76 Comments

1. Panday:

As I have said several times already in other posts here, this is only the beginning, just as it was only the beginning in 1913 when war was about to hit and nobody realized it.

Aug 26, 2008 - 1:54 am 2. Fletcher Christian:

“whether the stars are veiled”. Indeed. That’s the real risk here. Decades, even centuries, of stagnation and tyranny may be survivable, but what is hidden in those words is not. The spectre that has haunted us for the last sixty years might just be released – and then the stars, and the sun, will indeed be veiled.

To use much better words than mine; “World War II once a second, for the length of a lazy afternoon” (Sagan). That’s the risk. Cthuga fhtagn! (Not Cthulhu.)

Aug 26, 2008 - 3:36 am 3. ledger:

The key word is “verification” when it comes to dealing with tyrants who don’t keep their word.

Now, this never ending negotiating for non-nuclear proliferation with North Korea looks like a standard stall tactic from a tin horn dictator.

I would suggest that Dr. Rice look at their deeds instead of their words.

Aug 26, 2008 - 3:50 am 4. Doug:

I hope John Bolton survives the shock.
He had no doubts whatsoever that these agreements were ironclad and virtually unbreakable.
John has my best wishes.

Aug 26, 2008 - 3:51 am 5. Doug:

“looks like a standard stall tactic from a tin horn dictator”
Or the Iranian Mullahs and the Nutjob.

Aug 26, 2008 - 3:53 am 6. John Samford:

Doug, Evidence please. I seem to remember Bolton saying more then once that the Norks had no intention of complying with ANY treaty the signed. But I’m getting old and I don’t always remember right. So maybe you can point me to where it is that he said what you say he said.

Aug 26, 2008 - 4:00 am 7. cedarford:

Panday – So far this is only about shitty little countries becoming threats, not to survival, but ability to kill a small number of Westerners who were raised in the notion that it is their right to perfect safety and security….Or shitty little countries that provoke other shitty little countries. The list is not of impressive powers – the NORKs, Syria, Iraq, Iran, the failed nation of Pakistan!! Israel as the provoker of other shitty little nations?

This is NOT the Chinese, the Germans, the Brazilians….

And a complacent America – deeply in debt, reluctant to give up tax cuts for the rich, and adamently opposed to any Draft – is no longer in a position to be the world’s 9/11 Service.

Certainly not in a position to start a war over yet another shitty little nation, Georgia, or the 7 other wars and “humanitarian interventions” the neocons want going tomorrow.

We need to pull back, take a deep breath and realize our only immediate strategic rival is China. And our “mission” can no longer be spending trillions every decade bringing “freedom to the benighted”..our mission must be learning how to compete with China.

It appears the public no longer thinks it is our “mission” to save the poor Afghanis, the noble Iraqis, the wonderful Darfurans or die for the Zionists and S Koreans – but to save America and our way of life – instead.

Aug 26, 2008 - 4:03 am 8. Lifeofthemind:

The only way to deal with Kim is and always was the way the world finally dealt with Mussolini. His regime should be smashed and his caapital occupied. When Kim is dangling from a lightpole the RoKs wil have to do the job of healing their broken country. The longer we wait the more it will cost. The feckless children Pelosi and Obama will have rivers of blood on their hands.

Aug 26, 2008 - 4:09 am 9. wretchard:

It appears the public no longer thinks it is our “mission” to save the poor Afghanis, the noble Iraqis, the wonderful Darfurans or die for the Zionists and S Koreans – but to save America and our way of life – instead.

Suppose we take this as a starting point. What are the givens? A large dependency on Middle Eastern energy. A large European dependence on Eurasian and Central Asian energy. A declining Western demographic. A political culture that is obsessed with trivia, political correctness and pointless celebrity. How does a civilization with these givens respond to a challenge? Can it?

Admittedly the challenges are still in rinky-dink places, but that’s only because they’ve just gotten started. Although still based in these hick places, their targets are already downtown New York and DC. If the problems on the periphery were going to stay there, then fine. But they’re not. September 11 should have shown us they are not — because of the weaknesses outlined in the paragraph above. What’s there to keep them out?

The West is extraordinarily vulnerable and the fight can move from the periphery to the center, I think, with shocking rapidity. What really scares me is what people in Denver are talking about; how the media is treating it like an entertainment extravaganza. That’s what is truly frightening. Not what we see out the window, but what we see in the mirror.

Aug 26, 2008 - 4:16 am 10. Teresita:

Funny how the Norks feel free to do this AFTER the Beijing Olympics. It seems they aren’t being leaned on by their big brother to the north anymore.

Aug 26, 2008 - 4:17 am 11. Teresita:

LotM: The only way to deal with Kim is and always was the way the world finally dealt with Mussolini. His regime should be smashed and his caapital occupied.

We’ve got 100,000 troops in Iraq, and a tooth-to-tail ratio of 1:10, and a total of 1.2 million soldiers and marines. That means we have 20,000 troops available to smash Kim’s regime and occupy his capital. I know Rumsfeld thinks he could have done it with such a skeleton force, but I know better.

Aug 26, 2008 - 4:20 am 12. wretchard:

The truly unthinkable today is to imagine that something bad could really happen. September 12 was an exception. But that’s history now. The generation of the 50s and 60s understood that really, really nasting things could occur. They had a human memory of it. But now survival is assumed to be assured. We talk about reproductive rights, gay rights, the right to immigrate illegal and so on. Civilization has forgotten what it is like to eat its pets from hunger. And as so often happens when disasters can no longer be imagined, they most often occur.

History is supposed to protect us from forgetfulness; curb arrogance; guard against complacency. But who have we put in charge of our altar to memory? Open your TV sets and watch the talking heads. Maybe it was always thus.

Aug 26, 2008 - 4:31 am 13. Daniel:

The behavior of rogue states as in particular Saddam’s Iraq, present day Iran and North Korea, reminds me of the behavior of criminals and criminal gangs.

The difference is only in the scope of their weaponry. Criminal gangs seek, and obtain weapons they can use to intimidate the general population, and rivals.

The policy of the civilized world with respect to nuclear weapons is like the policy of denying guns to everyone, in order to prevent gun violence.

When that policy is rigorously applied, the only gun owners (outside the government) are criminals. Anti-gun laws despite their appeal to lovers of peace, have their main effect of vastly increasing the influence of criminals on society, and encouraging the development of criminal gangs.

