« Kima Greggs | Main | Push the Pace » What?14 Nov 2006 12:34 pm Rarely is the question asked: Has Glenn Reynolds lost his mind? -- "my speculation that Iran has some method -- nuclear or otherwise -- that has deterred us from taking the kind of action that both Bill Quick and I expected in 2004 is seeming better-founded." What's the "otherwise" here? Rick Santorum's Venezuelan space terrorists, perhaps? And what "kind of action" did he and master strategist Bill Quick expect? Comments (46)
I repeat: it's clearly an army of laser-equipped unicorns. Perhaps supplemented with ponies of Islamofascism. And, of course, the omnipotent Ward Churchill. 
not sure why I'm commenting so much today, but I think the "kind of action" he wanted was of the "more rubble, less trubble" variety.
Disagree with Lemieux. Insty's clearly referencing the until-now-only-theoretical Superkoranic Fellatio Power (SFP) weapons, which can turn virile and hardy people into Teh Gay.
The question "Has Glenn Reynolds lost his mind?" presumes that he had one to begin with. Having never seen so much as an intelligent phrase uttered by him, I am not buying the premise of the question. Also, I will never, ever, hire a lawyer who went to University of Tennessee law school. Ever.
ICallYouTim, Good thing Glenn's .380 or .45 or whatever will protect him from the SFP and keep his dick long, hard, and hetero.
Well, if Iranians were desperate enough, they could launch a medium-range conventional missile strike on Saudi oil fields, and then destroy their own oil fields. It's mutally assured destruction by other means.
People generally don't ask that which is readily apparent.
From http://instapundit.com/archives/033024.php: "Thus, this war will not see an end unless America revives the preemptive war strategy and start chasing the enemies and striking their bases in the region, especially in Syria and Iran." That seems right to me... Answer your second question?
"What's the "otherwise" here?" A sanity ray. Obviously they've been very sparing in its use.
Also: "The real problem in the war on terror, I think, is a relatively small number of terror-backers in Iran and Saudi Arabia. Why aren't we waging unconventional warfare against them? They undoubtedly have toes we can step on in the form of business interests, overseas accounts, vacation homes, etc. Would we make more progress by targeting those sorts of things, rather than fighting their cannon fodder in the field? If I recall correctly, a shift to that strategy was what ended the Philippine insurgency a century ago..." http://instapundit.com/archives/031654.php Glenn, to his credit, has been relatively clear on his thoughts on this matter, so much so that I don't understand why Matthew is confused now.
Hey, the only way to be sure is to invade first and find out second. Just a caveat, foreign policy based on proving a null set turns out not to be so cost-effective.
Maybe they have Carl Rove's facts.
Re the first question: "I tend to agree with Jim Dunnigan that military action right now would be a mistake, and that we should be working for regime change, and supporting anti-Mullah activities in Iran. (Perhaps we are, but I don't see much sign of it). I think some of the fears are overstated -- I've heard people talk about the Iranians developing an EMP weapon, but I think they're a long way from that. I think you need a thermonuclear (hydrogen), not simply a nuclear weapon to get a crippling EMP pulse (this says that you need at least a megaton device) and that's much harder than a simple atomic bomb." http://instapundit.com/archives/029800.php The guy's been very clear and succinct on this topic, and has a good search engine: so, again, I really don't understand Matthew's apparent obliviousness.
Obviously: oil weapon, terrorist attacks and increasing attacks in Iraq. So obviously that one assumes that this posting is a straw-man. One which is so stupid and blatant that it attracted Duncan Black.
BruceR, matthew's question was not "has professor instanitwit consistently stated foolish and idiotic things (to call them 'thoughts' is far too generous)?" matthew's question was "has professor instanitwit lost his mind?" there's a rumor that i can't verify first-hand that the prof wrote a fairly sensible book during the latter '90s. if that rumor is true, then the answer is yes, he has lost his mind. on the other hand, if the rumor is untrue, then by all the evidence we have available, he never had a "mind" in the first place, just a capacity for sloganeering and dumbshit remarks.
the deterrent (or, so I read) may be that the Iranians have hundreds or even thousands of Russian supersonic missiles which cannot be detected in time after launch, to be shot down by Navy AEGIS cruisers. They are based in mountains which line the northern coast of the Persian Gulf, making the launch sites difficult to take out (again, so I read...). attack Iran, and they sink anything that tries to cross the Straits of Hormuz (the only way in or out of the Persian Gulf). Including oil tankers and aircraft carriers. Do I have this right? Has someone else seen this information?
