Asymmetrical Information

I've been thinking about this as well, and while I haven't come any un-swayable conclusions, I am leaning more towards the idea that, yes, we would. We would nuke Iraq if we had at least persuasive evidence that they did it. My feeling is that to NOT nuke Iraq, to debate, and wring hands, and weep, would signal weakness and give fresh fuel to the extreme Islam movement. No, I think a nuking of an American city would incur terrible and swift retribution maybe 10 times worse than what was inflicted. Lileks says MAD worked during the Cold War, but this is a hot war. Yes, but it's a hot war not against a massive empire armed to the teeth with nukes, but against bands of ruthless and often irrational individuals perhaps backed by the money and weapons of much smaller rogue states. The message would have to be: You grievously wounded us, yes. You murdered a city, yes. But your entire country will die. We have already signaled that we would use nukes in retaliation for a nuclear, biological or chemical attack. We've even hinted we think we could use nukes pre-emptively. The idea is deterrence. Saddam would have to know that if he is linked in any way to the nuking of a U.S. city, Iraq is a glass parking lot. The U.N. will cease to matter. U.S. troops might aim to occupy much of the Middle East. I do not think this is a *good* thing, as in an optimal outcome, and it would profoundly change or even splinter American society. I just think it is likely, and, as I said at the start, I haven't fully convinced myself that is what would happen.

I don't think this administration would use nuclear weapons absent strong proof. It's not in this George Bush's nature to do something like that.

Critics will laugh at that, but then, they have an irrational hatred for the guy.

Ha ha ha ha.

What a stupid question. If there was a mushroom cloud in the United States, we would nuke NORTH KOREA not IRAQ (or at least we should) because Iraq, unlike North Korea, has no nuclear weapons, and Iraq, unlike North Korea, has no delivery capacity that can reach American soil.

Which is why Iraq is not a threat to American national security, and North Korea is.

And don't give me that "terrorism link" bs. What proof? Terrorists will buy fissile material on the black market--from North Korea, from Pakistan, from Iran, from Russia.

This is not irrational hatred. This is outrage at public displays of stupidity taken in my name.

It would all depend on the certitude of the evidence. If it could be determined by a large margin of evidence that Iraq was the source, the response would be annihilative. However, popular fiction to the contrary, determining the source of the nuclear device might prove very difficult, which also opens up the unpleasant possibility(understatement intended) that an actor could explode a device with the hope of framing yet another actor, and thus achieve that other actor's destruction by proxy. The nasty possibilities are legion once nuclear proliferation becomes widespread. When I am feeling pessimistic, I tend to believe that there is a better than 70% chance that an American city will be at least be partially vaporized in the next 20 years.

Actually, North Korea can't lob a nuke at us either. At the present time it has no missiles capable of it. (Yes, I know about the alleged new one.)

I think it's far more likely that Islamic terrorists would get their nukes from Iraq (if it had them) than NK because Saddam has ambitions shared by those terrorists, and because he can cut them a better deal. The North Koreans desperately need the cash; Saddam's not that hard up.

So you're saying, thumper, that if an American city gets nuked, we could only look among those countries which we know to have the capabilities, and the motive.

In other words, nuke France.

Lileks raises some interesting points, and it's worth thinking about. But he has made a very wrong unstated assumption: that by attacking Iraq, the US can prevent nuclear proliferation.

No, we can't. In fact, by attacking Iraq we promote proliferation, and speed it up. The current administration with its "axis of evil" manichean ideology, and its willingness to engage in unprovoked "preemptive" war, is serving clear notice to every country in the world: get nukes, or let the US push you around.

Knocking over Iraq will prevent that particular country from going nuclear soon, true. But it will not prevent Iran, or Bangladesh, nor Indonesia, just to name a few. It has not prevented Pakistan nor North Korea. And the precedent we set will not go away. North Korea got the bomb even before we had made it US policy to attack without provocation.

So the question is not, how do we stop proliferation? We can't. We can only speed it up or slow it down. And we should be thinking about how to deal with a world in which terrorists get a handful of nuclear devices.

It is in our interest to slow proliferation as much as possible. Peace is in our interest not war.

It is also in the US interest to be at peace with the world when terrorists do get a bomb. I'd much rather them use it on Riyahd then New York.

Attempting to be world hegemon is not in the US interest. Let the world get a different policeman - or none at all.

However, popular fiction to the contrary, determining the source of the nuclear device might prove very difficult, which also opens up the unpleasant possibility(understatement intended) that an actor could explode a device with the hope of framing yet another actor, and thus achieve that other actor's destruction by proxy.

I think "invade everybody" would be the US reaction in that case.

Leonard: That was a very thoughtful post. I disagree, but I can clearly see your reasons for holding your position. Unlike most on your side of the debate, you have made a valuable contribution to the argument.

Thank you.

Thumper, one does not need anything more sophisticated than a shipping container to deliver a nuclear device to American soil. It is likely that Saddam Hussein can obtain these. It is unlikely that he has fissile material at this time; all the better to hang him from a meat-hook before he does. Even if one wishes to make the assumption (foolishly) that Hussein would never surreptitiously deploy such a device, having a character such as Hussein control a large percentage of the world's energy supplies, via nuclear blackmail, would be an utter disaster for everyone on the globe, right down to people living in huts in Africa, or slums in South America. Thus, it is better that Hussein be dead rather than alive, and the status quo of the entire Middle East be destroyed. Arab or Islamic fascism can no longer be tolerated by the rest of the world, assuming the rest of the world wishes to avoid crushing poverty that would make today's problems seem minor. Just as German fascists needed to be hung by the neck 60 years ago, Arab and Islamic fascists need to be similarly treated.
The status quo, or even a slow change in the staus quo, guarantees disaster.

As to North Korea, the principle danger lies in it's ability to rapidly manufacture fissile material, and sell it to whatever actors that have available funds. Thus, the Clinton Administration's stop-gap measure of paying extortion to the Stalinists of North Korea was bound to fail eventually; extortionists have the nasty, inevitable, habit of not staying bribed. Eventually, they always want more, and the price either becomes unpayable, or the extortionist follows through on his threat anyway, because he decides it can be done without undue cost, and it is in his interest to do so. The United States relationship with N. Korea since 1994 has resembled that of restaurant owner's relationship with the Gambino family. Extortion has been paid for years now, but now the mafiosos have decided to torch the building anyhow, since there is money to be made by doing so. A nasty problem, and the best possible means of solving it are to get other business owners in the neighborhood, like S. Korea, Japan, and most importantly, China, to understand that the extortionists can no longer be tolerated. Several strategies may ensue, but none of them guarantee success. We will see, as unpleasant as adopting that attitude is.

Leonard,

Excellent point regarding the inevitability of nuclear proliferation.

All we can do is try to influence world events and other nations so that when nations do develop nuclear capabilities, their leaders are rational (one might say sane) enough to only consider using them as a last, last line of defense (and never offensively) and would not conceive of selling them to terrorist groups.

If all the world's nuclear players could reach the point of maturity of the U.S., or hell even France, then deterrence and MAD could work again as global frameworks. Quite a dream, but it's good to hope, right?

But make no mistake, the U.S. would retaliate. The people would demand that such an attack against the U.S. was returned in such favor that another one would be forever dissuaded. Probably a month or so later, much like we did against the Taliban post-9/11.

Leonard,

Excellent point regarding the inevitability of nuclear proliferation.

All we can do is try to influence world events and other nations so that when nations do develop nuclear capabilities, their leaders are rational (one might say sane) enough to only consider using them as a last, last line of defense (and never offensively) and would not conceive of selling them to terrorist groups.

If all the world's nuclear players could reach the point of maturity of the U.S., or hell even France, then deterrence and MAD could work again as global frameworks. Quite a dream, but it's good to hope, right?

But make no mistake, the U.S. would retaliate. The people would demand that such an attack against the U.S. was returned in such favor that another one would be forever dissuaded. Probably a month or so later, much like we did against the Taliban post-9/11.

I think Lileks is right, though, that the US would not nuke a city in cold blood. This does not show weakness, but moral strength. Killing a hundred thousand innocent people is simply wrong, and Americans know right from wrong when it is writ large enough.

But I strongly disagree with Lileks' notion that if Baltimore was nuked, and there was proof that Iraq was behind it, that the US would just sit on its hands.

No, Iraq would be taken out. We would notify them that any second bomb, either here or against our troops that were massing, would be retaliated against in kind. Civvies for civvies, military for military. Then we would go in and remove the Iraqi regime.

See, Iraq - or Iran, or most other rinkydink third world countries - are not the Soviet Union. We could not have beaten the USSR in a conventional war, at least not without years to nationalize the US economy and produce enough stuff to whip them. But we can easily threaten to take out any country other than China right now, conventionally. And that makes a big difference. We don't need nukes to hold a trump over dictators. We have the trump, now.

