I spent a decent portion of the afternoon wandering the halls, slightly dazed at the notion that out there in the MSM a controversy was raging over Barack Obama saying he could rule out the idea of using nuclear weapons to fight al-Qaeda. Hillary Clinton, it seems, disagrees. But why on earth would you use nuclear weapons to fight al-Qaeda? You use nukes to destroy large portions of cities. Remember counterinsurgency?
« It's a Crime | Main | The Markos Factor »
Nuking Pakistan
02 Aug 2007 10:37 pm
Comments (61)
Yeah, I'm afraid that Obama may lose this PR battle, even though what he's saying is a lot saner and more sound than what his opponents are saying. He's got an uphill battle to change our horrible conventional wisdom on the utility of massive force. I wish him well.
The "nothing off the table" thing is one of the most annoying cliches in American security policy.
First of all, suppose you did take something off the table--"We will never drop arborial leeches onto terrorist training camps." Why can't you put it back--"The situation has changed, and the leeches are going in." It isn't like our policies are a model of consistency anyway.
Second, some things are in fact not going to happen. Maybe if your enemies were really badly informed it might be a good idea to leave some of these things on the table. But otherwise it just makes you look like a loon.
Which gets us to what I suspect is the real value of this--to make your opposites think that you might be crazy, a la Richard Nixon.
Wasn't it just like, yesterday, that Obama was getting his balls busted for calling her Bush-lite? Heh.
He seems to be (or I could be imagining this) developing a strategy where he says something that knows the other candidates will jump on to try to point out how naive(!) and inexperienced(!)he is, but then all it does it make them look like idiots. It's some weird Jujitsu shit or something.
Maybe it's time to start giving the Obama campaign a little more credit.
Which gets us to what I suspect is the real value of this--to make your opposites think that you might be crazy, a la Richard Nixon.
Because that's how Nixon won Vietnam?
It isn't like our policies are a model of consistency anyway.
'zactl. If you have the capability, it remains on the table. That truth makes people who refuse to say the words "off the table" under any circumstances look crazy to me. Nutter chin-jutters.
I think she represents the lunatic wing of the Democratic Party. How could any Progressive vote for her?
Which gets us to what I suspect is the real value of this--to make your opposites think that you might be crazy, a la Richard Nixon.
Or, you know, George W. Bush. "Pick up a country and throw it against the wall," violate international norms so no one's quite sure what will set us off again, etc. Cripes.
Yes, we must remember that Obama is the sensible chap who wants to invade Pakistan, not nuke it. Er, not nuke it if that involves civilians, I mean.
Obama is the sensible chap who wants to invade Pakistan,
He never actually used the word "invade," right? That's the voice in your head. Don't listen to it.
Matt,
Thank you for being dazed.
Presumably, the only time that nukes have been used they were used by the US to impress the Russians who had just entered the Pacific War that Uncle Sam meant business (thank you Japanese ladies and children for being part of the demonstration).
So it seems that the same intention applies: We need to impress somebody, no other reason. Kill some people to impress others. We don't act that way at home, Why does the United States glory in killing foreigners for little or no reason? These people are dangerous.
"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."
First of all, how is this any different than Bush's policy of tossing the odd Hellfire at a house in Pakistan? Doubtless Musharraf can't act, not won't. What does he mean by 'act'? I'm guessing that it involves US troops on the ground -- kind of an invasion, I think.
Nevertheless, it's an unlikely hypothetical, just like today's question. Obama blew it: he could have easily said "That's a stupid question and here's why..." Instead, he gave an opening to his opponents.
He seems to be (or I could be imagining this) developing a strategy where he says something that knows the other candidates will jump on to try to point out how naive(!) and inexperienced(!)he is, but then all it does it make them look like idiots.
Depends on how much people still listen to the talking heads, because they aren't going to read "I'm not glassing Pakistan to kill some terrorists" as sane, they are all going to gasp because he broke the parlor rules and ruled out anything. It's not serious. Serious foreign policy people know that American presidents never promise not to anything, no matter how stupid it sounds.
Your primary voter probably doesn't give a damn though, I can't imagine Hillary getting anywhere keeping the door open to opening the gates of hell and destroying South Asia (cause it wouldn't just be Pakistan going up).
Once again, Hillary and her people showed mastery of the concept of deterrance - in asserting she will never take all options off the table.
If AQ does end up trying for WMD, I would like it in the back of the mind of any nation that assists AQ in getting a few nukes or adequate stocks of anthrax spores, tulerima, pneumonic plague to cause mass casualties in the cities of America and/or its allies, that the US could possibly come back with a very one-sided thermonuclear war. We count on that deterrent. Not for the fanatics that seek apocalypse, but for the scientists and businessmen tempted to sell stuff to terrorists but fearful their family would end up roasted in a fireball, and for the security people and leaders of such nations to keep an eye on their people with access to technology terrorist seek, because if they fail, their families end up roasted in a fireball.
