That’s the epitaph of President Bush’s foreign policy suggested by Robert Wright (senior fellow at the self-declared “nonpartisan” New American Foundation) in an op-ed in the New York Times today.
We don’t need to be loved in the Muslim world, but we need to be respected. And even real men want respect. After all, strength can command respect. In fact, instilling fear can help instill respect. It’s just that fear isn’t enough. (This could be the epitaph of Mr. Bush’s foreign policy: Apparently fear wasn’t enough.)
For a nation to be thoroughly respected, the perception of its strength needs to be matched by a perception of its goodness. It helps to be thought of as just, generous, conscientious, mindful of the opinion of others, even a little humble. In lots of little ways, Mr. Bush has given the world the impression that we’re not these things.
Wright has some harsh words for Kerry as well:
Mr. Kerry’s biggest manhood problem has nothing to do with Vietnam or the war on terrorism. Rather, it’s the sense that he never attacks an issue unflinchingly – that he waffles on the tough ones, that his only constancy lies in the wordiness of his bromides. Maybe what he needs is to take a sensitive, complicated problem, lay down a core conviction, and stick with it through thick and thin.
Wright builds his essay around the Machiavellian idea that it’s better to be feared than loved and (here’s something really interesting in this piece) points to bloggers as the weathervane of partisan opinions:
So when Democrats talk about Muslim hatred, they’re just begging to be called wimps by all those right-wing bloggers who have Machiavelli’s dictum – better to be feared than loved – tattooed across their chests. [emphasis mine]
He feels that Kerry needs to address Muslim hatred in the War on Terror– specifically the idea that “for every million Muslims who hate America, one will be willing to fly an airplane into a shopping mall.” He goes on to suggest that by invading Iraq the way we did, Bush has increased hatred of America among Muslims in places where that hatred wasn’t as strong before 9/11, like Indonesia. And more than that:
The Kerry-Edwards ticket might also profit from the fact that much of this Muslim antipathy seems to be focused on President Bush personally. (His unfavorability ratings in Morocco and Jordan are 90 percent and 96 percent, respectively.) Changing administrations – “rebranding” America – could help give us a fresh start.
Bottom line? Although fear is an imporant tool we must employ, Muslim respect is also important to winning the “War on Terror.”
So the question becomes is it more likely that Bush can change world opinions and begin to win over the Muslims who currently don’t side with the terrorists but find themselves leaning that way because of what they view as anti-Muslim actions in Iraq (think Abu Ghraib) or is it more likely Kerry can expand on his “plan” for Iraq to include an appropriate balance between declaring unequivocally that we understand the enemy we face are Islamist radicals (and we will destroy them) and working to assure those nonradical Muslims the world over that the US respects them and means them no harm?
No points for guessing my opinion.
“In fact instilling fear can help instill respect”.
What utter bullcrap. Fear will instill nothing but loathing couched in compliance until the loathing surfaces to rebel and subvert that entity. Respect on the other hand is earned, not commanded. And it is earned by positive and exemplary actions that bring endearment.
Not sure I totally agree Wilfred. Fear is sometimes an appropriate response to a force greater than yourself. Think of a child afraid of strangers. It can be a useful emotion in the real world. Ideally it wouldn’t be necessary, but ideally folks wouldn’t hate us so much they’d fly planes into buildings either.
I think Wright’s central point here is important: you must balance fear with a sense that you are good and generous. Being simply good and generous will not deter some folks from flying planes into buildings.
Also, remember that fear is something the radical Islamists are using to rally folks to their cause. We’d be fools to underestimate the power it can have to disencourage them to join up.
can’t agree there Edward. A child heeds those warnings from a parent because they trust them, sort of the child version of respect. And they trust them because of all the positive reinforcement (feeding, caring for them when they are sick etc) that the parent has done. Fear as a response to a natural occurance like an earthquake is one thing as it’s greater than yourself and you cannot control it. But all men and man-made entities are vulnerable and one’s fear does indeed turn to loathing and rebellion/subversion over time, blowback if you will toward the perpetrator of that fear.
And i wasn’t commenting on Wright’s central point, just that his premise about instilling fear was totally flawed as far as i’m concerned.
It’s not even that. They also don’t have a coherent policy to inspire fear. Not in Saudi Arabi, not in Pakistan, not in North Korea, not in Iran. I remember noticing in the campaign the way he just repeated “compassionate conservatism” and “I’m a reformer with results” and “fuzzy math” and “we must oppose the soft bigotry of low expectations” over and over, as if those told you anything at all about what sort of President he’d be. Campaign by slogan, with no clear policy except tax cuts.
It was frustrating to see that accepted, but it’s one thing in a campaign. Everyone is a bit vague during a campaign. The thing is, he also governs that way. He has no coherent foreign policy at all. Just a clear desire to invade Iraq, but now what? I have no earthly idea what they’d do in a second term. The doctrine of preemption should have been thrown into serious doubt by the Iraq war–not only was the threat not imminent, it was nonexistent. But it sounds good, so they keep it and make it the centerpiece of the campaign.
All we have to go on is a bunch of slogans. “We have to take the fight to the terrorists.” “We cannot wait for the threats to materialize.” “9/11 changed everything.” “We are at war.” “This is a war, not a law enforcement matter.” “We’ve turned the corner and we’re not turning back.” “Results matter.”
Their idea of an environmental policy is to name something the “Clear Skies Plan” or the “Healthy Forests Initiative.” Nevermind if it increases air pollution or authorizes extra logging.
Oh, and more tax cuts, and no gay marriage.
Government by slogan.
But all men and man-made entities are vulnerable and one’s fear does indeed turn to loathing and rebellion/subversion over time, blowback if you will toward the perpetrator of that fear.
Don’t you think that generosity can compensate for this?
Eddie, thanks for noting that it is self-declared “nonpartisan”, as for the balance really not much to say.
I would like to point out that in your comment on Indonesia misses what was going on well before 9-11. The burning of Christain churches and schools in no small part do to our (the West’s) support for East Timor combined with our support of the Suharto clan.
I would like to point out that in your comment on Indonesia misses what was going on well before 9-11.
I can accept that Indonesia was possibly headed in an anti-American/anti-Christian direction before 9/11, but Wright was specific here:
Perhaps the acceleration would have happened without the Iraq invasion, I can’t say for sure. I do believe it hasn’t helped at all, and refuse to accept that since there’s nothing we can do to stop growing anti-Americanism (something I reject) we might as well charge forward with no consideration of its effect on our efforts.
i’m not sure Edward. that’s sending very mixed messages and then it would depend on the particulars of the persons involved. it might be very different in a parent/child relationship than an Occupier/Occupied relationship and different from nation toward nation. i just think ultimately those kinds of mixed messages build neither trust nor real growth in any kind of relationship/partnership.
