52 Comments

1. Katherine:

You know what, every time I stop being “excited” about the war, someting like this is showed in my face

Terror in the Skies, Again?:

http://www.womenswallstreet.com/WWS/article_landing.aspx?articleid=711&Titleid=1&titlename=&start=19579

Not to mention some garden variety beheading of a random truck driver or communication network specialist who foolishly decided to in work in the ME.

But the beheadings are such commonplace occurrences nowadays that hardly anybody should pay any attention; with regard to bombs on planes, why, the rest of the world lived with the terrorist threat for decades now (as we were told by Romano Prodi and Terese Heinz), why should we Americans be an exception?

Yep lets take a breather and scale down our grandiose plans for trying to establish security and living in peace.

Let mullahs have their bomb. Let’s give Osama and Co. a time out – they need it to develop a really spectacular and effective attack. After all, because our Marines with all the unfair advantages of training, dedication and equipment are chasing them around it must be difficult to find a nice, quiet place for a good terror planning session!

Yes, we need to take a breather and give terrorist level playing field. Otherwise we may end up with an advantage over them. And that would really be unfair.

Jul 16, 2004 - 9:38 am 2. jerry:

Kaus’s argument is superficially true. However, Kerry is not talking about a pause. He is talking about withdrawal from an “unjust war.” He, and Kaus, suffers from the illusion that radical Islam is about leftwing notions of poverty and injustice instead of a worldview inimical to western values. Why else would supporters of homosexuality, abortion and the emancipation of women find such affinity with the Islamic radicals in the Middle East and so little with Israel? I would argue that leftwing romanticism about “revolution” against the “bourgeois” order makes anti-Western Islamic radicalism a psychologically irresistible vision to Kerry. Isn’t it ironic that a champion of multiculturalism like Kerry cannot understand that other cultures do not see the world through the same Marxist inspired glasses?

Jul 16, 2004 - 9:39 am 3. VN Vet 67-68:

The situation in Iran could result in another invasion, but not for a year or two. I’m of the opinion that the mullahs may well lose control of the country before that becomes necessary.

In that event, I think you’ll see fairly large scale use of spec ops types and possibly small formations of air mobile troops in specific locations. Their use would be to stabilize the situation and to prevent the mullah’s terrorists and thugs from derailing the revolt. In other words, we would have to support an internal rebellion — as we failed to do in 1991.

If Kerry gets elected, the Iranian people can kiss their freedom goodbye.

Jul 16, 2004 - 9:53 am 4. Knucklehead:

Katherine and Jerry hit the three-point shot (I sure do wish our host liked a different sport!) here.

As Katherine rightly points out, there is no good evidence that the WoT was either uneccesary or that it is anywhere near over. There’s more coming and our enemy is certainly trying to figure out ways to hurt us and will get in a punch here or there.

Regarding the Kaus “idea”. First off, how is what he claims to want materially different from what we are seeing? Iraq was Iraq, it was a time and place where real military action was called for and could be used – the right tool for the job. It is now nothing more than a holding action.

Kaus seems to be making three insupportable assumptions:

- that because the administration used military force as the tool of choice for Afghanistan and Iraq that they view military force (or outright invasion) as the tool of choice for every regime that needs to be dealt with. This is clearly not the case and any suggestion that it is calls Kaus’ intelligence and imagination into question rather than that of the administration

- that the current administration is NOT thinking calmly about how to deal Iran and whatever “next steps” should be. Or, for that matter, that “next steps” arrived at through calm thinking are not already under way. About the only thing I can think of that might make me consider voting against the president would be learning that his administration or the Pentagon was calling the likes of Kaus to tell them what they are thinking and what the next steps are

- that a Kerry administration would “think calmly about the next steps”. As far as I can tell they are running on a WoT platform that says something like, “the WoT isn’t a mistake but it is unneccessary and we need to stop doing everything we’re doing ASAP and get back in line under the direction of the UN and France because they are smarter and nicer and know mistakes when they see them.”

Jul 16, 2004 - 10:09 am 5. Katherine:

What VN Vet writes makes perfect sense.

I have read long tome ago an article in either Telegraph or Spectator, claming that in the run up to Iraqi war Bush administration let Tony Blair know that if he had to go against us or remain neutral in Security Council vote because of public opinion at home, we would be cool with it. It was Condi who allegedly made this phone call to Whitehall.

The reason for this message was that at that time there was a danger of virulently antiñwar Gordon Brown unseating Blair for leadership of Labour Party, and we badly need Britain in the Phase II of war: the Iran. The article said that Iran will be probably tackled from inside, and as Brits have a good humint network in place there, as opposed to us ñ ours is/was nonexistent – the British support and participation will be critical.

Jul 16, 2004 - 10:24 am 6. Katherine:

I would like to add, that if what a read with regard to that phone call to Blair is true, then it would demonstrate that the Bush administration is pragmatically and calmly planning, years in advance, the necessary “next steps.”

Jul 16, 2004 - 10:31 am 7. TmjUtah:

Kaus should consider the nature of the men in question when weighing the possible consequences of who wins the next election.

If Kerry were a statesman, or even an idealogue, it would be much harder to dismiss him out of hand as a viable option.

Woodrow Wilson won reelection running on a peace platform, but went on to lead his constituency and the country into finishing World War One. He had a set of core beliefs that could not reconcile the actions of a foreign government that not only committed acts of war on our citizens but also sought to foment attacks on us from Mexico.

