43 Comments

1. Les Nessman:

I guess they think *where* they kiss them is the important part. And I don’t mean geographically.

Sep 4, 2004 - 12:03 pm 2. Jamie Irons:

Roger,

Great to have you back home.

Hope everything is well with the family in NYC.

I think the Euro attitude toward the mullahs (and its shadow, the attitude toward us) is inherently unstable.

It is what physical chemists call a metastable equilibrium:

The system returns towards equilibrium as long as disturbances are not too large. The equilibrium is not globally stable because once the system has crossed the unstable equilibrium (the peak), it is unlikely to return to the stable point…

The French can kiss and kiss the mullahs, and can scream and scream at us, as long as they don’t push too hard in either direction. Because nothing has yet happened (the system is metastable) they think nothing can happen.

But they are gravely mistaken.

Jamie Irons

Sep 4, 2004 - 12:04 pm 3. Terrye:

The Europeans can suck up to those mullahs as long as they like, in the end the mullahs are not going to change, they are what they are. One would think that Europe would learn from their hsitory that appeasing dictators is a no win situaiton but I think they just want to delay the inevitable in hopes of a miracle, or a revolution [which ever comes first].

Sep 4, 2004 - 12:36 pm 4. BigFire:

Actually, from the French POV, Iran having nukes isn’t a problem, but a solution to Israel’s problem. They sincerly believe by arming Iranian regime, they’ll be able to control the rouge governments call Israel and United State.

Sep 4, 2004 - 12:44 pm 5. thedragonflies:

Of course the joke on Europe is that the real target of the Islamofascists if Western Civilization, not the U.S. Europe is in their crosshairs, and they seem to be able to conquer Europe without a shot being fired or a bomb exploded.

If the Louvre disappears under a mushroom cloud, I’m not sure any Americans are going to be volunteering to save France.

Sep 4, 2004 - 2:22 pm 6. PeterUK:

Roger,

A bit picky I know but a better analogy than adolecents would be elderly cantankerous relatives who cannot understand that the kids have left home and have a family of their own.

Puts me in mind of the Monty Python sketch,”My Hasn’t he grown”

Sep 4, 2004 - 2:35 pm 7. Cabarfeidh:

May I just confirm that when all you nice people are referring to ‘Europe’ or the EUWeenies etc you are NOT including the United Kingdom in with THAT lot? Remember, we are the ones who have newspaper headlines saying ‘Fog in Channel. Continent cut off.’……and that was Fog not Frog by the way!

Thanks awfully.

Sep 4, 2004 - 2:35 pm 8. Mister Ghost:

The only good thing coming out of Europe these days are the Women and Basketball Players. And at least the basketball players bathe. Except for that guy that used to play for the Clippers.

Sep 4, 2004 - 3:30 pm 9. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

If the Louvre disappears under a mushroom cloud, so would Iran. Much as we lament the lack of conventional forces in Europe, France and Britain have enough nukes to be a credible deterrence.

Rafsanjani’s threat to Israael is also questionable. His family is wealthy, so he’s a very, very rich mullah. In other words, he may be motivated by money as much as anything else. Perhaps his statement about the Arab bomb was meant for someone not as greedy as him.

Frankly, after the action in Russia (so far?), it’s tempting to simply destroy a Muslim population (Chechens come to mind). One wonders what Putin is contrmplating.

Sep 4, 2004 - 3:49 pm 10. exguru:

It’s possible a big Bush win will make it unnecessary to invade Iran. Those mullahs are not totally irrational. If the libs had just kept their bowels open and the mouths shut since we went into Iraq, the U.S. would be in much stronger position right now.

Sep 4, 2004 - 5:33 pm 11. exguru:

P.S.

George Bush has earned his reputation as un homme serieux. So has Karl Rove. (Is Daschle toast?)

Martinez and Specter win, etc.

Sep 4, 2004 - 5:43 pm 12. Syl:

Heck, where is everybody today?

I was tired of hurricane watching and turned to C-SPAN for a tremendous presentation by Thomas Barnett. You want to hear some strategic thinking regarding the WoT, Globalization, and transformation of our military?