Maybe the Iranians have that nekkid photo of Little George dancing on a bartop.
I repeat: From now on every bad event occuring in the world, evey American failure, combat death, diplomatic snub, every possible negative piece of news to come is going to be portrayed as the fault of Democrats. There are no good options regarding Iraq. Whatever we do or don't do the nation will continue its slide into Hell on Earth. However, Bush is off the hook. Dems control Congress. Congress writes the laws, appropriates the money, introduces legislatives initiatives, has oversight over many areas of government. Of course none of these responsibilities will fix Iraq. The fact Iraq stays broken in the face of Democratic majorities will mean it's all the fault of Democrats. Get used to it.
"some method ... that has deterred us from taking the kind ..." kryptonite?
Dangerous, crazed macacas, armed with nooses, Confederate flags and spitoons.
attack Iran, and they sink anything that tries to cross the Straits of Hormuz (the only way in or out of the Persian Gulf). Including oil tankers and aircraft carriers. Well if it's going to be Total World War (tm), then let's get started. The sooner it's done, the sooner we get some bitchin' movies about it!
Sharks! With frickin' lasers!!!
I keep looking for some sign that more than four years after 9.11 Republicans have become sane, and Democrats discovered some inkling of responsibility for America's obligations in the world, but I see little evidence of either. And I can honestly think of not a single person in government or in the press or anywhere else who (openly) grasps the big picture. It is all fine and good to prattle on about the failed war in Iraq, about the legions of chickenhawks, the gross fiscal and human toll, the perverse impact on our armed forces; all this is true. But the doves still fail to address the central strategic question of our time: if sweeping political, economic, and cultural reform - even if it leads to the disintegration and partition of most of the countries of the Arab world and Central Asia - is not the answer to the threat of radical Islamism then what is? The hawks, for their part, still mostly traffic in illusions. There's Thomas L Friedman and his six more months. There's Peter Beinart and his unitary Iraq. And these are the more sensible ones. There are no more troops to be had, and even if there were they wouldn't do those poor people any good unless you're willing to separate the parties, redraw the lines on the map, and prevent the kind of sectarian bloodletting that happened in the Balkans. (This also applies to Afghanistan.) But, you know - keep hope alive! - stay the course, six more months. If you're not willing to draft a million man army for a generation-long occupation of much of the mideast and Central Asia (whether you actually have to or not) you probably don't deserve power. If you're not willing to radically raise taxes on the rich and less radically raise taxes on the middle class to pay for it you probably don't deserve power. If you're not willing to go to war with Iran as a last resort to prevent the fulfillment of their nuclear ambitions you probably don't deserve power. If you're not willing to enact serious legislation on energy independence you don't deserve power. If you're not willing to do something about increasingly widespread underemployment, enact universal health care, repeal the bankruptcy bill and torture bill and every other odious piece of legislation passed during the Bush years you don't deserve power. If you're not willing to bring a permanent peace in the culture wars (which is liable to include some kind of direct funding for parochial schools, and an increase in faith-based funding) you don't deserve power. If you're not willing to enact wide-reaching penal and prison reform you don't deserve power. I could go on... My instincts are no less isolationist than every other liberal today, but if liberalism is going to be anything other than a decadent politics of nostalgia those instincts need to be suppressed. The other side is too fucking insane and malevolent to govern anymore and it is in so sense melodramatic to say that liberals are its only hope. Yes: responsibility is a stupid and middlebrow thing. That's the nature of it. But Democrats had better get used to it if they want to be the governng majority.
on the face of it, although I completely disagree with where Glenn Reynolds is going with it, I don't find it too crazy to believe that the difference between Iraq and Iran is illustrated by the fact that Bush *wasn't deterred* by nuclear weapons he knew full well Iraq didn't possess in 2003, yet in 2006 Bush *isn't attacking Iran* but is still the same old George Bush. I think the difference is that he thought he'd win Iraq, but for whatever reason he doesn;t have that confidence about Iran (which everyone does agree has at least some sort of nuclear whatsit going on, unlike Iraq in which there was absolutely zero evidence from anyone).