Of course, we don't want to allow other countries to have any trumps at all. We want to be able to push people around like we did to the Taliban: you lose, we win, and we take essentially no casualties. But this will not last. Enemies will get nukes; we simply cannot stop it. Future wars may be very expensive.

We can police the world, now, or in the future. The question is only one of the cost. I propose to go cheap: peace now, war only if attacked. The warmonger/hegemonist approach is, IMO, to go expensive. We only have so many Baltimores, and lives are precious. But either way, we can, and will, remove any state that mass-murders Americans. The big ones which we cannot realistically threaten conventionally, we can use MAD on. All the smaller ones we can use the big stick.

Now, what to do when there is no state to attack, or even no known culprit behind an attack - that's a problem. And that's another reason that peace is superior. People hate being pushed around. Hegemonists draw fire. Peaceful traders don't.

In the long run, nuclear weapons will be within the grasp of even small countries, midsize corporations, or large individual fortunes. Think on that.

Leonard,

>>Hegemonists draw fire. Peaceful traders don't.

May I remind you that America was engaged in the act of being "peaceful traders" when we were attacked on September 11?

We are the most powerful economy on earth. We have global interests and a presence of some kind in every area of the globe. Even if we withdrew every single soldier to the boundaries of the U.S., there are still going to be those who are offended in some way by our economic presence.

We are a big target, no matter what we do.

This is too easy.

"one does not need anything more sophisticated than a shipping container to deliver a nuclear device to American soil. It is likely that Saddam Hussein can obtain these."

Wait one second! Saddam Hussein has access to SHIPPING CONTAINERS?!? Holy SH*T!!!

"It is unlikely that he has fissile material at this time."

Slight understatement. He does not have fissile material at this time. He does not even have the capacity to generate fissile material, given what happened to the Osirak. The only way he has fissile material is if he BOUGHT IT OFF THE BLACK MARKET, but that of course, means that Al Qaeda can buy it off the black market, which means that Iraq isn't the problem.

"all the better to hang him from a meat-hook before he does."

Look, if the angry right wants to kill Saddam, I suggest they "privatize" this mission and do it with Richard Mellon Scaife money and they're own soldiers. Stop using my taxpayer dollars to do it. I don't support this war. It's not in America's interests given the costs (destruction of collective security, stain of war of aggression, costs of rebuilding, loss of prestige, $$$, American and Iraqi lives, terrorism, spread of proliferation, etc.)

"Even if one wishes to make the assumption (foolishly) that Hussein would never surreptitiously deploy such a device, having a character such as Hussein control a large percentage of the world's energy supplies, via nuclear blackmail, would be an utter disaster for everyone on the globe, right down to people living in huts in Africa, or slums in South America."

Calm down idiot. He has no nukes. Even if he did, which he can't while he is in a box, Iraq is not sitting on a "large percentage" of the world's energy supplies. And he hasn't committed nuclear blackmail yet--if he did, I'm all for taking him out. Why assume that he would--where are you drawing that assumption from?

"Arab or Islamic fascism can no longer be tolerated by the rest of the world..."

What, so we should attack Saudi Arabia or Iran? Is there a distinction between "Arab" and "Islamic" fascism to you, and is it the fact that it's "Fascism" or "Islamic Fascism" that's so offensive to you? And are you suggesting the reason we topple Saddam is to rebuild the Middle East as a democratic utopia, the new Europe? Are you so naive as to think we're going to have a new Marshall Plan for the Middle East? And that they're going to love us for it?

You are smoking CRACK COCAINE my friend.

"The status quo, or even a slow change in the staus quo, guarantees disaster."

I COMPLETELY AGREE!!! Impeach Bush!

To believe that Hussein's Iraq having nuclear weapons has the same strategic import as, say, Malaysia, is to ignore geography. Having said that, I think Leonard's points regarding the cost of being perceived as a global hegemon have some worth. Thr problem lies in that adopting a single tactic, whether it be strongly interventionist, or entirely non-interventionist, regardless of underlying conditions, ignores the reality that different situations require different responses. There are entities that believe our trading activities warrant a violent response, so to believe that restricting our actions to trade will guarantee peace is seriously misguided.

"To believe that Hussein's Iraq having nuclear weapons has the same strategic import as, say, Malaysia, is to ignore geography."

Spoken by a man who obviously has never heard of the Straits of Malacca.

Why are you posting this mindless crap, Thumper? Are you stuck at home with time on your hands because you missed the special bus?

So the Straits of Malacca have more strategic importance than the Persian Gulf, and Malaysia is actively destabilizing the region?

*sigh* looks like Lileks watched Sum of All Fears last night.

We might not nuke Baghdad if that scenario happens, but I'd bet that within 72 hours of solid proof of Iraq being behind the nuking of an American city (enough time to tell the major nuclear powers what we were doing and why), every major Iraqi military installation would be hit with nukes, followed by a demand for unconditional surrender of Saddam and his high command. It would probably be an attention grabber.

Well, there's precedent: We nuked Japan twice, and they hadn't nuked us even once, one might remember.

If we get really mad and engaged -- and getting nuked, one would suspect, would make us even madder and more engaged than we were after Pearl Harbor -- we'll do exactly *whatever* we think we need to do as a matter of expediency, both to those who did the deed to us and to their "enablers". And "expediency" might well include setting a warning example to all others who might think of repeating such a dastardly deed. Think of what Rome did to Carthage.

Remember, history shows nobody gets as mean and vengeful as a democracy that is really and truly angry and engaged -- think Tokyo firebombings, Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, all the way back to the Roman Republic and the Greeks.

Lileks' opinion that *after* an American city got nuked the US would go back to ask the UN for *permission* to respond is laugh-out-loud funny. And his idea that if we did go to the UN, our requests would draw an "automatic veto" is the funniest thing I've heard all month. ;-)

Look -- nobody's ever seen a really, really *angry* world *hyperpower*. And after a US city got nuked, the "enablers" of that nuking, like France (which would then be in a position of not only having blocked the US from taking out Iraq's nuke capacity preemtively, but also of having actually helped the Iraqi nuke program before the Israelis blew it up the first time) would be lining up to salute the US flag so quickly that it wouldn't be funny even to, well, the world's most vehement weasel hunters.

Now, I'm not saying we'd go nuking Baghdad and other civilian population centers like we did in WWII (no matter how much Paris deserves it)-- but only because in today's world we probably wouldn't consider that expedient, while in WWII we thought it was.

Remember, though, today we have a considerable arsenal of "bunker busters" and other tactical nukes for specific targets and purposes, and you can bet your derrière those would be flying by the dozen as soon as we thought they should be. (Lileks' idea that the modern nukes' job would be to hit civilian centers indicates a serious lack of information and/or imagination on his part.)

Hell, we *told* the Iraqis in *1991* that we'd nuke them if they used chemical weapons in that war -- so we wouldn't use them today if they actually nuked a US city?? C'mon.

And as to the idea that the US would ask anyone for *permission* to respond to a nuclear attack ... get real.

As for Lileks' ...
"The voices that insisted 'It’s Clobbering Time' would be outnumbered 100 to 1 by those demanding impeachment"

Well, how many calls were there for impeaching FDR and Truman after Tokyo and Nagasaki? Do historians today say FDR and Truman should have been impeached? And no city in the US 48 states was even *touched* in that war.

Moreover, Lileks' claim that the use of overwhelming retaliatory force makes no sense except in a cold war context is ridiculous too. The use is *entirely* logical by a major power facing a multitude of threats from small ones, and has in fact been practiced by such great powers all throughout history.

E.g, the Romans didn't go to such *extraordinary* lengths to catch every one of those Jewish rebels on top of Massada because they gave a rat's tail about a handful of religious fanatics stuck atop a mountain in the middle of a desert in a backwater of the world. The Romans did it because, contrary to popular myth, they had only a very small army in that era (the Emperor didn't want any army-general rivals) most of which was tied up in Germany, and which couldn't deal with several revolts around the Empire at once. So at Massada they sent a very clear message to the Parthians and Celts and whomever else might be considering holding a revolt *next*. As Peter O'Toole's Roman general eloquently explained to the rebel leader in the TV movie: "Negotiate with us now, because if you make us actually come all the way down here to fight you, you won't be able to negotiate with us then, because it won't be about you any more.")

This approach makes perfect strategic sense for the big power facing threats from the small and many. OTOH, political correctness and delicate sensitivity on the part of a big power to the opinions of the small and many is a very recent luxury innovation, unique to our own time in fact, that will dissolve quickly under a mushroom cloud over a US city, as the world will very quickly see should that ever happen.

