by publius
I caught a few minutes of a bloggingheads exchange between Megan McArdle and Dan Drezner. McArdle seemed frustrated that the liberal netroots doesn’t accept anything less than a groveling mea culpa on Iraq (she was also rightly frustrated at the unfair vehemence cast her way). The Iraq point is sort of true, but there’s a rational, substantive reason for it — one not based in spite or childishness. The reason the netroots demand admission of error is that the mindset that led to Iraq remains alive and well. Even worse, it’s shared by people who remain in power, or have influential platforms. Thus, attacks on Iraq supporters are less about petty revenge than about discrediting the worldview that brought us to Iraq. And the purpose of that is to prevent future unwise wars – like the one currently brewing in Cheney’s office.
Example A: the Washington Post editorial board. Here’s what they wrote about Mohamed ElBaradei in March 2003 on the eve of the war they pushed so hard for:
[Saddam] submitted a declaration to the Security Council asserting that he had no chemical and biological arms. You don’t have to listen to the Bush administration to regard that as a lie. . . . The declaration served to detach the inspection process from reality. . . .
So why do the inspectors sound so upbeat? Chief U.N. inspector Hans Blix and International Atomic Energy Agency head Mohamed ElBaradei are international civil servants who are desperate to prove that agencies like theirs can be effective. . . . Mr. ElBaradei has responded to similar problems by turning on Iraq’s accusers. In his first report to the council, Mr. ElBaradei argued against the logic of Resolution 1441, saying that inspectors could be used to contain Iraq even if Saddam Hussein didn’t cooperate. He has used his two subsequent presentations to dispute evidence offered by Britain and the United States, while coming close to declaring Iraq free of any nuclear program. Last Friday, Mr. ElBaradei made headlines by denouncing one secondary piece of evidence, about an alleged Iraqi attempt to obtain fissile material from Niger, as a forgery. But the allegation is not central to the case against Saddam Hussein, and it did not even form part of Secretary of State Colin Powell’s recent presentation to the Security Council. Such diversions have lamentably become the substitute for U.N. oversight of real Iraqi disarmament; weeks or even months more of them may help unify the international community, but can yield little else.
ElBaradei of course was right and the Post was close to 100% wrong. So you might expect them to be more humble about attacking ElBaradei and the IAEA process. Alas, no such luck. Today, the Post editorial board launched a nasty broadside against him entitled “Rogue Regulator.” In doing so, they surely know that the net effect of their words will be to discredit the international process and, accordingly, to promote war with Iran. True, they say they’re just trying to push for economic sanctions. But players with this level of political sophistication surely know how editorials like this will be used in the Age of Cheney. If not, they’re idiots.
The most optimistic interpretation of this year’s ramping-up of propaganda attacks on Iran is that the idea is to beat the war drums so loudly and convincingly that the UN Security Council will be persuaded to pass tighter sanctions despite Iran’s cooperation with the IAEA — on the basis of ‘anything is better than war’.
But a policy of endless sticks without regard to Iran’s actual behavior is only going to harden that government in its conviction that our ruling regime is bent on military attack and overthrowing them. It is damaging to the people of Iran, even if it’s not the cataclysm that missile attacks would be.
Tightened sanctions are likewise being sold by leading Democrats as the “peaceful” middle ground between (as Sarkozy recently framed it so helpfully for the neocon cause) “Iran getting the bomb and bombing Iran.”
These terms of debate are based on lies and keep anyone who accepts them in a box. The best inside-that-box result is increasing hostility and tension with Iran, with Democrats painted as weak or their willingness to settle for non-military methods; the worst is a military assault on Iran in which Democrats have participated at every stage at laying the rhetorical, political, and legislative groundwork.
she was also rightly frustrated at the unfair vehemence cast her way
Feel like backing that up? I’m willing to believe that it’s true–I think that sometimes the language used is entirely unjustifiable–but I think people have responded with vehemence because they believe they see a new Brooks aborning, and they have, in fact, learned the lessons of the past. Note that Mini-Me Peretz also caught a fair bit of hell for his appearance on Atlantic pages, including some from a blogger with whose work you might be familiar. I suspect that some of that was because people remember the role Not-Mini Peretz played in the recent past. And that seems an appropriate thing to remember.
“she was also rightly frustrated at the unfair vehemence cast her way”
Since Ms. McArdle’s ideal of vehemence directed at anti-war protesters over the winter of 2002-03 was non-verbal, but instead to be delivered by 2-by-4’s, I do not feel inclined to listen to her complain about vehement words directed at her.