Over twenty years in politics, and some few more in political activism, Kerry has used the events of the day for his own ends. He’s got a shorter list of leadership or legislative accomplishments than some freshman senators…and the agendas he has supported, if they had been realized as policy or law, would have left us without the tools, weapons, and doctrines for winning wars that we take for granted now. We wouldn’t have had any CIA input prior to 9/11 or Iraq if that agency had been crafted according to Kerry’s wishes.

He isn’t nearly the voice of a popular,populist, or overly-coherent constituency. He’s the default choice of a violently fragmented coalition of groups that are bent on settling a political score before any other consideration. And unlike 1916, we are in fact already in the trenches of a deadly global conflict. His constituency, such as it is, prioritizes removing the current occupant of the White House based on agenda vice any serious consideration of actually addressing AND ending the threat we face.

Kerry is a 9/10 politician herding cats in the hope he can win the presidency. What priorities he might entertain past that moment are frankly beyond any reasonable hope of predicting since his stump speeches vary so widely depending on what group he happens to be in front of on any given day. He’s got the ‘Anybody But Bush’ vote regardless of what he says. Watching how media approaches incidents like the Wilson affair shows you how he hopes to win the undecided vote.

It worked for Clinton. I don’t think it will work now.

Jul 16, 2004 - 10:35 am 8. Pat Curley:

Kaus’ rationale for voting for Kerry was so bizarre that I can’t help wondering if he’s kidding.

I don’t think an invasion of Iran is in the cards with either man as President. Bush doesn’t have the political capital to spend and Kerry doesn’t have the inclination. We may engage in some bombing of nuclear facilities however (and if we don’t Israel will).

I had read the Women’s Wall Street article last night–extremely disturbing.

Jul 16, 2004 - 10:35 am 9. Barry Dauphin:

“It might be a war we win by being less grandiose, righteous and excited for a period…”

I think MK needs to say what he means more clearly. What grandiosity and righteousness is he alluding to? He assumes it’s all evident. I think the one who tends to think excitedly is MK. Often that’s what makes him fun to read. Maybe he needs to take a break.

His definition of repsonding to Austin Bay at “greater length” is to rattle off a few ambiguous sentences. What does he see us rushing to after Iraq and Afghanistan? Do we seem to be in some big hurry with Iran and North Korea? Iran seems to be assembling all the essentials for a nuclear weapon in slow motion. If Kerry gets elected, how long before MK is jumping up and down for Kerry to do something already?

He makes it sound as if no one in the Administration has been thinking calmly or even thinks 5 minutes ahead of the latest news cycle. Sorry, I don’t buy MK’s point. He’s stuck in a jounralistic mindset that assumes the only thing going on is what’s in the news.

Jul 16, 2004 - 10:38 am 10. Knucklehead:

Katherine,

This is OT, and please feel free to tell me to mind my own business, but I have to ask. Let me set the stage.

When people switch jobs from one company to another, especially if the two are competitors, it generally takes some time for them to become a part of the new and stop saying things like “you” for the new company and “us” for the old company. It takes time for people to fully switch allegiances to the point of them not slipping out.

I have numerous acquantences from the FSR and east bloc who made that transition more quickly and thoroughly than I would have expected. Its a hard transition to make. They may have moved because they couldn’t stay there, but its was still “home”. But I couldn’t help noticing they buy in pretty quicly. As an example, I was listening to some chat (not eavesdropping, just wife-waiting) and the woman from the FSR was bemoaning some bureacratic nonsense going on where she worked and comparing it with the “old country” and she was quite animated about, “That’s not how we do it! That’s how they do it over there! We shouldn’t do things the way they do them – that’s stupid, that’s why we left there!”

How long and difficult was the transition? (I can’t think of a single case among the people I know where the transition is not complete as far as I can detect.)

Jul 16, 2004 - 10:42 am 11. doug b:

As the basketball coach in my hometown used to tell his teams when they were comfortably ahead at the half:

“you don’t let dogs breathe, because if you do, they’ll come back and bite you.”

The 90’s were a pause, and we got 9/11.

Jul 16, 2004 - 10:55 am 12. Sandy P:

Get your globes and scorecards out, it’s really starting to get hairy, via Vodkapundit:

The tone of Beijing’s rhetoric has changed, notes Richard Baum, a leading China specialist at the University of California in Los Angeles. The decibel-level of harsh anti-Chen polemic has subsided, replaced by a mood of “grim determination”, Baum said in a Yale Review article. “Before a tiger attacks, it remains calm and quiet,” one Chinese scholar told Baum.

Numerous US analysts believe that China’s military is close to reaching the capability it sees as necessary for an attack om special forces in Taiwan before the US Navy could execute its 30-day “surge” of massive reinforcements to the region – a Chinese version of US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s “shock and awe”.

http://reg.smh.com.au/splash.do?site=SMH&server=http:%2f%2fsmh.com.au&retn=%2farticles%2f2004%2f07%2f13%2f1089694360063.html%3foneclick=true

Jul 16, 2004 - 11:20 am 13. Rick Ballard:

Sandy P.,

China will invade North Korea before it ever thinks of touching Taiwan. The sabre rattling has been going on for fifty years and over that time China has become a major trading partner with the US. The cryptocapitalists running China are not about to shoot themselves in the bank account.

Jul 16, 2004 - 11:37 am 14. TmjUtah:

Sandy -

I’m not worried about Taiwan yet.

I will be when the PRC publicizes the deployment of MIRV’d ICBM’s based on the technology they acquired during the nineties.

Or if Kerry is elected.

