When the Commissar states that one of the wars going on right now is the one “between our inner Thomas Jefferson and our inner Phil Sheridan“, he is being entirely correct.
When Donald Sensing warns about the consequences of making this war personal, he is being entirely correct.
And when Wretchard declares himself to be afraid what of what comes next*… a merciful God willing, we will not have to determine whether or not he is entirely correct as well.
Moe
UPDATE: Jeebus, you know that it’s been a bad week when Lileks is being grim:
The West doesn’t have the power to change Islam; it only has the power to destroy it. We have a lot of nukes. We could kill everyone. We could just take out a few troublesome nations, kill millions, and irradiate Mecca so that the Fifth Pillar is invalidated. The hajj would be impossible. Every pilgrim a martyr. I don’t think we’ll do either; God help us if we do, but inasmuch as we have the capability, it’s an option. But it would be a crime greater than the crime that provoked such an act, and in the end that would stay our hand. They know we won’t do it.
Strong horse, weak horse.
There is another path, of course. Simply put: if a US city is nuked, the US will have to nuke someone, or let it stand that the United States can lose a city without cost to the other side. Defining “the other side” would be difficult, of course – do you erase Tehran to punish the mullahs? Make a crater out of Riyahd? These are exactly the sort of decisions we never want to make. But let’s say it happens. Baltimore: fire and wind. Gone. That horrible day would clarify things once and for all. It’s one thing for someone in a distant city to cheer the fall of two skyscrapers: from a distance, it looks like a bloody nose. But erasing a city is a different matter.
Everyone will have to choose sides. That would be one possible beginning of the end of this war.
*Permalink bloggered; it’d be this (10:01 AM post)
That’s a beautiful bit of writing Sensing does there, and he had me all the way up to
They made it personal? We invaded them. Regardless of what horrible shits for humans they may have been before we invaded, WE made it personal with the very first bomb we rained down on their heads. Regardless of whether we saw it as only sport or business, they had charred bodies to bury before we got anywhere near Baghdad.
What the f***? The insurgents? Don’t these people read what the marines on the ground are saying? They respect the Faloojeh guys, and can imagine doing the same thing in their shoes. Despite the desire of tacitus and others to put them in the same boat, it’s not constructive to put Al Qaeda and even Al Sadr in the same context.
I mean, what if our enemies took our measure by the rantings of Ann Coulter? They’d have decided that the only hope is a preemptive attack, before we bomb the shit out of Mecca, Islamabad, and Tehran.
Anyway, it appears that most of the warmongers have pretty well defeated their inner Jeffersons, much to the dismay of the rest of the country, much less the world.
I would like to add: this war on terror stuff makes me think of nothing so much as World War I–as Wretchard reminds us so eloquently.
The leadup to WWI had terrorist acts by anarchists around Europe and the US. This raised the temperature, in the way that the Commisar describes. And, indeed, from the less thoughtful among us on right and left, we hear suggestions that maybe what we need is another Dresden to bomb the bastards into submission.
Of course, nobody was bombed into submission in Dresden. Just a whole lot of townfolk got killed, and a whole lot of history and property was destroyed.
I see on various group chatrooms, people sitting around saying “indeed” to each other, and adding one more straw to their bridge of logic. It happens in Tacitus’ comments. It happens on freep, in spades.
It also happens at Kos, in different directions. The term is incestuous amplification, and it is the death of reason and the mother of defeat.
Time for reason, folks.
There are almost never only two choices in life. We don’t need to choose Jefferson or Sheridan. This is a false choice.
Leadership, rules/regulation and command authority is what prevents war from becoming so personal that our values and humanity disappear.
Wretchard is a special “case”.
Wretchard doesn’t appear to know facts from suppositions, conclusions, and opinions.
These are wretchard’s “facts”.
– “This is what comes of not sticking to facts and they are these.”
– “The enemy has attacked America on its own soil and therefore must be defeated utterly.”
Mostly non-fact: If the enemy is international terrorism (al Queda and affiliates), this is true. Is has NOT been shown that al Queda operated from Iraq against the US either before or after the US invasion. Surely the Iraqi people are not the enemy. We are there to ‘liberate’ them, aren’t we? Iraqi insurgents that use force against us are the principal enemy in Iraq. Utter defeat of these insurgents is not the only option available.
– “Members of the US military have committed a court-martial offense and therefore they must be punished severely.”
A fact, although their civilian superiors in the Pentagon may very likely have created the environment for this abuse by ‘interpreting’ the requirements of the Geneva Conventions, which are US law, since they are ratified treaties which are the equal of the Constitution.
– “Any withdrawal from Iraq will not bring safety from enemy action inasmuch as they attacked Manhattan and Washington DC nearly two years before OIF.”
This is opinion opposed to fact: Since there appear to be mostly indigenous forces oppposing us in Iraq, not al Queda, our withdrawal or not is largely unrelated to whether we will be safer or not. Only if Iraq becomes a Taliban-like haven for terrorists would Iraq pose a real threat.
There is NO evidence that the indigenous fighters against us have plans to attack NY or DC. No al Queda fighters have been captured and displayed in Iraq to sustain any claims of there involvement (although there are undoubtedly some there). Their main motive seems to be removing the US forces from Iraq or their locality.
– “Any withdrawal from Iraq without first setting up a stable and responsible government there would result in a bloodbath beside which the massacre of the Shi’ites and the gassing of the Kurds by Saddam would be a pale moonlit shadow.”
This is not-fact-based opinion: Civil unrest or war could follow a quick unilateral US withdrawal. There is actually some evidence our presence is uniting the various sectors of Iraqi society, against the US presence.
– “Therefore we must persist until victory.”
This is only conclusion not based on facts.
– “And the final fact is this. The only exit from war’s inhumanity is through the doorway of victory.”
This is pure conclusory opinion or halucination. If this was true, the world would be in continued warfare. This is “we must destroy the village to save it” thinking at its worse.
Moe appears to hope we won’t have to face Wretchard’s outcome. Wretchard’s outcome is not based on facts, shows only polar choices, and is simplistic thinking and over-generalization at its worst.
Ignore and condemn Wretchard’s kind of ‘analysis’, for it is, at best, knee-jerk reaction.
Want some real analysis of Iraq and the middle east’s prospects, and a way forward?
Consider this from Gen. Wes Clark:
Washington Monthly
“Broken Engagement: The strategy that won the Cold War could help bring democracy to the Middle East– if only the Bush hawks understood it.”
I wish Mr. Clark would have opined on where he feels the ME is on the path, 1950 or 1987….
” But let’s say it happens. Baltimore: fire and wind. Gone. That horrible day would clarify things once and for all. It’s one thing for someone in a distant city to cheer the fall of two skyscrapers: from a distance, it looks like a bloody nose. But erasing a city is a different matter.
Everyone will have to choose sides. That would be one possible beginning of the end of this war.”
So we’ve reached the point where the reality has become so intractable and morally clouded that some of us have started fantasizing about the simplicity and moral clarity of acts of total annihilation.
The hawks better start coming to grips with the fact that the real world and the people in it are infinitely complex and no amount of dubya folksy dualism is going to make things black and white.
If they nuke us, it’s going to very hard for us to determine where it’s from. The MOST likely explanation will be that it was stolen, from Russia or Pakistan, without the leader of that country’s consent. (If Musharraf falls, it’s a different story, and North Korea is also a possible source.) If no state was involved in supplying the weapon or sheltering the perpetrators–and this is a real possibility, for all the administration likes to focus on states because that’s where the “good targets” are–I don’t see much purpose there is in killing hundreds of thousands of civilians because their government is the current top of our s***list. Not to mention, taking out one city would not be enough, assuming we were even trying to go after someone who could have sent a nuclear weapon–because if we did not destroy all of their nuclear weapons, they would certainly retaliate. Which I guess is the point at which missile defense becomes useful–it allows you to nuke countries and convince yourself, truly or not, that they won’t hit back.
Of course, if the nuclear weapon was stolen against a country’s will, we’d still have the possibility that another could be stolen. Nuking Tehran or Riyadh actually wouldn’t do a damn thing about that.
In the Cold War, this apocapalyptic talk had a logic to it–a sick logic, but a logic nontheless. Mutually Assured Destruction worked, though we came frighteningly close to the brink.
But the people we’re dealing with ARE NOT DETERRABLE. The only way to stop them is to 1) kill them; 2) put nuclear weapons out of their reach. 2 is actually plausible, but we’re not doing it now. Pakistan and North Korea are knotty problems, but there’s a hell of lot we could do right now about private proliferation, Russia, HEU nuclear reactors. Ask Sam Nunn, Dick Lugar, Graham Allison or a number of other experts. But it doesn’t involve war, it doesn’t involve vast executive powers of any kind, and the administration seems simply uninterested. Instead they exploited the fears of nuclear attack to start a war with a country that wasn’t a serious nuclear threat (and this was known at the time), and destroy our credibility and our military ability to deal with the real threats in the process.
Oh, and we agreed not to interrogate that Pakistani science who was such a key in running the “nuclear Wal-Mart”. It was probably a deal we cut so we could find bin Laden. Even if it leads to us finding bin Laden, that is a bad bargain, and one I suspect was motivated by election year politics.
Yeah, and people like me are “unserious”. Christ.
Even though the terrorists may not be deterable, I believe the folks who might sell them the nukes are.
I’d support a doctrine of deterence that says if a nuke is exploded in the US that comes from your arsenal, we will retaliate by taking out your capital. No ifs, and, or butts about it. You don’t build nukes if you can’t protect or secure them. We’re not talking about rights or freedoms here. A higher degree of responsibility is called for with weapons of this power.
This may also serve to deter nations from trying to build them.
“So we’ve reached the point where the reality has become so intractable and morally clouded that some of us have started fantasizing about the simplicity and moral clarity of acts of total annihilation.”
That is in fact true – as of this moment, it’s a splinter of a splinter, thank God – but it is inaccurate to categorize Lileks as being one of those people.
Jim has Wes Clark ever visited Iran, given this statement:
Nor is the desire for Western culture anywhere near as pronounced in the Middle East as it was behind the Iron Curtain
Just asking
Wes is correct the Soviet Empire and the M.E. have little in common but then he comes to the conclusion they should be treated similarly (containment and engagement) on the geopolitical front.
Wes appears to have missed a good deal of recent Arab/Persian history, as fascist, theocratic and monoarchial (SP?) regimes have all failed over the last fifty years. So one finds a region engaged in a religious civil war where the region’s troubles have been blamed on the US and Israel (blame the Jews and their supporters, an age old solution to one’s problems) and general western decadence. The West’s collective responce has been one of silence.
In the Cold War (after the US invasion of Europe), the US provided security for Europe and with that burden carried by a third party, western Europe flourished. And the US in no small part provided the security on the cheap relying on a nuclear deterance as compared to large conventional forces (the Soviets in no small part needed the large conventional forces as an internal and external security force for their empire).
Thus one might look at Iraq as the opportunity to create a democratic state, insure its security and then move forward with a containment and engagement strategy. I often refer to this as leverage (just ask Von, we have discussed the issue in detail).
Thus, the fall of the Soviet Empire was in no small part determined by our commitment to a free and democratic Europe and without western Europe, we may have very well failed in undermining the Soviets. That is, containment and engagement may not be worthwhile if you don’t have a base in the region.
A free Iraqi Republic may prove equally vital, (the Iranians and Saudis apparently feel that way)in the long term stability of the M.E. And that is my understanding of the neocon position.
Now I wonder what Wes really believes.
I’d support a doctrine of deterence that says if a nuke is exploded in the US that comes from your arsenal, we will retaliate by taking out your capital.
What if it’s a stolen US warhead/bomb, Edward? Goodnight Washington? If you’re sticking to your principles, I mean.
I would suggest your advocated doctrine is a tad on the extraordinarily harsh side.
I can think of lots of other scenarios where it needs to be adapted/tweaked too James, but I think it’s a good place to start. But I don’t think it’s too harsh. I don’t think nations that aren’t willing to risk their own capitals have any business building nukes.
Edward, the Romans pursued a similar scenario it is where we get the term annihilate. By why limit it to just nuclear arms?
So far as I recall, the Romans only ever actually used nuclear weapons on Carthage, though (Third Carthaginian War – very short).
It just seems a bit unfair to people who live under stupid governments to make them and their children and so forth pay for their government’s stupidity.
James, annihilate (and I forget the Latin word) was a type (terms) of siege. Simply put at the end of the siege, there were no profits from the sale of slaves.
I’m all for finding ways to protect people from their government’s stupidity James. But unless you’ve got some despotic lunatic running the show, there will be generals and such advising against acquiring nuclear weapons until a iron-clad security system is in place (and by that, I mean one that is immune to regime change), which is next to impossible unless you’re a liberal democracy (and perhaps even then), so it would mean to tell nations, get your political situation in order before you venture down the nuclear highway or we’ll recalculate the paths of a few dozen missles to land on the steps of your version of the White House.
In reality, this would at least make sure that nations keep good track of their nukes and report any missing ones to the US as quickly as possible.
Edward–yeah, but 1) we may not know where it came from. As it stands now, we are not likely to know. 2) One of the likelier places for it to come from is Russia.
Now, if we say, you do A, B, C through Z to protect your arsenal; we’ll help give you the resources you need and buy stuff you can’t secure off you; but if you don’t cooperate and take precautions and we find out one of your nukes was used against us, God help you–then you might have something. But your policy is not enough. I mean, it’s already not in any state’s interest to allow Al Qaeda to get their hands on their nuclear weapons.
If we did this, most nuclear powers would probably cooperate and we could narrow down the range of likely suspects, which would in turn make the threat of retaliation more credible.
This should be our highest national security priority. Or at least co-equal. It’s a no brainer.
Thanks, Timmy – did know the word, actually (Classics degree from Cambridge University will do that for you…), but it’s good to have it spelled out here for those who didn’t.
To get all technical, it comes from ‘adnihilo’, I bring to nothing (nihil is ‘nothing’, obviously, hence nihilism).
I agree the plan needs more carrot and less stick Katherine, but what if you’re dealing with a NK type state that stubbornly refuses the offer to buy what it’s can’t secure? What leverage is there?
Also, I believe you can discover where the bomb comes from (at least that’s what Tom Clancy would have one believe).
“Also, I believe you can discover where the bomb comes from (at least that’s what Tom Clancy would have one believe).”
You can discover where the bomb comes from if you have good intelligence about their program. You can’t if you don’t: see Libya, see North Korea, possibly see Pakistan.
Lileks wasn’t talking about a fantasy, he was talking about a nightmare. But it is one that becomes more and more likely the longer we dither on the War on Terrorism. And his prediction about the American response is quite probably a good one EVEN IF KERRY WERE PRESIDENT.
“Buy what it can’t secure” isn’t even the issue with North Korea, which is super militarized and has a relatively small number of nuclear weapons. That seems like a more of a danger with Pakistan.
But yes, there is a chance North Korea or Pakistan will never cooperate at all. One expert has me half convinced that we need to threaten war and mean it if North Korea refuses to–verifiably and completely–stop their program (to go along with credibly promising not to go to war, and give some economic incentives, if they do stop.) And if I wouldn’t draw the line there I certainly would draw it at selling a nuclear weapons or materials to terrorists–which might mean seeing, “we’ll assume it was you unless you can prove to us it wasn’t.” But I’d like to have as much basis as possible for that assumption before we do. And I don’t know much Tom Clancy but it seems like we might only know by the process of elimination, in which case–yet another reason to start eliminating possibilities as countries secure their arsenals.
There are a bunch of different things we’re talking about at the same time:
1) Nuclear retaliation against a state that deliberately attacked us.
2) Nuclear retaliation that was responsible for attack on us because it recklessly failed to protect its aresenal.
3) Nuclear retaliation on some Islamic country because terrorists set off a nuclear weapon here and we don’t know what else to do.
4) Nuclear war to wipe the Islamic religion and those who practice it from the earth.
Of course the other variable is that there may be some degree of uncertainty about #1 or #2.
I don’t think there’s much debate about #1, as unthinkable and wrong as it is. #2 would depend a lot on circumstances–how negligent/uncooperative were they? And to what extent did we make it clear beforehand that that would be the consequence if their negligence allowed an attack? And if there’s any reasonable doubt about where it came from, it seems untenable. And if it’s Russia, we’re talking about Armageddon. But there are circumstances under which I would accept #2.
#3 is #4 are not acceptable to me. They are immoral and irrational. #4 would make us responsible for the worst genocide in the history of the world, and of course we’d also have deport or kill plenty of Muslims from the West, including citizens, and God knows how Europe and Russia would react but they would not react well. So I’d hope that one is off the table.
I’ve heard #4, but not from many people and I don’t know if they meant it. I don’t think we would do that. The one that seems like it’s both within the realm of possibility, and so unacceptable to me that I don’t know if I could live here anymore, is #3. That’s the one Lileks sounds like he’s talking about.
And rather than toss around these scenarios, I would rather we take sensible precautions well within our reach now. “We must try to be neither victims nor executioners”, and all that.