Richard Nixon, IMO, made the right call when he unilaterally abandoned US use of chemical and biological weapons and pressed others to sign a treaty abandonong their use. His rationale was that nukes were bad enough, we were all better off ending pursuit of other WMD, especially a quest of a future propogating "Satan Bug" that would sweep the planet. His answer to critics who said; "What if others attack with those WMD"?? was that he would continue the practice Truman and Congress set in 1949 with NATO of "nuclear ambiguity" - in some circumstances we might use them, in others we may not, even in extremis. But we will leave our enemies or any tempted to aid their cause in doubt and fear of the repercussions America would inflict after being attacked..
Hillary Clinton "gets this" as all Presidents from Truman to poor Dubya's handlers do, with the possible exception of Jimmy Carter - who was so doubted he had to assert "really, honestly, in some circumstances, he would." You're outside all Geneva and Hague law as soon as nukes or major biowar starts, so Obama's laudable concern for enemy civilians as millions of Americans are vaporized or coughing up blood and covered in black pustules is darned...noble...of him,
But again, reckless and naive. A man who lately has shown his lack of executive, military, foreign policy experience every time he opens his mouth.
I'm guessing that it involves US troops on the ground -- kind of an invasion, I think.
On this account, if we have special forces in Iran sabotaging and generally dicking around with their nuclear program, we've invaded? I don't that's the colloquial understanding.
But again, reckless and naive. A man who lately has shown his lack of executive, military, foreign policy experience every time he opens his mouth.
Now take the Administration's dick out your mouth and say it, Red.
"On this account, if we have special forces in Iran sabotaging and generally dicking around with their nuclear program, we've invaded? I don't that's the colloquial understanding."
Dunno about your colloqualisms, but I think yes. I might be in favor of it, but yes, it would technically be an invasion. Are you suggesting this is a good idea? And not an invasion?
Tim, got a dick fixation tonight? You've used the word twice in three minutes. Answer on the points -- you're better than that.
SomeCallMeTim, I completely agree with your assessment of Mr. Ford (though maybe he is buttering up HRC more than GWB?), and I absolutely applaud your vehemence, but can't we aspire to keep this a family comments section?
What's really horrific about Hillary's statement is that:
(1) Contrary to Chris Ford, she didn't SAY she would consider using nukes on Pakistan only if she had reason to think that al-Qaida was about to get its hands on nukes (or, perhaps, really dangerous bioweapons, although even the latter -- in their state of technological development for the next couple of decades -- aren't remotely as dangerous as nukes). She left open the impression that she might be willing to use them under OTHER circumstances.
(In any case, it's very hard to see how trying to nuke al-Qaida camps could prevent the organization from getting its hands on Pakistani nukes, or on bioweapons, if matters really have reached that point -- the situation then will almost certainly be beyond any human salvaging.)
(2) She doesn't seem to have given the slightest consideration to the effect this statement may have on politics in Pakistan, which is arguably the single most dangerous country on Earth precisely because it (A) possesses 50 Bombs, and (B) is unstable and vulnerable to a takeover by aQ sympathizers. Most of the people of Pakistan are still very reluctant to support Islamic Fundamentalist parties -- they got only 7% in the last election (which Musharraf actually rigged to try to increase their vote), and before then they've never gotten more than 4%. But what the hell are the people of Pakistan going to start thinking tomorrow, when their newspaper headlines tell them that the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination for President of United States is saying that she may sprinkle nukes all over their country just to swat the comparative flies of a non-nuclear-armed al-Qaida? What would WE think? A lot of them will be livid with rage; a lot of others will start thinking that an immediate alliance with al-Qaida may be necessary for the country's damned physical survival. And there are far more extremists in Pakistan's military than in its general population -- which is why the country came within a few days of a nuclear war with India and was apparently only prevented because one low-level government clerk who overheard the plans spilled the beans to London before fleeing for exile there.
What the hell was this fool woman thinking? And, after that statement (which far surpasses in lunacy anything that the Bushites have ever said), why should any sane person allow her within 10 miles of the White House?
I would like it in the back of the mind of any nation that assists AQ in getting a few nukes or adequate stocks of anthrax spores, tulerima, pneumonic plague to cause mass casualties in the cities of America and/or its allies, that the US could possibly come back with a very one-sided thermonuclear war. We count on that deterrent. Not for the fanatics that seek apocalypse, but for the scientists and businessmen tempted to sell stuff to terrorists but fearful their family would end up roasted in a fireball, and for the security people and leaders of such nations to keep an eye on their people with access to technology terrorist seek, because if they fail, their families end up roasted in a fireball.