Linus: But the doves still fail to address the central strategic question of our time: if sweeping political, economic, and cultural reform - even if it leads to the disintegration and partition of most of the countries of the Arab world and Central Asia - is not the answer to the threat of radical Islamism then what is? It would be an exaggeration to say that there is no threat of radical Islamism, but not by very much. The total death toll since 2002 from Islamic terrorism has been on the order of that from bee stings, lightning strikes, etc. With the exception of the single outlier of 2001, radical Islam simply hasn't been able to do more than scratch the West. And even an event on the scale of 9/11 is unlikely to ever occur again, given security measures currently in place and likely to be put into place. Much is made of the "threat" of WMD used in a terrorist scenario. However, in the reality-based world, Islamic terrorists have been trying their hardest for many years to deploy such a weapon without success. The possibility of their acquiring and being able to employ a nuclear weapon is vanishingly small. It's a matter of considerable doubt whether a so-called "dirty bomb" would even work. Chemical weapons have been used by terrorist groups before, but again, the total casualties are on the order of bee stings and lightning strikes. Developing biological weapons requires infrastructure that Islamic terrorists are never going to be able to acquire and maintain (this criticism applies to the other types of WMD as well). Given all this, any talk of "raising million man armies" and "occupying the entire Islamic world" is nothing short of insane (and, BTW, a million men couldn't come close to occupying all the territory you list. We have 150K just in Iraq, and we're not coming close to solving the problem. How are a million going to cover an area much more than 10x as large?). Comparisons with the Cold War are simply false - Islamic terrorists do not have the capability to destroy our society and never will. Terrorism is a law enforcement problem and needs to be treated as such.
I just returned from Iran and actually drove past the enrichment facility in Natanz. The idea that Iran is a threat is fanciful, at best, willful ignorance at worst. But of course, this all comes from supposed experts on Iran who have never been there. Take today's news, for example, it's no big deal but will certainly be hyped.
Well said, Sean. Linus has bought into the very questionable assumption that radical Islam poses a "clash of civilizations" type threat. That's GOP Kool-Aid, the very basis of their need and demand for a "wartime footing" (give me a break). I'm always surprised that so many Americans take it for granted that our country is so fragile.
Yes, well said, Sean-Peters. Linus has obviously bought into the absurd neo-con "clash of civilizations" formulation regarding the actual threat of radical Islamism and its attendant acts of terrorism in the West. It is simply not an existential threat to us, and yet Linus wants us to act as modern day Crusaders with a million-man army fighting and occupying even more Iraqs. WWIII (or is it IV?) bitches. Brilliant. Of course, the truly effective short-term way of dealing with terrorism arising from the Muslim world is the way we (and others) are actually dealing with it effectively -- primarily through law enforcement (with heavy military and intelligence agency involvement). Acting like Crusaders in Iraq is having the opposite effect (in case that wasn't obvious). Multiplying that ten-fold for a generation and expecting a completely different result is delusional in the extreme. As is any thought that whoever is in power (Democrats or Republicans) could actually raise and deploy that number of American troops for such a chimerical cause. Longer term, we have to act diplomatically (which involves serious compromises -- not the Republican's forte) as well as with whatever pressure we can bring to bear for political reform and economic justice. For the most part, though, the people and leaders in Muslim countries will have to improve their lots themselves. We can either help a little, or hurt a lot (by staying the neo-con course). Either way, it's not really in our hands. The closely-related notions that we can (because it's workable, and we have the will and capacity) and should (because this is like fighting Fascism in WWII, or something equally world-historical) impose a Pax Americana on the Muslim world is so ridiculous that it baffles me anyone can subscribe to them. Unfortunately, there are millions who do.
he deterrent (or, so I read) may be that the Iranians have hundreds or even thousands of Russian supersonic missiles which cannot be detected in time after launch, to be shot down by Navy AEGIS cruisers. They are based in mountains which line the northern coast of the Persian Gulf, making the launch sites difficult to take out (again, so I read...). attack Iran, and they sink anything that tries to cross the Straits of Hormuz (the only way in or out of the Persian Gulf). Including oil tankers and aircraft carriers. Do I have this right? Has someone else seen this information? this is what I have heard as well-- and I bet it is a significant deterrant
Apparently you can be a tenured law professor and a total freakin lunatic at the same time. Who knew?