The same phenomenon, we are learning, occurs with states, and nuclear weapons. The present policy of our government is to attempt to convince rogue states to eschew the development of nuclear weapons. Those states however see great advantage to developing them. They can use them to blackmail their neighbors and threaten them. They see them as a way to aggrandize their own power, Why should they give them up?
We claim we will defend our allies against them, but our claims are dubious. If they threaten a neighbor with a nuclear attack, will we really nuke them in response? Our role is like that of the police in the criminal world. Its response to intimidation is generally too late to do any good.

Suppose however, we changed our policy and offered those who are potentially threatened by the rogue states having nuclear weapons, with such weapons of their own, in massive numbers, all aimed at the rogue states. There would have to be some safeguards to prevent use against others, and supply could be limited to functioning democracies. Such a policy would, if it could be implemented, would reduce the incentive to go nuclear to a negative, and could conceivably replace the prospect of intimidating neighbors with the prospect of being intimidated by them, and deriving no obvious benefit from their own development other than the ability to annihilate themselves and take some others with them.

Thus if North Korea was informed that if they did not give up their program we would give Japan and South Korea each a few hundred nuclear weapons to be aimed at them, they might be more inclined to given their program up. If we instead continue to give them benefits in return for promises to do things in the future, which promises are always violated. we encourage their bad behavior.

North Korea is a special case because its citizens are isolated from the world and have no influence at all on the government. Iran, is a different story. Its citizens might object to living under the fear of total destruction at the whim of the governments of Azerbaijan, Turkey, Israel, and perhaps other nations.

The fact is that success of Iran’s nuclear program would inevitably lead to a situation in which hundred’s of nuclear weapons and means of delivering them would be aimed at Iranian targets. The balance of nuclear terror between the Soviet Union and the United States was pretty scary. Is that what Iran is seeking for itself?

Why not make that fact explicit to the Iranian government today?

Aug 26, 2008 - 4:51 am 14. wretchard:

Well the first order of business is to decide where the locus of the threat is? To name the danger. Historically an “Axis of Evil” doesn’t have a central mastermind, a Dr. Evil lurking in some bunker. Rather it usually consists of coalitions of malevelont regimes whose purposes happen to coincide and who form alliances to serve their purposes. The “good guys” are the same — they ally to fight the bad guys and then as often squabble among themselves.

But having said that, what is today’s axis of evil? Can we use the term meaningfully? Does it consist of countries? Or is countries plus religions? Or even countries plus religions plus ideologies plus trends? Is there a man or men in that axis who through some transcendant malice has risen to become an historical force?

Aug 26, 2008 - 4:58 am 15. Lugh Lampfhota:

Can we call the group ruling Iran a government as understood in the West? Or is it a Twelver death cult? Would any threat convince a death cult to change it’s ways?

Aug 26, 2008 - 5:07 am 16. Ricardo:

There is no “axis of evil”. There is a “Power Vacuum”.
Since nobody in the west feels comfortable filling it, others are rushing in.

Aug 26, 2008 - 5:10 am 17. hdgreene:

Bullies can still throw their weight around, but democracy and capitalism still have no real competitors.

That ain’t me talkin’, folks. That is me pretty much quoting Francis Fukuyama — who is making a really good living explaining himself, most recently in the Washington Post (shall I try a link?): What, me worry?. Actually, the title is “They Can Only Go So Far because we have blown the bridges on the Mississippi.” Ok, I’m a little off on my second try, too.

I think the more immediate threat to human freedom is the benign sounding “Public/Private Partnership,” which will morph into “The Corporate State.” The “State” will stimulate resentments in the population and direct them outwards to mask its own failures: in other words, not the fascism of leftist slogans but the fascism the left promotes (and much of “big business” will be fine with — if it secures their positions). Check back in twenty years, Franky.

Aug 26, 2008 - 5:18 am 18. jkumpire:

Men, you are looking for stuff that is not there.

Use the razor. NK has rolled the US, Japan and the ROK in this whole process. For some reason, they decided they needed to do it again, maybe to get more supplies for their failing regime. Or they are doing it merely to tweak the nose of the US.

This is what the relationship on the Peninsula will be until the ROK feels truly threatened. Then some significant action will be taken for regime change. But until the ROK decides that the scum north of them (may they burn in Hell next to Hitler and Stalin)has to be removed, we will have to deal with this mosquito bite that won’t go away.

The scum north of the 38th parallel with melt away if it was truly attacked. The regime has no real staying power if it was tested, and we really don’t know what kind of nuclear weapons it has, if any. We assume it has workable bombs, and a workable delivery system, and that is enough these days for the boys in the North to run their scam.

Let’s hope the kids in the South get serious about those poor cousins north of them, and decide on regime change.

Aug 26, 2008 - 5:25 am 19. wretchard:

Men, you are looking for stuff that is not there.

Axes of Evil mostly aren’t there. They are only retrospectively perceived, or seen as objectively existent but rarely masterminded from some central command post. What’s often more important is to understand what holds these alliances of interest together. It’s also important to identify what interests might bind alliance to resist an “Axis of Evil”.

Aug 26, 2008 - 5:30 am 20. RAH:

N. Korea is S. Korea’s problem. S. Korea is rich and can defend itself. They have bitched forever about our presence and believe in feeding the monster. They only wasy to solve N Koreas is to cut off its head and the support structure. But no western country has the will or desire to do so.

It is a shame we do not have for real a 007 that goes in and kill the head. But we eschewed assasination as a tool.

Otherwise I would leave N Korea to stew and starve. Keep ABM nearby for possible launches and interdict any shipments that spread N Korea arms and nukes to others. Cheaper and less hassle. Probably what we are already doing.

Aug 26, 2008 - 5:48 am 21. Buck Smith:

A large dependency on Middle Eastern energy. A large European dependence on Eurasian and Central Asian energy

We can fix this one. We are fixing it now, US natural gas production is up 6%. Other sources will come on line, but it takes time and capital and building permits (the real constraint.) Whether the fix is soon enough is another question.

Aug 26, 2008 - 5:54 am 22. RAH:

Iran is actually a thornier issue. We do need to take out their facilities. Probably after the election. Russia so kindly told the world that new AA systems go in September and effective in 90 days. Russia has been covertly telling us the timing to take out Iran’s facility. I do not think Russia really wants Iran to be nuclear and they have been dragging their feet in helping Iran. They have been staying Iran’s friend and expecting us to destroy the facility. But we have been stupidly going the ineffectual sanctions and diplomatic route. Russia has to publicly support Iran and it grants them satisfaction to tweak our nose.