I agree with Rick Ballard re economic considerations. Going for Taiwan might make some sort of sense in the domestic political line, but at the cost of losing the U.S. as an investment/trade partner? At a time when the only positive economic news out of Europe is …nothing? The very last thing that the Chinese can allow to happen is the collapse of North Korea and the reunification of the peninsuela as a dynamic democracy. North Korea serves as their proliferation conduit for dirty transactions but more importantly buffers their border.

Norks attempt to defect to CHINA. What do you think the result would be if China suddenly found the fastest growing economy in Asia sharing a contiguous land border? That’s motivation for a wall that would make the Berlin wall look like a hedge fence…and they cannot afford the PR problems such an act would raise.

There is so much we don’t know or just don’t ‘get’ about China; over the decades the FS and intelligence communities have come to stand behind the truism that whatever we think is probably wrong, and possibly wildly wrong, about the true agenda or motiviations of the politburo there.

I hope we hear encouraging missile defense news from our own side and sooner rather than later.

Jul 16, 2004 - 11:50 am 15. Fresh Air:

Re-electing Bush is the best way to ensure that we won’t have to attack Iran. The reason is that once he is re-elected he will have to the political freedom to quietly tell the mullahs and Boy Assad that if there is a terrorist attack on U.S. soil (or Israel’s) and we trace it back to them–in the words of John Wayne in True Grit–”your fault, my fault, nobody’s fault,” their countries will be decimated.

This is an extremely important issue because countermeasures require identifiable targets. If the mullahs think they can arm terrorists clandestinely to attack us, they must understand the consequences will be unbearably severe.

Kerry would never even consider such a threat, nor would one be believable coming from him. On the other hand, Bush would be uniquely empowered in the crazy, Sonny Corleone sense to threaten our enemies and be taken seriously.

As I believe TMJUtah pointed out on Totten’s blog the other day, we don’t want to do these things, but if we show weakness we will be more likely to have to.

Jul 16, 2004 - 11:53 am 16. Knucklehead:

Fresh Air!

Yeah, I know, if it doesn’t alter the point don’t bother correcting.

But we’re talking about The Duke, here! I’m pretty sure “…you’re fault, my fault, nobody’s fault…” was from “Big Jake” and was said by Richard Boone’s character (the big bad guy). Classic lines, especially unambiguous, icy cold threats are worth getting right

I like it though. A nice tour of the world’s hotspots giving the “You’re Fault, My Fault, Nobody’s Fault” speech. Maybe a nice little, fist-thumping line in there like, “Mr. Mullah, don’t turn to glass!” or somesuch. I’d volunteer to ghost it but they’ll never allow that.

Jul 16, 2004 - 12:18 pm 17. Fresh Air:

Knuckle–

Twice corrected today–but for a good cause!

I’d hate to put words in the wrong Duke’s mouth. Since you brought it up, you need to finish to the quote, which ends with the promise “…I’m gonna blow your head off.” Sort of nice, unsubtle way of putting things.

Colin Powell should maybe see a few of the old reels if he isn’t too busy working on his Volvo collection.

Jul 16, 2004 - 12:30 pm 18. Knucklehead:

Fresh Air,

Since turnabout is fair play, you were only half-incorrect. IIRC, Duke echoed the same threat back to Boone’s character later in the film.

Volvo collection, that’s great, I’m gonna steal it – you’re on a roll! Not bad for a one-eyed fat man.

Jul 16, 2004 - 12:36 pm 19. Old Dad:

There are very close family and busines ties between Taiwan and and the PROC. The Taiwanese have been channeling money and technology to the mainland for years. Most of my Taiwanese friends never lose any sleep worrying about an invasion. They’re too busy making money on the mainland, and so are the Chicoms. Just had another friend return after spending nine months on the mainland. Their economy is on fire.

The price of liberty is eternal vigilance, but it’s hard to see any relative advantage to the Chicoms for a war now.

Jul 16, 2004 - 12:52 pm 20. Rick Ballard:

In the Wayne vein, I can picture Don Rumsfeld as ‘Rooster Cogburn’ Mr. Rhatami, I have a writ here says you’re to stop all terrorist activity forthwith. Now it’s a rat writ, writ for a rat, and this is lawful service of the same. See, doesn’t pay any attention to me.

(Cut to cruise missile launches, B1,B2,B52 bomb bay doors opening, columns of tanks passing Iran/Iraq border signs.)

Not til late in ‘05 though (and never if Kerry, Kofi and Chirac have anything to say about it).

Jul 16, 2004 - 1:08 pm 21. Knucklehead:

Is there a China expert in the tavern? What is going on with those guys? I would think they’d have their hands full dealing with Hong Kong and the very real problems inherent in such rapid economic growth. As near as I can figure it, they’ve got about 30M people or so who have become richer than Midas, another 60M or so who are doing just dandy like any other modern middle-class, 300M or so who are in some sort of transient underclass that is more or less trapped between the “old” and the “new” economies and getting plenty antsy, and 600M dirt poor farmers.

And they’ve got a nutball running NK on one border and Vietnam on another.

Don’t they have enough to worry about? Why on earth would they even think about messing around with Taiwan and 20 or 25M people? And why Tibet? That one escapes me completely.

It seems to me that they may have some cultural need to rattle cages about it but can’t really want the trouble at the moment.

Jul 16, 2004 - 1:13 pm 22. PeterUK:

I would have thought that the very first thing to happpen to a newly elected President Kerry is somebody would decide to test his metal,as the Soviet Union tested Kennedy during the Cuban missile crisis.

There are enough suspects,Iran,China who are almost certain to engineeer a crisis and al Qaeda will wish to put their brand on him.Will he stand or will he run up the white flag of nuance.