Look, no one (and i mean no one) was worse than andrew sullivan. but he’s come around, and at some point we need to recognize that. i dont know mcardle as well, but i’m sure she was equally grotesque in that period. but she’s come around some too — but i think she gets treated a bit differently than say sullivan in 2007 b/c of gender
“but she’s come around some too”
Cites, please. I have not been a regular reader of her since late 2004 (when she excused Bush’s lies by saying that all politicians lie and therefore their lies should not influence one’s choice in the Presidential race), but I have not seen anyone link to her anything remotely like a backtracking of her pre-war support and demonizing of those who opposed it. Andrew Sullivan has done so, John Cole has done so, which is why I will read them.
from the new bush book by draper regarding Iran
“The Iranian issue,” he said as bread crumbs tumbled out of his mouth and onto his chin, “is the strategic threat right now facing a generation of Americans, because Iran is promoting an extreme form of religion that is competing with another extreme form of religion.”
Does anyone have any idea what two extreme forms of religion he is talking about – Is this a reference to christianity vs Islam ?
Just when you think he can’t actually be as crazy and ignorant as you think you find out he is worse.
The mind reels at how you let this nut become president.
I’d guess he’s talking about Sunni versus Shi’a extremism, though it does complicate his current attempt to mix up Al Qaida with Iran.
I’m not a regular McArdle reader, but after her Atlantic debut she let off a stream of posts that were just ridiculous and were comprehensively – and almost unanimously – shredded in her comment threads, mostly on their merits.
Yes, there have been some really lousy comments targeting McArdle personally, mostly sexist or infantilizing ones. But the worst ones I saw weren’t even on her blog, they were comments on Yglesias’s and Ezra’s blogs (to be clear, that’s comments, not posts). A lot of the tsuris about disrespectful comments seemed to have more to do with the fact that a flood of new Atlantic-based commenters were responding to her posts in a disrespectful but not inappropriate fashion, and her comment threads were not the echo chambers they might once have been (and that most comment threads are). Once an issue was made of the inappropriate comments, I saw a number of comments from her old regulars bemoaning not the crudities but the sympathies of the new commenters.
jeebus fncking christ, we really are going to attack Iran, aren’t we?
I’ve got to agree with some others here.
McCardle has “come around”??? Come around to what?
If you’re an adult and still referring to yourself as an Ann Rand character I find it unlikely you’ll ever come around.
Assuming they haven’t already made some major sneak attacks, yes, Ugh, it sure looks that way.
But players with this level of political sophistication surely know how editorials like this will be used in the Age of Cheney. If not, they’re idiots.
It’s an interesting conundrum: do we attribute this to malice or stupidity? Hanlon’s Razor argues for the latter, but bitter experience argues for the former.
Publius: If I had Megan in my living room for tea and advice about improving her image, I’d start with something very simple. Megan, don’t be coy. She’s got a very bad case of the coys, talking up the possible merits of a real bad idea in the name of exploration, or being a devil’s advocate, or whatever, and a very deep unwilingness to concede that at the end of the day, a pet idea or toy project is in fact a bad idea and not worthy of continuing suspended judgment. Her posts tend to live in a world of hypotheticals, in which real people don’t suffer and die as the consequence of bad policies.
She may wish, as a matter of temperament, style, or whatever, to refrain from taking clear-cut earnest positions about genuine right and wrong in matters of controversy and suffering. But others are not to blame for refusing to go along with that. Likewise with declining to make distinctions about moral importance, pushing equivalencies, and the like. There is great evil loose in the world, committed by her government and mine in our names, and one reason they could started with it is that there was a culture prepared to toy with the ideas rather than deal with them as realities. (A more realistic response from those who don’t actually wish the movement conservative empire to thrive wouldn’t have stopped them, not after the 2000 eletion, but it could have helped build up an effective opposition.)
Basically, Megan plays games with her blogging. But she’s playing games about stuff that is real and deadly. And she’s an adult. It’s not unreasonable to expect some adult behavior out of her.
tend to agree with the people who think McArdle/Galt hasn’t really come to terms with how wrong she was. She’s seems to me to be cut from the same cloth as Ann Althouse.
She hasn’t backed off her support for the war at all that I can see, and back in ’03 she was calling for violence against anti-war protestors–she hasn’t ever expressed regret for that as far as I can see, either. As recently as today, she was babbling about Krugman and irrational Bush hatred.
She gets cut a certain amount of slack in the lefty blogosphere because she knows some prominent lefty bloggers personally, and is apparently a nice enough person one-on-one, politics aside.
Like Ann Coulter, she draws some unfortunate sexist comments, but most of what she gets she richly deserves.
I quit reading McArdle regularly a few years ago. I find her success baffling, since her posts were generally badly reasoned and not backed up by much evidence. Her favorite technique was to cite “some friends in the business” or “an old prof” as the authority for her foolishness.