It is unlikely that a raid will take them all out and the repercussions to gas supply would be high. Think filling the car was expensive this summer, wait for the bombing raid. Europe will scream since they are more affected.

Aug 26, 2008 - 5:55 am 23. Lifeofthemind:

The US needs to at least double the size of our armed forces. This provides two benefits.

First is the ability to fight two wars simultaneously. That was standard policy until the Clinton administration when the Pentagon invented the farce known as “1½ Wars.”

The second benefit of doubling the size of the Armed Forces and increasing the share of GDP devoted to defense is that doing so sucks resources away from the rest of government. At one time silly self indulgent entitlements were justified as exercises in self esteem. The immature indulging of special interest identities was accepted as a reward for the children of those who had suffered through the Great Deppression and WW-II.

The partisans of the left have always hated the military and sought to cut the resources devoted to it. Why? Their vision of a society after the Revolution is actually highly militarized in a Stalinist fashion and the military itself in America is no direct political threat since it submits to civilian authority. In fact the military is a functioning socialist community. The problem the left has with the military is that it uses resources that can not then go to deliberately unproductive activities such as public housing, socialized medicine and public education. The military also draws a cohort of young people out of civilian sector and denies the left the ability to use them for a period of time. If citizens leave the military more productive, patriotic and both suspicious of arbitrary authority yet devoted to voluntary cooperation, then the cause of the left is further weakened.

Aug 26, 2008 - 6:32 am 24. Lifeofthemind:

@Teresita,
With Iraq we had to stay around after. First to clean up the mess and create a functioning civil society and second to have a strategic base next to Iran, Syria, Turkey and The Magic Kingdom. We had to stay there for the second reason as long as Iran is a threat. My hope would have been that faster action on Syria would have increased our strategic depth and given us more flexibilty. Faster action on Iran would have allowed us to get out and, along with a host of domestic policies we need to work on, given us more options for energy. That would deflate the influence of the Saudis and the Russians. Being proactive would be better than being reactive. We needed to do the first part ourselves in rebuilding Iraq because there is no one else available to do the job. The Iranians would be only to happy to but they are the problem. The Turks and the Brits can’t do it.

In Korea the problem is different. We can eliminate the NORK regime and withdraw leaving the ROKs to digest their cousins. The prospect of a smaller American footprint in the region should please the Chinese. Pyongyang has become an embarrasing liability for them.

Aug 26, 2008 - 7:02 am 25. exhelodrvr:

Teresita,
“We’ve got 100,000 troops in Iraq, and a tooth-to-tail ratio of 1:10, and a total of 1.2 million soldiers and marines”

The majority of the troops in Iraq are “tail”. Just becuase they are in theatre doesn’t make them spear tips.

Aug 26, 2008 - 7:42 am 26. cjm:

we should start specializing in nation building, and start working on the poorest countries now. go into somalia, start forming militias, hire every male above age 6 and rebuild the place. create a few more divisions each time, from the locals, so that the pacification effort is spread over a large coallition. make it self-sustaining financially.

a kind of re-opening of the “wild west” and homesteading. hand out enforceable titles to all the land and property in each new country.

Aug 26, 2008 - 7:55 am 27. cedarford:

Lifeofthemind – The US needs to at least double the size of our armed forces. This provides two benefits.
First is the ability to fight two wars simultaneously. The second benefit of doubling the size of the Armed Forces and increasing the share of GDP devoted to defense is that doing so sucks resources away from the rest of government

But then you are left with the problems of the neocons and right wing reactionaries.

They don’t want to fight just 2 wars, but seven, and simultaneously with the 2 already underway. And they don’t want any tax increase, and they don’t want any Draft.

And they want trillions more in debt to fuel their imperial dreams. But they don’t want a government competent to deal with domestic problems like Katrina and the health insurance crisis…in fact, they are seen as distractions from the more important business of bringing freedom, sweet freedom and democracy – to noble 3rd Worlders in shitty little countries.. and the wonders of free trade..

=======================

Wretchard – Admittedly the challenges are still in rinky-dink places, but that’s only because they’ve just gotten started. Although still based in these hick places, their targets are already downtown New York and DC. If the problems on the periphery were going to stay there, then fine. But they’re not. September 11 should have shown us they are not..

But perhaps we got the wrong lesson from 9/11 which somehow morphed into not defending ourselves and deterring the shitty little groups threatening us, but pronouncing them undeterrable and launching the Bush Crusade to borrow trillions from our larger enemies to bring freedom and Sharansky-style democracy to each and every shitty little country. All while the rest of the world thinks it is a stupid, futile project because we cannot recreate America or even the fantasy democracy of the right wing moron Sharansky in places like Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan, N Korea, the Sudan.

The Bush Crusade to remake the world by endless war to bring the American way to shitty little countries with no expense spared to “save them from themselves” as our 9/11 response is an unsustainable strategy. We can’t afford it, half the country demands no new taxes for it, no one wants a Draft, and the only call to rally has been around the duty to shop more and buy more Chinese stuff and to beg other nations to send a few hundred or a few thousand troops to help us play terrorist whack-a-mole in shitty little countries that we say will take decades for our troops to “reshape hearts and minds in”.

Time we began thinking of Plan B, because the Plan A Bush has followed for 7 years after 9/11 isn’t working.

Aug 26, 2008 - 8:13 am 28. buddy larsen:

not to sideline the thread, but C4, if DoD wanted a draft, wouldn’t DoD say so?

USA can raise new units of volunteers.

You know good and well the pros and cons of a draft. The services don’t want draftees, the country is not prepared for one. yes yes yes, all Bush’s fault, go ahead and give us a thousand words on ”chickenhawk”.

But, Charlie Rangel ended up voting against his own proposal, didn’t he? After he’d gotten the platform he wanted to make the points he wanted to make?

Aug 26, 2008 - 8:36 am 29. slade:

Madeleine “They lied to us” Albright re the North Koreans not honoring treaty commitments.

Back in the USSR (closed thread); just for the record:

Yeltsin’s revenge for the multitude of missteps by USA and the IMF/World Bank breezily described in Matthew Brzezinski’s book, Casino Moscow (2002), which I read in tandem with various explanations of the collapse of LTCM.