Some of the Taiwanese must be re-examining Kerry’s record in Vietnam as will the Chinese.

Kaus seems to regard the WOT as a three act play with time to pop out for a drink in the intermission.

Jul 16, 2004 - 1:23 pm 23. Knucklehead:

PeterUK,

Perhaps my opinion of Mr. Kerry is lower than it ought to be, but I think Castro alone could crank up enough noise to fluster Kerry beyond any hope of recovery.

Jul 16, 2004 - 1:27 pm 24. doug b:

Fresh Air:

Is there a better foreign policy movie than The Godfather? The universe of the mafia is a much better fit than thinking about international affairs in terms of the law.

It’s good to ask yourself what would Michael Corleone do. And thinking of Kerry reminds me of his comment to Duvall’s character that he wasn’t a war time consigliere. “Things could get a little rough with the move we’re planning.”

Jul 16, 2004 - 1:32 pm 25. TR Farmer:

Good thought, PeterUK.

But to be fully historically accurate, we need to remember that Kruschev didn’t try to put missiles in Cuba until Kennedy failed at the Bay of Pigs invasion and they had a face to face meeting at the summit meeting in Vienna where Kruschev got a sense that he could intimidate Kennedy.

The Cuban Missile Crisis is my favorite example of a public relations triumph over real history. In the public mind this is portrayed as Kennedy fearlessly facing down Kruschev and winning the day when in reality it was a horrible strategic defeat for the US. We were forced to withdraw our missiles from Turkey (which was kept secret for years) and we were forced to affirm that we would not invade Cuba in the future. If we had ever had to fight a conventional war in Europe against the Soviet Union more than half of our shipping would have left from ports in the Gulf of Mexico and had to sail past Cuba. It would have been an unsinkable aircraft carrier (like Malta was for the British in WWII) that would have resulted in the disruption of our shipping

Jul 16, 2004 - 1:43 pm 26. JB:

Mickey is full of baloney, of course.

It’s a completely non-substantive statement, including a strawman.

Nice try, but root-cause liberalism is like an anchor weighing down his formidable critical faculties.

Jul 16, 2004 - 1:46 pm 27. Kevin P:

Roger:

Kaus is suffering from war fatigue and in some sense a little of this can be blamed on President Bush.I am voting for Bush and I was for the war and am still for it so this critique is not meant to be pilling on.President Bush did a poor job of preparing the nation for the long slog that this war was going to be and even though he did mention the word “hard, long, and difficult” in his speeches I honestly feel that they were not emphasized enough. But Mickey’s rational for voting for Kerry is more naive then the sweets and flowers wish that was spoken by some in regards to the predicted Iraqi response to the invasion.

Kaus is banking on Kerry’s statement that he won’t cut and run when every aspect of the Democratic discussion on this war is to get out and get out by any means available.Kerry won’t embrace Nader’s 6 month escape plan but I give Kerry one year max before he pulls out the troops whether Iraq is ready for it or not.When the Paris peace plan for the end of the Vietnam War was signed the agreement called for us to pull out our troops, North Vietnam would not invade South Vietnam and we would continue to give military aid to the south so they could defend

themselves. We were so worn out by the war that our response to the North Vietnamanese invasion of the South was to pretend it wasn’t happening and on top of that to cut military funding to the south.Kerry was in favor of that for the Vietnam War then and if Mickey doesn’t think a similar thing will happen in Iraq then I think Mickey is fooling himself.

The Democrats don’t just think that President Bush is running this war poorly, they don’t think it should ever have been started.For Mickey to think that Kerry is going to pursue a war that he thought, like Vietnam, was a mistake from the start then he is whistling in the dark. The proper translation for “more international control and having the UN take a greater role in the war” is really “Get me out of here”.It is similar to the Kadets in Russia in WWI when before getting rid of the Czar were calling the war a crime against the people and then when Kerensky took control of the provisional government tried to argue why they had to continue to fight the War.It didn’t work for him and I don’t think Kerry will even try. You can’t cry “exit strategy” “War for Oil” and “this war was all based on lies” and then turn around and say “Yes I meant all those things I said but we are going to still continue the fight” He doesn’t want to and his party won’t let him. He will get out whether the facts on the ground support the strategy or not. The Un will make a deak with any group that looks like they can take over and then let them set up a Baathist or Taliban style government, as long as They all get their cut of the oil, similar to the oil for palaces regime.And then Kerry will blame President Bush for the whole thing.

Jul 16, 2004 - 2:02 pm 28. Fresh Air:

Doug B.–

I wish I could take credit for the Sonny Corleone reference, but it properly belongs to Ron Rosenbaum at the NY Observer. (See here.) I’m not totally sure the analogies work for Fredo, Vito and Moe Green, though Sonny and Michael sure make guest appearances on the world stage. Of course your mileage may vary.

Knuckle–

A poster named Dean is our resident mandarin on the Mandarins. My only two cents worth is the Chinese seem hell-bent on restoring their historical territories. Tibet is part of them, as is Taiwan. Whether this makes any sense to do in haste seems doubtful to me. One can be sure they wouldn’t attack Taiwan before November if they had the chance to do it on Kerry’s watch. One more reason to vote for Bush.

Jul 16, 2004 - 2:07 pm 29. PeterArgus:

As you are probably aware there are seven (!!!) U.S. carrier groups steaming toward the Taiwan area for maneuvurs. Teddy Roosevelt would be damn proud to see that. If China doesn’t get the message with this humble display of US taxpayers dollars put to good use nothing will work.