It’s being repeated started at 11pm Eastern on C-Span.

I was wowed.

Sep 4, 2004 - 7:48 pm 13. thibaud:

Long post – sorry, but I believe we’ve reached Phase II in the War and that we are on the brink of a diplomatic revolution that will shape the next several decades. Here’s why:

Jack Straw’s asinine mission to Teheran is actively undermining our efforts to box Iran. High time we brought the curtain down on this farce.

The deeper issue here is that, despite all the convergence between us and the Euros, despite the common rhetoric and values, the fact of the matter is that on the crucial test of wills between us and the mullahs and the Iraqi resistance, most leading EU politicians are inclined to support the other side. In France’s case, it’s blatant: the French are now running around the middle east proclaiming their solidarity with the region’s anti-US and anti-Iraqi forces.

This is a radical new development. Even during the height of European hysteria about Reagan, neither Mitterrand nor Schmidt nor any west European leader would even think of breaking ranks with Reagan and supporting Andropov or Chernenko.

The upshot of it is that the West as a coherent strategic entity no longer exists. We have no choice but to accept these hard, sober facts about the new world reality:

– there is no correlation between the degree of democracy in a nation and that nation’s importance to us as an ally in our war with the jihadists;

– though our cause is just, we cannot win this war unless we make common cause with many nations and regimes that we have heretofore considered alien or not compatible with US values;

– there will be no ceasing of the pronounced tendencies toward self-hatred and self-blame of large segments of western populations.

Bottom line: time for us to abandon the nonsense that only democracies can be our allies. It’s 1941 again. We need to quit wasting so much time with Europeans who cannot help or harm us much in this new world and set about re-ordereing our alliances and diplomatic priorities with a cold eye on the main chance.

In other words, Russia and India’s support and eager, active coordination are more important to us than anything France or Germany are likely to provide. If we’re to defeat the jihadists, we need to go back to diplomatic realpolitik and shift our attention to this century’s emerging great powers, the ones that truly do have critical assets to lend us in the near and far east.

NATO’s useless. The West is dead. Move on, Americans.

Sep 4, 2004 - 8:53 pm 14. thibaud:

John Moore,

An attack on France is not the issue, for two reasons. First, the superbowl for the terrorists is of course a strike on the US. After Washington, no other target really matters.

Second, the means of effecting this strike is not a traditional launch from Iranian bases, jets or ships. It will almost certainly be several dirty nukes delivered via proxies, perhaps AQ, perhaps Hezbollah, perhaps other entities we’re not yet familiar with. Iran is already crawling with Al Qaeda.

The EU three are worse than useless here. They are consuming valuable time with this charade and are making a proxy attack on a US city or port more and more likely with each passing week.

Sep 4, 2004 - 9:03 pm 15. Barry Dauphin:

This op/ed from the Jerusalme Post is worth reading in connection with Roger’s discussion of Iran. The writer, Steven Stalinsky, says that many Iranian government officials, including Khamenei, have publicly alluded to plans for attacks on American soil.: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1093835909853&p=1006953079865

Some examples from the piece:”The paper claimed it had obtained a tape with a speech by Hassan Abbassi, a Revolutionary Guards intelligence theoretician who teaches at Al-Hussein University. In the tape, Abbassi spoke of Teheran’s secret plans, which include “a strategy drawn up for the destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization.”

In order to accomplish this, he explained, “there are 29 sensitive sites in the US and in the West. We have already spied on these sites, and we know how we are going to attack them.” ………

“In fact, over the past few months Khamenei has been vocal about the impending “destruction of the US.” In May he was quoted in the Iranian paper Jomhouri-Ye Eslami as stating that “the world will witness the annihilation of this arrogant regime.” ……

“The following week Ayatollah Mohammad Emami-Kashani delivered the Friday sermon live on Channel 1 stating that the US would collapse like Genghis Khan’s empire: “I say to you, the American people you will collapse, America will collapse.”

I thought the allusion to Genghis Khan was interesting and creepy in light of the recent replays of Kerry’s 1971 Senate testimony.

If I remember correctly in the months preceding 9/11, there were a number of Iraqi papers suggesting there could be an attack on the US. I don’t know how much of this kind of talk is “usual” or represents a spike. In either case, this shows what a horse’s hinie someone like Jack Straw is. Significant Iranian government officials are opnely calling for the destruction of Western civilization and suggesting that they will orchestrate nuclear attacks on the US, and Britain, France & Germany want to trust Iran with nuclear material? I suppose now that Chris Paton has admitted that Iran is moving backwards in negotiations that we’re all supposed to sleep easier: http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=150

Meanwhile the NY Times wants Putin to play nice with the Chechens: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/04/opinion/04sat1.html In fact the editorial is attempting a preemptive CYA. They are suggesting others will pay price if Putin takes a hard line, so the NY Times is set to blame some future terrorist attack on Putin. (hat tip LGF http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=12461_NYT_Advises_Putin_to_Appease )

Sep 4, 2004 - 10:12 pm 16. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

Thibaud

Of course France is an unlikely target. I was just pointing out that it and England have nuclear deterrent.

If Iran arranges from bombs to go off in the US, they will be dirty simply from being ground bursts. If they added cobalt or other dirtyingg elements, it would be even worse.

Which is why we need to defang them, and have a doctrine of destroying any untrustworthy nuclear power after we are his with an anonymous nuke.

My concern is that proliferation destroys deterrence. I note that the government just started a program to identify the origins of a nuke after it has gone off. Obviously they share my concern.

If one looks down the road a few years, Iran ends up with ICBM’s, and which case they have a direct deterrent against us (unless we make more progress on ABMs). In such a situation, a plan by us to topple the regime could result in nuclear launches as a dead-mans strategy. We have the same problem with North Korea, except their ICBM may be just around the corner, and out ABM system is (barely) operational.

Sep 4, 2004 - 11:00 pm 17. Lost on Earth:

First off, hello! I’ve been reading Roger’s blog for a while now but this is my first post. Anyway….

Syl (and anyone else who watched the Thomas Barnett program on CSPAN):

Thank you for informing us about that. I just finished watching it and am ‘wowed’ as well! However, I found Barnett’s blog and was surprised he is voting for John Kerry. This is making me rethink my vote for Bush because Barnett is not a raving mooonbat chanting “Bush is Hitler” and has an excellent understanding of all this. Thoughts anyone?

-JK

Sep 5, 2004 - 12:09 am 18. David Thomson:

ìIt’s possible a big Bush win will make it unnecessary to invade Iran. Those mullahs are not totally irrational. If the libs had just kept their bowels open and the mouths shut since we went into Iraq, the U.S. would be in much stronger position right now.î

That is probably correct. Iím convinced that much of the continuing violence in Iraq is due to the presidential elections. Our enemies are very well aware that President Bush must win reelection in order to remain in power. They consider John Kerry to be less of a threat to their aims. Bushís higher poll numbers will likely encourage them to behave.

ìHowever, I found Barnett’s blog and was surprised he is voting for John Kerry.î

Thomas Barnett is similar to Roger L. Simon, Glenn Reynolds, and countless others who have a number of serious disagreements with President Bush. He has, however, bought into the myth that Richard Holbrooke and other halfway sensible Kerry advisors will be the true powers behind the throne; Howard Deanís folks will be immediately marginalized after the Massachusetts senator wins election. Needless to add, I consider such thinking to be ludicrous. It also conveniently overlooks Kerryís well established record as an appeaser and someone unwilling to forthrightly confront our nationís enemies. Lastly, Barnett attended Harvard University. This school encourages snobbery. One is allowed to flirt with conservative views—but you are still expected to ultimately support the liberal agenda.

Sep 5, 2004 - 2:43 am 19. Charlie (Colorado):

“This is making me rethink my vote for Bush because Barnett is not a raving mooonbat chanting “Bush is Hitler” and has an excellent understanding of all this. Thoughts anyone?”

I don’t trust anyone who uses that many stupid sound effects in a Powerpoint presentation.

Sep 5, 2004 - 3:53 am 20. Shabsian:

Jack Straw is one of the biggest supporters of the Mullah’s regime in the world – and somehow it seems the British have gotten their tentacles into our foreign policy either through their State Dept proxies like Powell and Armitage or some other way.

Bottom line – DUMP OUR TRADITIONAL ALLIES If they fail to see the importance in the WAR ON TERROR of getting rid of these fanatical regimes – and make new friends with other natioins – as well as people’s of nations we intend to liberate.

EU policy of engagement, I mean appeasement, is only making things harder and more dangerous!

Sep 5, 2004 - 4:26 am 21. PeterUK:

John Moore,

I think deterence would work with the Mullahs because of their huge finacial interests and the fact that although they are big on chanting,threatening and hanging, they never put their own lives on the line.At the moment they are rich Mullahs,equivalent of the Borgia and Medici popes,they do not want to go back to cooking on a goat shit fire sitting in the rubble of the crater formerly known as Iran.

There are two main pillars of the Mullah’s power,oil and religious centres both very vulnerable.

A parallel target list should be drawn up,it probably already has, of Iranian targets that will cease to exist should there be a strike on the US.

Make the Mullahs responsible for America’s safety,if a bird so much as farts out of place on the White House lawn hold the Mullahs responsible.

It will work because the leadership of all these howling, knife waving seventh century throwbacks have too much to lose.

Sep 5, 2004 - 5:10 am 22. M. Simon:

The Europeans have been stupid for a very long time.

A very long time.

Start with Bismark’s embrace of Socialism. 1914. 1939. The anti-nuke demos of the 80s etc.

I’d say this was just a continuation of their past stupidity. It has nothing to do with Uncle Sugar’s strength or weakness. The Europeans would be just as stupid without us. Our presence merely allows them to continue their stupidity for a while longer.

If they are acting like teenagers they have been doing it since the 1880s. Long before America was recognized as a world power.

Sep 5, 2004 - 7:06 am 23. Terrye:

Lost on Earth:

I would not vote for Kerry if you put a gun to my head. If Barnett really cares about this country he will continue to support the War on Terror whoever wins this election.

I simply do not trust Kerry to have the backbone to continue the fight and although I am a life long Democrat I am not partisan enough to vote for him. Maybe Barnett is.

Sep 5, 2004 - 7:14 am 24. Mike Walsh, MM:

Roger,

First of all, love the blog, and intend to buy some of your books on the strength of it.

It looks like there will be a mushroom cloud at the Louvre, but not from a nuke; it will be from all the works of art going up in flames. Give it 30 years at most. And I sincerely hope that the planned withdrawal of U.S. troops from Europe is only the beginning, and that it ultimately means that no, we are no longer willing to save them from themselves.

Be Well

Sep 5, 2004 - 7:19 am 25. richard mcenroe:

Posting some comments on this morning’s Fox News down in the Reactionaries thread…

Sep 5, 2004 - 8:25 am 26. Charlie (Colorado):

More seriously, now that I’ve had more sleep and some coffee, I read Barnett’s big Esquire article when it came out, I’ve read his blog off and on — he tears a couple of silly letter-writers a new one in the most recent entry — and I’ve got his book.

He’s got some good ideas.

He’s also got a tremendously flashy presentation, a lot of ads for his consultancy, and a (possibly justified) high opinion of just how brilliant he really is.

And he chose to push his views in a “Dear Mr President” article in Esquire, which tells me he doesn’t think the Administration is taking sufficient notice of him.

If you’re a brilliant, ambitious man who wants to be National Security Advisor (say), but don’t see the job opening up to you in the continuing Bush administration, what do you want?

Sep 5, 2004 - 9:09 am 27. Terrye:

Cahrlie:

The point is the Kerry people did not talk about this war at their convention, they talked about Viet nam and Barnett was not sitting next to Jimmy Carter, Michael Moore was, so what’s makes anyone think the Dems will pay any more attention to the man.

What does he want? Condi’s job ofcourse.

Sep 5, 2004 - 9:16 am 28. Lost on Earth:

Thanks everyone. It’s been a while since I heard a sensible person who understands the situation support Kerry so I was a little shaken up. Just wanted to hear other opinions first. I still have to vote for Bush and I’m a Democrat as well. Kerry hasn’t shown much of anything other than shockingly poor judgement so I assumed Barnett knew something I didn’t. My biggest worry is that if Kerry wins, the people he brings into the White House will be as ‘brilliant’ as the ones running his campaign. Barnett’s vision is the U.S. spreading globalization but praising communists doesn’t jive well with that.

Anyway, thanks for replying!

Sep 5, 2004 - 9:39 am 29. thibaud:

PeterUK,

I think deterence would work with the Mullahs because of their huge finacial interests…

This makes no sense. If you’re speaking about the personal interests of the mullah kleptocrats, they’ve have already socked away enough millions each to guarantee a leisurely retirement; what difference does a few more million make either way?

If you’re talking about Iran’s national economic interests, again, you’ve got it backwards. Iran ahs the EU by the balls, not v-v. Iran is swimming in natural resource wealth and can sell its fungible commodity, whose price is soaring due to soaring non-western demand, anywhere it wishes– Japan, China, India, wherever.

It’s the EU’s slow-growth manufacturers that need the booming Iranian market. This is why it’s been the EU three who have been making all manner of concessions, without receiving anything whatsoever from the Iranians.

As to this part of yoru argument: “…. although [the mullahs] are big on chanting,threatening and hanging, they never put their own lives on the line.”

What does this mean? What does it matter whether we’re attacked by Iranian troops or by Iran’s Hezbollah proxy or Al Qaeda? Iran has in fact been attacking us across the region for more than a decade, and soon they’ll have nukes with which to arm their proxies.

In sum I think you suffer from the same delusion that so many postmodern academics and EU decision-makers do, namely the belief that global economic ties make war unthinkable. This belief seems to flourish just before global war– Norman Davies propounded it in the decade before WWI, and the western democracies wished it to be true throughout the decade prior to 1939.

In fact, we are and have been fighting a cold war vs Iran and we desperately need determined allies who will help us contain Iran from north, south, east and west. The EU Three’s pathetic concessions undermine this effort.

Sep 5, 2004 - 10:43 am 30. lmg:

Re: Barnett

His talk was interesting, until he said that the western nations had to encourage the immigration of millions of high-birthrate Third-worlders to do our work for us, while simultaneously outsourcing more of our jobs to their countries. Excuse me, but that will destroy our country and our culture more thoroughly than any nuke ever could.

Sep 5, 2004 - 11:20 am 31. Charlie (Colorado):

His talk was interesting, until he said that the western nations had to encourage the immigration of millions of high-birthrate Third-worlders to do our work for us, while simultaneously outsourcing more of our jobs to their countries. Excuse me, but that will destroy our country and our culture more thoroughly than any nuke ever could.

I completely agree. After all, all those Poles and Serbs and Slovaks and Hungarians and such destroyed the culture of the US in the span from 1880 to 1910.

Not to mention all those Irish in the 1830s.

The Brits were a little tough on my Cherokee and Choctaw ancestors, too. Not to mention what the virus load from the Conquistadores did to our Mound-builder ancestors.

Pfui.

Sep 5, 2004 - 11:48 am 32. Charlie (Colorado):

What does he want? Condi’s job of course.

Jeez, Terrye, you picked up on that so well people will think it was a setup.

Sep 5, 2004 - 11:50 am 33. richard mcenroe:

Those Diabolical Jews Read down a bit…

Sep 5, 2004 - 11:55 am 34. richard mcenroe:

lmg ó Ah… import workers while exporting the entry level and subsistence jobs immigrant workers traditionally start out with.

Makes sense to me, but then I’m still a registered Democrat…

Sep 5, 2004 - 11:58 am 35. PeterUK:

Thibeau,

I was addressing John Moore,the subject was deterence and whether it is possible with theocratic Iran,I did not mention Europe the EU or european industry.

Go and be clever at someone elses expense.

Sep 5, 2004 - 12:41 pm 36. richard mcenroe:

“Like angry adolescents, they bash us until the cows come home, knowing full well that we will clean up for them in the end.” Hasn’t France Done Enough For Islam Already?

Sep 5, 2004 - 12:44 pm 37. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

PeterUK – the problem with deterrence in the modern world is knowing who attacked you. Iran would do it through proxies. Al Qaeda, of course, would be happy to be a proxy.

If a bomb goes off, what do we do and who do we do it to?

This is why proliferation is such a serious, non-linear problem. It changes the nature of the problem from the simple one of nuclear deterrence against a missile delivered nuke, to the complex on of being willing to destroy whoever nuked you, when you don’t know who that was.

In a proliferation scenario, the deterrence strategy falls apart. You either kill a very large number of relatively innocent people, or you let someone get away with it.

Sep 5, 2004 - 3:37 pm 38. Terrye:

Charlie:

Hey, I am not just another pretty face y’know.

I don’t doubt Kerry has some smart people somewhere on his side. But the point is there really should not be sides in this.

Sep 5, 2004 - 3:47 pm 39. PeterUK:

John Moore,Thanks for replying.

The threat would have to be against all those in a position to supply nuclear weapons,that no matter who the proxies are,the probable suppliers would be targeted.A form of reverse terrorism but a way to deter the use of proxies.Yes it is a threat against innocent people,but we are there already,a nuclear strike signals total war,sad that the seventh century can pollute the twenty first.

Also I think that host nations with terrorist cells are inclined to eliminate them, as Saddam Hussein did with Abu Nidal,if they expose them to retaliation.

I am presuming, from the example of Yasser Arafat and Osama bin Laden,that the leadership of any nation disseminating nuclear or biological weapons, wishes to survive,no matter how fanatical they are.I also presume that the Mullahs for example love their country,they may be milking it, but it is theirs,that is a very powerful emotion.Risking that by giving al Qaeda,which has nothing to lose, nuclear weapons doesn’t seem much of a bargain.

Any nuclear strike and the rules change,the niceties of human rights, the rules of interrogation, arrest warrants and assassination would be re-written.No western government could survive if it did not produce results.

We won’t like the new world, but any perpetrators would be found and they would talk and there would be a reckoning.

Sep 5, 2004 - 4:50 pm 40. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

It gets more complicated. Once there are multiple suspects, more traditional nuclear armed countries might use a false flag operation to weaken us with a nuclear explosion – for example, China.

Sep 5, 2004 - 7:14 pm 41. Syl:

re Barnett

There are several FoPo types on the democratic side who have good ideas and a vision. And they claim it doesn’t matter actually who is president because some of these factors are so self-evident that an administration on either side would pay attention to them.

On a certain level that’s probably true, but the devil is in the details. All I have to remember is the Jimmy Carter presidency.

As I understand it Barnett was advising an underling of Rumsfeld. And the only criticism of Bush’s policies I got out of the talk was not enough coziness with China and India in our coalition of the willing. I think he’s right there. But it doesn’t mean Bush wouldn’t work to change that.

Kerry will work harder for France and Germany neither of whom matter as much to the future as China and India.

Sep 5, 2004 - 7:40 pm 42. Charlie (Colorado):

There are several FoPo types on the democratic side who have good ideas and a vision. And they claim it doesn’t matter actually who is president because some of these factors are so self-evident that an administration on either side would pay attention to them.

And they’re probably right — at least, it shouldn’t matter. That’s the point of having a professional bureaucracy: keep the experts notwithstanding party affiliation.

Of course, that’s another reason to suspect that Barnett supports Kerry for reasons of ambition, not convictin.

(BTW, love the Siamese picture.)

Sep 5, 2004 - 8:00 pm 43. richard mcenroe:

“keep the experts notwithstanding party affiliation.”

And when those ‘experts’ are on the payroll of the Saudis?

Sep 6, 2004 - 6:54 pm

Write a Comment

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