Not our finest performance.

Aug 26, 2008 - 9:01 am 30. Dan:

Michael Totten has a new piece out from Tbilisi. After reading it, I’m calling it a “must read.” Let me know what you think…

The site is overwhelmed, so be patient.

http://www.michaeltotten.com/

Aug 26, 2008 - 9:16 am 31. buddy larsen:

No, slade –and worst of all, our mess-ups conformed perfectly to the anti-American “book” –rapacious, short-term, too-clever-by-half, Yankee Trader, etcetera. I’m not sure that there isn’t a dark side to democracy –one hidden until globalization. Two parties rotating every four or eight years, means that unless you have leaders above normal vision and good will, it is too easy to make a mess, knowing that a rival will follow you and harvest your bad seeds.

Look at Denver –all a-flutter over the kabuki drama onstage, where contending ruling clans are acting out highly complex stylized gambits in sign language being interpreted by the realm’s gathered audience of local priests. Who is the star but the man whose leavings are on fire this very minute, from the Balkans to the far east.

Aug 26, 2008 - 9:37 am 32. Eggplant:

Dan,

Michael Totten’s site is inaccessible. Has the site been Slash-dotted or could it be a DoS attack?

Aug 26, 2008 - 9:37 am 33. Michael B:

“Admittedly the challenges are still in rinky-dink places, but that’s only because they’ve just gotten started. Although still based in these hick places, their targets are already downtown New York and DC. If the problems on the periphery were going to stay there, then fine. But they’re not. September 11 should have shown us they are not — because of the weaknesses outlined in the paragraph above. What’s there to keep them out?

“The West is extraordinarily vulnerable and the fight can move from the periphery to the center, I think, with shocking rapidity. What really scares me is what people in Denver are talking about; how the media is treating it like an entertainment extravaganza. That’s what is truly frightening. Not what we see out the window, but what we see in the mirror.”

Precisely. We are currently, essentially, in the nascent stages of all this, an absolutely critical stage that requires clarity of vision, a stalwart gaze, informed deliberations and decisiveness shorn of excess. Yet the rationalizations, the ambivalence, the tergiversations, etc. on display around around the web, treating it all as if it’s little more than one more factor within an elect-Obama calculus, is rather stunning, which is not to say surprising.

Aug 26, 2008 - 9:51 am 34. Dan:

Aug 26, 2008 – 9:37 am

Overloaded, I think. He’s been linked from nearly every major blog out there. Keep trying. It’s well worth the wait.

Aug 26, 2008 - 9:54 am 35. slade:

the anti-American “book” becoming a self-fulfilling prophesy.

I’ve been skittish since end of last year and fully gloomy since January, which I “called” as a market bottom (putting my money where my ignorance was). Then the global political tensions ramped up.

The eerie deja vu all over again. My look into what was blithely labeled the “sub-prime” crisis, now going global, reminiscent all too much of my look into LTCM and the IMF.

I am reminded of the premier broadcast of a new CNN program hosted by Fareed Zakaria with the theme of good news. Within a heartbeat or close to it, Christiane Amanpour opened the dialogue with the statement “Look we all know global warming is real.” The subject was something about rejuvenating relations between USA and Europe.

Problem-solving skills are a concern with this group.

Aug 26, 2008 - 10:16 am 36. Doug:

John Samford said,

“Doug, Evidence please. I seem to remember Bolton saying more then once that the Norks had no intention of complying with ANY treaty the signed. But I’m getting old and I don’t always remember right. So maybe you can point me to where it is that he said what you say he said.”
—
Sorry,
I AM old, and expect my sarcasm to be self-evident when it isn’t.
Figure I’m too clever for /Sarc and etc.
but the result is not as expected.

Aug 26, 2008 - 10:22 am 37. Dan:

From Instapundit re: Totten’s website…

“UPDATE: By a curious coincidence, Totten’s site appears to be under cyber-attack. He emails that they’re working on it, and I’ll make sure it gets a new link when it’s fixed. He adds: “I do suspect this is a Russian cyber attack. The hate mail I received from the piece I published at City Journal was absolutely unbelievable, more vicious than anything I have ever received when writing about any topic whatsoever. And that piece was very very mild compared to this one.”"

Aug 26, 2008 - 10:28 am 38. buddy larsen:

looks like you doug yourself a whole

Aug 26, 2008 - 10:28 am 39. Doug:

That’s the hole truth.

Aug 26, 2008 - 10:29 am 40. Doug:

Michelle Obama Quotes Lines From Rules For Radicals In Her DNC Convention Speech

Aug 26, 2008 - 10:36 am 41. slade:

Just to top off an obvious and simplistic point, the Republican message of market-based solutions and low taxes will be a hard sell in an environment of escalating fear and uncertainty where Democrats are promising the Rose Garden solution of government intercession. The genius of Bill Clinton and his campaign was to soundbite and sell. The Democrats are doing that. The Republicans not so much. Factor in foreign policy in a ramped up environment of global tensions and we’re seeing the primacy of generalities embodied by change and hope overcoming the technical details of market economies “as the best path to freedom and prosperity.” The shortest distance between two points is a straight line. But it’s not always the best path.

Or something like that.

Aug 26, 2008 - 10:55 am 42. Mike Sylwester:

Wretchard:
“the first order of business is to decide where the locus of the threat is”
——

I think a world war might be sparked if Israel is attacked by chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. That is a scenario that should be debated by the two presidential candidates.

The world is very fortunate that the USA removed the Saddam Hussein regime from Iraq. That one change has made the world much safer for the foreseeable future.

Aug 26, 2008 - 11:15 am 43. steveaz:

Guys,
North Korea is China’s puppet – has been since the end of the Korean War. Everytime that China’s old-guard wants to push us off our center, they pull NK’s strings.

Same goes for Iran and Syria, and their proxies, like an Hezbollah, a Sadr or a Fatah. I’m writing to say, don’t fall for the shell-game, folks. Keep your eyes on the ball: Global Competition for Energy.

The Dem’s have unilaterally disarmed our nation in this competition, so they can’t say it; but I will, Americans need to be prepared to shed more than money for oil. Blood will figure highly in the equation.

Aug 26, 2008 - 11:19 am 44. Gamer:

One side makes a stupid move, the other side makes a move.