Jul 16, 2004 - 2:17 pm 30. Glenmore:

A most interesting blog post from Egypt (my ellipses). Read especially the last five words!

http://bigpharaoh.blogspot.com/

Monday, July 12, 2004

My Internet Adventures

I have a cheeky way to know what people around the world really think about something. I enter Yahoo chat rooms using a female name and I instantaneously get bombarded with private messages from guys who want to meet a pretty girl online. After introducing myself to my prey, I smoothly shift the conversation to where I want it to be in order to get a reflex reply from him. …

I once pretended to be an Iraqi girl … I entered the …Iranian (chat room). These were a number of the replies I got after informing them of my exciting job:

“Really, that’s cool”

“Great”

“Cool”

“I like America”

…what made the Iranian youth who frequent those chat rooms react in such a different way than their Arab counterparts? Isn’t Iran supposed to be one of America’s enemies? Didn’t these kids chant “death to America” every morning in their school lines? Didn’t they sing the song that their religious rulers invented which includes a verse saying “the blood of Iran’s youth is dripping from America’s nails?” Why did I get such reactions? Why were they the only Muslims who voluntarily held vigils after 911?

The answer to all the above questions is very simple: America is just against their theocratic dictators. They are friends for free. America doesn’t have to pay anything to earn their friendship; she just has to continue to press for their freedom. How? By doing Iraq right. Buy Iraq, get Iran free.

Jul 16, 2004 - 2:21 pm 31. Katherine:

Knuckehead, OT:

I am well familiar with what you are referring to.

The short answer to your question is no longer than something like 2-4 years. But I was young and very determined ìto make itî, and tough minded enough to put my childhood behind me. Did not allow myself much of a nostalgia, and frankly, I liked it here way better. And the people that I met anywhere I went were wonderfully kind.

But transformation to the contempt that I currently feel for the continent of Europe as a whole (sorry for this bit of generalization, I know that there are very fine people there and we have a share our own idiots) took a bit longer to build.

I wish I could contact you directly, but although I instructed TypeKey to pass my email address to this, site it refuses to do so!

Jul 16, 2004 - 2:26 pm 32. Knucklehead:

PeterArgus,

I believe what you are referring to is Operation Summer Pulse. It would, indeed, warm the heart of ol’ TR, but they aren’t all headed for Taiwan. Its basically a scatter to the 4 corners of the world exercise to demonstrate that we are not “tapped out” in Iraq and the Gulf and have more than sufficient Carrier Battle groups and Carrier Strike groups (30?) to, ummm…, discourage those who might think its a good time to push any envelopes.

But it really isn’t a “provocative move” aimed purely at the PRC.

Jul 16, 2004 - 2:35 pm 33. Roberts:

Aside from the many ideological differences, and even putting aside the rhetoric that Kerry is trapping himself with, everything I’ve read about Kerry tells me that he hasn’t the character I want in a crisis leader. His personal political instincts are to freeze in place.

Jul 16, 2004 - 2:38 pm 34. Knucklehead:

Katherine (OT),

I’m having the same problem trying to get the email address to be active for this TypeKey thing. Its not working.

The email address that would show up here if I could figure it out is

kncklhead5@netscape.net

Feel free to contact me there if you’d like and I’ll send along my “real” address. That’s a “collector” address that I don’t particularly like to have to use, but there’s just too much crap flying around to put the “real” one out so publicly. The collector one has been picked off and is being used by the virus pushers even now. Fortunately I keep my computer pretty tightly screwed down and I don’t believe they are originating from me, but somebody is definitely gluing the email address onto virus distributions and sending stuff to addresses I have never had any reason to ever communicate to.

Oh well.

John Moore:

There’s something I’d like your advice about (a matter you seem expert in ;>), but I can’t seem to get an email address from your site or this one, so if you would be kind enough to drop me an email at the address above…

Apologies for using Roger’s Place for this little interlude.

Jul 16, 2004 - 2:57 pm 35. Dave Schuler:

Knucklehead:

Re: China

I’m no “China hand” but I do have a few ideas on the subject. For a little background on the Chinese economy see here and here. You’ve got the combination plate: inflation, overheating, possible bank crisis, bubble, unemployement, etc. For Chinese leaders the values that transcend all others are:

1) Retain power.

2) Stability.

in that order. The relative prosperity and freedom of Hong Kong and Taiwan (which they consider an errant province) are constant reminders of how things are going at home. Nothing like a little war to take your mind off your troubles.

Jul 16, 2004 - 3:11 pm 36. IceCold:

“grandiose, righteous and excited” — whuh?

That Kaus can effortlessly toss off such stupid, offensive, and baseless criticisms of the US, even though he’s alert and averse to much of the nonsense filling print and airwaves these days, speaks to the pernicious effect A World Gone Stupid (TM) can have even on the more even-keeled.

Hard not to sound snotty about it, but his touch on foreign policy is pretty typical of a political type with little background or inclination to think things through. Thus while it’s inexplicable that Kaus could hold such a well-founded low regard for Kerry’s leadership potential yet still think he could lead the country, it’s no surprise that he hasn’t considered the equally bad news — that Kerry’s team would “complete” the picture.

With the possible exception of Holbrooke, this is not a serious bunch. It’s a combo of those who made a hash of nearly everything they touched in the 90s and those who kibbitzed from the sidelines with usually even worse ideas. Many of them, like Kerry, supported (to varying degrees, and as followers not leaders) the Iraq war. But it’s hard to imagine that a weak leader supported by a weak team will suddenly develop both insight and grit.