I think the real question is whether we would use nukes against Iraq in response to a massive chemical or biological attack. TNR has a piece suggesting that some in the Bush administration consider tactical nukes to be just really, really powerful conventional weapons. I wouldn't put it past the neo-cons, who worship power, to leave parts of Iraq uninhabitable just so they can "teach a lesson."

Thumper, resorting to childish ad hominem name-calling is indicative of mind that is not worth interacting with. On the off-chance that your emotional development is beyond that of a seven-year old, I'll chance wasting some bandwidth with a response.

I mentioned the shipping container only because you seemed to foolishly imply that a inter-continental ballistic missile was the only means of deploying a nuclear device against the U.S. from the Eastern Hemisphere. If the foolish implication is withdrawn, I withdraw my remarks.

I agree that Al Queda can also acquire fissile material; all the better to kill them as well. Hussein, of course, controls a large swath of territory, and the current inspections and sanctions regime will inevitably erode with time (is it really needed to provide the citations in the recent past showing that France, Russia, and others were recently calling for the end of sanctions?), providing someone with such control the opportunity to enrich some uranium, if nothing else. If you haven't figured it out, once an actor has obtained nuclear capability, then removing that actor becomes a far more difficult proposition, particualrly if that actor has mineral wealth that he can use to stave off the effects of being ostracized economically. The one thing the U.S. has in its advantage in dealing with the North Korean mess is North Korea's utter poverty, thus providing an opportunity to implement a strategy that entails outlasting that regime, until it finally implodes. A nuclear rogue sitting upon a gigantic pool of fungible oil is largely immune to such a strategy, particualrly if that regime has no concern about the conditions that it's slaves/subjects are exposed to.

As to Iraq's geopolitical importance, and their proximity to a very large percentage of the world's enrgy supplies, you may wish to look at an atlas. Or is it your position that an Iraq with nuclear weapons would have no effect on the House of Saud, Kuwait, and other oil-producing States, or that Iraq with nuclear weapons would not have greater opportunity to invade such states outright? If Iraq had nuclear weapons in 1991, it is extremely doubtful that they would have been evicted from Kuwait. The problem with a Hussein having such influence is that he really has no qualms about starving his population, and thus is not under nearly as much pressure as other actors in the region to sell oil to keep his population satisfied. He only needs to sell enough to keep his palaces stocked, and his military happy. If you are comfortable with an actor like Hussein having that much influence over a resource that is crucial to the entire globe's economic well-being, well, I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion.

My remarks about Arab and Islamic fascism being intolerable to the rest of the world is due to the fact that these fascists, be they Persian, Arab, Islamic, or secular, sit upon a resource that the world depends on for economic well being. If Iceland was controlled by fascists it would be of little import. If Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Iran are controlled by fascists, it has great import, for it puts the entire globe in danger, by their control of a vital resource, and the wealth that vital resource provides to the fascists, which they can use to slaughter others. Will Saudi Arabia and Iran have to be attacked? Hopefully, no. Iran has a substanial portion of it's population that is substantially pro-Western, and entirely disgusted with the rule of the Mullahs. The House of Saud's days are numbered, but it is unlikely an invasion will be needed. Will perfect democracies spring forth? No, but there is a lot of room between a perfect democracy and the outright fascism that dominates the region today, and to tolerate those fascists today guarantees much worse realities tomorrow.

Finally, you are not required to support this war. If you wish to prevent it, it is incumbent upon you to have sufficient numbers of people elected to Congress that share your view. They would have the wherewithal to defund the entire project. Congress did grant some degree of authority, however, and there have been subsequent Congressional elections. Your view did not prevail. More often than not, people with whom I disagree are elected (no, I am not on the "right" whatever that term means), and do things that I would prefer that they would refrain from. That's life in a republic. Grow up.

Jim, you are correct that the Ameican polity, completely enraged by a nuclear attack, and with some confidence as to whom the attack came from, would demand a response that would make Dresden, Hamburg, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki pale in comparison. Hell, if the Security Counsel tried to prevent such a response, they might be handcuffed, put on a boat, and floated over to Riker's Island.

Actually, Thumper, I've sailed through the straits of Malacca. Now, while having a rogue nuclear power dominate that waterway would be major pain in the ass, it wouldn't be the global economic disaster that would ensue from having a rogue nuclear power dominate the oil of the Persian Gulf.

Brian: the US supports most of the regimes in the Middle East. "Support"? Military presence; military aid; economic aid. Which regimes? Well, all of them, really, save Iran and Syria. We have interfered in the internal business of all of them.

Remember the Shah? We put him there. That's why the Iranian revolution turned against America. It wasn't because of Aerosmith or pet rocks. It was because of the broken bones, the bodies, the climate of fear. "Tens of thousands of dissidents were tortured and murdered by his dreaded SAVAK secret police, organized and trained by the United States." You murder someone's father, sometimes they remember it. Usually not with love.

Remember the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan? The ones that we paid to train? To supply? The ones that flew jets into the WTC? Ah, but I am unfair. We did not predict that. No, we didn't. Perhaps we could learn, though.

Remember that guy we supported in Iraq, the one we gave chemical and biological weapons to? What was his name? Recall how much he is loved by his adoring subjects? Oh, yes. We're now their enemy. The people will, no question, welcome us as liberators. And they will expect us to rebuild them better than they were: the bionic nation of Iraq. We won't; we can't. Within 5 years, a new dictator will take control and the people will grow to hate him. We will be blamed.

The same thing applies today. Saudi Arabia are our friends. We support them. The population increasingly hates the regime, for failing to give them decent jobs, liberty, anything. Fair or not, we get associated with that. Meanwhile, we continue to station troops in Arabia. This offends Muslims. Which I think is silly, but then I am not a Muslim.

Warmongers in this country carry on as if there is no history of the middle east before 9/11, or at furthest the Gulf War. No, sorry, the US has been all over the Middle East from WWII onwards, intervening in ways that we should not have. Intervening in ways which, if we didn't then know were foolish, at least we should have known were wrong.

A listing of interventions:
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0210-07.htm

Quoting Pat Buchanan: they're over here because we're over there.

We look to continue our side of that bargain. I think it is foolish. You are quite correct, in that America is not going to retire from the globe economically. You suggest that peaceful trading won't work; but you cannot know that, since it has never been tried.

I believe that it is not our culture, our freedom, even our wealth that people hate. It's our official support for their evil and corrupt tormentors; and it's our rank hypocricy in simultaneously propagandizing the world about the benefits of freedom and democracy. If we stop supporting their oppressive masters, Arabs will cease to see us as enemies. We would, in time, revert to being seen as we should be: a shining city on a hill; an example for others to follow. When revolutions happen (and they certainly will in the hellholes of the middle east) the people should be thinking of us as something to emulate, not a yoke to throw off.

Jane and Will:

Half of the world's shipping trade passes through Southeast Asian Sea Lines of Communication, or SLOCs, and a serious blockage could cause a world-wide shipping shortage, collapsing the region's economies and devastating U.S. imports and exports. That is why protecting the SLOCs such as the Straits of Malacca is a vital U.S national interest.

http://www.ndu.edu/inss/strforum/forum98.html

Now, is Malaysia threatening the SLOCs? No.

Is Iraq threatening the Persian Gulf? Also--No.

Does Malaysia have Nukes? No

Does Iraq have Nukes? You fill in the blank.

(I know your answer to this: Iraq wants nukes, Malaysia doesn't. However, the only scenario where Iraq gets nukes and is able to deploy them is the one where the world loses the will to continue isolation, containment, and intrusive inspection. That is why the French and German alternative is not surrender--it says continue the inspections regime, institutionalize it, make it permanent).

I just want to respond to this ridiculously asinine comment by Will:

"Thumper, resorting to childish ad hominem name-calling is indicative of mind that is not worth interacting with. On the off-chance that your emotional development is beyond that of a seven-year old, I'll chance wasting some bandwidth with a response."

Way to be a sniveling crybaby and a hypocrite within the same paragraph!

Proof positive that the Right can't handle an honest debate.

"If Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Iran are controlled by fascists, it has great import, for it puts the entire globe in danger, by their control of a vital resource, and the wealth that vital resource provides to the fascists, which they can use to slaughter others..."

Hey Will--what do you mean by "if"?

"Or is it your position that an Iraq with nuclear weapons would have no effect on the House of Saud, Kuwait, and other oil-producing States, or that Iraq with nuclear weapons would not have greater opportunity to invade such states outright?"

Yes exactly. Because he could still be deterred and contained. The only threat is if he could somehow deploy those nukes in the United States. Otherwise, he'd be using them in his own backyard. So they aren't an effective warfighting weapon.

The only scenario which is a possible national security threat is nuclear terrorism. For that to be a credible threat scenario, a) Saddam would have to have nukes and b) Saddam and Al Qaeda would have to tolerate each other.

Neither is true.

Prove me wrong.

Well, Thumper, it was you who started using invective such as "idiot" and made accusations of intoxication. Does such language warrant an civil response? Why?If having an honest debate is what you desire, why did you institute use of such language? How does such language foster an honest debate? Does not instituting such language indicate a desire to avoid honest debate, since it adds nothing to the argument, and only leads to ill will, and suspicion of bad faith? From whom did you receive lessons in the utility of simple civility, assuming they were received at all? Furthermore, why is it you assume that I am on the "right", whatever that useless description means?

Now, if you wish to contend that the straits of Malacca have as much strategic importance as the Persian Gulf, well, again, you are entitled to your opinion. It is a fact, however, that Iraq's regime has invaded a Persian Gulf neigbor in the recent past, and has taken violent action to restrict the flow of oil from the region. Malaysia's has never taken such action in regards to ships utlilizing the Straits of Malacca. Malaysia is not controlled by fascist/Stalinist. Iraq is. Furthermore, the same entities in Germany and France which now advocate continual inspection and sanctions were only a short time ago advocating an end to sanctions. Such a policy is not sustainable with partners who are not committed to it.

If our strategy simply entails removing Hussein from power, it is not ambitious enough. The fascist swamps of Saudi Arabia and Iran need to be drained as well. Will invasion be needed to affect change in Saudi Arabia and Iran? With any luck, no. Does this strategy entail great risk? Yes. What many deny, however, is that the maintainence of the status quo entails greater risks. There aren't any good options here, only choices among bad ones.

Leonard - quoting Buchannan again are we? Didn't your mother tell you to stop it already?

Thumper - picking on unarmed citizens and then saying they didn't put up much of a fight isn't particularly fair is it? Likewise declaring "victory" merely on the basis of how many words you can cram into your argument doesn't mean that the right cannot tolerate an honest debate. Why don't you go visit the Democratic Underground to get a sense of who can't stand to have an open forum. And then come back here and count your lucky stars that this website doesn't curtail your views.

Are you now going back to the implied assertion that an inter-continental ballistic missile is the only means of delivering a nuclear device to the U.S. from the Eastern hemisphere?

No, of course there's no link between Saddam Hussein and terrorism, thumper. He would never do anything like, for instance, offering tens of thousands of dollars to the survivors of teenage suicide bombers who kill children and dozens of old people at seders. And of course Hamas and Fatah don't have anything in common with Al Qaeda. It's simply incomprehensible that they would coordinate attacks or use Iraqi WMD.
Go play with Bambi and Flower. You're the one who's not credible.

Leonard: very eloquent post. It seems to me that the US has several strong interests in the Persian Gulf.

Let's name 3: 1) Israel's continued existence; 2) the oil supply; 3) the need to prevent future Islamic fundamentist attacks on the US. Detaching ourselves from the morass of evil in the region is impossible.

Even if we were to distance ourselves from the Saudi regime -- something we may in fact be doing now -- we would still need to purchase oil from them and would thus be perceived as being active supporters of this regime. Likewise, no one is suggesting we halt our attempts to -- let me break into macho mode for a moment -- shoot those Al Qaeda bastards down one by one. Yet these attempts to combat the terrorist underground are sure to spur resentment, too. So how are we to extricate ourselves from this morass and do the ethical thing? I don't envy the political decision-makers trying to steer us to better shores.

Having said that, I am sure we can learn from past mistakes with the Shah and Saddam and maybe even the House of Saud. But what these practical lessons are, it is hard to say.

By the way, Thumper, if you wish to gain an understanding of honest debate, observe how Leonard interacts with those who favor war with Iraq, and how others, in turn, interact with him.

Will,

Stop crying, since you engage in the same demeaning rhetoric. "You started it" is a hypocrite's defense. Plus you deserve it, with your smarmy condescending and racist tone.

You obviously haven't been reading my posts too carefully. My "implied assertion" is that "nuclear" terrorism is no more scary to me than "regular" terrorism. Frankly, I don't think a dirty bomb will do much more than cause a media panic. I'm more worried about pipe bombs. You can get nails at any ACE hardware store.

So, no, I concede that you could hide a nuke in a briefcase. Or even a Coffee Can. Does that make you happy? I don't think it makes your arguments any stronger. Nuke terrorism is a terrible argument because of the black market--see my first post.

You ARE smoking crack, by the way, if your wish-fulfillment scenario of "draining the swamp" is truly your idea of a better future. Do you even realize how racist it is for you to say that the Persian Gulf is a "swamp" that needs to be "drained"? This is the same rhetoric my parents faced in World War II. Let's keep the reference to human beings, not rats.

Plus, be specific--you want to install friendly governments with rigged elections that we can call democracies (or forget the elections and we'll tolerate a friendly plutocracy). It's a recipe for disaster.

You, my friend, are the fascist. God forbit people like you get control of the world's oil.

Robert:

Why don't we go after the House of Saud, since they are funneling large amounts of money to Al Qaeda terrorists? Can you not admit the hypocrisy? Or since we can't attack them, why not Qatar?

Face it. This is a personal grudge match between GWB and Saddam Hussein. This has no basis in national security interest. This probably has no basis in oil. This is a pissing contest and people are going to die that do not need to die.

"Leonard - quoting Buchannan again are we? Didn't your mother tell you to stop it already?"--Matt Johnson.

I'm sorry, Will. What was your point?

Thumper:

Hi there: We're the little green men and women from AP Calculus II.

We seem to have lost our dear friend Amitava, but the afternoon is young and we have nothing better to do before the 4:15 bus.

Take a moment to go to the end of the next thread. We're down around #55 et seq. GO ahead, we'll wait.

BTW, Grace thinks you should have a beard. Go and see what she means. You'll see.

We'll wait.

Leonard, I'm afraid I lose respect for your arguments when you trot out that old Lefty nag of us training the WTC hijackers. Al Qaeda is not the Taliban is not the mujahideen, although I grant you that it's not impossible that there are individuals in common. Your chain of evidence is very weak there. (It also astounds me that everyone who swings it says, "Look, we trained our attackers!" rather than "Those bastards turned on us!")

Secondly, our support to Saddam Hussein was very minimal compared to the Soviets, who were his main supporter, although the French and Germans also had a hand in it.

I will also point out that the people you claim attack us for our support of their cruel oppressors wish to install a regime that makes the cruel oppressors look like rank amateurs.

You said, far above, that you wanted us to withdraw from the world and cease to be its policeman. That's my dream, too, but I fear it is an idle one. As long as we are a rich nation there will be those who want to tear us down, and they'll use any excuse to do it, or do it with none at all.

Is Thumper lost in the hall?

Mikie, go check the men's room. Make sure he washes his hands before he returns.

Cv` read Lileks, I think of this quote from Calvin & Hobbes I put into the Quote-O-Matic on my blog:

"I used to hate writing assignments, but now I enjoy them. I realized that the purpose of writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning and inhibit clarity. With a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and impenetrable fog!"

That's all I have to say.

Thumper, I'm done with you, but to simply reiterate the facts of this exchange, you have decried that others have avoided honest debate, when it is you who began your participation with ad hominem remarks. You now have resorted to the last debating refuge of the scoundrel, the accusation of racism. Well, it is a fact that Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia are largely controlled by fascist entities. I think that needs to change, just as the fascist swamp that was Nazi Germany needed to change. You seem to imply in several instances that Arabs or Persians are incapable of self-government. Now, exactly, which attitude is more racist? By the way, in case you missed it, I clearly stated that large element of Iranian society were desirious of self-government. I think the same is likely true in Iraq and Saudi Arabia, although I also believe that are far more formidable obstacles to self government in those two countries. In the final analysis, though, I actually believe these people are capable of governing themselves. Do you believe otherwise, and if so, is it not more than a little ironic that you accuse others of racism? Actually, don't bother answering, I regret I've spent this much time with the likes of you.

Taktile:

Hoots and Whistles to you from The Little Green Persons.

We are models of deportment and clear writing AND one hell of a good calculus class. It's just, like, you know, man, we like to jump on poor saps.

Tony will jump on you any day you want.

Thanks T.

To all:

There goes the bell.

Bye, all. Thanks for the fun.

The Little Green Persons.

JT - I agree with your three interests. Israel, Oil, Attacks.

The way of peace addresses two of three. First of all, attack - that I have dealt with adequately enough already.

Second, oil. Oil is an extremely fungible commodity, and it's cheap to move it around. Thus, it is meaningful to speak of the world supply of, and demand for, oil. There's a world market. Given that, the US does not need to be friendly with any given producer of oil. All we need is for the oil to be produced, in aggregate, and for there to be enough of it produced in places neutral or friendly to us, to supply our needs. Already we don't buy that much oil from the mideast; look at the bottom for this page.

Certainly stability in the mideast is better than turmoil. But markets can deal with either one. And it's certain that no matter who rules there, they are not going to stop selling oil. Oil brings in money, and money is the means by which patronage organization are kept happy. The kleptocrats there may be lazy, but they are not stupid. They know how it is that they don't have to work.

On Israel, clearly the problem there is the predicament of the Palestinians. Sure, they may have brought it on themselves, but there they are. America will continue to have problems with Muslims until Israel can make real peace with them.

I think that the US should start using its largesse there to (peacefully) ethnically cleanse the west bank. Instead of spending our $4 billion per year buying arms, spending it buying property from both sides and arranging swaps. But we should definitely also use it as leverage; the settlements must stop, and in fact be ended. When two peoples hate each other as much as the Palestinians and the Israelis do, there is simply no way to live together. They must therefore live apart. The sooner they do, the sooner they can live in, if not real peace, then at least not war. And then they can begin to heal and forget.

So that's what I think the US should do. But I also think that, in spite of the rhetoric, most Arabs don't care that much about Israel or the Palestinians. They care about themselves. So, if we stop supporting the despots ruling them, they'll be happy, or at least, they won't be so mad that they will commit crimes against us. They don't have to love us.

I am reminded of the joke about the two guys and the bear: the guys are trapped in a cabin, and the bear is starting to beat down the door. One guy starts putting on a pair of running shoes. The second guy says, "what're you doing? We can't outrun a bear!" The first guy says, "I don't have to outrun the bear; I just have to outrun you!" Analogy to the middle east: the two guys are the US, and the current repressive governments. The people there are the bear. They are angry and extremely dangerous. Instead of standing in solidarity with their tormentors, we should be getting on our shoes. The snowy white running shoes of peace. (Strange - never been worn.)

Angie - on the mujahedeen, mea culpa. The exact connections of the 911 perps to the mujahedeen, I don't know. All I know is that "the base" - Al Qaeda - was formed as a part of the holy war against the Sovs. We funded that, and we paid for it too. It's blowback, although, indirect.

I agree, that right now, most of the Arab states would get very nasty regimes if they had a revolution. This is inevitable given that essentially the only place where any freedom of thought exists at all there, is in the mosques. These will be the centers of revolution. That's what happened in Iran.

Revolutions there will be like the Iranian one. Nasty. However, even after "just" 20 years, they have mellowed quite a bit. More importantly, after a revolution like that the people get an education. In Iran they have learned the hard way that repression is not something that comes from America. They have learned that repression can be homegrown. It may be that every nation must, inevitably, pass through a horrible civil war or a terror to get to the phase of modern liberal democracy. I hope not. But in any case, it doesn't matter to us if regimes there hate us. The regimes won't attack us. Regimes are quite deterrable. It matters what the people think, since the people are the source (at the extreme ends of the bell curve) of terrorists.

The Iranian people, after these long years of theocracy, have learned a few things.

This is where we disagree, Leonard. I think many of those bears are ravenous enough to wish to consume both people, or are convinced that the Westerner would be far more tasty. I do believe the Westerner would do well to distance himself from the Easterner, but some of the bears will remain dangerous, particularly since the Westerner needs to continue to forage in the forest. It would be best if the bear changed his diet completely.

I agree that most oil producers in the gulf have large incentive to continue to sell oil unabated. However, those producers, particularly Saudi elements, also have large incentive to continue to fund entities such as Al Queda, either out of ideological solidarity, or simply as means to appease such elements in their society. Furthermore, a tyrant like Hussein, if he were to gain conrol of the Saudi, Iraqi, and Kuwaiti fields could cause considerable havoc worldwide, since he is quite willing to slaughter his subjects, and only needs to pump enough oil to keep his palaces well appointed, his military funded well enough to terrorize the population, and maintain a stockpile of nuclear arms with which to fend off possible intervention. The amount of oil needed to accomplish this task is far less than what the world needs to keep things running smoothly.

just in case anyone's still reading: no one in their right mind would launch an icbm to do a partial nuclear attack, unless they could smuggle the icbm into a target country and launch from there

icbm leaves a rather significant return address (heat bloom, ballistic track) that the us, china, russia, etc are all VERY WELL EQUIPPED to track

us etc have icbms for nuclear annihilation/elimination of other icbms (we're retaliating or will eliminate the opponent before they can strike) if your name isn't russia, you can't eliminate the us, so don't even try

india and pakistan have icbms to threaten each other while preserving the security of their nukes (if india or pakistan gets nuked, it's the other or china) a credible nuke attack on the us would have to use a ship, plane, or container, to avoid giving us some rather significant heads up (we'd probably eliminate the country that nuked us before the nuke could land on us soil, thans to the ssbns aka ballistic missile subs)

as for this thumper stuf... oy vey

while crappy, it is possible to avoid the straits of mallacca, could dig a new panama canal or improve railway infrastructure in us and asia to avoid ocean based shipping... all of these could be done for much less than the cost of a dominant and hostile oil producer

iraq threatens all oil producing states, given saddam's invasion of iran (we supported cause we don't like iran, wonder why, 400+days mean anything??), gw 1, 94 threat to invade kuwait, 98 and desert fox. with nukes, he can keep the us out while he rolls over saudi, kuwait, and some iranian fields. he'd then likely make a move on israel (if he's an idiot) resulting in the elimination of middle east oil (samson option)

thanks for bringing up the saudis.. the point of gw2 is to provide a fulcrum for the middle east... the us can then pull all of its troops into iraq, and then has no reason to be beholden to any arab state

this allows all the other governments to fall, and gives the students in iran a free hand in getting the rope swings going for the mullahs

the reason no one says this in public because a) it's audacious and might not work, b) it would unite people against us, whereas no our motives aren't clear, so we can gain more assistance

as for north korea.. we are dealing with it

see japan's declaration that pre-emptive action against a missile launch would be self-defence. the chinese and sks will have kittens over that (japan's military is not quite popular in asia... wonder why)

china DOES NOT want japan to have a military (or any other ) kind of influence in asia, and is thus pressured to smack nk around. so us doesn't get its hands dirty and the locals clean up the mess

nk is not stupid, and it knows that ballistic launch against us means INSTANT DEATH (again, thank you ssbn) so it is really only threatening japan china and sk so it gets some more handouts (us threat is economic)

all the problems are in hand, and despite having the biggest most powerful military that is alone in its ability to project force anywhere, the us is not god, and can't do everything all at once.. patience young thumper, and we'll handle this crap and hang the right people...

remember: first rule of geopolitics-- surive till tomorrow second rule of geopolitics--help nice people and hurt bad people

course we help bad people, cause they help us survive, if you don't like that, see http://www.vhemt.org/ the voluntray human extinction movement, they may be more your style

the first goal is to surive, morals come second... (altruisism helps progeny survive, and is present in many species)

Osirak was never Iraq's sole means of producing fissile material. It's threat was taking their capability from a small cottage industry to full industrial scale.

There is little direct relationship between Al Qaeda and the Taliban. They occurred largely independently of one another. The Taliban is primarily Pakistanis while Al Qaeda is much more diverse but with a strong core from Saudia Arabia and Yemen, where Bin Laden's family originates. Al Qaeda took advantage of the situation in Afghanistan to get cuddly with Mullah Omar and have a base of operation with virtaully no outside interference. If not for this it is unlikely we would have intervened in Afghanistan since while it may have been utterly awful it has always been more or less utterly awful and we have bigger fish to fry.

There is nothing rascist whatsoever in calling the Middle East a swamp in terms of the kind of governments that predominate there. Rat bastard fascism is not a function of race and objecting to it thus does not bear on race. If your complaint is specifically with Islam that still is not rascism as race is not a qualification to be a Muslim, although if you're int he wrong neighborhood some Muslims are more equal than others.

Great thread. With the exception of thumper's polemics, which were amusingly dealt with by satire and opprobrium, I got much out of the discourse. The biggest issue that I see coming out of the balance here is the totally unknown impact of nuclear proliferation on future democratic and military patterns. It is highly probably that we will have to deal with adversaries with 10-80 kT weapons in the future, which are either ground deployable in small vehicles or by medium range missiles. ICBMs will probably be too pricey. Long range cruise missiles might be an issue however. What this means diplomatically is a total unknown and I've not read anything cogent coming out of the military services either, asides from statements of the obvious that forward deployed units must be dispersed.

But I would warn the proponents of MADD that this doctrine ain't gospel anymore in the Pentagon, as the perception of a rational actor opposing us currently isn't a well founded assumption. I would assume that this appreciation is felt as well in London and Paris, and Moscow for that matter. Peking, New Delhi, and Islamabad probably are quite enraptured with MADD, as their perceived threats are akin to the US-Soviet charactered relationship of the 1970-80's.

Indeed, interesting reading in this thread. It would behoove us to realize that very specific contigencies exist and are being constantly refined to deal with these scenarios (to an extent, and with a solemnity and seriousness of purpose that did not characterize the defense planning in the Clinton administration). Krauthammer's St. Valentine's day column is irrefutable in reminding us that we are in a race against time. I see something missing in the above discussion, and this is awareness that the objective in this quest (survival of the species) requires the utter transformation of the world. Read Bush's National Security Strategy. Iraq is one task on the To Do List, one seed we shall plant in this new garden. The US is the only nation that can drive this historical global transformation. Success will be determined in large by the sincerity and degree of unanimity with which the other nations of the world join in the movement, predicated on their recognition that the goals the US has defined (the complete erradication and extermination of terrorism) are in their best interest (best interest defined as survival).

Lileks should stick with pop cultural humor, social commentary, and graphic design.

Qiao Yang

Qiao: You have a rather romantic ideal of international cooperation if you think that nation states will subordinate their particular self interests to the general needs of some external alliance structure.

But Lileks's Bleat you take issue with poses an example of how US policy is derived from the overall will of its people, through the intermediary of its republican government. He doesn't stand on some pedestal as a foreign policy spokesman, which I infer your post has him doing. He merely sought to imply that
"We’d never do it. We’d hold televised benefits for Baltimore. We’d all remember the victims of 5/23. We’d buy the DVD compilations of news footage, archive the papers that landed on our stoops the day after."
as citizens who have input into our poltical processes, and hence indirectly on US foreign policy formation.

If the US were nuked and had reason to believe that a state were involved, it would have to respond with overwhelming force upon that state. And not just tit-for-tat, the impact of our retribution would have to be lopsided to their detriment. It really is sad to advocate the death of innocents, but our response to a nuclear attack has to be a signal to anyone considering future attacks against us. The people who would nuke a US city aren't rational agents, they aren't necessarily afraid of tit-for-tat games of destruction. We have to maximize the costs of attacking us. What would France do if al-Queda managed to sneak and detonate a nuclear bomb in Paris? I think they'd surrender. They would mourn, they would ask other countries to come to their aid, but they could not retaliate and would have to submit to any force in the future that threatened them with nuclear weapons. They are not a nation that commands respect, and I don't think that France has much of a future. Lilek's scenario saddens me immensely and I refuse to believe that we would be so docile.

For the record:

Will: "You seem to imply in several instances that Arabs or Persians are incapable of self-government. Now, exactly, which attitude is more racist?"

Never have I made that implication. Not once. Read my posts--I support self-determination, not imperialism. If the teeming Iranian street wants our intervention--fine. But let's not presume to rule another sovereign nation out of false humanitarianism.

I stand by my position that the rhetoric of "drain the swamps" is racist--it's an oblique reference to the strategy used against Seminole Indians that nearly drove them to extinction. My objection was merely to the rhetoric, which I find objectionable in its dehumanization.

If your objection is against the governments in the House of Saud, Iran, Pakistan, Syria, and Iraq--fine. At least we know what you stand for--naked aggression. To use the phrase "drain the swamp" is a direct reference to a strategy of indiscriminate extermination of a culture, which is "ethnicist" if not racist. After all, Iraq is not an Islamic state. Do not put it upon me to explain the contradictions and inconsistencies of white supremecist ideology. I'm just pointing out that uncomfortable fact.

Perhaps you misspoke. It's not my job either to be your editor. If I understand "drain the swamp" as a political metaphor, you mean not only replace the government, but reeducate the people, change the culture, take out any offensive elements root and branch. And liquidate those who refuse to hear the "truth."

Does this sound familiar? Oh year--that's what Saddam did to his opposition (and his country).

Keep the rhetoric clean.

Also--how exactly is it that no one here on this site has come up with any proof of an Iraqi nuclear program? Isn't the the point of this thread?

If we are going to give up on containment as a non-proliferation strategy--let me see a show of hands for how many people think that we should abandon the NPT, or the MTCR, or the Fissile Material ban?

We'll just first strike any undesirables who might someday want to seek nuclear weapons.

Is that the plan?

Yeah I THOUGHT SO.

"Drain the swamp" is also sometimes used in the perfectly innocent sense of cleaning out stagnant pools that otherwise bread malarial mosquitoes, thereby rendering the land useful for more productive activities.

But of course the race card is an automatic trump, so keep up those oblique references.

As for lecturing other people on rhetorical abuse, all I can say is...Whitewashed Tombs. It's a literary reference. Look it up.

Btw I found your picture, you might want to contact the site about mis-use of your personal likeness:

http://costumemagic.com/products/MASCOT/8006.html

What a terrible picture. My ears are much floppier than that.

I think you've proven my post EST. Drain the swamp is something you do to mosquitoes. That's what you consider the people in the Persian Gulf? Teeming masses of parasites?

I'm not responsible for your poor word choices. My parents were in an internment camp during World War II. Have you seen the posters from that era about "Sneaky Japs"-as-rats? Have you read the DeWitt reports--blatant fabrications, by the way? Do you have any concept what it's like to have a whole ethnicity demonized?

Sure you can say you're just objecting to the governments. But when you abuse analogies that really don't apply to the targeted solutions you have in mind, like "drain the swamp," you're using the same rhetoric of carpet-bombers and total war lunatics. I don't think that's what you were referring to, but the post-hoc explanations about the meaning of that euphemism strike me as Trent Lott-worthy non-apologies.

And I object to the notion that I am taking a cheap shot. This wasn't the first prejudiced view that Mr. Allen has written about. He also made references to "Africans in their Huts" needing oil which would be a pretty insensitive stereotype if it weren't such a non-sequitur.

Plus, Mr. Allen in his many posts jumps up and down on me for my rhetoric, which is far less troublesome than his unthinking slurs. At least I say them to his face and admit that. He is in total denial, and those who apologize for him are even worse.

This whole thread bothers me as well. There are some people here who actually rejoice in a) the thought that someone will detonate a nuclear bomb on American soil; b) that we will discover that it was the Iraqis; and c) that then we will have the justification to "nuke 'em" just like Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I bet you can understand why I am not so sympathetic to those who are actually looking forward to nuclear war. I hope you can understand why I'm a little sensitive about the rhetoric on this site as a reflection of the mentalities of those who write it. I'm all for honest debate, and a little trash talking, but keep it clean.

"Drain the swamp is something you do to mosquitoes. That's what you consider the people in the Persian Gulf? Teeming masses of parasites?"

C'mon Thumper. Metaphors are imprecise - if you try to read them too literally you just end up looking foolish.

I just did a quick Google search on the phrase "drain the swamp". Among the top links returned were quotes from Noam Chomsky and Donald Rumsfeld, both referring to the Middle East and terrorism (although I somehow doubt they meant it exactly the same way) and an editorial on Enron. I suppose it's possible both Chomsy and Rumsfeld are racists, although it's hard to see the racist angle in the Enron piece. Maybe it's also possible that this is a generic expression referring to attacking the root of the problem rather than the symptoms and contains no racial overtones whatsoever. Maybe any racial inferences drawn say more about the reader than the writer - sort of a metaphorical rorshach test.

Actually I find the "fever swamp" analogy kind of interesting. Let's look at it carefully.

The analogy comes from the idea of draining swamps to fight disease. Disease is caused by pathogens, which spread via mosquitoes. Mosquitoes breed in swamps; they need water. Swamps can be "normal" land if drained.

How does this compare to the situation in the middle east? There, we have the following problem: lots of wealth is generated from oil. This wealth is easily homesteaded, since it is unearned. Therefore it is easy to control, and it always ends up under the control of a very narrow ruling group. This results in oligarchy, which breeds resentment among the population that are not part of the ruling elite. The resentment creates terrorists, who in turn, if placed into sufficient contact with the West, cause us problems.

How does the analogy map out? In particular, what does "draining" map into?

Here's one way:

swamp - middle east
swamp-water - oil-money
mosquito - middle eastern oil-wealth oligarchy
pathogen - terrorist
fever - terrorist atrocity
to drain - remove oil-money

The implication here is that we need to remove oil-money from the middle east. That would, I think, solve the terrorism problem. On the other hand, I think it is basically impossible without outright colonization. Which we don't intend.

Here's another possible analogy mapping:

swamp - middle east
swamp-water - middle eastern oil-wealth oligarchy
mosquito - resentment
pathogen - terrorist
fever - terrorist atrocity
to-drain - remove/replace oligarchies

Here, the suggestion is that we only need to remove the oligarchies and replace them, presumably with democracies. This strikes me as probably more what warmongers are trying to suggest. But it has the problem that it is rather difficult to control how a government evolves - except via colonialism (there it is again). And the analogy ignores the seeming reason why the middle east is so oligopic - which is, all that easy money just sitting under the sand. Why won't any new government evolve into a nasty oligarchy?

Frederick Pohl wrote a scifi novel back 1981 wherein he imagined a future in which Israel had set off nuclear weapons to destroy the Arabian oil fields. That is the only sort of solution that really seems likely to me to "drain the swamps". But nobody is talking about that kind of destruction.

Why won't any new government evolve into a nasty oligarchy?

Depends on how fully the rule is turned over to popular vote IMO, which is going to be a function of how a post-Saddam governmental transition were to be handled.

Personally, if all is followed through upon, I'm expecting a post-war Iraqi government that resembles Turkey's -- meaning nominally democratic, much more free and equitable than what is there now, but never fully removed from the authoritarian element.

Well, if I'm going to be continually called a racist, I guess I have to forgo my promise to stop all dialogues with the ad hominem-reliant Thumper. Leonard(shall I label you a fascism supporter?), I of course was utilizing the last analogy map you outlined when I employed the "drain the fascist swamp" language. By the way, it is interesting thatr Thumper dishonestly drops the word "fascist" when accusing me of racist language, because, of course, he wishes to twist my meaning. You don't believe that the fascist oligarchies can be permenantly removed, and thus you believe that the status quo is the only viable option. I think you are wrong, but certainly itis not a debate that is subject to empirical proof, and I don't argue that the task is not extremely difficult. I simply maitain that it is impossible forus to interact with such fascists on a non-violent basis, even if we attempt to restrict our activities to trade. You, of course, disagree.

Thumper, in case you haven't noticed, Africa is an extremely poor continent, where a good many people do, in fact, unfortunately live in huts. The point is that it is poor people most of all who will suffer the most in an environment where energy is much more expensive. When the priceof crude goes from $20 dollars a barrel to $50 dollars a barrel, it sure as hell ain't going to be affluent Americans who get it in the teeth, it is going to be the poorest people on this planet who have yet more misery inflicted upon them, and good many of those folks live in Africa.

Yes, Thumper, I consider all variants of fascism, be it German, Japanese, Italian, Arab, Persian, secular, or theocratic to be fundamentally illegitimate, and therefore not warranting recognition as a legitimate governments. Since utopia is not possible, and the pursuit of utopia is itself quite dangerous, however, it is not wise to attempt to violently oppose fascism whreever it rears it's ugly head, and sometimes it is not necessary. It would be horrible if the the good people of Iceland were to fall under fascist rule, but it may not be wise or necessary to intervene by force. For reasons outlined above, however, having fascism, theocratic, secular, Arab,and Persian, dominate the Persian Gulf, presents unique dangers, and thus it is unacceptable, just as German fascism was unaccceptable. And yes, your use of phrases, such as the following:

"And are you suggesting the reason we topple Saddam is to rebuild the Middle East as a democratic utopia, the new Europe?"

suggests that you do believe that Arabs are incapable of representative government, like their European betters. Listen,if you want to make accusations of racism, based on employed metaphors, you might be better served if you policed your own rhetoric first.

Finally, if one is punched in the nose, it is not hypocritical in the least to respond in kind, as a message of complaint. Similarly,when a rhetorical thug drops all pretense of civil discourse, and institutes ad hominem assaults as part of the dialogue, it is not the least bit hypocritical when others respond in kind when complaining about such rhetoric. That the rhetorical thug then complains that others are avoiding honest debate is pathetically ironic, and would be humourous if not for the rather sad lack of self-awareness evident. It is akin to acriminal robbing a convienience store, being shot in the process, and then asserting that the store owner failed to observe normal practices of trade, and was hypocritical for filing a criminal complaint.

I think the original question, `Would the US respond with Nukes', got a little lost here, but is still interesting, and I like to toss in my two cents.

For a nation with the military power of the United States, the decision to retaliate against an agressor with nuclear weapons would likely boil down to a military, not a political, decision. The US has many options other than nuclear weapons, many which are very destructive (the daisy cutter, for instance). Would you choose to deal with the literal and figurative fallout from nukes when you could spend a few more days with bombers dropping conventional weapons? I wouldn't.

In the cold war, anticipating a nuclear exchange, almost all of our weapons were aimed at trying to take out enemy missiles in far away hardened silos before they launched. Here the options were much fewer. What other than nukes could do it?

And in the two historical uses of nuclear weapons, upon the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I think the the weapons are demonized out of proportion. In terms of loss of life and suffering, I think our fire-bombing of Tokyo days before was every bit as horrifying, just more conventional. And the nukes weren't cheap: a sizable fraction of the war effort went to make the three bombs.

(In retrospect, we are all lucky that the shock of nuclear weapons allowed the Japanese to accept defeat. Had the home islands been defended like Iwo Jima and other islands before, the American and Japanese casualties would have been staggering, probably including my father, and by extension, me.)

So would the US use nukes? Probably not.

Would a small group trying to strike a big blow at the Great Satan be interested in nukes? I think so. The whole asymmetrical thingy.

'"And are you suggesting the reason we topple Saddam is to rebuild the Middle East as a democratic utopia, the new Europe?"

suggests that you do believe that Arabs are incapable of representative government, like their European betters. '

Nice try, though, Will. A complete distortion of my point, which, coming from someone who whines about "dishonesty" so much, is pathetic. First off, it's a question about the "reason we topple Saddam." I just want to get your assumptions out there--are we on a crusade to topple "fascist" oligarchies or not? It's not that I don't think that the people of the Middle East are incapable of democratic rule. I just don't think we should be imposing it upon them by force and colonization. It's called "self-determination" and it's quite possible for a people to be represented through an authoritarian leader (I guess we differ about the fundamental legitimacy of democracy vis a vis all other forms of government. Of course, you support a President who lost the popular vote so I don't know where you stand.). Moreover, I don't think that's the real reason we are going into Iraq. We're liberating oil, not governments.

"Thumper, in case you haven't noticed, Africa is an extremely poor continent, where a good many people do, in fact, unfortunately live in huts. The point is that it is poor people most of all who will suffer the most in an environment where energy is much more expensive."

How many hutdwelling people is "a good many"? The same number of Arabs that live in caves perhaps?

Thumper, if I am distorting your point, what would you call the deletion of the key word "fascist", when describing someone's rhetoric as racist? It is quite reasonable for the reader to conclude that the use of the word "utopia" in your rhetoric is indicative of a belief that Arabs are incapable of representaitve government. Of course, it would be prudent for someone to inquire further before tossing out the charge of racism, but hell, in your view, baselessly calling people racists, idiots, or intoxicated is what passes for sophisticated dialogue. Quite contemptible, along with quite pathetic.

As to the rest of your post, no, it is not logically possible for a people to be "represented" by an "authoritarian" government, much less a Stalinist or fascist one. You see, for one entity to have "authority" over another entity precludes the subservient entity from revising it's opinion on how they are "represented", even if it assumed the subservient entity consented to such "representation" at one time. To represent another entity implies a line a authority to the entity being represented. If one entity has ultimate authority over another, the subservient entity is not being represented, it is being enslaved. A people are incapable of self determination when Stalinists have created an environment of total, mass terror, and the Stalinists ruthlessly apply the terror to any who might resist. No it does not follow that the U.S. should invade every illegitimate regime, or even that there migh not be occasions when alliances will have to be formed with illegitimate regimes. One should never lose sight of the fact, however, of their illegitimacy.

No, I am not a democracy fetishist (and really am not a strong supporter of George W. Bush, your baseless assumptions aside), in that I have strong anti-statist beliefs, and don't believe majority will can legitimate what is fundamentally illegitimate. If a majority, speaking theorugh elected representatives, cannot legitimate actions of the state which are fundamenatlly illegitimate, however, a state which does not regularly subject itself to electoral processes (by the way, in case it has escaped you, the national government of the U.S. has three branches, and it is the legislative that actually has the most power) cannot achieve ANY degree of legitimacy.

As to your last comments, if "hut" is described as a very small abode made of flimsy material, then literally millions of Africans unfortunately live in huts. It is these people most of all who will suffer if Hussein were to have great influence over the flow of Persian Gulf oil. Of course, if one's political sophistication extends no further than believing that George W. Bush is either the Antichrist or Alfred E. Neumann, one may never think of these things.

"Drain the fascist swamps" in the Middle East is culturally insensitive because it ignores the influence of Islam in the region. There are many radical Islamic theocrats who believe that the purpose of the state should be to promote and enforce religious purity. Yes, to an extreme, that's the Taliban, but to a lesser extreme, Jordan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia. Your use of the word "fascist" is the racist/culturally offensive aspect--thank you for reminding me to put that back in.

There are moderate Islamic scholars who believe that it is possible to have a secular Islamic democracy. However, their idea of "secular" is vastly different from our idea of "secular." You would probably consider their idea of "preserving Islamic culture and tradition" to be "fascist" and "Stalinist" as well. Of course, you were raised in a racially, culturally and religiously diverse society, whereas Middle Eastern societies are largely homogenous, religiously and culturally. So of course you wouldn't understand where they are coming from.

Moreover, for all your bleating about democracy, if you haven't noticed, one of the reasons the US supports authoritarian governments in predominantly Muslim countries is that without their iron-fisted "enslavement" of the masses, the masses would probably vote for an Islamicist theocracy.

So really, since you do not respect a vote for that, you are insisting that we invent a fictional democracy in the region. Don't give the people what they really want; give them a paper process that recreates a secular democratic pro-American government.

That's why I say "utopia." It is your dogma which is disrespectful to the people of the Middle East.

This brings back the cartoon by Tom Tomorrow about the moon attacking. "What happens if Iraq nukes the US" is like asking "What happens if the moon falls on New York?" Interesting thought exercise, but what of it?

Well, we finally get to it. You actually favor fascism, Stalinism, and other forms of tyranny, as long as it is rationalized by appeals to religous belief, or other cultural norms. I am sure that the women who are subject to legalized honor killings, having acid tossed in their faces, rape by state security forces, and other forms of what you consider legitimate religous or cultural expression are comforted by the knowledge that these practice are legitimated by such rationalizations. You believe that people should be consigned to such fates because, gosh darn it, that's just what they want.

Yes, majorities may favor theocratic fascism in initial elections in some countries; the point is that government cannot be legitimate if it does not hold regular, continual, elections. News flash; sometimes, in fact, more often than not, people change their minds! About all sorts of things! However, if it is considered legitimate for the winner of an initial election to seize all power and institute terror against any that might dissent, then you have consigned an entire people to hideous tyranny until the end of time, which you seem to to consider culturally sensitive, at least when it comes to Arabs, Persians, or other Islamic people. By the way, what about the human rights of people in those places who may choose, say, the Bahai faith? Thems the breaks; so sad, too bad? Don't answer, I don't think I want to know.

Also, you may wish to read a little more about Turkey before lumping them in with Saudi Arabia or Jordan as places where the state is used to promote religious purity, even with their recently elected government. The Turks have had a greatly imperfect track record in maintaining the consent of the governed, but to even mention them in the same breath as Saudi Arabia is ridiculous, and provides the evidence that negates the contention that an Islamic population cannot practice self government. The Persians are providing evidence that an Islamic people can install theocratic fascism by popular consent, and then decide it wasn't such a good idea after all. The fascists are trying to stifle dissent in Iran, but with some luck and maybe a little help and encouragement (no, an invasion is not necessary), the popular will will prevail and the fascists will be defeated.

As hard as it may be for you to believe, people living in Islamic countries, be they Persians, Arabs, Turks, devoutly religious or secular, do not all share a desire of living under fascist, Stalinist, or other other forms of tyranny, and they deserve, as much as any other human beings, to have the regular opportunity to signal their consent for their method of being governed. To say otherwise is simply racist.

Umm.... I just got back from a month in Turkey. What books do you suggest I read about my experiences there? You are technically correct that it's not Wahhabism. But then again, I am technically correct that you are an idiot.

Nothing I said even remotely says that I support fascism, terrorism, Nazism, Stalinism, tyranny, rape, acid throwing, honor killings, baby-eatings, etc. Please re-read my posts--these are your crazy inferences, not my words. Psychologists would call this "projection."

And I think it's doubly racist of you to describe these as "legitimate religious and cultural expressions," presumably of Islamic culture.

Is this Islam to you? Acid throwing, honor killings, state-sanctioned rape? It's all monolithic, isn't it?

I'm sorry--where again did I say that I considered acid-throwing, et al to be a form of legitimate religious and cultural expression? Please show me. Oh, right--that's clear by my implication, when I said that "secular" to us means something different than it does to people in the Middle East who have a predominantly Muslim culture, clearly, that allusion to cultural relativism (as a reason we shouldn't rush headfirst into using force to recreate Middle Eastern political and social cultures in our image), that meant that therefore, we have no right to criticize other "cultures" and therefore we have no right to criticize the most heinous excesses and sociopathic elements of those cultures, because they are "different."

Is that your twisted, 3rd grade logic in a nutshell?

I support peaceful, diplomatic, economic solutions to encourage and inspire democracy across the globe. I think we should have a stronger, principled human rights policy.

In some extreme cases, of genocide, of slavery, of Taliban-like dehumanization, I even support the use of targeted, multinational force to save those victims of dysfunctional, pathological regimes.

But you want to drain the swamp of so-called "fascist" regimes and impose democracy on the region by force, to "liberate" by wiping unsavory regimes off the face of the planet.

I'm just curious: suppose we depose Saddam, would you support pulling our troops out of the Middle East, denouncing the House of Saud?

Oh, it's not in our national interest. It would endanger our precious oil.

You see, it is you who supports baby-raping, acid-throwing, honor-killing Stalinist regimes... in the name of cheaper gas.

Will - yes, I disagree. We are, currently, interacting peacefully with most authoritarian muslim regimes. Take Saudi Arabia, for example. How is it "that it is impossible for us to interact with such fascists on a non-violent basis, even if we attempt to restrict our activities to trade"? Is Saudi Arabia somehow not "fascist" according to your definition? Or are you characterizing our relationship with Saudi Arabia as "violent"? How?

As for real change in the middle east: actually I do believe the nasty regimes there can be permanently removed. Our difference is in how. I believe the only way is via the people, themselves. The societies must evolve, peacefully or not, but real change must come from within. We cannot impose it from outside; the changes needed are simply too great for that.

Leonard, where do you suppose Al Queda gets it's funding? Who do you suppose funds the spread of Wahhabi ideology, ideology which advocates the murder of Westerners? The House of Saud has elements which direct large sums of oil revenue to projects which entail the slaughter of civilians, often Americans. Our relationship with the House of Saud is decidedly violent, although covertly so.

Thumper, you have clearly stated that people living in the Middle East do not need to regularly give their consent to being governed in order for their government to be legitimate. You wrote:

"It's called "self-determination" and it's quite possible for a people to be represented through an authoritarian leader (I guess we differ about the fundamental legitimacy of democracy vis a vis all other forms of government. Of course, you support a President who lost the popular vote so I don't know where you stand.)"

If one entity has authority over another entity, and the subservient entity does not have the regular opportunity to provide his consent for such an arrangement, the subservient entity is being tyrannized. Thus, by saying that people in the Middle East do not have to give such consent in order to have legitimate government, you have advocated tyranny for those people. I'm happy that you have traveled to Turkey. It is unfortunate, however, that Turkey's strenuous efforts, since the Ottomans' fall, to have a secular form of government with democratic elements, has escaped you, and thus has led you to make a silly comparison of Turkey with Saudi Arabia. Has Turkey been devoid of tyranny? Of course not, but to ignore that the average Turkish citizen has had opportunity to lend consent to his governance, opportunity that dwarfs that of the average Saudi subject, is silly.

If you haven't figured it out yet, I favor destabilizing the House Of Saud as well, and deposing Hussein will aid this effort. I also favor preventing any entity from tyrannizing any people in the region; that is, obtaining violent power over them without first obtaining their consent to the arrangement, and then obtaining it again on an ongoing basis. You don't believe that people living in the Middle East need to regularly provide such consent in order to have legitimate government, and thus you are are an advocate of the various froms of tyranny that exist there.

It is not the Canadian people who are refusing to participate in the war on Iraq; it is the Canadian Prime Minister and Government!

Remember United States of America, during the true wars, W.W.I and W.W.II, Canada was involved from the beginning, while the American President and Government refused to participate until a very much later date!

Brian 'Canuck' Murza,
W.W.II Naval Researcher/Author,
Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

It is not the Canadian people who are refusing to participate in the war on Iraq; it is the Canadian Prime Minister and Government!

Remember United States of America, during the true wars, W.W.I and W.W.II, Canada was involved from the beginning, while the American President and Government refused to participate until a very much later date!

Brian 'Canuck' Murza,
W.W.II Naval Researcher/Author,
Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

It is not the Canadian people who are refusing to participate in the war on Iraq; it is the Canadian Prime Minister and Government!

Remember United States of America, during the true wars, W.W.I and W.W.II, Canada was involved from the beginning, while the American President and Government refused to participate until a very much later date!

Brian 'Canuck' Murza,
W.W.II Naval Researcher/Author,
Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

Comments are Closed.