Bush was a drunk, is a drunk, and will always be a drunk. He is incapable of achievement. America has declined under his amoral leadership.

When the shit hits the fan, blame yourselves for believing in blind obedience to a leader who wouldn’t give any of you the time of day. When will the drones revolt?

Aug 26, 2008 - 11:26 am 45. neolex:

@ Mike

Saddam’s removal was a MISTAKE. US should have bought him. As far as ME dictators go, Saddam had a stabilizing role in the region, until he decided to get greedy that is. Given the condition of Iraq before the invasion, I’m sure he would’ve struck a deal. I’m also sure, no such deal was offered. Despite his payments to terrorist families and other show-offs, he viciously kept Islamism in check and balanced out Iran. Iran’s current actions are the direct result of Saddam’s removal and consequent reduction of US force projection. Those who argue that having US forces positioned in Iraq gives US a nice platform for military adventures in the region don’t take our vulnerability in Iraq into account. Counterintuitively, and contrary to the claims of antisemites like c4, Israel actually advised US privately about the danger of removing Saddam, Israeli intelligence was right to conclude that such an action would put Israel on collission course with Iran.

Aug 26, 2008 - 11:29 am 46. Dan:

With US warships plying the Black Sea, Russians holding on to Poti and chess pieces being moved to and fro, I had a vague feeling I had seen this before… the unease, the pressure, the feeling that all was not well. And in a way, I was right.

It just hit me a few minutes ago: the 1965 movie “The Bedford Incident,” with Richard Widmark and Sidney Poitier. Does anyone remember that? It was a remarkable movie, and now, 43 years later, it is again relevant.

Aug 26, 2008 - 11:34 am 47. bobal:

Alas, it looks to be a problem without a good solution. South Korea is in no position to do anything, though giving them some nukes as was suggested above would even things up, so that if Seoul goes, the North Korean capital goes too. South Korea is unlikely to volunteer to sacrifice Seoul. We are unlikely to mount a strike. China could most likely bring them to heel. We could say to the Chinamen we’re not going to buy your goods any longer until you defang Kim. We’re unlikely to do that. So here we sit.

Aug 26, 2008 - 11:35 am 48. ryv:

Via Instapundit, Totten thinks his downtime was a DOS attack. Not surprising.

Aug 26, 2008 - 11:48 am 49. Eggplant:

neolex said:

“Saddam’s removal was a MISTAKE. US should have bought him. As far as ME dictators go, Saddam had a stabilizing role in the region, until he decided to get greedy that is.”

Saddam was once useful but never a stabilizing influence. Saddam kept the Iranians busy for years in the Iran-Iraq War after Khomeini’s rise to power. Both Iran and Iraq would have been incredibly dangerous if they hadn’t dissipated themselves in that disasterous war. Saddam then showed himself to be an international liability when he started using WMDs (Sarin, etc.) against the Iranian military and his own people. Saddam removed all doubt that he was a danger to the world when he made his grab for the world’s energy supply through the Kuwait invasion. The elder President Bush had hoped that the Iraqi people themselves would dispose of Saddam but they did not (Iraqi society was too dysfunctional after decades of totalitarian rule). The Iraqis’ failure to remove Saddam set the clock running for when someone else would have to take him down. However 9/11 changed the whole political dynamic. 9/11 demanded a response and taking down Saddam was geopolitically correct. Not only was a dangerous tyrant removed but Iraq became an Islamic fascist killing area. There are now tens of thousands of jihadiis enjoying their virgins in the afterlife, who might otherwise have been setting off suicide vests in Jerusalem, London or New York. The Iraq War was strategically correct.

Aug 26, 2008 - 12:08 pm 50. 2x4:

Eggplant, unwrapping my crystal ball… Yes, historians from 2040 agree with you.

Aug 26, 2008 - 12:13 pm 51. buddy larsen:

Seoul is 10 miles –or izzit 10 cliks –from the NoKo border, with –it is said–10,000 deep-bunkered, jabo-safe, arty tubes loaded with every type of nasty known to man, save maybe nookz, aimed at it. It’s a Tblisi hostage-city situation, no nukes needed.

Aug 26, 2008 - 12:21 pm 52. Eggplant:

Totten’s website is now accessible. The content is interesting.

It worries me that the Georgians are displaying propaganda posters in English and not Georgian. They are hurting their cause by doing this. They should show the posters written in Georgian and leave it to Internet commentators to provide the translation.

Aug 26, 2008 - 12:22 pm 53. slade:

The elder President Bush had hoped that the Iraqi people themselves would dispose of Saddam but they did not (Iraqi society was too dysfunctional after decades of totalitarian rule). The Iraqis’ failure to remove Saddam set the clock running for when someone else would have to take him down.

My recollection is that the Iraqi’s asked for U.S. support in overthrowing Hussein but Tony Lake convinced Bill Clinton that the timing was inadvisable (see Bob Baer).

Aug 26, 2008 - 12:28 pm 54. whiskey:

My problem with Cedarford’s conception of US policy is that he’s stuck in the 90’s. The 1890’s. Like most Paleocons, he thinks that the Pacific and Atlantic will protect us. Not so, Pakistan, North Korea, and soon Iran will have the ability to kill NYC and DC at least. Perhaps more.

North Korea will sell to anyone, that’s the whole point of “juche” which turned the nation into a giant arms factory and nothing more. Pakistan is a collection of tribes that feud, with a flag and nukes (more than 100). Iran is a weak, unstable, theocratic state run by competing gangs of thugs, short of cash, and beset by internal ethnic/racial/linguistic rebellions.

This is the “axis of evil”: even poor countries getting nukes and no clear lines drawn.

We don’t need to run seven wars at once, but America does need deterrence. Which requires enough men and material, including a much larger nuclear arsenal, AND the perceived willingness to use said arsenal (including nukes) on threats.

Right now, no one in Pakistan, Iran, and North Korea FEARS the US, and China and Russia can play the game of arming these nations and encouraging them to attack us without any come-back. Without FEAR of what the US could do in return.

The Cold War promised annihilation, but produced at least stability through a three-sided competition where each side kept the other two “honest” and strictly limited this sort of proxy-play with nukes. Or bio-weapons for that matter. Proxy nations were kept on a strict leash by all sides (ask Cuba, Egypt, England, France, and Israel) lest conflict spill out of control.

No power currently has the will or ability to keep such a leash on it’s satellites, and proxy nations armed can go fight whoever they want.