I think fear and respect are often more linked than you believe, wilfred.
What. the. hell. via Laura Rozen:
The concern seems to be that it’s too strong, not that it’s too weak:
Idiots. Idiots.
They did something similar with a bio weapons treaty a few years back, by the way.
I can’t figure out the purpose. The only motive I can even come up with is to protect Israel from having to reveal the existence of its nuclear program. (It doesn’t strike me as particularly plausible, I just can’t think of another one.) But really–everyone knows Israel has nuclear weapons. I support them having nuclear weapons. I do NOT support us spiking needed nonproliferation treaties to save them from bad PR, if that’s what’s going on. I will trade Israel’s embarrassment and the irritating denunciations of Israel’s enemies, for knowing something about what the hell’s going on in Pakistan.
I don’t really think it is Israel, but I can’t think of another explanation. Is it actually to protect our small nuclear weapons program?
Kerry should jump all over this.
Perhaps the acceleration would have happened without the Iraq invasion
Specifically, I question the acceleration regarding Indonesia. I would raise the same questions regarding Pakistan, India and Iran. Now he may have a point on North Africa, Africa, Arabia and Southeast Asia.
Sebastian
I’m certain that the Iraqi people had great respect for Saddam. The kind of respect that would shine through once they no longer feared him.
In the playground as a child I don’t remember the class bully as having the ability to lead anybody but I do know people would go out of their way to avoid him. Maybe that’s the kind of respect you’re referring to.
“[W]e live in an interdependent world in which we cannot possibly kill, jail or occupy all our potential adversaries. So we have to both fight terror and build a world with more partners and fewer terrorists.”
Bill Clinton always seems to sneak in an insightful analysis. Darn him.
I can’t speak for the Bush administration, but I think international inspection regimes are a waste of money because when we know people cheat, nothing happens. See North Korea. See Iran.
Both have a 20+ year history of resisting their obligations under the NPT, and neither of them ever have to deal with it.
If we aren’t going to stop those dangerous regimes which cheat, why should we bother spending the money to prove they are cheating? The only reason I can think of maintaining the facade is that even more people would go after nukes–but frankly if Iran and North Korea are going to have nukes I am not going to lose
I think it is important not to confuse respect with love or affinity. We primates, as a general rule, respect strength and abhor weakness. It is those traits that you view as representing strength (whether political power, ambition, adherence to principle, military might, athletic prowess, compassion, talent, social status, honesty, intellect, etc.) that determine whether you respect a person or a group. Just because I, living in a liberal democratic republic protected by the world’s most powerful military, don’t respect this or that despot does not mean those being crushed under his heel cannot possibly respect him.
And of course this respect will vanish once the individual is seen as vulnerable. Respect is predicated on perceived strength. Being caught cowering in a hole in the ground can have a pretty big impact on that perception, particularly when your primary strength was always your ability to make others cower.
Bill Clinton always seems to sneak in an insightful analysis.
Too bad, he dropped the ball on terrorism.
Too bad, he dropped the ball on terrorism.
Back, back…plenty of that criticism to go around, no need to push.
Sebastain–you know better, or you ought to. Enforcement is a separate question. No one in the world, including the administration, has come up with a workable solution for Iran and North Korea. This treaty in no way ties their hands from implementing a workable solution. And if we want it to have more teeth, we should negotiate for some sort of automatic enforcement mechanism, not support the treaty but ditch the inspections mechanism.
Regimes commit genocide, too, and we do nothing. Does this mean we should withdraw from the convention against genocide? Regimes torture people, and we deport suspects to them anyway. Does this mean we should withdraw from the convention against torture?
Isn’t it still worth knowing they’re cheating? (If nothing else, if and when there is a nuclear attack it gives us some basis for narrowing down where the bomb came from.) And how are we going to figure out how to make something happen if we don’t who’s complying and who’s not? And isn’t lessening the danger from Pakistan worth something?
I am so sick of this. Right now as I type this I am in a likely blast zone if there is a bomb in NYC. The administration is doing very little to stop it, and smart Republicans who should know better just reflexively defend them.
and i think it is important not to confuse respect with fear or perverse admiration (like that of a masochist).
we are humans and therefore different from other primates in that we have respect, which is not something that animals have, which comes from the ability to reason. Primates may have pecking orders but that is very different.
Is there an inherent moral/value judgement in respect? Just because a Hitler etc. was conquering Europe doesn’t mean he was worthy of anyone’s respect. Does one respect someone because they are doing something admirable to begin with? One may admire ‘strength’ but does one respect it? When someone is said to live a ‘respectable life’ it intimates that there is something exemplary about it. I disagree completely that when someone is vulnerable you lose respect, it has nothing to do with strength. Example, Jesus ultimately became more worthy of respect to his followers when he did not use his strength to save himself and let himself be taken and executed (just one example, not to bring this in a religious direction). Instead of repelling the masses, the masses moved toward him over time.
No Katherine, you should know better than to dismiss enforcement concerns till later. A huge problem with the European approach to diplomacy, and the very similar Democratic approach, is that enforcement questions are delayed forever and ever. There is never a time of reckoning, there is never finality, there is never a resolution. Just interminable process until the regime in question fulfills its goals–either gets nuclear weapons or is successful in its genocide. The only time that is short-circuited is when the US acts–and often against world opinion.
A treaty on genocide that does not cause action is worse than worthless. It is positively an abomination. It is a confusion of condemnation with mere hectoring. It is a salve to one’s conscience while looking on.
You condemn something when you intend to take action. That is why UN ‘condemnations’ are so ridiculous.
Mere paper treaties are for balming moral misgivings. We shouldn’t soothe a conscience that sees genocide and refuses to act. Sometimes the conscience burns for a reason.
“At least we noted the atrocity” we can all say.
Whoop-dee-doo.
I am so sick of this. Right now as I type this I am in a likely blast zone if there is a bomb in NYC. The administration is doing very little to stop it
Well this is the second time you’ve raised the same issue. I ignored it the first time, although it really pissed me off.
So Katherine, lay out your game plan (after the fact action plans don’t count) and then tell me what the Bush Admin hasn’t done. Spell it out.
Dear gods there’s a lot of random evolutionary behaviorism being tossed around. Strength is a necessary but not sufficient condition for respect. The strength has to be wielded with integrity and compassion. Strength does not have to be indicative of ability to impose your will on others, but can in fact be an ability to maintain your will under duress. Many people will hate the US no matter what it does. A vast majority can go one way or the other depending on what the US does to command their respect.
