jim Rockford, get over yourself. You look in the mirror and see innocence. Open your eyes.<<
Nothing in Mr. Rockford's comment suggests he is looking in the mirror. His eyes are on the way ahead. You and him (and, indeed, him and me) might have disagreements on the best path, or even the existence of certain paths, if you would look.
Mr. Rockford sees the Left: looking in the mirror, gazing at the path already travelled, remarking how unnecessary the journey was, with no clue as to the path ahead, and no willingness to put the mirror down and look forward.
All eyes are open, synapse, but some eyes aren't focused on the immediate. One foot in front of the other, and mind the obstacles!
>>The national security industrial complex continues to benefit, mainly, on the irrational and/or outdated decisions of our political leadership. A quick glance at some aviation programs should tell you that. The F-22 and F-35 have been continued out of pure habit. The awful Osprey was thought up long before 9-11. And yet Rumsfeld recently cancelled a huge order for C-130 airframes, varients of which have been vital to the prosecution of this war.<<
Irrational and outdated? In my mind, the irrational defense planner is the one who plans on fighting the past war rather than anticipating the next one. The F/A-22 and F-35 may be unnecessary for fighting the Jihadists, what what comes after that? North Korea? Iran? A showdown with China over Taiwan? All are frightening possibilities, but they must be anticipated and met with a plan and equipment to counter these potential threats.
The C-130's aren't really needed, as John McCain has pointed out many times, because we already have plenty. The Osprey brings some unique capabilities to the table, and deserves testing to determine whether it is reliable enough for combat.
I agree, though I'd appreciate some clarification on what 'the establishment' is exactly.
In this case the Bush Administration.
Are you aware of what happened in Algeria in during the 1990s or did that escape your attention?
Very. And of the foundations for that war laid down in the rebellion against France. Like begets like... hardly a decade after occupying Germany conducted mass reprisals against French civilians for the actions of the resistence, occupying France conducted mass reprisals against Algerians for the actions of their rebels.
Algeria got a few decades of sleepily corrupt oil economy before violence, with massacre rampant, flared again.
The Islamist terrorists in Algeria: savage beasts. But the government gains little from comparision.
The acceptable level of terrorism - anywhere - is zero.
Agreed. How about deaths one step removed from direct causation? Car wreck deaths are not murders. But they flow from deliberate decisions made by individuals and their elected reps. If the 3000 on 9-11 are truly as bad as our leaders say, then way, way, way more attention is warrented to deal with car wrecks.
I think, though, that the US public is quite ready to accept 3000 dead monthly for the privilege and convienence of driving their own cars. (actually the rate is higher, as driving is the pillar of the sedentary lifestyle, and even the re-calculated CDC figures assign the #2 cause of death as obesity and sedentary lifestyle after smoking.)
A government and a people can no more ignore such an assault than a penne ante pipe bomber making a smiley face pattern in mailboxes.
Agreed. The war needs to be won. We will never win unless we understand what happened, and why. The attribution of pure evil to Al Queda by our simplistic president, and the attacking of those who point out causes of the hatred towards us, is losing us the war.
Amateurs study tactics.
Professionals study logistics.
And a truly wise leader will drain the swamp producing terror.
Bush is shoring up the swamp, thinking he can make a buck by harnessing the swamp gas.
synapse - You seem to know a lot about the Saudis and Wahhabism. Why don’t you tell us more about the puritanical Muwahhidun, the ‘trouble out of Nejd’, and the Saudi belief, held for hundreds of years that all Muslim states must follow Shariah laws based solely on the Koran.
These fundamentalist Shariah laws encourage the taking of slaves and genocide.
Nations that follow these Shariah laws, like the Sudan, have recently made the Wahhabis proud by killing and enslaving millions of nonbelievers. These puritanical laws also inspire al Qaeda. Why would anyone think that a belief system that encourages, even legally requires, graveyard desecration, genocide and slavery is ‘evil’?
Then tell us - what did prompt a group of Saudi paramilitaries, financed by Saudi money and inspired by Saudi Wahhabism, to slaughter 3,000 innocent Americans in an unprovoked act of war?
Was it that hunting rifle Bush Sr. gave to Saddam? I guess that explains it all.
If you’re going to blame Bush for not encouraging an invasion of the Kingdom and the end of the Saudi regime, than I’d agree with you. But if you’re going to blame Bush for maintaining an alliance with the Wahhabi cult, then you’d also have to blame every other nation that buys oil from these creeps – just about every nation in the UN.
Mary:
Auto-centric nations do deserve blame. For their pollution, for the deaths they accept, and for shoring up Wahabism with their gas money.
Imagine if Bush had said, after promising to defeat Al-Queda, ...and my fellow Americans we must all accept our role in supporting the tyranies that weigh down the Middle East. We have shorn up some of the most brutal regimes in history just because they supply us with gas. We have turned a blind eye to their terror against their own people, and now we have reaped the crop which we planted. I myself bear much responsibility, as I made my richs from oil. All of you bear responsibility, as you fill you gas tanks daily with blood..
Of course then Kerry would have coasted to an easy victory by merely reassuring Americans Bush is being ridiculous. No one here has any responsibility for what has occured. Al-Queda is pure evil. You can't understand it. If you even try you are giving them aid and comfort. You are all blameless!
But once we start being honest with ourselves, and what our lifestyle has wrought, lets figure out exactly what to do with the Wahabists and their oppression. Because it is legion.
Synapse, et al:
I don't agree with everything Synapse has said. But I will identify one area of resonance I have with his or her thinking:
My biggest criticism of the Bush administration is their spin that we can have our cake and eat it too. We can shop, drive SUVs, go on vacations, spend at the mall and fight World War IV, all without really recognizing that we should pull the plug on the nefarious regimes we have supported---specifically, Saudi Arabia.