The US must declare an “America Doctrine” dictating the automatic, strategic nuclear response (with plenty of weapons in reserve to maintain deterrence against China and Russia) to Pakistan, North Korea, and when it goes nuclear, Iran, that would essentially kill all the people there should we lose a city to a nuke. With removal from the destruction list should a nation dump nukes with US inspection to verify.

This does not attempt to hold back, Canute like, the tide of nuclear proliferation with a technology that is 63 years old. It does however make hostile nuclear states understand, that nuking up brings a huge risk — destruction of one’s entire tribe/race/ethnicity/language/history/heritage, etc. That they can choose or not.

Too much of Western success is based on cooperation under the rule of law and the flaw of our elites is penciling in attitudes and behaviors of Westerners into non-Western nations. The Batman movie (and the depiction of the senseless, “plan-less” nature of AQ-like terrorists who kill just because they like killing) seems to mark a cultural turning point against the Paleocon 1890’s conception and the Leftist John Lennon “Imagine” utopian nonsense.

Aug 26, 2008 - 12:34 pm 55. R. Ford Mashburn:

I don’t see it as an “axis of evil” . Its Eurasia, vs East Asia, vs Oceana. The coalitions have remained the same, and aside from each side picking off minor territories, the board is set.
Oceana (US Canada Britain Australia) is being pitted against Eurasia (Russia) over resources and territories for the benefit of Eastasia (China). All that is about to come is simply consolidation of the three Empires.

Aug 26, 2008 - 12:38 pm 56. Lifeofthemind:

@bobal,
Do not assume that the US will do nothing. Wishful thinking is what leads to rash actions such as Putin’s. Crying after that everyone was supposed to know that you should get away with it will not work. THe US can change the equation. Remeber that Pyongyang does not threaten only South Korea. Most importantly they threaten Japan. The thought of Japan going nuclear, something they can do faster than the Iranians, scares the Chinese to death. If the US lays out the options for our policy, invade or withdraw, the Chinese may decide to act. Americans are very unpopular when around but usually that is with countries that are also desperate to keep us there.

Do you know the Vietnamese offered to rent Cam Ranh Bay back to us?

Aug 26, 2008 - 12:39 pm 57. fedya:

@eggplant:
taking down Saddam was geopolitically correct

[snark] Oh, so GPC! Teh PC — Politically Correct — crowd is so, er, “20th Century”. And Putie, OMG, he’s SO 19th Century! [/snark]

[not snark] Good one, dude. [/not snark]

It worries me that the Georgians are displaying propaganda posters in English and not Georgian

Hmm, my reaction was quite the reverse. Thinking about your point, however, I’d suggest that chances are:

1) The entire population of Georgia is eagerly learning English as best each one can.

2) They are no dummies; they know how hard it is to get the truth past our MSM Info-gatekeepers, ergo…

3) It tweaks old-fashioned, trendy Liberals who want to preserve “authentic” cultures as un-dead museums which they can then sniff at on tour so as to feel “authentic” themselves; all such tweaking is a very good thing.

4) You would prefer in… Russian? Turkish? Persian? Greek? One suspects those languages were once all the rage, but now are just SO passé in Georgia.

5) Totten is no dummy, his audience reads, ummm, English, you know? Perhaps there are 1,000 plakats in Georgian for each in English but he shows us the ones we can appreciate.

And anyone successfully extending Monty Pithon material in actual wartime deserves a break. I mean, dude, the one with the Russkie holding a Georgian’s chopped off arms (labeled Abkhazia and S.Ossettia) while extending his right hand, saying, “Friends?” — PRICELESS.

Aug 26, 2008 - 1:08 pm 58. Eggplant:

Fedya said:

“Totten is no dummy, his audience reads, ummm, English, you know? Perhaps there are 1,000 plakats in Georgian for each in English but he shows us the ones we can appreciate.”

That’s my point. Totten is no dummy and he should have shown the posters written in Georgian and then provided the translation. I must emphasize that I believe in the content of Totten’s article. However seeing the posters in English raised the “BS flag”. Those posters are propaganda made for foreign consumption. Seeing the poster’s in Totten’s article logically raises the question: “Is this article propaganda made for foreign consumption?” Showing the English language posters was an error.

Aug 26, 2008 - 1:34 pm 59. 2x4:

Showing only the English language posters was an error, Egg. Which probably can be rectified fairly quickly.

Aug 26, 2008 - 1:40 pm 60. 2x4:

BTW,Some Russian media (not mainstream, but the stories get picked up) are posting totally fabricated stories about alleged Georgian “offensives”. It reminds me of 1968, the same shit–Pravda&co was publishing stories about contrarevolutionary insurgents fighting with SA. Some 1600 SA soldiers died, they were saying. In reality there was about 27 casualties due to friendly fire. Actually, not so funny part of this is that there is about 1200 graves of SA soldiers from that time. One wonders what happened to these poor souls.

Aug 26, 2008 - 1:54 pm 61. Doug:

“The entire population of Georgia is eagerly learning English as best each one can. ”
—
Our institutions are more interested in groups like CAIR and La Raza whose interests are in replacing our culture and language with theirs.
That’s why we give ACORN and La Raza millions for them to facilitate elections to bring this about.

Aug 26, 2008 - 1:54 pm 62. Mike Sylwester:

neolex:
“Saddam’s removal was a MISTAKE. US should have bought him. As far as ME dictators go, Saddam had a stabilizing role in the region, until he decided to get greedy that is. ”
———-

You can make a good argument for that alternative stragegy.

After Iran seized our embassy staff as hostages, Iraq had a golden opportunity to become a favored ally of the USA. In the following years the USA provided Iraq a lot of military assistance in its war against Iran.

The USA would have guaranteed Iraq’s military security, and Iraq could have invested its oil wealth on internal development. Iraq could have become the most economically successful and culturally influential country in the Middle East.

The problem is that Saddam Hussein preferred to become a military conqueror. He dreamed of uniting the Arab world under his own personal rule by promising to defeat Israel. He was a megalomaniac. He wanted the entire Arab world, not just Iraq, to be filled with heroic paintings and statues of Saddam Hussein.

Therefore, the USA never could have afforded to buy Saddam Hussein. Besides, after 9/11 the USA basically gave the Moslem world a choice. You Moslems cannot have both 1) an Al Qaeda and 2) weapons of mass destruction, so either you Moslems yourself get rid of one of them or else we the USA will get rid of both of them for you.