@Bruce and Ugh and anyone else more interested in Iran than Megan McCardle:
I’m helping to write an update/alert on the recent intensification of threat/war talk against Iran, to go out to about 200 local antiwar activists.
In addition to the usual difficulties in being concise about a complicated topic, this one’s proving harder than usual to write because:
Half the intended audience are convinced that it’s not a real threat, no matter how Bush talks, because it would be too crazy. The other half is convinced it’s going to happen and believes that nothing we do will actually stop it, feeling especially abandoned by our “friends” in Congress.
I’m opposed to telling people scary news without giving them some possibilities for action. And even though my pessimism of the intellect on this subject is well documented, I do believe that it’s way too soon to give up on making the public and Congress aware of the intensity of our opposition to a wider war.
Any thoughts on how to persuade the pooh-poohers while not driving the already convinced over the edge would be most welcome. What recent events/reports were most worrisome to you? What action seems to you to be most likely to have any effect on public awareness or Congressional action?
What recent events/reports were most worrisome to you?
The quote Yglesias excerpts here got to me today.
Nell, for the alarm, I can’t say anything Glenn Greenwald hasn’t been for a long time.
As for what to do…this is where I get angry and frustrated and depressed. It seems to me like a lot of the public are at least somewhat aware of the risks, and more are definitely opposed to any escalating in the Middle East. The lurkers support me in e-mail, basically. 🙂 But seriously, it seems obvious to me that the public at large is really, really ready for peace and disengagement.
But I really utterly don’t see how to get that through to Democratic leadership. The key people are choosing not to acknowledge the fact of public opposition, let alone do anything about it. They carry on as if it were early 2002. And I do not know what I can morally do that might change their desires.
What to do? How about asking people if they want to pay $6/gallon for gas? Also, someone really needs to get through to Wall Street and make them realize what will happen to the stock market, etc. if the U.S. bombs Iran.
I’d like to join in the piling on of McArdle. My problem with her is the same as that of Bernard Yomtov (poor arguments and reasoning) to which I’d add intellectual shallowness and laziness. None of which would be a big deal for me if she didn’t blog for the freakin’ Atlantic, which used to (pre-Michael Kelly) be a favorite magazine of mine. Just another nail in the coffin of a once great institution.
“She’s seems to me to be cut from the same cloth as Ann Althouse.”
This is pure subjective opinion, but Megan seems to me considerably smarter than Althouse. I, regardless of innumerable disagreements and holding of different views, have a reasonable amount of respect for Megan as an honest commentator, and although I entirely disagree with many of her axiomatic views, I think she’s reasonably astute. I’m used to hanging out with people I entirely disagree with, and being friends with them; if anything, I prefer to be disagreed with and challenged in my views, even if I think certain specific points are entirely wrong.
Ann Althouse, on the other hand, consistently strikes me as dumb as a rock, frankly, and the fact that she’s a professor of law only serves to convince me that people can hold such titles while still being dumb as rocks.
The same cloth comment was not concerning intelligence, but the dishing out of harsh rhetoric followed by the shock and horror that it tends to come back on her.
“The same cloth comment was not concerning intelligence, but the dishing out of harsh rhetoric followed by the shock and horror that it tends to come back on her.”
Yes, I didn’t say I was a wholehearted admirer of Megan’s, or that I was recommending her to people, or that I endorsed any of her positions. I merely put forth what I labeled as purely subjective opinions; I’m not bothered if everyone feels differently, and I’m not hardly saying I’ve not wildly disagreed with, or mentally criticized, various opinions and statements of Megan.
I’m not big on publically analyzing people’s attitudes and moods, though. That’s just me. It tends to generate more heat than light. (Yes, of course, I’ve made exceptions.)
In the spirit of being more focused, and also of looking at structures as well as specific content…
The specific thing that chafes me about a lot of net rhetoric, including many of Megan’s efforts at being analytical, is that it seems exactly half done. First the writer builds a counterfactual or a hypothetical to analyze some point of policy. This isn’t a bad thing at all in my book; it can lead to great insights about how and why things actually work the way they do. The problem comes when the writer doesn’t then take the results of the speculation and measure them up against reality and try to understand where the model went wrong when reality differs.
I think that I personally rant most often about this in health care discussion, where objections to universal care are framed in terms of these models which are not then justified or interpreted in light of real countries’ experiences. But it can show up anywhere, including in my own thought. And wherever it occurs, it seems to me to go hand in hand with not taking real people’s present and impending curable pain, avoidable misery, and unnecessary loss as being as genuine or interesting as the stuff we’ve built up in our heads. Speculation is a valuable thing, but it’s not a sufficient basis for either moral judgment or policy, public or private. In the end, we act or refrain from acting, and it’s better when we have reasons better than “my daydreams told me so.”