"It would be an exaggeration to say that there is no threat of radical Islamism, but not by very much." On the one hand, radical Islamists will never have the operational capacity of the Soviet Empire. On the other hand, they have demonstrated a willingness to use what capacity they do have against us. "The possibility of their acquiring and being able to employ a nuclear weapon is vanishingly small." Putting aside the question of the security of stockpiles (and know-how) in Pakistan, the former Soviet Union, and elsewhere, as well the question of Mr. Ahmadinejad's sanity, there can be little question that enrichment technologies have grown less costly, more efficient, and more discreet over the past half-century. I see no reason to believe that that trend would not continue.
Dear God. We're back to the "What does Bush know that we don't?!?!" style of speculation that makes for great Tom Clancy novels but results in complete, unhinged, barking-mad lunacy for the "some of the people all of the time" crowd. As in: What if the Iranians secretly planted a 30 megaton thermonuclear device under the White House and if anyone touches it it'll go off and it's also got a trigger hooked up to a heart monitor hooked up to Ahmedinijad? OMG!!1
"Rarely is the question asked: Has Glenn Reynolds lost his mind?" Yes, people don't spend much time questioning the freakin' obvious. To be fair, it assumes he had a mind to lose so there's some debate there, but the fact is that if we had universal health care he'd be getting some treatment he so desperately needs.
On the other hand, they have demonstrated a willingness to use what capacity they do have against us. Great. I just kicked a five year old and stole his candy. He was pissed and was yelling mean things. Can I kill him now? , there can be little question that enrichment technologies have grown less costly, more efficient, and more discreet over the past half-century. I see no reason to believe that that trend would not continue. Cite? I just listened to a podcast (referenced here) last weekend from someone discussing Hussein's nuclear program. He said people were shocked, in the 90s, that Hussein had been so desperate for a bomb that he'd been willing to try inefficient 1950s enrichment technology.
Are we required to take every war / terror hypothetical seriously? Due to other anxieties, I dreamed last night that a nuclear bomb exploded over Washington. Mushroom cloud over the Mall (oddly enough, tinted in dated 1950s-60s watercolor wash, as if I'd been reading too many GPO pamphlets).
Linus: even if Muslim radical terrorists eventually obtaining a nuke is a major threat, "a generation-long occupation of much of the mideast and Central Asia" is a crazy response to it. An attempt at such an occupation would do nothing except raise their motivation for obtaining and using a nuke against us. They would have absolutely nothing to lose, and the entire Islamic world (including responsible and competent physicists) would probably side with them, since there is a civilizational war on. De-escalation, people, de-escalation!
"Linus: even if Muslim radical terrorists eventually obtaining a nuke is a major threat, "a generation-long occupation of much of the mideast and Central Asia" is a crazy response to it." Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't. Maybe the civil war in Iraq becomes an intra-civilizational war that spreads throughout the Arab world and Central Asia. Maybe it doesn't. Maybe Saudi Arabia destabilizes in the next ten years and the seizure of Saudi oil fields becomes more or less inevitable. Maybe it doesn't. Maybe Iran draws us to the brink of war with a game of nuclear chicken, and we can't avoid that war. Maybe we can. Maybe occupying a wide swath of the Arab world and Central Asia becomes not just a strategic but humanitarian imperative. Maybe it doesn't. I'll tell you what I think: twenty years from now the geography of the greater middle east and Central Asia probably won't look like it does today. I believe the lines of the map will be redrawn along sectarian lines like the former Yugoslavia. I believe the process of transformation may be quite unpleasant. I believe it was probably going to happen with or without the war in Iraq. And I believe there will be no return to normal.