It turns out we probably can’t afford to buy even Maliki, but Maliki will be satisfied with eternal personal glory for just the internal development of Iraq’s economy and society.

Aug 26, 2008 - 1:55 pm 63. RAH:

I remember that when N Korea a couple of years ago was stalling on agreements as they have done for the last 15 years, that the US suggested a change to Japan’s constitution and start thinking of building up defenses and nuclear arsenal.

See Wikipedia about changes after N Korea 1993 missile launch:

Following an increase in tensions with North Korea following the 1993 test of the Nodong-1 missile and the 1998 test of the Taepodong-1 missile over northern Japan, the JMSDF has also stepped up its role in theatre air defense of Japan. A ship-based anti-ballistic missile system was successfully test-fired on December 18, 2007 and has been installed on Japan’s Aegis-class destroyers. The JMSDF has also been active in preventing North Korean infiltrators from reaching Japan engaging and sinking a North Korean spyship in 2001. End of wikipedia entry

Japan has ABM probably a THADD system. But no offensive nuclear missiles. Japan could make viable nukes probably in months since they have the techinical know how and can be mated to US missiles. But Japan does not want the added risk of being a nuclear power.

N. Korea is not a real threat to the US . It is measurably more difficult to launch truly ballistic missiles tthat have long ranges. Only China, Russsia, US, France have that ability. Other nations have shortrange capabilities. Nukes are not that difficult the tech has been around for a long time. The missiles are not easy. China would not have had the ability if the US had not been seduced by greed and cheap satellitie launchs and Hughes and US companies gave the tech knowledge and assistance under Clinton. Then the stole all our nuclear reasearch.
Iranian launches are more failures than sucesses and so are N Korea launches. Nucke also take a lot of maintenance nad failures and fizszles occur if not properly maintained. I doubt that N Korea misssiles are maintained that well. Even US has gotten sloppy. The Russians may have more failures than anticipated.
Strategic reaccessment is needed and greater priority to Russian threats are needed. Especially if we have promised more than can be delivered to the Near Russian countries. I believe moving bases from western Europe into Poland and other Easter Euope countries are a good idea. This will increase Ruissia’s paranoia but if we really try we can out produce Rusia economically. And they will not be able to compete in military spending. The new capitalist countries with proper structure can create wealth and spend a lot on military equipment and training.
Azeribaijan and Georgia are strategic importance to both Russia and the US. We should definitely strive to acquire both as allies. So we need to get creative on solving the Armenian problem.
If we are able to demolish Iran nuclear ambitions and do a coup overturning the religious tryanny. Iran is very much afraid of the Shah’s son who has legitimate claims. A good ruler and western ally would soilidy the oil strtegic Azeribaijan.
We need to encourage India to solve its muslim terrorism problem and get them to counter Pakistan and we can take a page from Russia’s book and encourage India to push for Kashmir.
Pakistan will have to be contained in the future.
The largest future threat is China, to both Russia and the US. The US because we control the Pacific and they want hedgemony over that area. That means greater navy for the US.

Aug 26, 2008 - 2:09 pm 64. fedya:

@wretchard:
or whether the stars are veiled

If you are sounding an apocalyptic note, I hear it. An amazing thing about all these strange hints of alarm and chaos is how thoroughly they upset conceits of rational action and “Progress”. I’d much prefer Fukuyama to have been correct.

Take, for example, the phrase “geopolitically correct”, a neologism (new to me) for something desirable but conspicuously absence in our current global “reality”.

So, Admiral Mahan comes to grief on the steppes of Central Asia and the mountain passes of Afghanistan, no?

Professor “Heartland” Mackinder described Britain as ‘a lump of coal surrounded by fish’. Is our globe now “pockets of gas, surrounded by giant Octopi [or Cthuloi]“?

If “The End” tarries, will some bright young person synthesize Mahon and Mackinder with nods to General Tunner [of "The Hump" and "Raisin Bombers" fame] and Colonel Boyd [of "OODA Loop" fame]?

If those topics make it into the young bright one’s opus, a few topics as yet unknown will necessarily have been included as well. Higher topics, as in higher altitudes?

Aug 26, 2008 - 2:12 pm 65. NahnCee:

RAH – I had been wondering to myself what Japan’s nuclear capabilities currently are. I know we’ve been giving/selling them stuff both to annoy China and so they can get Australia’s back in that part of the world if North Korea starts to get uppity.

What are the chances tht we’ve already given them all the bits and pieces, and just the assembly part is left?

Don’t they have to vote in their Constitution whether or not to nuke up if/when it comes to that?

Aug 26, 2008 - 2:23 pm 66. Lifeofthemind:

So what is to be done with Pakistan? If it dissolves then India gets Kashmir and the Punjab, Baluchistan and Sind can be retained as a independant state with a irredentist claim against Iran and the Northwest Frontier and Tribal areas can go to Afghanistan, on the put all the bad bits one basket theory. Baluchiland may offer the US a more reliable access to Afghanistan than the current Pathan dominated Pakistan does.

Aug 26, 2008 - 2:29 pm 67. Lifeofthemind:

BTW, some thing very like my idea was championed for years by the Soviets during the 1960s – 70s in order to scare then US allies Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Seems only fair to consider using the KGBs own plan against them.

Aug 26, 2008 - 2:47 pm 68. fedya:

@Lifeofthemind:
So what is to be done with Pakistan?

I would suggest that thinking about dealing piecemeal with pieces of Pakistan is not of a piece with pacification of anything or anyone anywhere at any time.

If real admirals must deal with logistics chains, should not we armchair admirals address our contingency chains?

[true confession: I was wondering the same thing, man]

Aug 26, 2008 - 2:57 pm 69. bobal:

Do you know the Vietnamese offered to rent Cam Ranh Bay back to us?

Missed that, but can easily believe it. The Vietnamese, like the Japanese, don’t hold much of a grudge. In Vietnam it’s the Buddhist influence. Mutual arising, enemies arise, then fall away. Also, they see us as just the latest in a long line of occupiers, Chinese, French, Japanese, Frnech again, last opf all, USA.

I imagine Japan could nuke up in a matter of months, if not weeks.