Odds are that some of the decisions in the broader war will be even tougher (consequential, risky, politically difficult) than Iraq. It’s just not plausible, to any who’ve seen Kerry and many of his team up close for years, to imagine them handling such challenges nearly as well as Bush & co.

Jul 16, 2004 - 3:22 pm 37. Knucklehead:

Dave,

Thanks for the links. They look like they’ll be interesting reading.

I find it pretty interesting that the PRC is bierthing millionaires at an astonishing rate. There are probably several times more millionaires there than here. How that will play out with HUNDREDS of millions of poor will be interesting.

Jul 16, 2004 - 3:24 pm 38. TmjUtah:

PeterUK -

“I would have thought that the very first thing to happpen to a newly elected President Kerry is somebody would decide to test his metal,as the Soviet Union tested Kennedy during the Cuban missile crisis.”

Test? What for? The Chinese understand that cage rattling on their part would be counterproductive. They’ll get more of what they want by providing an agreeable facade of diplomacy and engagement, always providing nice copy for the demographic that grooves on Czechoslovakia solutions. Any overt move early on in a Kerry administration on the part of the Islamofascists finds Kerry in charge of the military infrastructure crafted by the Bush administration and battle hardened in two wars. They might rattle our cage with a conventional point attack merely to see what level of response would be employed, and to see what the administration will call that response (a battle, a victory, a vital success, etc…)but if they haven’t learned that they are better served by waiting for Democrat majorities behind a Dem president they truly are incapable of strategic thought…

The biggest test of a Kerry administration out the gate would be internal; how it responds to the downspike in military retention, most specifically across the reserves and regular mid-career officers and staff NCO’s. Don’t take my word for it, ask your friends in uniform. We’ve asked for and gotten tremendous sacrifice from our uniformed services. They’ve borne the burden magnificently but they also believe in the mission and the leadership.

All-volunteer force, remember?

All the Buck Rogers weapons in the world will not win a fight if leadership is absent. Are we as a nation serious about making sure that barbarism in the form of Islamist terror is defeated? That is the question we will answer in November. Sometimes it seems the enemy understands that better than we do.

Jul 16, 2004 - 3:32 pm 39. PeterUK:

TmjUtah

One test I can think of is offering Kerry a nuanced route to selling Taiwan down the river.So much more sensible to leave it in the chinese sphere of influence would be the siren call,considering his form on Vietnam I think he would go for it.

Again I don’t think Kerry,judging on his record of voting down military expenditure,actually cares about maintaining the military,he is more likely to go down the european path.

Some UN/European involvement will be cobbled together for Iraq and US troops will be out of there faster than you can say nuance.Peace will be declared by the MSM,children will dance in the streets and the birds will sing again.

Jul 16, 2004 - 4:14 pm 40. Katherine:

Yep, Peter, Palestinian children will have enough occasions to dance in the streets when we will have to learn to say: President Kerry

Jul 16, 2004 - 5:25 pm 41. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

On China

I am no expert, but I spent last night at a very good ad campaign..

To the Chinese, two things are uppermost: maintaining central power in the hands of the chosen, and Chinese imperialism, which has a very long history. The latter requires that the government not lose Taiwan. Taiwanese moves towards independence, if they cross the line, will result in warfare, whether China can win or not. No Chinese leader wants to be remember for the next 5,000 years as the guy who lost Taiwan. The two goals are compatible – war or war-like activity to hold on to Taiwan is useful for maintaining internal cohesion – the old trick of a foreign threat trumping internal dissent. That China has recently declared Korea to be part of historic The list of internal problems is real, and may force a change in the current internal and maybe external policies. But those changes are unlikely to be in a liberal dimension and more likely to be another “cultural revoluation” or other upheaval – useful when you need to kill tens of millions of dissidents.

The 7 carrier groups are headed for more than one destination. In theory, it is a huge exercise, but I cannot imagine moving that much combat power as an exercise. Some of it goes to the middle east (Iran?), some to east Asia (Taiwan, North Korea?).

TR Farmer

Another thing to keep in mind from the Cuban missile crisis is that Fidel formally asked Khruschev to nuke the US in the event of a US invasion of Cuba. That same lunatic is still in charge of that little island, with an advanced biotech capability. So in addition to all the other threats, be sure that Cuba has a doomsday biological weapon.

Dave Schuler

Agreed that the Chinese economy is in trouble. They are essentially doing what Japan did: prop up a huge amount of insolvent investments through a non-transparent system. Japan is just now recovering (after at least a decade) because corruption and the unwillingness to pay the penalties kept recovery away for a long time. Even today, Japan still has serious flaws in their capitalism – you cannot sell a family owned business except to liquidate its assets. I wonder where China is in that area.

IceCold

I may need to license that World Gone Stupid for a T-shirt I have been making the point for some time that the Democrats do not have people they can tap for a valid war cabinet. Kerry has no significant military knowledge (in spite of his bragging) and a cabinet is likely to be full of ideologues instead of practical, experienced leaders. It is also ironic that the Democrats would run a man whose primary foreign policy expertise is in knowling providing propaganda for a country we were at war with, propaganda still used today against America, and whose first thing when he took office was to visit a communist regime in Latin America ( Nicaragua ) in order to thwart Reagan’s ultimately successful attempt to dislodge the communists (although I hear that Sandinistas are still murdering people).

Jul 16, 2004 - 6:01 pm 42. Syl:

IceCold

Great points.

I just cannot imagine a Democrat these days handling anything that is politically difficult in any kind of decisive way.

Jul 16, 2004 - 6:43 pm 43. Dave Schuler:

John Moore:

Here’s a good summary of where the carrier groups are heading (with citations).