Nell: Count me among the “pooh poohers” as I really don’t believe it will happen. I’ve turned in my pundit badge so I’m staying mostly out of evaluating motives, speeches, “got this from a friend inside but I can’t say who” rumors (of which there were several this long weekend), etc.
The only evidence that would rattle me would be certain answers to that old question “Where are the carriers?” I don’t believe it will happen, but I’d quickly change to it might happen or crap its going to happen based on carrier movements.
If it happens, it’s going to be 2-4 days of sustained bombing. We have some ground based assets available there but not enough for the kind of operation we’re talking about. Historically an operation of this magnitude will require at least two carrier battle groups. IIRC, a single carrier can only sustain flight operations for about 12 hours per day, so you need two minimum to maintain operations around the clock. Historically there have been two minimum. During the Iranian Hostage Crisis we always had two parked there. Desert Storm had between 4 and 6 involved. 5 were involved in this most recent “shock and awe”.
We have one there right now. I’m very sure we will not see any attack with only one carrier in support. Two would be dicey, but possible depending on how many land based aircraft we have available. Three would be preferred in any case.
I doubt that we’ll hear in advance if for instance they start rebuilding the number of Stealth fighters based close by. But you don’t relocate a floating city of 5,000-6,000 people these days without word getting out. And it won’t just be a carrier group. They’ll supplement mine-sweepers to keep the gulf open, Aegis cruisers for force protection, etc.
Now in March-May of this year I was worried about it. The Stennis was sent to supplement the Eisenhower and the Nimitz relieved the Eisenhower with some overlap for exercises. For a while this spring we had three carriers available in the neighborhood plus a lot of supporting ships. Everything was in place for an attack. It could have just been saber rattling or a planned attack that was called off for some reason.
But we could not do it right now or anytime this month. The Stennis is back home as of Aug. 31. Other carriers are in the Pacific, a post-deployment status, or in maintenance.
The Truman is in surge status – here but ready to deploy where it might be needed.
The Enterprise has been there alone since Aug. 1.
So keep asking “Where are the carriers?” When we hear that USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75) is surging to supplement the Enterprise in support of OIF then I’ll get more concerned about an actual attack. Actually I really think we’d need to see a confluence of three carrier groups as one may have to continue to support OIF while the other two hit Iran. When we hear that then a thirty day clock may well have started ticking.
OCSteve, alas, I don’t think “Where are the carriers?” is necessarily any more valid a question than “Where are the 3-400,000 troops they projected themselves would be necessary for the war and aftermath?”
OCSteve – I don’t think anyone is suggesting an attack is in the offing this week, just that the PR campaign is starting soon. They have plenty of time to spin up the carriers and send them on their way.
I’m thinking late October or sometime in November (maybe even on Thanksgiving, hard to have instant massive counter protests when everyone is asleep in front of the TV after eating too much).
I’ve pointed out in comment after comment after comment, in endless specifics, that we have all these large airbases in Iraq, now, just next to Iran.
Looking only at carriers, rather than the air assets we have in Iraq, and our other land air bases in the neighborhood (various Gulf States), is silly.
It’s “look at the last war” [several, actually, but that’s typical] thinking.
Not to mention our Afghan air bases, as relevant to attacking Iran.
Ugh, do you think they care at all about massive counterprotests? Hell, Bush would probably get a bigger thrill from bigger protests. The demonstrators demonstrate his resoluteness and leadership.
Plus what Gary said.
I guess when I say “massive” I mean the kind of protests that cause the Secret Service to fear for the President’s safety and have him evacuated from the White House.
But yes, even if they thought about such things, (a) they likely don’t care; and (b) the likelihood of such protests erupting in the U.S. from bombing Iran is close to zero.
Gary: It’s “look at the last war” [several, actually, but that’s typical] thinking.
No doubt. Still I’ll disagree with you. We won’t see an attack w/o solid carrier support. Those airstrips you are talking about are in a tough environment which is tough on the planes. And we’re not going to mass an attack from there and leave Iraq with little/no air support. Then the sheer number of sorties coming and going would make a tempting target. Etc.
I’m sure that they will support any attack, but the Navy will lead I think – initial Tomahawk bombardment, AA suppression, etc.
Let’s hope it is a mute question.
I am a cynic. If there are not enough targets swimming in the Gulf, there is no guarantee that the Iranians will make a large enough hit to justify US “retaliation”. Some patrol boats won’t do this time. I also think that an attack from inside the Gulf can only be seen as an invitation to let Iran provide the opportunity for some impressive TV footage. Pentagon wargames predicted significant losses in that scenario (I think we discussed that here last year). Bush missed the opportunity for the “since 5:45 fire is returned” speech on Sept.1st anyway.;-(
I don’t think an attack is imminent because the propaganda campaign has just started and Iran seems to be more difficult to provoke than expected/hoped.