Neither presidential candidate last year paid more than passing reference to announcing a multi-trillion dollar initiative to reinvent how we get our energy. And I understand that it isn't as simple as boycotting all things Saudi, or Arab. We have competitors who are considered allies, like the EU. America turning its back on Saudi energy resources does not make the Saudis go away. It makes them turn to our competitors and adversaries more than they are doing already. So it's complex, to be sure.
Unlike Synapse, I don't believe that all policy of the past was folly and that we seem to be getting our just desserts. I think realpolitik during the Cold War was a choice between bad and worse choices. And those choices were made---some bad, some worse. We have a new world to deal with now---one without the Soviet Union to make the playing field neat and tidy. President Bush is amazingly adept at identifying that our system is gravely threatened by the un- or anti-democratic world; his capacity to pull all the world-changing levers seems limited.
Synapse, I am glad to hear someone exists out there who is against Bush because his agenda is not radical enough. I agree full-heartedly, though I differ with you on the details.
Marcus et al
We didn't deserve 9-11, any more than a person dressed in riches deserves a mugging in a slum. But understanding what our government has done in the post WW 2 decades of power is useful. As useful as a upper class person realizing it is dangerous to flaunt wealth is the wrong part of town.
The Marshall Plan, The Berlin Airlift, The Korean War, The Peace Corps, opening our education system to foreign students, we have done alot right.
But, in fighting monsters, we have not taken enough care to avoid being monsters ourselves.
The left have murdered 174 Million people for utopia, they are in no position to point at us about anything all ethically.
Mass graves of children in iraq.
Once you find that, any reason at all to take down a regime like that will do.
The left refuse to see evil, unless its the American way of life. you dont hear them talking about 14 year olds used for sex toys and tiger food. because there is no political gain for them.
They have no real morality, its a politcal calulation.
Btw .. if 3000 lives @ the WTC is not to be worried about, then the loss of 3000 solgers, more or less is also a non issue. if logic held.
But the left dont use logic, its not about right and wrong. its about kneejerk reflex, its wrong because a republican is doing it.
Its a politcal calculation
That mass grave of kids ? .. the only thing that bothers them about mass graves of kids, is that they cant benifit politically from them, they certainly go berzerker over much smaller things, microscopic trivial profoundly silly things, when they see some poltical gain for them.
Some see the Left as Evil as the butchers they support and excuse, other see them as pathetic, i suppose they are both.
Their arguments have no value, their oppositon we see today came first, before they filled in any reasons for feeling that way...
They dont arrive at a conclusion by looking at data, the conclusion comes first, then the data.
And data, like mass graves of kids, not usefull to them, is ignored. has no value, it dont factor.
The right have murdered 174 Million people for business, they are in no position to point at us about anything all ethically.
Mass graves throughout the third world.
Once you find that, any reason at all to take down a regime like that will do.
The right refuse to see evil, unless it prevents Americans making money. you dont hear them talking about starving kids or murdered union organizers because there is no political gain for them.
They have no real morality, its a politcal calulation.
But the right dont use logic, its not about right and wrong. its about kneejerk reflex, its wrong because a Democrat is doing it.
Its a politcal calculation
The mass graves? .. the only thing that bothers them about mass graves is that they cant benifit politically from them, they certainly go berzerker over much smaller things, microscopic trivial profoundly silly things, when they see some poltical gain for them.
Some see the right as Evil as the butchers they support and excuse, other see them as pathetic, i suppose they are both.
Their arguments have no value, their oppositon we see today came first, before they filled in any reasons for feeling that way...
They dont arrive at a conclusion by looking at data, the conclusion comes first, then the data.
And data, like mass graves, not usefull to them, is ignored. has no value, it dont factor.
Marcus Cicero: "Neither presidential candidate last year paid more than passing reference to announcing a multi-trillion dollar initiative to reinvent how we get our energy."
Having just read:
Frum, D. 2003, The right man: the surprise presidency of George W. Bush, Weidenfelf & Nicolson, London.
George W. Bush has always been for more energy independence for America, for the right reasons. He is for energy conservation for this reason: more independence for America, especially independence from bad people. (He is aware the Saudis are not people one would wish to be dependent on for one's energy.) He wants American investment in Mexican oil partly (of course not wholly) for this reason, so there'll be more oil handy to buy from people who are OK. He put a lot of effort into making an energy plan.
It was a train wreck. The politics of putting the plan together were so fierce that the plan wound up being a weak, confused compromise. More fundamentally, partisanship is so savage you can't tackle this problem decently. Dick Cheney got viciously mauled over it. Republicans were too politically vulnerable on oil, and the "blood for oil!" meme assiduously promoted by the Democrats has only made it worse.* It was a blood-bath for nothing, and there no prospect that George W. Bush could take this issue up again and not have it be another blood-bath for nothing.
Besides, since then there's been this new and large problem called world war IV that's come up, and George W. Bush has taken on Social Security reform, which is a big enough problem for anyone, and in general the next four years do not feature lots of white space where George W. Bush will be looking around for extra (tough) domestic issues to pass the time.
John Forbes Kerry, on the other hand, is a fierce, resolute and singe-minded warrior on only one set of issues: pro-choice. For the rest, he seems useless, except for playing the shallowest and most cynical political games. Why would energy have been his big issue?
So that's that.
If you think George W. Bush is negligent on not having pushed energy policy, maybe you should think about what you did or didn't do when the issue was really in play. It was lack of political support, not a failure of concern at the top, that killed this issue.
If you think guilt is irrelevant now (I agree) and that the issue is still important (I'm not so sure, because I think the oil weapon is so flexible that just changing who you buy from may not do you that much good), you have to wait for another president with more free time and some reason to think he won't get mauled like George W. Bush did if he takes this on.