“Imperialism” means some a little different for China, I think. I don’t think I believe that China is expansionist. But they do insist on retaining what they believe belongs to them. And that could conceivably include Southeast Asia and the Korean peninsula as well as substantial chunks of central Asia. As well as Taiwan, of course.

Jul 16, 2004 - 7:02 pm 44. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

Preview, John…Preview…

China historically is not expansionist, but they did annex Tibet, which is not historically Chinese. They tend to want buffer zones along their borders, which is why a democratic Korean reunification is a pipe dream. It is also why the US did not invade North Vietnam, although Johnson was overly scared of the Chinese and hence failed to use adequate force against the North.

That they add Korea to their list is odd. I suspect, given the timing, that they are doing to justify conquest of North Korea – especially if it is true that we recently threatened them with a nuclear armed Japan and Taiwan if they failed to end Nork WMD proliferation. The .8 kt explosion at the train station the Dear Leader had recently been through is another clue – the Chinese knew he was going to be there. An added bonus was that some Syrians, probably missile scientists, were vaporized in the event.

Notice that if Taiwan were to become nuclear armed, the PRC leadership would have major problems. A properly armed Taiwan could prevent a conquest and punish China terribly. This would mean the current leadership “lost” Taiwan.

Since they really do consider Taiwan a wayward province, taking North Korea would not be an adequate substitute

A nuclear armed Japan would be a nightmare for them also, although the Japanese seem loathe to do so. My Japanese sister-in-law, for example, has a strong reaction to the idea of nuclear weapons. But to counter North Korea, the Japanese might consider nuclear arms. And to the Chinese, with their memory of a long and terribly brutal Japanese invasion and occupaton, this would be very frightening. In my travels in Asia, I have found that the Japanese are still greatly feared and disliked, which is appropriate since they appear to dislike and feel superior to everyone else (with exceptions such as my sister-in-law and her father, but not her mother).

It is difficult for a westerner to adopt Asian thinking (or at least, in my experience, Japanese thinking – and I am far from competent). For example, imagine you have a want a raise from your boss. Just asking for one causes a big problem. But if you explain some economic hardship (which you and the boss both know is nonsense), then the boss has a way of saving face and you get the raise.

China has some very strong imperialist strains in its culture, along with Confucianism, which teaches submission to authority. Japan is ruthlessly hierarchical and sexist, and is only 150 years past true primitive feudalism. Arab cultures tend to be shame cultures, and there seems to also be a strong element akin to machismo, which is why it was so wrong to shoot cruise missiles at Bin Laden and why any kind of serious ground force actions would have had a dramatically different psychologicla effect (I was arguing this during the Clinton Administration, btw).

Beyond North Korea, Taiwan and Tibet, China’s aims would appear to be more that of regional hegemon than conquerer. In some sense, they would create their own version of the “Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere” but do so by trade, economic warfare and military intimidation rather than conquest.

At the moment we have an odd relationship with China. We have strong economic interdependencies. We are serious opponents on the Taiwan issue. We need the Chinese to solve the North Korean problem. The Chinese are building more, and more survivable (mobile) nuclear weapons targetted at the United States (or India). The Chinese represent a competitor with many countries in the South China Sea, which has potential oil and gas.

In other words, like has been frequently true throughout history, nothing simple can be said about China.

Jul 16, 2004 - 9:48 pm 45. ricpic:

If I may paraphrase.

Kaus: Let’s win the war, apologizing all the way.

Liberals. Yecch.

Jul 17, 2004 - 10:36 am 46. richard mcenroe:

tmjUtah ó Your “if {Kerry-supported polcies] had been realized as policy or law, would have left us without the tools, weapons, and doctrines for winning wars that we take for granted now. We wouldn’t have had any CIA input prior to 9/11 or Iraq if that agency had been crafted according to Kerry’s wishes.”

It’s simpler than that. We would be trying to fight in the middle east with 45-year-old M60 tanks, firetrap M113’s, bolt-shedding Hueys and creaky-winged Phantom jets, since Kerry voted against the replacements for every one of those weapon systems.

Kerry is not a 9/10 politician; he is a 1974 politician, like most of his peers. Their policies and worldviews ossified after Viet Nam and they are incapable of moving past them or seeing that the world has changed. When a boomer politician boasts that he was in The Big One, he means Woodstock or Chicago 68, not Normandy Beach or Okinawa…

Jul 17, 2004 - 10:37 am 47. richard mcenroe:

tmjUtah ó Your “if {Kerry-supported polcies] had been realized as policy or law, would have left us without the tools, weapons, and doctrines for winning wars that we take for granted now. We wouldn’t have had any CIA input prior to 9/11 or Iraq if that agency had been crafted according to Kerry’s wishes.”

It’s simpler than that. We would be trying to fight in the middle east with 45-year-old M60 tanks, firetrap M113’s, bolt-shedding Hueys and creaky-winged Phantom jets, since Kerry voted against the replacements for every one of those weapon systems.

Kerry is not a 9/10 politician; he is a 1974 politician, like most of his peers. Their policies and worldviews ossified after Viet Nam and they are incapable of moving past them or seeing that the world has changed. When a boomer politician boasts that he was in The Big One, he means Woodstock or Chicago 68, not Normandy Beach or Okinawa…

Jul 17, 2004 - 10:37 am 48. Trent Telenko:

Roger,

It will come down to a land invasion and conquest of Iran by the US Military.

_The_Stakes_Are_Too_High!

There are nukes on the table.

They are not American nukes.