@OCSteve: I think you mean a moot question.
I was also worried this past spring, and agree that carriers will be an ingredient if it happens, not just our airbases in Iraq. More on the current/future carrier situation here at Yorkshire Ranter (read comments also).
Thanks all for your thoughts. It was so hard to write the Iran update that I wrote something else entirely. Doesn’t make it go away, though…
I think you mean a moot question.
True. But Bill Gates thought the other spelling worked better. 😉
“Let’s hope it is a mute question.”
Moot.
Gary,
I’m not exactly a fan of Ann or Meg, but in Ann’s defense, Ann’s blogging is something between a night gig and a hobby. Meg’s blogging is her career. It’s not unexpected that Meg puts more time and thought into her posts as Ann.
That being said, given that Meg is a full time blogger, its incredible how little time Meg puts into her posts – particularly when it comes to the boring but necessary job of empirical research or “looking to see if what she is postulating is falsible.”
Neither are useful reads – and i agree with the rest that the irritation that people have with Meg is her casual attitude towards truth, whether its prospective or retrospective. Her “I guess Iraq was a mistake, but who would have thunk?” is an insult to all the people who, ya know, thunk. Her “I regret voting for Bush in 2004 because I didn’t realize how incompetent and authoritarian he is, comes across as equally shallow.
And that leads to an interesting inconsistency for publius. Publius rightly criticizes John Warner as the “serious Republican” who fails to make the correct choice when it counts. But that’s Meg all over.
And there’s also Meg’s occasional decision to make arguments that are genuinely callous to the poor. She once argued that it was okay for a liberterian WHO DOES NOT BELIEVE THAT A FETUS IS A CHILD to support pro-life candidates because if you really need an abortion, you can fly to Europe. So given the context of Meg’s relationship with the liberal political-blog reading public, a lot of understandable antagonism is expected. Context is important.
OCSteve, don’t you know that “you go to war with the carriers you have, not the carriers you wish you had”?
In case you hadn’t noticed, the current administration is a bunch of dumbells. I wouldn’t put ANYTHING past them!
On McArdle – I never followed her regularly. While I’m certainly tired of the mea culpa stuff myself, I recall hers as being something like:
OK I was wrong. But at the time there was no way to know and it could have gone either way. And you were right, but not that right because you didn’t get all the particulars correct. Something about warning we’d get robbed if we went out to dinner but then we got food poisoning instead. So you weren’t right enough for me to think that next time you’d be right and I’d be wrong.
Loosely paraphrased as I couldn’t quickly find a link and it was a while ago.
On the Post editorial, I didn’t read it as intending “to promote war with Iran” at all. Their points seem reasonable. If the IAEA actively undermines sanctions and focuses on “unresolved questions” while ignoring and even condoning Iran’s enrichment program then they are increasing the likelihood of military action down the road. Pointing this out would seem to be trying to avoid war with Iran.
If Iran manages to get another few thousand centrifuges online by the end of the year due to the IAEA freelance agreement the risk of military action will have increased significantly. Where will we be when the IAEA has to finally concede that Iran has enough cascades running to have material for a bomb “within a year”? That almost guarantees a military response, and their actions here may be hastening the day.
Their (IAEA) job is to monitor, investigate, and report – it is not to cut their own deals outside the scope of the UNSC. That is way over their pay grade.
As an editorial it may turn out to be completely wrong, but I can’t see that it is promoting war with Iran.
In terms of discrediting the IAEA, it would be a waste of bandwidth and trees as I think that opinions are pretty set there for anyone who cares enough to pay attention to this stuff.
You know what: I change my vote. I’m not a huge McArdle fan. But, to my knowledge, she’s not Stalin. (I’m willing, of course, to be corrected.) A right-wing magazine hired her. If, for some reason, you don’t find her posts worthwhile–as I don’t, for various reasons–don’t read her work. If you see her being pimped by an erstwhile Dem, independent–hell, anyone but a Southern conservative or Movement conservative–note that lots of people don’t much like her work, if you’d like. But at some point, you know, basta. (Not anyone here, but here’s were I defended anti-McArdlism.)
“and even condone Iran’s enrichment program”?
That program is legal, allowed under the NPT of which they are a signatory, and subject to untrammelled IAEA inspection. How is that “increasing the likelihood of military action down the road”?
Please read this and this about the pace of Iran’s enrichment program.
Please reflect on what kind of effects sanctions have when positive behavior following them is met with more punitive sanctions.
Nell: I’ll read your links. As I recall the issue was that it was a secret program, which is not legal under the treaty, then throw in a little Pakistani bomb assistance. It’s been most of the international community calling for tougher sanctions. Sanctions and the threat of tougher sanctions seemed to be working…
Steve,
you might be interested in Larry Johnson’s post about the lost nukes story
I fear one motivation for Iran not to press the development of the bomb at the moment is that it would not be ready before anyway, if Bush decided to go to war. If Iran could build the bomb before the end of the year it would have extremly strong incentives to do it. But with the ability being beyond Bush’s legal time in office and the current bet that the next president will not be eager for war, Iran’s most rational choice is to keep a low profile for the time being.
I am actually inclined to believe that without the US threat (either directly or by proxy) Iran would not be contemplating nuclear weapons at all except as a very longterm prestige program.
Iran “needs” the bomb now or not at all.
For the record: I believe that without a fundamental change of conditions the US will attack Iran within a year with a probability > 50% and that in that case it will be an all-or-nothing attack.
Should that be the case then the perpetrators should be removed from office immediately and extradited to Iran with the sole condition that the execution will be swift (i.e. no torture) and properly recorded for posterity.
In terms of discrediting the IAEA, it would be a waste of bandwidth and trees as I think that opinions are pretty set there for anyone who cares enough to pay attention to this stuff.
True. You can believe the folks who said there were no WMDs and have been proved right, or you can believe Colin Powell and claim he didn’t knowingly lie to the UN.
You seem like a smart, reasonable guy. I can’t figure out why, after all this time, you still buy the shinola this administration is selling.
Bush has said many times that he wants to set in motion policies that no future Administration can undo. Cheney has determinedly pushed for war with Iran.
Rice doesn’t want war with Iran, SFAIK, but in the eternal Cheney-Rice conflict, it’s impossible to know from week to week who’s winning. Last I heard, it wasn’t Rice.
Bush’s inner circle is mostly gone, and Cheney has lost Libby and Bolten. Cheney still has Addington, but I think Addington is more interested in putting the finishing touches on the Unitary Executive than in starting another war (though since the latter would serve the former, I’m not sure that’s a plus). I don’t know who Bush is confiding in these days; he seems loopier and loopier every time he goes out and talks to people.
Anyway, given that the two guys at the top want a new and shiny war, and are completely insane, my guess is that the only way we don’t go to war with Iran is if the military pushes back hard.
It depends on the mission, doesn’t it? We needed carrier support for GWI and the first phase of OIF, mostly because of the need for CAS and short-lead strike missions, to support the invasion operation. With Iran, the question is: if there are hostilities, will there be an invasion? Will there be short-lead-time strikes? If so, we’ll need fighters based in Iraq or Afghanistan, or on carriers. If not, if the objective is to hit pre-identified targets such as armor columns, SAM sites, industrial facilities, etc, then: no, we don’t need carriers. Aegis vessels and submarines might come in handy for their capacity to launch large quantities of Tomahawks, but by and large the air assault would come out of Diego Garcia, Whiteman AFB, RAF Fairford, and wherever we can find an airstrip to stage and service B-52s and B-1s. B-2s will probably stage out of Diego Garcia if necessary; that’s been done before.
Again, depends on the mission. Air superiority would probably, as Gary notes, be available out of bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, provided we have any stocks at all of Sidewinders and AMRAAMs. I think with Iraq, we just haven’t needed them.
Larry Johnson, for some reason, had no idea that B-52s stage out of Barksdale. That was good for a chuckle, that was. Larry also doesn’t know that where B-52s are found, there too will be nuclear weapons. And, evidently, he doesn’t read the news.
So, amusing, but hardly informative.
[Ed: I added this later, because although I wanted to respond to LJ’s comment below, typepad wouldn’t let me. I try to avoid doing this, but I felt that LJ’s comment deserved some clarifying comments from me]
Barksdale, being home to the 2nd Bomb Wing, is also home to nearly a thousand nuclear, air-launched weapons. This is hardly a secret, lj. Minot (5th Bomb Wing) has about the same inventory of nuclear weapons that might fall off of a B-52. Johnson’s ignorance of Barksdale’s role as both home of the 2nd Bomb Wing and nuclear weapons depot is…well, unsurprising. The 5th and the 2nd make up, as far as I can tell, the bulk of US nuclear bombing forces that use B-52s. Why they were transporting nuclear weapons on weapons stations, headed for Iraq or not, is a mystery. USAF says it was a mistake, and that various punishments have been meted out. The claim is that this is the first time something like this has happened; I am skeptical, unless “something like this” is defined sufficiently narrowly. There have, after all, been numerous accidents involving nuclear weapons.
The presence of a B-52 bomber doesn’t necessitate the presence of nuclear weapons; B-52s are also used as conventional bombers, and were used as such in suppressing Iraqi armor during the 2003 invasion.
I agree, actually. But no such attempt being in evidence, I choose instead to point out that Johnson’s level of surprise springs from ignorance, rather than any untoward actions taken by US armed forces.
That’s interesting, cause I think there are b52s in japan (andersen AFB to be exact), but the japanese government is officially on record as to not permit nuclear weapons on Japanese soil. In fact, the US government has issued statements to that effect. Of course, if there was an attempt to pre-position nuclear cruise missiles for use in the mideast, I think it should be noted, rather than given a slartic wink and nod.
OCS & Ugh I see it as more of a 2008 thing, unless there’s some large unmistakeable provocation on the ground in Iraq. First new funding for the surge (which would be working better, but for Iranian meddling), then installation of an Allawi/Sunni coalition (who are committed to reducing Iranian influence — and to resisting, rather than excusing, Iranian ageents), then serious escalation with Iran.
We won’t need carriers in the Gulf until, say, May or June. The key, though, is that the thing moves forward like the proverbial frog in boiling water. Each step appears to have more important motives than confrontation with Iran, and at each turn, critics who mention Iran get marginalized. All the way to the end — when it’s back to ‘why do you hate America?’
The thing about “air bases in Iraq” is that they are just that; big flat expanses of concrete with no infrastructure. The USAF operates Tallil, Balad South East, and Al-Asad; Balad is at capacity or near it, being the home to LSA Anaconda. Afghan ones? Don’t make me laugh; Bagram is a LONG WAY from anywhere significant in Iran. Kabul Airport is no nearer, and is fully utilised with logistics for ISAF. Kandahar is still not very near Natanz or Isfahan, and it’s not much of an airbase. All of these are already heavily used for existing operations.
with no infrastructure
So the nickname ‘Camp Cupcake’ is sarcastic? I’d heard it was due to the base’s relatively luxurious amenities.
@Slarti:
Are contractors involved at any stage of the nuclear missile handling (except manufacture), or are all the personnel dealing directly with the weapons at Minot and Barksdale USAF?
I don’t know. From what I’ve heard, though, a number of USAF personnel have been disciplined. “Decertified” means something rather drastic, I suspect; not discharged, but certainly you’re going to get reassigned to other work.
I suspect that all handling must be done by USAF personnel, but I really have no way of knowing one way or the other.
“I’m not exactly a fan of Ann or Meg, but in Ann’s defense, Ann’s blogging is something between a night gig and a hobby. Meg’s blogging is her career.”
I don’t know what her employment situation is now that she’s moved from The Economist to The Atlantic, but I’m quite sure that her career since she switched to journalism has been being a journalist at The Economist, with her blog, Asymmetrical Information, being a pure hobby.
In other words, although conceivably suddenly applicable to her new gig, this is otherwise complete nonsense, and utterly false.
Aside from that, it’s probably right.
Jeff: I can’t figure out why, after all this time, you still buy the shinola this administration is selling.
My questioning of the statement that the op ed intended “to promote war with Iran” was based on the article. I just didn’t interpret it that way. I don’t “buy” much from this administration anymore unless it is confirmed by at least 3 independent sources. 😉 I have no doubt that the Cheney-ites are trying to build support for hitting Iran – I just didn’t see that in this article. I saw a warning that these actions might actually increase the likelihood of military action by allowing their enrichment program to proceed to the point where the Cheney-ites can start throwing the “imminent” word around.
And I think that I’m correct that this article would not change anyone’s existing opinion on the IAEA. People who know what the initials stand for and follow these things have a strong opinion that won’t be swayed by the likes of this article. I mean it certainly didn’t cause anyone here to second guess their opinion. I’d be shocked if it caused one politician or pundit or blogger on the left to say “hey, maybe there is something to this mistrust of the IAEA”. You yourself seem to suggest that they were proved right once therefore they should be believed without question now. So if it was an attempt to undermine the IAEA I see it as a waste of time.
For the record, my opinion of their effectiveness was formed long before Bush.
It is based on the total ineffectiveness of the IAEA and the older “Atoms for Peace” non-proliferation program under which India acquired dual use technologies that they immediately put to use developing the bomb under everyone’s nose. It’s based on their total ineffectiveness in preventing IAEA member and NPT signatory China from assisting IAEA founding member Pakistan with their bomb, and on their total ineffectiveness in preventing Pakistan from trading their bomb know how to NK. It’s based on the blatant hypocrisy of IAEA members acquiring nuclear weapons and spreading the technology while active members of the IAEA.
Pakistan is the one that really cemented my opinion:
Statement by Member of the Pakistan Delegation on Agenda Item 14 “Report of the International Atomic Energy Agency” at the Plenary meeting of the General Assembly, on 12 November 1997.
…
I would also like to convey our congratulations to the Agency for completing forty years of useful work.
…
Pakistan, as one of the founder members of the International Atomic Energy Agency, can take justifiable pride in its close association and fruitful cooperation with the Agency since its establishment in 1957.
…
Today, Pakistan provides an outstanding example of the IAEA’s success story in peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Thanks to the catalytic effect of the Agency’s cooperation, the peaceful nuclear programme of Pakistan has considerably advanced making a significant socio-economic impact.
…
Pakistan shares the aspirations of the international community for a nuclear-weapon-free world. Experience has shown that the establishment of nuclear weapon-free zones is a positive and significant step forward in that direction. Our proposal initiated in 1974 for establishing a nuclear-weapon-free zone in South Asia continues to manifest our commitment to seek practical modalities and agreements to promote the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons in our region.
…
In the context of non-proliferation, the IAEA’s safeguards system has played an invaluable role.
…
While the International Atomic Energy Agency celebrates its Fortieth Anniversary, we would like to congratulate the Agency for the progress it has achieved towards meeting the objectives laid down in its Statute.
6 months later:
On May 28, 1998 Pakistan announced that it had successfully conducted five nuclear tests.
The tests were anti-climatic of course. Everyone knew they had the bomb by then. They announced it to the world two months before that lovely speech to the UN on how great the IAEA was.
Their “success” rate in preventing countries seeking the bomb from getting it: multiple failures to one semi-success (Iraq post GW1, and then only due to the threat of resumed hostilities). Not a track record that inspires a lot of faith.
My point though is that my opinion of the IAEA has absolutely nothing to do with the Bush administration. Bush was Governor of Texas when I decided once and for all that the IAEA was a sad and frightening joke.
Understood. In March 2003, the IAEA said that Iraq didn’t have an active nuclear program, and the Vice President of the United States, will all the intelligence assets at his disposal (surely among the best in the world) said that no, IAEA was wrong, and that he knew it was wrong.
There’s a track record that inspires even less faith. if there are problems with the IAEA, we ought to be trying to solve them. Not replace its analysis with unicorns and ponies.
…having reread my exchange with lj, above (which did NOT, I swear, involve the use of a time machine), I now see that I, typically, could have phrased things a bit more accurately. Like, possibly, replacing
where B-52s are found, there too will be nuclear weapons
with something LIKE:
where B-52s are based, there too will be nuclear weapons
Now, that may not be quite exactly what I wanted to convey, either, but it’s quite a bit closer.
I’m in the fortunate position of not feeling obliged to be civil or conciliatory. It’s not a position that is particularly natural to me, but it’s one I’ve come to over the last few years.
I don’t know if I’m in the “netroots” or not. I’m a late middle aged suburban householder with a white collar job, a wife, and a mortgage. I try to keep up with things, although it’s become so depressing that I’m about ready to pack it in and devote my evenings to playing music and reading about bicycles.
Speaking purely for myself, the reason that I, personally, feel unapologetic and honest hostility to folks like McArdle is because they were not only wrong, but their error has plunged this nation, along with a lot of the rest of the world, into a seeminglingly inextricable world of folly. Their “misjudgements” have killed hundreds of thousands of people, and have materially weakened this nation. We’re lucky, if you’re an Iraqi, they’ve utterly destroyed your nation and home. Not only that, but they seem absolutely disinclined to step up to what they’ve done, but rather seem overwhelmingly concerned with nothing else but justifying their error.
If I made a misjudgement that resulted in my house burning down, I would not stand in the driveway arguing with my wife about why it was an understandable mistake, if it was a mistake at all, and in fact maybe the house burning down is actually a good thing, because maybe a new house will spring up from the ashes and there will be a pony inside.
If I had done that, I would say “Holy shit, did I f%ck up!”. Then, I would do whatever I could to make things better going forward.
I don’t see any of these self-aggrandizing, self-pitying pundits doing anything like that.
So, my personal opinion on the matter is tough luck, and if you can’t stand the heat get out of the kitchen.
As an aside, it took me about 1/3 of the way through the comment thread to realize that McArdle and “Jane Galt” were one and the same. In my personal vision of poetic justice, all acolytes of Ayn Rand would be banished to a desert island, where the means of survival would be readily at hand, but they would require cooperation and just a pinch of selflessness to be effective.
They’d all be dead in a week. And, you know, good riddance.
It’s generally my aim in life to be charitable, to get along with others, to see the other point of view, and to try to find common ground. At some point, however, you just have to say “Screw me? No, screw you”.
Folks like McArdle have burned the damned house down, and they want to stand around in the driveway arguing about whether it’s their fault or not.
To hell with that.
Thanks –