Aug 26, 2008 - 2:58 pm 70. Lifeofthemind:

@bobal,
Maybe or it might be the more practical reason that the Chinese scare them, invaded them and are currently forcibly occupying valuable disputed reefs in the South China Sea. The Chinese do not believe in sharing. For everyone except the Mexicans and Canadians the US is a distant power with a good reputation for how we conduct ourselves.

Aug 26, 2008 - 3:13 pm 71. cedarford:

Neolex Counterintuitively, and contrary to the claims of antisemites like c4, Israel actually advised US privately about the danger of removing Saddam, Israeli intelligence was right to conclude that such an action would put Israel on collission course with Iran.

It is not surprising that the Jew “neolex” would lie to rehabilitate Israel’s hawkish urging of the US to strike Iraq by saying that privately, they didn’t believe what Sharon and Likud were publically demanding.

The problem for lying Jews trying to rewrite the historical narrative is the public record of actions beginning with Feith&his neocons writing “Clean Break” for the Israeli Government urging Iraq regime change, Israel and it’s lobby’s work in getting Clinton to make deposing Saddam formal US policy in 1998, and their constant drumbeat for war with Iraq immediately after 9/11 in hundreds of official statements on the record “to end the terrible threat of Iraq as the center of terror and vast WMD stockpiles ready to use against America and Israel.”

From Aug 16, 2002:

Israel is urging U.S. officials not to delay a military strike against Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, an aide to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said Friday.

Israeli intelligence officials have gathered evidence that Iraq is speeding up efforts to produce biological and chemical weapons, said Sharon aide Ranaan Gissin.

“Any postponement of an attack on Iraq at this stage will serve no purpose,” Gissin said. “It will only give him (Saddam) more of an opportunity to accelerate his program of weapons of mass destruction.”

That is just one of tens of thousands of documents on the public record nailing the Zionist boosting of the war.

All the lies in the world will not change the fact that the Israeli government was gung-ho on the Iraq war and working hard to pressure liberal Jews in the US Congress and media to vote and cheerlead for “Bush’s next Great Step to eliminate the Islamic threat”.

It’s actually a little insulting that so many Jews like neolex think the Goys are dense enough and so deterred by feckless charges of anti-Semitism if they dare dispute the present Likud line – that they will swallow or fearfully accept their lies meant to rehab Israel and US Zionists and neocons after the Iraq war went so putrid and cost us 30,000 casualties, wrecked much of America’s reputation, and put us 2 trillion in hock to our true strategic rivals.

To be sure, the lies work on some guillable conservatives, particularly uneducated Christian Zionists like “Fred”.

And, to be sure, the statues of Saddam had barely begun toppling when the necons and Zionists began their marketing strategy for pushing 3 new wars on the Golem of America to take on. There was Syria. A proposed invasion of Lebanon to “find the vast hidden stockpiles of Iraqi WMD now buried in the Bekaa Valley and now in control of Evildoers”.

Then – after a few months to realize Iraq was not the calewalk they promised – the Israelis and the Neocons then dropped the “Onto Syria and Lebanon, Americans, to die for Democracy!!” talk to then tout the unintimidated Iran as the “gravest threat ever”. About the time the Israelis were “shocked” that Mossad had the WMD story so wrong and it was actually Iranian WMD that menaced ALL of Civilization…

But due credit on your narrative of lies, Neolex, because it has suckered in some to believe in endless American war…just as long as there is no tax sacrifice expected, no Draft. and they continue to believe that “exciting high tech weapons” make other wars the cakewalk promised in Iraq…
===================

Buddy Larsen – Not to sideline the thread, but C4, if DoD wanted a draft, wouldn’t DoD say so?

Nope. Because you have to remember that the Pentagon is under civilian leadership of political appointees, and brass well know that to raise politically damaging facts in public that called for embarassing policy changes – that rebutted folks like Bush, Rumsfeld, and Feith can be career-limiting, as more than one officer like Shineseki found out.
A larger military ran directly against Bush’s determination to give massive tax cuts to his wealthy donors – it put that in jeopardy – and was unacceptable.

That is why Bush didn’t even try to boost military volunteerism let alone raise the 3rd Rail of The Draft resuming after 9/11 in what he called the “Defining Danger and Call to America to Rise to Duty, of our Lifetimes”.

You remember, back in the days when neocon syncophants were smootching his butt as “The American Churchill” facing “Munichs” in 7-8 countries he must “unleash the high tech forces of liberation and democracy-nurturing” on.

Thus the Draft can only be discussed by
serving military at the margins – that our reservists eligibility is now crippled by overuse and our active duty military is limited to only about 40,000 front line combat troops being put in the field (with a “tail” of 80,000 non-combat support troops inthe field with them) on a sustained basis.

Aug 26, 2008 - 6:18 pm 72. Cincinnatus:

“The partisans of the left have always hated the military and sought to cut the resources devoted to it. Why? Their vision of a society after the Revolution is actually highly militarized in a Stalinist fashion and the military itself in America is no direct political threat since it submits to civilian authority.”

They hate the military, think of them as thugs and hillbillies. But they have a tiny nagging doubt that the US Army is overall a noble force that promotes stability. And if the US saves the lives of 100,000 tsunami victims, oh, look the other way.
It turns out the “Reality Based Community” wishes their own personal reality is spread to the rest of us. Why should someone admit they’re wrong when they can hope the situation eventually resembles the perception?

Aug 27, 2008 - 9:16 am 73. Al_Batross:

“Civilization has forgotten what it is like to eat its pets from hunger” – wretchard.

It has also forgotten what it is like to eat its neighbours from hunger, but history suggests that in a crisis that is something which can be remembered all too quickly.

“History is supposed to protect us from forgetfulness; curb arrogance; guard against complacency” – wretchard.

So right, and so well expressed.

Aug 27, 2008 - 11:57 am 74. Dan:

Apparently this didn’t work the first time. Let’s try this again…

MOSCOW — Russian commanders said Wednesday they were growing alarmed at the number of NATO warships sailing into the Black Sea, conceding that NATO vessels now outnumbered the ships in their fleet anchored off the western coast of Georgia.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/28/world/europe/28russia.html?em

Aug 27, 2008 - 2:43 pm 75. Timber Walrus:

The depth, scope and wit of the dialogue on this web site gives me great hope in the power of our system.

Aug 27, 2008 - 7:07 pm 76. The WebElf Report « The WebElf Report:

[...] DRUMS in the deep …. [...]

Aug 28, 2008 - 9:44 am

Sorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.