Better feared than loved? If the choice is to be feared or not feared, I chose feared because we’re not going to be loved anyway.
Asking if a person is respected is quite different from asking if he deserves respect. In the former instance you are evaluating him based on the values of others, in the latter you are evaluating him based on your own.
Birddog
Good thing everything in life is either/or. Otherwise I would think you have a simplistic view of the world.
‘Esteem’ and ‘regard’ both have a piece in the definition of the word “respect”. They are not attached nor are they exclusive. You may regard someone’s power but it doesn’t mean when their gun is pointing somewhere else that you will do as they would want.
carsick,
Respect is a separate issue, which we can earn with our sustained will to succeed in Iraq.
It is absolutely useless arguing with you people. Worse than useless, actually–maybe if you heard this argument from a Republican you could be convinced, but now it’s been phrased as a criticism of the administration, and we can’t have that. Sebastian acts as if the President has proposed a better alternative, or withdrawn from the treaty entirely. He has not. He has said, we support this treaty but not inspections. How that gets you closer to dealing with North Korea, I can’t imagine.
Timmy, try this, this, or for that matter, this, or this.
Some highlights of a serious anti-nuke policy would include (insert perky game show music–the theme for the price is right, or similar):
–Spending more on securing nuclear weapons and highly enriched uranium stockpiles than on marriage incentives!
–Spending more than 1/10 as much on securing nuclear weapons and highly enriched uranium stockpiles than on a missile defense system that will not work against terrorism and may not work at all!
–Port security container ships yadda yadda yadda!
–Not declining to interview, and allowing the pardon of, Pakistan’s leading nuclear scientist when he is discovered to be a leading figure in the nuclear black market! Even if it would prevent you from cutting a deal with Pakistan that could help capture bin Laden before November!
–Not shooting our credibility on WMD-related matters all to hell!
–Not overextending our armed forces to the extent that it’s hard to credibly threaten war against Iran or North Korea!
–Not give dictators the idea that nuclear weapons are the best insurance against “regime change”!
–Not spiking nuclear and biological non-proliferation treaties without providing a serious alternative!
–Putting serious pressure on Russia and Pakistan, among others, to guarantee us that their nuclear weapons will not fall into the wrong hands!
–Developing a coherent policy towards Iran and North Korea! It is clear that if they cross a certain line we have to use force. We have to figure out what that line is, and threaten force–and mean it–if they cross that line. We should also be prepared to offer some concessions if they verifiably dismantle their nuclear program.
–Improving satellite surveillance so we can spot centrifuges!
–Launching a serious investigation into the nuclear black market! Building on El Baradei’s investigation, and throwing the book at the unnamed American company that El Baradei says is involved!
Respect is a separate issue, which we can earn with our sustained will to succeed in Iraq.
I almost brought up this in the original post. I do suspect that if he’s in agreement with Wright’s central premise that fear and generosity = respect, Bush is putting his faith in a positive outcome in Iraq. That is, he’s taking a longer term view and trusting that a Democracy in Iraq will earn the respect down the road that our clumsy plan has inadvertently lost us.
But then I’m generous, without being fearful, so I suspect that won’t garner me much respect.
Birddog
How do you define success in Iraq?
America needs people doing what we would want because we don’t have nearly enough soldiers or even guns to make everyone fear us. Nor will we ever.
Sure maybe leaders of countries with standing armies can fear our might but terrorists hiding in the shadows? I doubt a bee in a hive fears you nor can it beat you in a fight. But it can still sting you.
Now if you can get the wind (civilian populations where terrorists are hiding) and the rain (the potential money supply) on your side and not wanting great harm to come to you, you have a much greater chance of that bee not stinging you.
Can you do that with a gun?
“fearful” wasn’t what I meant…”intimidating” was what I meant (causing fear)
Katherine? How will we do those things when other countries don’t want to come along? Shall we go unilaterally? I’m all for it. You are not.
Let’s take your points one at a time.
Spending more on securing nuclear weapons and highly enriched uranium stockpiles than on marriage incentives!
What will the spending do? We once again have enforcement issues which you like to conveniently ignore until much later.
Spending more than 1/10 as much on securing nuclear weapons and highly enriched uranium stockpiles than on a missile defense system that will not work against terrorism and may not work at all!
You are tempting me to make comments about Democratic propensity to throw money at things. What will this money be spent on? How will, say the Russians, be held accountable for the money to ensure that the sites really are secure? Will we have American soldiers patrolling sites in Russia? Will we have Russia send all of its nukes to the US?
Port security container ships yadda yadda yadda!
I think you yadda yadda that because you have zero idea what you are talking about. Why worry about terrorists when you could bring all trade to a complete halt and crater the world economy? This is why you can’t play defense.
Not declining to interview, and allowing the pardon of, Pakistan’s leading nuclear scientist when he is discovered to be a leading figure in the nuclear black market! Even if it would prevent you from cutting a deal with Pakistan that could help capture bin Laden before November!
I was going to half-agree with you until the second sentence. Wow, maybe if you contact Michael Moore you can make the DVD. BTW, does interview mean ‘torture’ or do you think we are getting evidence that would get him beheaded out of him willingly? I’ll presume but that you didn’t think that far ahead, but for someone who talks about diplomacy alot….
Not shooting our credibility on WMD-related matters all to hell!
Who is this ‘our’? In juxtaposition to which fantasy government intelligence that was saying Saddam did not have WMD and WMD-related programs?
Not overextending our armed forces to the extent that it’s hard to credibly threaten war against Iran or North Korea!
Credibly threaten war against Iran or North Korea? Is that what you want when you want? Really? I don’t think so. You want the effect of a credible threat of war. But you don’t want the actual credible threat of war, becasue you often have to actually carry it out. And I don’t believe you are actually willing to take war to Iran or North Korea. Even if we were not in Iraq. But if I am wrong, just say so. But you had best mean it, because war against one of those two regimes seems likely to be necessary in the next 10 years. (Though the war against North Korea should have been in the 1996-1998 time frame before they had nukes).
Not give dictators the idea that nuclear weapons are the best insurance against “regime change”!
Oh please. I think they figured that out in the 1950s. Or did all of those nuclear programs we have been fighting for decades just appear in 2000?
Not spiking nuclear and biological non-proliferation treaties without providing a serious alternative!
Now you are just begging the question. The question is “Why bother with toothless paper treaties?” What are they good for? Your answer is just an appeal to the multi-lateral faith. I don’t invoke God in abortion debates–it just isn’t helpful.