You read Strategypage.com. You know Israel has the capability to effectively nuke Iran.

Iran has the motivation and will soon have the capability to nuke Israel. Senior Iranian government officials have stated publically, repeatedly, that Iran will nuke Israel as soon as it has nuclear weapons. Further, these senior Iranian leaders think Iran can win any nuclear war with the Jewish state because Iran is large and Israel is small.

That makes yesterday, today and tomorrow part of a count down to a nuclear Six Day War.

The only way to avoid a world where nuclear preemptive attack is a legitimate tool of state policy is to change the regime in Iran and do so quickly. The CIA is too incompetent to bring down the Mullahs via fomenting an internal revolt and the CIA won’t let the American Special Forces do the job either for turf reasons.

This will take the conventional ground forces of the US Army and US Marine Corps.

One more thing. You ignored the 800 pound Gorilla sitting in the middle of the living room in that story.

Russia has replaced Pakistan as the Chief nuclear proliferator in the world. Delivery of nuclear materials from Russia to Iran will be an unfriendly act against the United States verging on an act of war.

If Russia has replaced Pakistan as the chief proliferator of WMD to the front line terrorist states, then what?

The chances of _most American_ dying in a nuclear exchange had dropped tremendously since the Cold War.

The chances that _some American_ will die from a nuclear strike are now far higher.

Jul 17, 2004 - 3:15 pm 49. Trent Telenko:

The clock is ticking. This is clipped from the Sunday Times of London:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,2763-1182664,00.html

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

Israel targets Iran nuclear plant

The Sunday Times

July 18, 2004

Uzi Mahnaimi and Peter Conradi

ISRAEL could launch a pre-emptive strike on Iranís Bushehr nuclear power station if Russia goes ahead with plans to supply it with fuel, a senior American official warned last week.

Amid growing concern in the US government over Iranís apparent determination to build a nuclear bomb, the official said he believed Israel would attack the plant, on the Gulf coast, if it appeared fuel rods were about to be shipped there.

Sources in Tel Aviv confirmed that the Israeli military had completed rehearsals for such a strike. ìIsrael will on no account permit Iranian reactors ó especially the one being built in Bushehr with Russian help ó to go critical,î an Israeli defence source said.

Ariel Sharon, the prime minister, recently called Iran the ìbiggest danger to the existence of Israelî. He said: ìIsrael will not allow Iran to be equipped with a nuclear weapon.î

Under the deal with Moscow, waste produced at Bushehr containing plutonium that could be used in bomb-making would be shipped back to Russia for storage. The procedure is to be supervised by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the nuclear watchdog.

The material must first cool, however, providing the Iranians with what Washington fears could be up to two years in which to extract the plutonium. Israeli sources believe that a quarter of a ton a year could be produced if Bushehr was functioning fully ó enough for 20 bombs.

The fuel rods, stored at a Russian port, are expected to be delivered late next year but only after the resolution of a dispute with Moscow over financial terms.

According to Israeli sources, any strike on Bushehr would probably be carried out by long-haul F-15I jets, flying over Turkey, with simultaneous operations by commandos on the ground.

ìIf the worst comes to the worst and international efforts fail, we are very confident weíll be able to demolish the ayatollahsí nuclear aspirations in one go,î said a source familiar with the plans.

The source said the strike could be accompanied by an attack on other targets, including a facility at Natanz where the Iranians have attempted to enrich uranium ó another route to making a bomb. A plant at Arak producing heavy water could also be hit.

A classified document delivered to Sharon earlier this year and seen by The Sunday Times highlighted the anxiety of the Israeli defence establishment over the seriousness of the perceived threat from Iran.

(snip)

Jul 17, 2004 - 4:44 pm 50. TmjUtah:

Trent -

Americans shudder at the horror of a nuclear attack on U.S. soil. Millions of people dead and injured, billions of dollars, untold long-term health consequences…all terrifying. We’ll leave no stone unturned finding who was responsible. Then we’ll turn the perpetrating state OR state host into glass and then get back to our lives afterward. Because we can.

The Israelis can’t afford to think that for a second. Two or three real nukes exploding in Tel Aviv, Haifa, or Jerusalem and they would lose the ability to defend themselves conventionally on top of losing half of their population. Any of their neighbors would gladly exploit such an attack and try to finish off the survivors.

I try to never underestimate the readiness of Israel to act preemptively where Arab nuclear capability is concerned. I don’t doubt they would commit forces, even on a one-way mission, if they satisfied themselves that Iran was in fact in possession of nuclear weapons.

Jul 18, 2004 - 1:16 pm 51. Martin Lindeskog:

I agree with Trent Telenko, something has to be done soon, we can’t sit and wait for the Mullahs to assemble a nuclear bomb and zoom in their target, Israel. I discuss this a bit more in my post, NUTTY ADVICE: “HAVE A DIALOGUE WITH TEHRAN”.

Martin Lindeskog

Gothenburg, Sweden.

Jul 18, 2004 - 6:34 pm 52. Tom Grey:

I’ve long thought that the day after Bush is re-elected would be a good time for Israel to begin a pre-emptive defensive strike against Iran.

In my fantasies, they also take out Syria’s gov’t; maybe even issuing a warning, first, and even declaring war? Hard to imagine as real, though.

The commando strike, with implicit US support from Iraq, could happen. Also interesting is the possibility of Iraq supporting Israel — Iraq, too, does not want a nuclear armed Iran.

Wouldn’t it be funny if Iraq pressed Iran for a nuclear free treaty, just the two of them, first?

Jul 19, 2004 - 2:49 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: