The brief interview with terrorism expert Kenneth Pollack in the front of the NYT Magazine this morning reads like an audition piece for a possible Kerry Administration. (It includes a particularly abject apology by the former CIA analyst for his misjudgment on Iraqi WMDs.) I don’t blame Pollack for this - we’d all like a good job - but I am worried that he will get it because of the attitude he expresses on Iran, which I am sure reflects his forthcoming book on the subject - The Persian Puzzle: The Conflict Between Iran and America.
Here’s the exchange that got me nervous:
NYT: But as a former C.I.A. analyst and a scholar of Middle East policy at the Brookings Institution, how do you propose that we prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons?
Pollack: I’d prefer not to have an Iran with nuclear weapons, but if it happens, I think we can probably deal with it.
NYT: Your use of ”probably” does not inspire confidence.
Pollack: It’s hard to imagine how the Iranians would see it in their interest to give nuclear weapons to a terrorist group. They hate Al Qaeda as much as we do.
Oh, really? How does Pollack know that and, more importantly, who is the “they” to which he refers? Iran is a large county with many competing factions, even within the Mullahcracy. One of the many current theories is that Bin Laden himself is being hidden in Iran. Does Pollack know for a fact that this is untrue? If so, how? Is he willing to bet the future of civilization on a society where sixteen-year old girls are publicly hanged for adultery by allowing their leaders to have nuclear weapons? Evidently so. And if Pollack were a key adviser to a Kerry administration, this is what he would be acquiescing to.
Look, no one can pretend that the Iranian situation is simple or anywhere near that. But one thing the last decade has taught us is not to trust “terrorism experts.” There is no such thing. (Indeed, an argument can be made that there is no such thing as an expert in general outside the hard sciences, where the learning curve is steep.) CIA and think tank pedigrees prove nothing other than that someone has given them a job. I do not wish to disparage Pollack personally. He’s clearly a smart guy. But on this one, I’d prefer to think for myself. And I am frankly scared to vote for a candidate whose putative advisers are prepared to allow nuclear weapons in the hands of a violent theocracy. (hat tip: Catherine Johnson)
MEANWHILE: Iran continues to stonewall. Are we headed for yet another rift between EU and the USA?
PJM Home
32 Comments
1. Robert Crawford:It’s hard to imagine how the Iranians would see it in their interest to give nuclear weapons to a terrorist group. They hate Al Qaeda as much as we do.
Ah. How “reassuring”. Unfortunately, Iran sponsors Hezbollah and Hamas and myriad other terrorist groups. Pollack also seems to discount reports of Iran sheltering quite a few al’Qaeda members.
Oh well. We can “probably” survive having a city or two nuked.
Oct 24, 2004 - 6:43 am 2. Bryan C:Well, a nuclear Iran we can “probably” deal with would fit well with Kerry’s Iraq, where Saddam is “not necessarily” still in power.
I agree with you, Roger. I’ve had enough of analysts who can claim with a straight face that bad guys who want us dead won’t ever work with the other bad guys that want to kill us.
Oct 24, 2004 - 6:45 am 3. Good Ole Charlie:Well, let’s say Pollack’s beautiful dream comes true and Iran has The Bomb. And, as pointed out earlier in this topic, being friends with other terrorist groups, they pass along a weapon or two to interested parties. For all they know, they say, the boys in the back room wanted to study some practical nuclear physics.
What would our reaction be if one was used either in the United States or - more likely - Israel?? My bet would be a few, maybe a couple of dozen 5 megaton gadgets would land in Iran. If not by USA, then certainly Israel.
Now that would really advance the Cause of World Peace, wouldn’t it? Of course, Iran (Teheran and other sites) would glow in the dark for a few thousand years, but it’s a Small Price To Pay For Lasting Peace In Our Times!
The fecklessness of this sort of thinking continues to amaze and amuse. Deep Thinkers Thinking Deep Thoughts like Pollack are disconnected with both political and military reality.
My recommendation to such Deep Thinkers: Put down Derrida and Fannon - spend some time with Machavelli. Who knows? Perhaps a glimmer of sense will emerge.
But don’t bet on it.
Oct 24, 2004 - 7:28 am 4. David Thomson:Kenneth Pollock is making a fool of himself. There are numerous examples in history where odd couples joined together in order to defeat a common foe. The Roosevelt administration did so with Stalinist Russia during WWII.
What should the United States do about Iran? Let us hope that President Bush is reelected—and before the end of the year gives the green light to Israel to bomb Iran. I canít think of anything else that might realistically be done. Can anyone offer a viable alternative?
Oct 24, 2004 - 7:44 am 5. Jamie Irons:Roger
I am still embarrassed that I gave a bunch of my leftist friends Pollack’s book, firmly convinced that it “made the case” for the war. But in a sense, I still think the book makes the argument, because it shows that it was very reasonable to believe Saddam had, or could easily have, WMDs.
I wouldn’t be too hard on experts, and I wouldn’t say that scientific expertise (being that kind of “expert” myself) is of a different order than any other kind, or is in any way more unassailable. Scientific theories are, after all, just very sophisticated, peer-reviewed opinions. And they are overturned all the time. (Thank G_d — that’s how science advances!)
As to how far we should rely on experts of any kind, I highly recommend James Surowiecki’s The Wisdom of Crowds, for its rather surprising evidence that the most reliable judgments, using the best available “expertise,” may be those drawn from a mix of experts and very ordinary folk.
Jamie Irons
Oct 24, 2004 - 7:46 am 6. Terrye:I am tired of the Pollacks. They helped get us where we are.
I don’t care if it is flu shots or nuclear proliferation these guys never assume responsibility for their fuck ups.
I just hope we don’t have to put up with the Democrats back in office right now. These are serious times and we need serious people.
I just don’t think of Democrats as serious. They are the do as we say not as we do party.
Oct 24, 2004 - 7:51 am 7. jack risko:Roger: I agree entirely. Moreover, the point of no return with Iran is coming very soon.
See:
http://www.dinocrat.com/archives/2004/10/24/kenneth-pollacks-willful-delusion-on-iran/
thank you
Oct 24, 2004 - 8:06 am 8. Connecticut Yankee:Terrye–
You must have been reading Mark Steyn’s latest column about “Kerry’s Europhile delusions.” It contains a nice verbal bouquet for Roger, too:
The war against the Islamists and the flu-shot business are really opposite sides of the same coin. I want Bush to win on Election Day because he’s committed to this war and, as the novelist and Internet maestro Roger L. Simon says, “the more committed we are to it, the shorter it will be.” The longer it gets, the harder it will be, because it’s a race against time, against lengthening demographic, economic and geopolitical odds. By “demographic,” I mean the Muslim world’s high birth rate, which by mid-century will give tiny Yemen a higher population than vast empty Russia. By “economic,” I mean the perfect storm the Europeans will face within this decade, because their lavish welfare states are unsustainable on their shriveled post-Christian birth rates. By “geopolitical,” I mean that, if you think the United Nations and other international organizations are antipathetic to America now, wait a few years and see what kind of support you get from a semi-Islamified Europe.
http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn24.html
Oct 24, 2004 - 8:16 am 9. Charlie (Colorado):The annoying, amazing thing about this is how the “internationalists” are willing to suddenly decide that nuclear weapons that can only reach Israel and Europe are no big thing.
Except, of course, that you can ship an A-weapon Federal Express is missles aren’t good enough.
And why they think Iran wouldn’t want to attack the “Great Satan” if they could get away with it — and if they fedex the bomb, well, the airbill isn’t going to be in good enough shape to track the package.
Oct 24, 2004 - 8:20 am 10. Kevin P:Roger:
“It’s hard tp imagine how the Iranians wpould see it in their interests to give nuclear weapons to a terrprist group. They hate Al queda as much as we do” Kenneth Pollack.
Actually it is very simple to imagine it. In fact from a Mullahs perspective it is the obvious thing to do. Give enough dirty bomb material to Al Queda so that they can set off 5 to 10 bombs in various American cities. Watch the American economy go into a massive depression and eliminate the US from the middle east.Once that is done gather up the 1000 or two al Queda operatives in Iran and hang them in a local soccer stadium. Simple the great satan is eliminated, they can no longer support Israel, and the Mullahs can get back to the job of forcing Allah and their ancient version of a Muslim led world, or at least a middle east free of Jews and modern western ideas, with the Persian people on the top of the heap.
Pollack and like minded thinkers still think they are dealing with rational people. They think when Iran says that they can never accept a State of Israel in the middle east that they really mean what they say and they intend to achieve that goal come hell or high water. the wishfull thinking about Iran reminds me of the Carter days when Jimmy thought the Khomeni was a man of God and was better then the Shah. And when Iran kidnapped our people and rubbed our faces in the dirt for 2 years did they think that that action “made sense” It did to the mullahs and Pollack is playing right into their hands. Idiots!!!!!!!!
Oct 24, 2004 - 8:34 am 11. asher:Are we headed for yet another rift between EU and the USA?
God I hope so.
Oct 24, 2004 - 8:37 am 12. David Thomson:I feel compelled to slightly change the topic of this thread. I strongly believe that the John Kerryís campaign is at least somewhat anti-Semitic. Does anyone disagree? If so, perhaps they may wish to argue with the editors of the ultra right-wing ìThe American Conservative.î This is how they perceive the Kerry campaign:
ìBut neoconservatism now encompasses much more than Israel-obsessed intellectuals and policy insiders. The Bush foreign policy also surfs on deep currents within the Christian Right, some of which see unqualified support of Israel as part of a godly plan to bring about Armageddon and the future kingdom of Christ. These two strands of Jewish and Christian extremism build on one another in the Bush presidencyóand President Bush has given not the slightest indication he would restrain either in a second term. With Colin Powellís departure from the State Department looming, Bush is more than ever the ìneoconian candidate.î The only way Americans will have a presidency in which neoconservatives and the Christian Armageddon set are not holding the reins of power is if Kerry is elected.î
http://www.amconmag.com/2004_11_08/cover1.html
Oct 24, 2004 - 8:38 am 13. holdfast:Pollack is a whore of the first order. He clearly thinks that Kerry will win and is merely repeating his 1990s act.
In the Clinton years he pushed the “Saddam is contained” and “terrorists are nebulous groups of non-state actors” lines that the Clintonistas wanted - first in think-tank land and then later working for the admin after his “job interview” journal articles parroting the party line got him the post he wanted. After Sept 11 he started spouting the Bush line, but, like many other neo-libs, had to focus exclusively on the WMD because the other pro-war arguments (possible and/or actual Saddm-terror links, failure to contain, inanbility to deter etc) would have directly contradicted his Clinto-era screeds and he sought to at least appear intellectually consistent.
I know what I beleive about Iraq, though I don’t claim to know if I’ll be proven right in the end. I do know that Pollack is a cheap street walker (my apologies to any actual sex-trade workers) who makes John Kerry look consistent in his pronouncements. At least Richard Clark only flipped once - this guy is a true flip-flopper.
Oct 24, 2004 - 9:01 am 14. Cynic:“NYT: But as a former C.I.A. analyst and a scholar of Middle East policy at the Brookings Institution..”
Having paid attention to CIA actions in “Palestine” under Clinton I am not impressed with their analysis.
The current State + CIA v Defense situation does not ease my doubts of the sincerety expressed in:
“Pollack: It’s hard to imagine how the Iranians would see it in their interest to give nuclear weapons to a terrorist group.”
That is plain bs. They surely know something more of the reality other than who did not kill those three Americans in Gaza.
It would be in Iran’s interest to have some unidentifiable group with no obvious connections commit an atrocity against the States.
With the Supreme Court demanding a signed contract of intent to admit that Saddam was talking to Al Qeda they will be home and away.
Does the CIA deny that the Iranians use Hizbollah and other groups?
Ask the Israelis about what is going on in Gaza.
Then again they must have the O.K. from Egypt to use the tunnels to get their agents through to train Hamas IJ and others.
This constant denial has cost the US lives in Iraq.
Oct 24, 2004 - 9:10 am 15. Mark Poling:Pollack: I’d prefer not to have an Iran with nuclear weapons, but if it happens, I think we can probably deal with it.
To quote Ghostbusters: I’m terrified beyond the capacity for rational thought.
Oct 24, 2004 - 9:25 am 16. Skookumchuk:Remember the old Atomic Scientist’s clock? The one that was always about 2 minutes to midnight? It is time for a new clock. The existential problem is how we as Americans will react to untraceable megadeath - the only kind an intelligent terrorist or state actor would ever want. Do we strike out just because 5,000,000 people in Cairo and Jakarta and the Paris banlieus dance in the streets when they hear the news? Or do we do nothing, destroying our respect for the federal government and exacerbating our own cultural divisiveness?
Finding ways to minimize the possibility of untraceable megadeath should be the primary strategic objective before us as a nation. Every time a politician or analyst says they can “deal with” proliferating Islamic nukes or that there isn’t even the theoretical possibility of state - terrorist cooperation, the minute hand of the new clock edges toward midnight.
Oct 24, 2004 - 9:37 am 17. PeterUK:Roger,
From your stonewall link.
“Diplomats had said if Iran rejected the proposal drafted by Britain, Germany and France, most EU countries
would back a U.S. demand that Tehran be reported to the Security Council when the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) meets on November 25″.
Presumably Iran will be made to stand outside Kofi’s room and will be the recipient of a severe reprimand,the Mullahs must be quaking in their sandals.
These people really know how to apply pressure.
The more I read the more I think the world is being run by a social services outreach encounter group.
Oct 24, 2004 - 9:43 am 18. PeterUK:Charlie,
If my recent experiences with international posting is anything to go by fedexing a bomb will go like this.
After tracking it for a couple of days it will disappear,a days phoning and websearching will ascertain that the item is held at some international hub by customs.A week later a letter will arrive from the customs with a form to fill in with the value of the goods and whether it was a gift or not.Included will be a photo copy of the customs declaration completed in the country of origin,but this isn’t enough for the customs they want an invoice so they can charge 17.5% VAT.
“The invoice is in the crate with the bomb” you tell them on the phone.
“Sorry we need the original invoice”they say.
“Well open the box,carefully,and you’ll find the invoice”
“You have to understand,Sir,that the box isn’t with me,it is in the Customs warehouse two miles away” the import agent says,because it is he.
“Lucky man “, you say under your breath.
“Best thing to do”, he says,”Is get the exporter to send you another invoice”
You phone the unbelieving exporter ” I put one right there in the box” and he agrees to send you another.
A week passes and on its arrival you post the invoice to the import agent and another week passes.You eventually ring the import agent who says he hasn’t received the documents.Phoning round the hub meets with blank denials that anyone has signed for your registered letter containing the invoice.It is no use explaining time is of the essence
You repeat the exercise and when you receive the invoice you photocopy it fax it and post it.
Four weeks later and a couple of hundred quid down you get the goods.
And people wonder why they developed missiles,it’s no use saying they could bomb the international hub,it would only make things more efficient.No wonder people blow themselves up.
Oct 24, 2004 - 10:22 am 19. richard mcenroe:Skookumchuck ó Well, we could just put up USAF satellite photos and GPS locations for Tehran, Cairo, Amman, Damascus, Tripoli. Rabat, Algiers, Khartoum, Riyadh, Jakarta, Mecca and Medina behind our bench at the UN, but that might be considered insufficiently nuanced…
Oct 24, 2004 - 10:44 am 20. richard mcenroe:PeterUK ó My company has tried every method of shipping to the UK short of building our own sailing packet. It’s a miracle anyone does any business with you guys.
Oct 24, 2004 - 10:48 am 21. maria horvath:“Pollack: I’d prefer not to have an Iran with nuclear weapons, but if it happens, I think we can probably deal with it.”
And then there’s Richard Holbrooke, who would like to join Pollack in a Kerry cabinet, possibly as secretary of state. Remember what he said in the recent New York Times magazine profile of Kerry:
“We are not in a war on terror, in the literal sense. The war on terror is like saying ‘the war on poverty.’ It’s just a metaphor.”
This is very frightening stuff, very frightening indeed.
Oct 24, 2004 - 11:29 am 22. PeterUK:Richard,
It is the EU,get a system designed by politicians a bureaucrats who have never had to meet a deadline in their lives and everthing slowly grinds to a halt.
No wonder drug traffickers smuggle the stuff in,it is quicker.
Oct 24, 2004 - 12:03 pm 23. holdfast:Ok - so let me see - Pollack admits / thinks that he was wrong about Iraqi WMD, as was President Bush, and that Bush should / will lose his job because of this error. All Democrats, and a few moderates and Andrew Sullivan (whatever the hell he’s pretending to be this week) agree that Bush should lose his job over this alleged misjudgment. Pollack, unlike Bush, is a trained intelligence analyst, while the President, while undoubtedly a smart guy, is not. Rather, he depends on the judgment of trained intelligence analysts (like Pollack) in formulating his policy and making decisions.
Now, if the Dems think that Bush ought to lose his job, why the hell should they think that Pollack deserves a job, since he was just as wrong as Bush, and with far less excuse! Not only is he supposed to be better at this stuff, but Pollack made his ENTIRE case on WMD, mostly on Nukes, which appears to be (per the Duelfer report) the least well preserved of Saddam’s WMD programs, unlike the chem and bio which was still around, just not on a production scale, and the means of delivery (missiles) which were proceeding apace and already exceeded the UN-mandated range limits by a factor of 2.
If the Dems weren’t a bunch of lying, conniving, say-anything weasels they would take guys like Pollack to the woodshed, since it was the neo-libs that helped sell the war to those poor, ignorant, deceived and misled Democrats like Kerry and Edwards. I’m sure that without Pollack they would never have been tricked by the retarded/devious/brilliant Bush!
Oct 24, 2004 - 12:24 pm 24. werner:Pollack: “Americans are this kind of bugaboo in the Iranian political psyche. And we have damaged our ability to generate international support.” This is the Kerry line, but it is illogical and dishonest. Under which circumstances would the US be getting more international support than now? As todays news demonstrates, the Europeans - who are apparently not a “bugaboo” - are trying, but do not have much diplomatic leverage over Iran.
Besides, they didn¬¥t exactly help with containing Saddam at a time when the US presumably had not yet “damaged our ability to generate international support”. As for Russia, it is part of the problem. I fail to see the value of this kind of support.
If you must have it, I ask, what is the plan to generate more international support? With a nuclear Iran and Iraq sinking into UN-administered chaos, we may soon have US troops back in Saudi Arabia. And then Kerry will sell out Israel.
Oct 24, 2004 - 12:30 pm 25. Ken:The Iranians don’t even have to set off a nuke here for their posession of nuclear weapons to have disastrous consequences for us.
Instead, they could sponsor conventional, 9/11 style attacks…. again and again and again. If they have nukes, what do we do about it?
Oct 24, 2004 - 1:33 pm 26. Ari Tai:re: Iran can be “deterred”
Then how is it that all of our military and nuclear might today hasn’t stopped their funding, sheltering and helping with the transit of suicide bombers and terrorists who kill children in schools?
It appears the Iran theocracy has about as much control as the Saudi’s ability to control their population funding and enlistment in jihad. Then again, decades ago, we (in the U.S.) weren’t able to shut down IRA funding and now it’s a struggle to identify and shut charities that are cover for the jihadists.
It’d be best (i.e. worth dying for) to see that they don’t even have the chance. Either we pay today, or our children will pay 10x tomorrow.
Pollack (and the Brookings institute) have sure been a disappointment. Their work has less-and-less-basis in fact (and more an appeal to the heart, with a “wouldn’t it be nice” if the world worked this way..”
Oct 24, 2004 - 1:36 pm 27. Ari Tai:re: survive a city or two nuked.
Yes we can, but we may not be America when the dust settles. Defense against small cells willing to die to kill many of us will mean a surveillance society and much less privacy and a much more intrusive government.
This doubling, trebling, perhaps 10x increase in law-enforcement, informers, rebuilding infrastructure for “security” (against the insane) and acquiring all this security equipment will be a large tax on our productivity. It’s easy to imagine that these costs could make our products and people non-competitive in the world market. Falling from first to second or third behind China and India.
The best defense is a punitive offense. It is also cheaper than defense (where we can’t protect everything, and everything we do protect can’t be protected perfectly all the time). The reason I don’t worry about my neighbor setting up a mortar in their backyard is because we have had enough “punishment” of non-social behavior that odds are very small that a person with these tendencies would not be picked up for other reasons. Now we need the same in other societies (since globalization has made everyone my neighbor we have no choice, unless we want to live one-half as well as we do today). Aka making the world safe for american toursism.
This is the essence of this administration’s national security strategy’s(pdf) rational for pre-emption. It also was Thomas Jefferson’s foreign policy after he realized we (as a newborn nation) could not survive unfriendly nations and peoples at our borders. See Gaddis.
Oct 24, 2004 - 1:55 pm 28. Tom Grey:Let me say it. Israel will attack Iran if Kerry wins.
Iran is my elephant in the debate — what is the chance that Iran gets nukes in the next 4 years?
I have long been saying: Kerry - 50%. Bush - 10%.
But actually, both are much less, and maybe Iíve even known this — since Israel will go to war to stop the mullahs. Israel will, at least, attempt a serious bombing campaign to disrupt Iranian progress. Iíd guess they would actually go after the mullahs directly, but Iím not sure of this. They can only occupy by using quite brutal methods ñ although the US Army could step in and assist.
I donít even want to think of this. I canít stop myself of thinking about this.
A vote for Kerry is a vote for war, war between Israel and Iran.
The only ways to stop Iran from getting nukes are 1) an ultimatum that Iran accepts, or 2) an ultimatum that Iran rejects, which is followed by military action. (3) non-stop Iran ñ gets a nuke (in next 4 years) — this Pollack bozo seems to say it’s OK.
So Kerry would never pull this trigger. Which Iran knows. Which means no (1), no ultimatum that Iran accepts. And Israel, too, knows that Kerry wonít back up an ultimatum with action if itís not followed; and knows that Iran knows; so knows that Iran wonít disarm.
And, therefore, itís either Israeli military action, or else let Iran get nukes.
I donít believe Israel will let Iran get nukes.
A vote for Kerry is a vote to send Sharon after Iran. Perhaps with a short detour in Syria?
I’m terrified of such a world. Go Bush. Please win.
Oct 24, 2004 - 2:48 pm 29. Dan Darling:If they hate al-Qaeda so much, then why don’t they cough up Saad bin Laden, Saif al-Adel, et al.? I mean for people who allegedly hate al-Qaeda so much, they sure seem to hold them pretty close to the chest.
Oct 24, 2004 - 4:05 pm 30. MarcH:Roger,
If you wish to lower your confidence in CIA analysts a little further check out this review of Hubris, a recent book on U.S. terrorism policy written by Michael Scheuer, former chief of the CIA Al-Queda analysis unit at http://www.jcpa.org/brief/brief4-4.htm. The review was written by Jeff Helmreich.
For the record, all Americans are fortunate that the CIA has also managed to recruit and retain some very talented and hard working analysts.
Oct 24, 2004 - 6:32 pm 31. Occam's Beard:Pollack evinces the intellectual development of a mediocre first year grad student in the physical sciences with his logic (”It’s hard to imagine…”). It’s a close relative of that lame grad student argument, “Well, what else could it be?” That argument only warrants more than a derisive snort when the speaker can prove no other possibilities exist - and that is not the case here.
Flash memo to Pollack: The fact you cannot imagine something does not mean it cannot happen.
Kevin P’s scenario above leaps to mind (well done, Kevin). Just out of curiosity, did Pollack find the Godfather movies baffling?
Oct 24, 2004 - 7:58 pm 32. Ken:“I’m terrified of such a world. Go Bush. Please win. ”
That world is a damn sight less terrifying than one in which Iran actually gets nukes.
Oct 24, 2004 - 8:47 pm