Putting serious pressure on Russia and Pakistan, among others, to guarantee us that their nuclear weapons will not fall into the wrong hands!
Serious pressure. Hmm. And what would that involve? You don’t like making deals with a certain General in Pakistan who doesn’t want to interrogate a national hero (you know that is how the father of the Pakistan bomb is seen right?). You want to subject Russia to what? Do you want to make deals regarding their treatment of the Chechen revolt? Tough choices. Not very pretty.
Developing a coherent policy towards Iran and North Korea! It is clear that if they cross a certain line we have to use force. We have to figure out what that line is, and threaten force–and mean it–if they cross that line. We should also be prepared to offer some concessions if they verifiably dismantle their nuclear program.
Well that is a great idea. Too bad they already crossed the last line we threatened force on in the late 1990s. Too bad they already have nukes. What line do you propose? If they ship nuclear weapons? Are we going to search their ships (oops an act of war)? Are we going to blockade (oops an act of war)? Are we going to bomb their plant? (Ohh look an act of war). Are we going to try to get China to help? (Oops Bush is already doing that, it must be an awful idea.) Funny you should use NK as an example against Bush when its ability to gain nuclear weapons was due to the horrid enforcement mechanisms of the VERY TREATY WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. The very type of treaty you think we need to cling to. The very treaty you think it is so obvious that I should divorce enforcement mechanisms from the useless paper it is written on.
Oh, and please don’t pretend that Bush wouldn’t “offer some concessions if they verifiably dismantle their nuclear program.” Of course he would. There is a little problem though. You stuck the word ‘verifiable’ in there and it has never ever been on the table from North Korea. Never.
Improving satellite surveillance so we can spot centrifuges!
Oh good, science fiction. Centrifuges can be hidden in large buildings. Like Saddam’s palaces. The ones inspectors couldn’t get into. And remember what the international community thought about that? Hmm, they didn’t care. They thought Clinton was being too aggressive. Too pushy. Not allowing Saddam to save face. And if someone says that the palaces didn’t have anything I will scream–the issue is enforcement and inspection. Saddam was on probabtion after having shockingly fooled inspectors in the 1980s and having a very advanced nuclear program right under everyone’s noses. Allowing him to have huge buildings, recently constructed, with no inspection access was horrific folly.
Also, with the nuclear power plants in Iran, you don’t even need large centrifuges.
Launching a serious investigation into the nuclear black market! Building on El Baradei’s investigation, and throwing the book at the unnamed American company that El Baradei says is involved!
This is the only one I agree with, except that you suggest it isn’t happening. Would that be a serious public investigation into the most dangerous black market imaginable? Or do you think maybe keeping it our of the media circus might be more successful. Honestly, if Gore were President and investigating such things, I would hope that we wouldn’t hear about the details in the papers until everything was done. Frankly my biggest gripe is how much of that investigation we already know about. How many leads vanished into thin air when we publically found out how central Abdul Qadeer Khan was? But when the investigation closes, feel free to throw anything you want at any company involved–including French, German, Russian, and US companies.
Hmmm I think I just committed a ‘thread hijacking’.
Sorry Edward.
Not at all Sebastian.
You and Katherine have made it a much more intersting thread. If we’re talking “fear” it doesn’t hurt to bring in what we in the US fear most.
Go to it.
e
It is absolutely useless arguing with you people. Worse than useless, actually–maybe if you heard this argument from a Republican you could be convinced, but now it’s been phrased as a criticism of the administration, and we can’t have that.
Yes, views other than yours just aren’t vaild. Fine. “You people” are either stubbornly stupid or stupidly stubborn. It couldn’t possibly be that your arguments are simply unconvincing. It couldn’t possibly be that observations such as Mr. Wright’s are grounded on fundamentals that are inherently flawed or biased. Nah.
It couldn’t possibly be that observations such as Mr. Wright’s are grounded on fundamentals that are inherently flawed or biased.
Which ones in particular?
carsick, you ask: How do you define success in Iraq?
When the first national elections happen. When a final constitution is adopted and abided by. When Iraq remains a non-theocracy. When Freedom House, Reporters Without Borders and Heritage Foundation rate Iraq as among the freest in the Muslim world. As a kicker, it would be nice if they banned Wahabism, but that’s just me.
As a kicker, it would be nice if they banned Wahabism, but that’s just me.
The Bill of Rights: Too good for those Iraqis!
Which one’s in particular
I’m short on time, but I’ll just give one example:
“Mr. Kerry rightly stressed how thoroughly Mr. Bush has lowered the world’s opinion of the United States.”
My, how black and white, how lacking in nuance…couldn’t possibly be an overstatement and oversimplification of complex dynamics? Couldn’t possibly be a situation where the world’s “opinion” of the US was actually lower in the recent past? Not possible? I’d argue it was quite likely.
Who one likes can be different than who one respects, or even loves. Many countries in the world had Sugar Daddy relationships with the US, and they “liked” the US as long as the gifts came and we were there to bail them out of jail. As long as we told them they were pretty and important to us while we ignored the fact that they loved us for all the wrong reasons. Not unlike the pretty young thing that is initially thrilled to have some fool going through a midlife crisis shower them with gifts and attention, that initial giddiness is replaced with distain over time as they discover their benefactor is only a chump. Sure they “like” him, but they don’t respect him or love him, let alone could they ever have a mutually beneficial adult relationship.
Reluctance to assert your will can also breed a certain type of antipathy. Ever have a teacher or boss that let you get away with things or let you treat them with unreasonable amounts of disrespect? You might have thought it great that you could get away with that, and you’d resent having them replaced with someone who might expect you to toe the line, but you sure didn’t respect them.
I would assert that, our actions (which do speak louder than words) over the last 30 years have made us less the lone Superpower, and more the lame substitute teacher everyone hopes will be there for one more day of class so nobody has to do any work other than refine their spitball technique.
Thanks Katherine but I’ve read all the sites you linked to.
–Spending more on securing nuclear weapons and highly enriched uranium stockpiles than on marriage incentives!
Spending more on whom, that is, who is the target?
–Spending more than 1/10 as much on securing nuclear weapons and highly enriched uranium stockpiles than on a missile defense system that will not work against terrorism and may not work at all!
Again who is the target? Spending more money (and I’m thinking billions not millions) solves no issues, if someone isn’t selling. Now how do you know the missile defense system won’t work. You are correct that it doesn’t work against a nuclear terrorist attack.
–Port security container ships yadda yadda yadda!
Hope, you aren’t refering to Schummers featherbedding plan. The idea is to stop the containers before they ever get to Bayonne. Pleae take a look at increases in the Coast Guard budget and (the multi-national) projects being pursued in major ports from Singapore to Amsterdam as well as the Straights of Malacca (the Indian Navy taking a much bigger role in the overall security)
–Not declining to interview, and allowing the pardon of, Pakistan’s leading nuclear scientist when he is discovered to be a leading figure in the nuclear black market! Even if it would prevent you from cutting a deal with Pakistan that could help capture bin Laden before November!
I believe you will find that Libya’s exposes the entire issue sometime in September (will Pakistan and Russia be protected, probably). I would suggest you read the Butler report for more info on the topic.
–Not shooting our credibility on WMD-related matters all to hell!
See Libya
–Not overextending our armed forces to the extent that it’s hard to credibly threaten war against Iran or North Korea!
The only branch of the Armed Forces who is over extended is the Army. Navy and Air Force are in excellent shape and war against Iran and North Korea will initially rely on these two services.
–Not give dictators the idea that nuclear weapons are the best insurance against “regime change”!
I hated Clinton’s Admin (Jimmy Carter’s) deal with N. Korea but what can I say. More importantly will be the IAEA’s September meeting on Iraq.
–Not spiking nuclear and biological non-proliferation treaties without providing a serious alternative!
ABM Treaty did absolutely nothing for our national security. Boost phase anti-missile research was precluded by the Treaty.
–Putting serious pressure on Russia and Pakistan, among others, to guarantee us that their nuclear weapons will not fall into the wrong hands!
The best guarantee is self-interest. Russia has real concerns on this issue and Putin has taken actions in the restructuring of its armed forces.
–Developing a coherent policy towards Iran and North Korea! It is clear that if they cross a certain line we have to use force. We have to figure out what that line is, and threaten force–and mean it–if they cross that line. We should also be prepared to offer some concessions if they verifiably dismantle their nuclear program.
Exactly what do you think the Bush Admin has been pursuing with China and Japan regarding N. Korea and with Germany, France, U.K. and the IAEA on Iran.
–Improving satellite surveillance so we can spot centrifuges!
Already in place, has been since the second term of the Clinton Admin (maybe even before). Correct Clinton knew the N. Koreans were using centrifuges in the late 90s. Some info on the technology
–Launching a serious investigation into the nuclear black market! Building on El Baradei’s investigation, and throwing the book at the unnamed American company that El Baradei says is involved!
Well Katherine it is coming but we don’t want to give Baradei any excuses for dropping the ball on Iran.
If you haven’t read the Butler Report, you should.
If you haven’t read the Butler Report, you should.
I agree, Timmy. When are you planning to read it?
Already have, thank you very much.
The Bill of Rights: Too good for those Iraqis!
Nope, just call Wahabism a heretical sect that is, like Soviet communism, inimical to a free and democratic society.
Um, the bill of rights does not contain an exception for heresy. Sheesh.
Timmy, all you ever do in these discussions is repeat, like mantras, “Butler report”, “Libya”, “throwing money at it doesn’t solve the problem” or “look at the bad thing Clinton did” when they sound connected to the discussion but really aren’t. It’s not a serious attempt to engage my arguments, I’m not sure you’ve ever made such an attempt in any context, and when it comes to that I don’t believe you actually have read all those links I sent because if you did you’d know that they flatly contradict some of your arguments. So this discussion is over as far as I’m concerned. It’d just be point scoring, and there’s no reason to bother.
Nope, just call Wahabism a heretical sect that is, like Soviet communism, inimical to a free and democratic society.
The Bill of Rights: too good for those communists!
Bill of Rights too good for communists? No. Communists and Wahabis can’t handle a Bill of Rights.
Communists and Wahabis can’t handle a Bill of Rights.
Who was talking about Wahhabis? We were talking about Iraqis. And when you say communists can’t handle a Bill of Rights, are you talking about communists in general or did you have specific communists in mind?
Context: part of the reason I am underwhelmed with the capture of Khan is that experts have been warning since 9/11/01 and well before the war in Iraq that one of the real dangers was Pakistan.
“David Albright, a nuclear-weapons expert and president of the Institute for Science and International Security, points out that Pakistan’s program in particular was built almost entirely through black markets and industrial espionage, aimed at circumventing Western export controls. Defeating the discipline of nuclear nonproliferation is ingrained in the culture. Disaffected individuals in Pakistan (which, remember, was intimate with the Taliban) would have no trouble finding the illicit channels or the rationalization for diverting materials, expertise — even, conceivably, a warhead.”
–Bill Keller, NY Times magazine, 5/26/02
–It was reported in 2001 that Sultan Bashiruddin Mahmood, a high ranking scientist in Pakistan’s nuclear program, had met with the Taliban several times. It was reported in 2002 (maybe also 2002; the first Nexis article I find is 2001 but I may be missing an earlier one.) that he had met with Osama bin Laden who had sought assistance in obtaining nuclear weapons and materials.
–The New York Times reported on CIA briefings about Pakistan, and especially AQ Khan’s, involvement with North Korea way back in November 2002:
“But several times since that new alliance was cemented, American intelligence agencies watched silently as Pakistan’s air fleet conducted a deadly barter with North Korea. In transactions intelligence agencies are still unraveling, the North provided General Musharraf with missile parts he needs to build a nuclear arsenal capable of reaching every strategic site in India.
In a perfect marriage of interests, Pakistan provided the North with many of the designs for gas centrifuges and much of the machinery it needs to make highly enriched uranium for the country’s latest nuclear weapons project, one intended to put at risk South Korea, Japan and 100,000 American troops in Northeast Asia.”
These are not isolated examples, just a few I found in 15 minutes of Nexis searching. The danger of a black market based in Pakistan was well known enough by late 2002 that I–no expert!–wrote in a letter to the editor to the Washington Post that Pakistan was much more likely than Iraq to supply terrorists with a bomb.
That’s why I’m underwhelmed when Bush cites this as a great success attributable to the Iraq war in his speeches.
Also, not only has Khan been given a full pardon but NO ONE has been charged over Pakistan’s black market. They just released three more guys. They’re still interrogating one.
Of course, they may have beat them up in custody but I don’t think much of that as a substitute for prosecution.
It’s unclear whether they’re not prosecuting for fear of the political backlash or because evidence of the government’s complicity will come out. Probably both.
Finally: note Bush’s response to the revelations about Khan last February:
Yes, this is the same treaty they just decided should not have any verification mechanisms.
What a flip-flopper.
btw, Sebastian, I didn’t respond earlier because it is useless to argue with someone who has decided he knows exactly what I think and tells me I’m lying when I say what I actually think.
eh, Katherine, you made no serious points, and certainly no arguements. Rather you engaged in a series of open ended questions.
So when you want to be serious about the geopolitical situation, give me a call.
With regards to your 7:19 post, now who was the fly over state and who sanctioned the long standing barter arrangement between Norht Korea and Pakistan. And who was the principle beneficiary (in geopolitical terms) of a nuclear Pakistan (a hint it begins with a C and ends with an A).
I’m not shocked that you haven’t mention the sponsor, guess it doesn’t fit into your predetermined position. Ultimately, you will find that they were also the ulitmate sponsor of the M.E. nuclear weapons bazaar, which was exposed in December of 02 by the British with the help of the Germans.
Couldn’t possibly be a situation where the world’s “opinion” of the US was actually lower in the recent past?
I’m not sure that you and I would ever agree on a reliable measure of this Mac, but the goodwill most of the world showed the US after 9/11 makes 9/12 a good demarcation point for weighing this. It’s hard to claim any other factors except for how the US responded to those attacks had a bigger influence on the loss of that goodwill. Mind you, I believe Bush was already in the international dog house for breaking treaties left and right, but he had a fresh start on 9/12. His decision to invade Afghanistan had a few detractors, but overall he had the world behind him then. It was Iraq and his response to the people worldwide who opposed the invasion that cost him the goodwill offered during that fresh start.
As for your sugar daddy metaphor. Poor gross old pervert. Not even bothering to try and win her love on his merits (why should he? money’s a much faster way into her pants [or whatever the state equivalent may be]). Not exactly a flattering portrait of us either, now is it? But remember: the sugar daddy does get what he wants too. The sugar daddy takes what it is he wants most from her and, just as often as he gets jolted, he dumps one young thing for some other young thing that tickles his fancy. In other words, the US doesn’t hand other countries money without strings attached, so you’re stretching to make your point here.
Katherine, just curious where did the North Koreans get the gas centrifuges that they used in the 90s. I hope you are not suggesting that the North Koreans had no centrifuges before 2001. I know it is inconvenient for you that all of this was going on before 2001.
It was Iraq and his response to the people worldwide who opposed the invasion that cost him the goodwill offered during that fresh start.
Edward, now how many of the people who opposed the invasion, think America was evil before 9-11 and evil after 9-11. Did somebody take a poll? Because if they did, I missed it.
Mind you, I believe Bush was already in the international dog house for breaking treaties left and right, but he had a fresh start on 9/12.
Interestingly, I agree with you. I think Bush was in the international doghouse for asserting US interests on several fronts. Not sure what treaties he ever “broke” as Kyoto was never a treaty ratified by the US, or are you referring to the one signed by an entity that no longer exists?
The big problem is there is no basis for your assertion that he “had the world behind him” at any time. Yeah, yeah it’s just great that everyone lit a candle and was really sad and all, but that doesn’t mean any country was going to do anything outside of their own interests. What did happen was that several countries decided that they were uncomfortable with us doing exactly what they would do in identical circumstances.
Do you really think for instance that the French were making chummy deals with Iraq because they preferred under the table corruption? No they Jimmy kiss despots like Saddam because that’s all they can do, it’s the only tool in their arsenal. However, if you think that France would pursue the same “nuanced” diplomacy if they had our ability, you’re kidding yourself.
Not sure what treaties he ever “broke” as Kyoto was never a treaty ratified by the US, or are you referring to the one signed by an entity that no longer exists?
“Rejected” then. But for the record, what Bush rejected that made him internationally unpopular includes:
Now one can argue the wisdom of his decision on each of these, but eventually, it adds up to a portrait of a US President thumbing his nose at the rest of the world. Someone who doesn’t believe in working well with others. Take his so-called alternative to Kyoto he promised: it doesn’t pass the giggle test. He rejected it saying he could do better, but he didn’t come close.
What you call “asserting US interests on several fronts” is all he’s done. Really, what have his great diplomatic compromises been during his presidency? Or are compromises for chumps?
Wow…Bush rejected Kyoto more soundly and authoritatively than Kerry himself did?
Kyoto, as far as I can tell, wasn’t actually a binding treaty until ratified. Kyoto was not only never ratified, the Senate sent a clear message that it never would be. Before Bush ever was a glimmer in the White House’s eye, yet.
The ABM treaty was designed so that either side could legitimately break it, with the proper notice. So…legitimately backing out of a treaty, legally, and with proper notice is evil, somehow?
I don’t believe we ever ratified the ICC treaty, either. Clinton signed it in the last few weeks of his office, and recommended in so doing that it not be put in for ratification until “fundamental concerns are satisfied.” Evidently, they weren’t.
The Nuclear Test Ban Treaty? I believe you mean the CTBT, which, like Kyoto, was rejected by the Senate.
Really, what have his great diplomatic compromises been during his presidency?
It’s ironic to read all of Katherine’s rantings about Pakistan and other fronts where we haven’t taken a hard enough line, and then have you swing by to try and pretend that we only take hard lines. I guess it’s just all too nuanced.
Slarti and Mac,
You can split hairs all night, but your candidate has international popularity problems and he can’t fix them until he acknowledges them. Suggesting it’s all those other nations’ fault is laughable. It’s Bush’s problem and he seems to have no ideas how to fix it.
In the grand scheme of things, Edward, Bush has to worry first about the the Constitution, second about the electorate, and international popularity doesn’t even make the list. Nor should it.
But that’s probably in keeping with the electorate thing. Still, at least half of the word (or the governments over half the world’s population) is going to be pissed off at us at one point or another. If you had any interest in keeping the regard of even half of YOUR country, you’d tone it down a bit. But behold! You persist!
Hard-liner.
Kyoto Treaty-now wasn’t this treaty declined by the Senate in a bipartisan vote. I believe they wanted Clinton to amend it–(Clinton Legacy)– recommend that Bush put it up for ratification in September.
International Criminal Court Treaty-now didn’t Clinton have issues with the Treaty but signed the Treaty in any event (another Clinton legacy moment, afraid so)–September ratification, why not.
Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty–the only counterparties to this treaty was the USSR and the USA (why is the world upset) since there is no Soviet Union, well, in any event precluded boost phase anti-missile program.
Nuclear Test Ban Treaty–Clinton was able to get this Treaty ratified, because if he did I missed it. That is, a Treaty is only a Treaty when ratified by the Senate.
Actually Edward, it adds up to a portrait of a the US thumbing its nose at the rest of the world not Bush.
international popularity doesn’t even make the list. Nor should it.
I disagree wholeheartedly. International popularity is directly connected to our national security.
Hard-liner
Puh-leaze. You’d be lucky if I were as hardline as they get.
Fun sparing with you Slarti, but I gotta run. Until next time.
International popularity is directly connected to our national security.
Well then we’re always in real trouble, because as I said, we’ve nearly always had over half the world annoyed at us.
Fun sparing with you Slarti
Next time, don’t be so “sparing”, k? 8p
I, too, must run. Or, rather, stumble off to bed.
“Sebastian, I didn’t respond earlier because it is useless to argue with someone who has decided he knows exactly what I think and tells me I’m lying when I say what I actually think.”
I don’t think you are lying. I think you refuse to accept the contradictions between the different things that you want.
The fact that you use North Korea as an example of why the NPT is so vital is perfect example of that.
You act as if these treaties have no history in the world. You act as if this is 1968 and the treaty is being negotiated de novo. You act as if this is 1970 and we have no history of the treaty in force. It isn’t, and we don’t.
You specifically complain that I dare to link the treaty and its pathetic lack of enforcement with: “Sebastain–you know better, or you ought to. Enforcement is a separate question.” but then are willing to use the biggest 1990s treaty disaster–North Korea–as a club against Bush, a president whom I believe was not in power until a bit later than that.
I don’t have to call you a liar to note that divorcing enforcement from such treaties has been a horrible disaster.
I don’t have to call you a liar to note any of things I note about genocide and Europe’s repeated tut-tuts and disinterest in acting against it without relying almost exclusively on US prodding.
I don’t have to call you a liar to note that Clinton was forced to go alone when Iraq refused to allow inspections in his huge palaces. Palces I might note which were built with money from the UN while his people starved. Great multi-lateral action that you never deal with there either.
But if you think you have adequately responded, so be it.
Personally I have trouble accepting any kind of guilt for taking quite well defended educated guess about the thinking of anyone who begins their discussion with me with “Sebastain–you know better” followed by something which is not only non-obvious, but frankly untrue. Enforcement is not a separate issue, but I can see why you wish it were.
slarti
Leaders lead. So far Bush is at best only leading the less than 50% of America he got elected with (and alot of those folks are one-issue voters anyway) and he’s losing what little following he had internationally.
You can get down on those who disagree with him but ultimately … leaders lead. If he doesn’t have a majority then guess who’s fault it is both domestically and internationally?
Edward, the principles of Kyoto were rejected by the Senate 98-0 under Clinton. Ratification requires a 2/3 affirmative vote of the Senate. The rejection of Kyoto has nothing to do with Bush. Clinton should have pulled out of the negotiations at that point.
Clinton resisted the ICC too.
What does the ABM treaty have to do with anything? Why should ‘the world’ care about an agreement between the USSR and the US that Russia didn’t even make a big deal about when we left the treaty (according to the terms of the treaty.) Maybe Democrats believe that this led to a Star Wars waste of money, but really there isn’t any reason for other countries to care–unless they don’t want us to have a missile defense for some reason.
Which leaves you with one treaty, and I’m not sure which complaint about it.
So far Bush is at best only leading the less than 50% of America…
Ah. The “I don’t understand this whole Electoral College business, therefore Bush is illegitimate” approach. Not a new tactic, and certainly not one that’s going to gain you much admiration from over here.
Edward–it’s not worth your time, or mine.
Slartibartfast: Ah. The “I don’t understand this whole Electoral College business, therefore Bush is illegitimate” approach. Not a new tactic, and certainly not one that’s going to gain you much admiration from over here.
Carsick is talking about popular support, not legitimacy. Popular support is not traditionally measured in electoral votes, and for good reason; the Electoral College is not the American voting public.
Of course, it is worth pointing out that no candidate got 50% of votes in 2000, but then carsick never claimed otherwise.
Slarti
It might be easier if all the president had to do was lead the electoral college. Unfortunately for you the job is to lead our country AFTER being elected through the electoral college.. I’m not claiming he’s illegimate. I’m claiming he’s incompetent as a leader.
Fear and loathing in Europe, much of it self inflicted according to this, France gives critical look at its falling influence
The rejection of Kyoto has nothing to do with Bush.
That’s a nice bit of mythology making the rounds but it doesn’t reflect the facts. In 2001, the US was again encouraged to reconsider its position on Kyoto:
So you can try and blame Clinton for this (is that an automatic reflex by the way?), but Bush has had plenty of opportunities to demonstrate leadership on this issue. He’s not done so.
So, Bush was more negligent for refusing to reconsider a treaty that the Senate had already unanimously rejected? More negligent than Clinton, who signed it without first gathering the necessary support? I’m not seeing it, Edward.
I’m claiming he’s incompetent as a leader.
Without, of course, providing anything at all as substantiation. Fine. I’m claiming he’s doing an acceptable job. Not great, mind you.
So, Bush was more negligent for refusing to reconsider a treaty that the Senate had already unanimously rejected? More negligent than Clinton, who signed it without first gathering the necessary support? I’m not seeing it, Edward.
Good morning Slarti. Why it seems like just a few hours ago we had left off here…
Actually, I’m saying something very specific in response to something very specific: the myth that Bush is somehow “Kyoto responsibility free.” He isn’t. At the very least he still owes the world that alternative he promised. You’re the one bringing in comparisons here, though, not me.
My original point was that Bush hasn’t done much internationally to make it look like he works and plays well with others. Given that most analysts feel the War on Terror can only be won through an international effort, this is unfortunate.
“Gallup polling data show that from May 20 to July 19, the 14th quarter of his presidency, Bush averaged a 47.9% approval rating. That included his term-low individual rating of 46% in a May 7-9 CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll. Since that time, his approval rating has stabilized in the high 40s, within a narrow band of 47% to 49%.”
Since peaking at a record-high level in the fourth quarter of his presidency (after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks), Bush’s quarterly average scores have maintained or declined, but have not improved from one quarter to the next.”
Just a simple google search Slarti.
Edward by internationally do you mean Europe or do you have a wider vision.
-Africa Aids Program
-India/Pakistan, substantial efforts to bring both parties to the table as well as expanding the US relations with each party.
-Sudan, resolution of long standing problems between North and South and Arab and African.
-IAEA, Iranian nuclear program
Just four issues being addressed by this Admin.
Timmy,
I suspect those countries can play an important role in helping us defeat the terrorists (I certainly don’t want to look any gift horses in the mouth there), but the help Europe can offer in military and intelligence does seem more important, no?