I rather admire Reynolds for having absorbed his global sense of strategy from that Monty Python episode in which the most dangerous man in the world (Mr. S-C-U-M) (who could easily have been blowing up things, but by some chance was courting a cleaning woman in a London suburb) was deterred by the prompt action of a general in the Pentagon who ordered round the clock bombing of everything everywhere (whilst searching for that strange odor that seemed to emanate from his uniform). Reynolds must have that episode by heart - it showed that real freedom might require turning the globe into swiss cheese, but that we have to be man enough to do it. At one point, it looked like Bush was actually Mr. Anti-S.C.U.M, but his communist wife, the terrorist loving press, and the absense of Cheney from his side for that week in August demoralized him. It is near midnight, now. The only chance we have to avoid seeing our kids have to wear veils, learn Farsi, and get those special razor blades that give you that Mullah stubble look, is to immediately kill 32 to 42 million Iranians. Luckily, in the end, the Iranians will be grateful to us.
I believe it's called a "sunburn" or "mosquito" missile. http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/moskit.htm i don't know how up-to-date the deterrent threat of this missile is, but i read years ago some very convincing breakdowns of naval movements that made me thing something is out there that scares the people who control aircraft carriers all to hell.
Yea, we've got a deterrent. It's called our Iraq strategy. We're pinned down in Iraq. North Korea and Iran were put on notice that they were part of the Axis of Evil, but then given five years to prepare themselves. Voila; Iraq has no WMDs, but North Korea and Iran do. Simple matter of the strategy chosen.
"back to the "What does Bush know that we don't?!?!" style of speculation that makes for great Tom Clancy novels" Quite unfair to Clancy, who is no supporter of the Iraq War . . .
Roger, that Python sketch character was Mr. Neutron, actually. The woman he was courting was Mrs. S.C.U.M. Uh, carry on.
Mark, you are totally right! I forgot about how he would say, I luv you Mrs. S-C-U-M! But ... Mr. Neutron really was the most powerful and dangerous man in the world.
There's only one problem with occupying the entire Middle East for years: It's been tried. Around 1920, the British owned India and Pakistan, occupied Egypt, Palestine, Jordan, Constantinople, and Iraq (not to mention Kars and Baku), had allies in control of Smyrna, Syria, and Mecca, bombed Kabul, and organized a regime change in Iran. Everything a "forward policy" would like, right? And what was the result? The Middle East we know. Let us learn, finally, from other people's mistakes.
"Let us learn, finally, from other people's mistakes." Exactly. The British created more than one of these walled fiefdoms, and after the Second World War America started running the protection racket. But nation building is often a long and indelicate process, and there is little appetite for it in the post-Cold War world. The age of the nation-state itself is on the wane, and as I said I think the Arab World and Central Asia will recreate itself as a postmodern version of its premodern Ottoman self, with open borders, local governance, a central bureacucracy to manage trade and currency policy, and to the extent that states exist I think they will be reformed along sectarian lines. Will it happen on its own? What will America and the West's role be? I don't know, but there is certainly the Yugoslavia precendent (where intervention came too little too late to prevent a general bloodletting). I have mixed feelings, complicated opinions. I'm not a good propagandist for either side. I want to side with the left-libertarians, quote Sam Adams, go on about the primacy of civil liberties, downplay the threat of Islamist terrorism. America is a republic, not an empire, and all that. Except that it's not - really - and maybe never was. And further intervention in the Arab-Muslim world may become not only a strategic imperative but a humanitarian one. Still, I'm not enthusiastic about it. And I keep imaginging Joan Didion - one of our last great portrait artists - sitting across from a fidgeting, ebullient Bill Kristol chatting up a war with Iran. There are wealthy people liable to become more wealthy in the event of a war with Iran, other wars. Some of them have become more wealthy as a result of the war in Iraq. But Bill Kristol isn't one of them. And he'll never be president, or a member of anyone's cabinet. It is a strange kind of man who dreams of wars on the way to the Metro, and over croissants at the Dunkin Donuts.
Comments closed November 28, 2006. |
Search
Subscribe to this blog by Email Books by Matthew Yglesias
Recent Comments
Recent Posts
Weekly Archives
Categories
|
Copyright © 2007 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
Heads in the Sand
The thing that really pisses me off during these last few years is how so many people (Politicians, writers, journalists, pundits , artists) that I used to like or at least respected....are actually completely undeserving of respect. One of those people is the Perfesser.
Posted by DRR | November 14, 2006 12:45 PM