Just a simple google search Slarti.
Not sure what you’re getting at. Could it be that your point is that since Bush isn’t all that popular, that he’s doing a bad job?
If you bother to look at the polling data, you’ll notice that Bush has been over 50% up until January or so, and that he was at 60-70% when we invaded Iraq. If you’re going to use popularity polling to support your point, you have to take the bad news with the good.
Edward are you throwing stones again, saying that the Europeans are not working with America on terrorism. On the face of it, it seems somewhat absurd.
I took four issues with an eastward outlook, which is the proper place to look.
Outside of the UK, new Eastern Europe members and maybe France, the NATO (European and Canada) military is decaying at a rapid clip.
Edward are you throwing stones again, saying that the Europeans are not working with America on terrorism. On the face of it, it seems somewhat absurd.
What’s absurd is you trying to pin this on me now. You wrote: Edward by internationally do you mean Europe or do you have a wider vision.
If that wasn’t intended to acknowledge Bush’s problem among our European allies, why did you write it?
Edward, I asked a question on your world view and you raised (not I) the issue of terrorism with some absurd thread. So let me go back to the original question.
Edward by internationally do you mean Europe or do you have a wider vision.?
“Could it be that your point is that since Bush isn’t all that popular, that he’s doing a bad job?”
As I said before, Leaders lead. Take from that what you will.
Hint: China and India are countries, too. And, you know, Africa and South America have a few countries (not to mention, respectable populations) each.
Edward by internationally do you mean Europe or do you have a wider vision.
To be clear, I think the biggest popularity problem we face is with Muslim countries like Egypt and Indonesia. Those countries that had been borderline allies to some degree who are now staunchly anti-American. But I also feel Europe not being 100% by our side in this effort is a disadvantage we didn’t need to acquire.
I’m just trying to see if you’re advocating the point of view that one must be popular to be effective. Or that being unpopular makes one ineffective. I seem to recall Winston Churchill had bouts of unpopularity, and we all remember what a total washout he was as a leader.
Not saying Bush can be compared with Churchill, just questioning the use of popularity as a metric of leadership ability or performance.
Not saying Bush can be compared with Churchill, just questioning the use of popularity as a metric of leadership ability or performance.
Churchill and Bush had different types of wars to wage. My point is that the WoT requires all kinds of clandestine cooperation between governments of all kinds. The more goodwill there is toward the US, the more those efforts will be possible. The more goodwill there is among the people of other nations toward the US, the less likely it is anti-Americanism in the form of Islamist radicals will find refuge there.
To argue that popularity is unimportant is to suggest we can patch together whatever coalition we need on the fly for this or that effort or go it alone if we have to as long as we need to. Iraq stands as strong eveidence against that belief.
Thanks Edward for the reply.
Popularity with our allies is blown out of proportion, respected and feared are much better metrics on the geopolitical playing field.
Thanks Edward for the reply.
Popularity with our allies is blown out of proportion, respected and feared are much better metrics on the geopolitical playing field.
And since we didn’t go into Iraq alone, Edward what are you talking about.
respected and feared are much better metrics on the geopolitical playing field.
I wonder though, if in this new kind of war, that still applies?
I mean, in wars between states that makes sense. Between states and these ambigiously defined transnational groups that infiltrate the state they’re fighting, I’m not so sure.
You end up needing everyone everywhere to fear you.
Hmmm…maybe that explains a lot…
Before 9-11 Islamist radicals found refuge throughout Europe. I believe that says more about Europeans than Americans.
In any event using the Edward scenario, our popularity in Pakistan has skyrocketed given recent events regarding terrorism. But maybe it is some other factor, which is driving this effort.
My point is that the WoT requires all kinds of clandestine cooperation between governments of all kinds.
And this clandestine cooperation…how do you know it’s not taking place, again?
I wonder though, if in this new kind of war, that still applies?
See Pakistan and come to your own conclusion.
And since we didn’t go into Iraq alone, Edward what are you talking about.
Legitimacy and credibility mostly. I have come to believe that French troops, per se, would not have made that big a difference (more troops might have made security better in the early months, but that’s water under the bridge), but there remains the problem of the US’s credibility if we have to do it again (invade a country). With Russia, Germany and France disagreeing that there was enough threat to warrant an invasion, and then getting in there and finding there was virtually no threat at all, it looks as if the US had other reasons for invading. If Russia, Germany, and France had signed on (even without troops) that credibilty gap would not be so great.
In the end agreement among the world’s strongest nations helps bestow legitimacy and credibility. Without it, you’d better damn well hope you find some WMD.
And Timmy and Slarti: the tag-team attack approach is entertaining, but keep it friendly please.
And this clandestine cooperation…how do you know it’s not taking place, again?
Because I actually work for the CIA. ;p
How is one supposed to respond to such stuff?
Edward, I always keep it friendly and when I become unfriendly I step away.
Just one question, did France, Germany or Russia have the opinion that Iraq had no WMD or that Iraq was not a threat (Putin advised the US, that Iraq had plans to attack the US).
How is one supposed to respond to such stuff?
You’re beginning to see the problem, I think. How is one supposed to respond to assertions that clandestine cooperation is NOT taking place?
France, Germany or Russia have the opinion that Iraq had no WMD or that Iraq was not a threat
One must assume they felt there was not significant enough a threat to support an invasion.
(Putin advised the US, that Iraq had plans to attack the US).
With all due respect, I’m sure Putin has “plans” to attack the US, like we have “plans” to attack Russia. Isn’t this what Departments of Defense do?
How is one supposed to respond to assertions that clandestine cooperation is NOT taking place?
Well, start by reading what was actually written:
I didn’t write that it isn’t take place on some levels. I wrote that to do it requires that there be goodwill toward the US. If you’re arguing that we don’t need that goodwill in order to carry out the clandestine cooperation say so and we can debate that, but don’t make arguments about things I didn’t write.
The difference still technically at war with Iraq, compared to working with the Russians.
Fair enough, Edward.
I can’t speak for everyone, but I suspect you dramatically overplay how much goodwill is needed and dramatically underplay how strategic interest (as sometimes manifested by fear of the US retaliating economically and other times as manifested by fear of terrorists blowing things up) plays a role.
This however is a great issue:
Do you accept that it applies with states? Because probably the best way to analyze that question is to explain why it applies to states and then try to see if the same issues apply. My initial view is that states are still a huge component of how you fight terrorist–states like Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia could withdraw their varying levels of support and make a huge difference. The ‘fear’ we are talking about can certainly apply to them. But that is just a cursory look.