I think that other nations need to revamp their nuclear technology and long range delivery capabilities as soon as possible. After invading Iraq in pursuit of non-existent WMD and destroying the country, a nuclear fireball in a couple of US cities in return might have given pause to the many nutters such as Chris Ford and Clinton who think deterrent must be a one-sided affair.
One of the fundamental differences between conflict with states and conflict with stateless, suicidal organizations, is that the threat of a nuclear bombardment is not a deterrent at all with the second group. Al Qaeda's operations aren't going to be affected a wit by a grand proclamation from a US president declaring that nukes are on the table. In fact, if Al Qaeda thought it could provoke a nuclear strike on a Muslim city by the United States, then if would provoke that attack, because it has always been in Al Qaeda's interest to get Americans to kill Muslims. Seriously. Saying that nukes aren't on the table is certainly a worthless token gesture, but if it reflects an actual attitude about the use of the deadliest weapon in man's arsenal, then I welcome it. The only semi-rational use for nuclear weapons has always been to prevent their deployment in the first place. Beyond responding to a potential nuclear threat, no sane person could ever justify using these weapons at all, let alone against some pissed off goat herders with bomb jackets and AKs.
Wow...are we even having this conversation?
First of all we're discussing Pakistan as though it and all other Middle Eastern nations are all alike, all on the verge of becoming theocracies run by the most radical of the radical...they aren't.
Secondly, we're getting seriously caviler about nukes...these are the worst weapons in their own right, but because of this *deterrence* theory, more of the world has them than ever and more of those folks have less than stable political environments.
Good golly folks...I can only hope that any discussion of nukes would involve the most weighty of thought. Imagine if that door were opened...
"But again, reckless and naive. A man who lately has shown his lack of executive, military, foreign policy experience every time he opens his mouth."
That's a very apt & accurate self-description, Chris Brown.
Why would such experience lead a person to say that he or she would use nuclear weapons in order to destroy terrorists? Considering the collateral damage that you can already inflict on innocent civilian bystanders when you resort to conventional military weapons such as cruise missles and bombs, why would you pledge to use WMD in order to get terrorists? The level of fear that nukes might create in terrorists isn't likely to be much more than the fear created by cruise missile or bomber attacks, and the propaganda value created in our enemy's favor by the vastly greater potential of nukes for collateral damage to innocent civilians in Pakistan or Afghanisitan would come at the expense of our soft power (the power to win over the hearts and minds of said civilians). Considering that our long-term goal is to win over the hearts and minds of those civilians in the Muslim world, and get them to reject the Jihadists' fantasies of new Caliphates, wh would a person with experience say something that plays into AQ propaganda about the West wanting to destroy all Muslims?
Only an inexperienced, naive, & reckless fool like yourself would think that nuclear brinkmanship conducted between NATION-STATES would work in the context of fighting threats to national security that operate independently of nation-states. It is one thing to use such brinkmanship against a Kim Jong-Il or a Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or even a Brezhnev or a Mao Zedong; it's entirely another thing to use it against someone like Osama bin Laden, whose goals & strategies actually give him an incentive to egg Western leaders into making such threats.
Good going there, Chris, on recommending yet another strategy that plays into our enemies's hands. Thank goodness that someone sensible like Obama is running, instead of an irrational partisan and ideologue like yourself.
eltoro-bs Only an inexperienced, naive, & reckless fool like yourself would think that nuclear brinkmanship conducted between NATION-STATES would work in the context of fighting threats to national security that operate independently of nation-states. It is one thing to use such brinkmanship against a Kim Jong-Il or a Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or even a Brezhnev or a Mao Zedong; it's entirely another thing to use it against someone like Osama bin Laden, whose goals & strategies actually give him an incentive to egg Western leaders into making such threats.
Your reading ability isn't so hot. My post was not about discouraging apocalyptic terrorists willing to die, but the individuals and nations that might be tempted to help them. And Hillary has it exactly right as 11 other nuclear-capable Commanders in Chief in the office with the possible exception of Jimmy Carter, understood. The deterrence is in the ambiguity, not in deliniating precise "triggers" for war escalation. And the deterrence is not on just leaders of nations, but on people of nations involved in policy-making who have to ask if Israel would pull the trigger if they launched 300 missiles full of nerve gas on the Jews, or any? And so on with each nation.
And with terrorists, the deterrence is with their support. They are not stand-alone, they are tips of the spears of an ideological movement reliant on funding, scouts, weapons procurers, transport and ID experts, financiers and more financiers, leaders and citizens who shelter them. And despite the Left and it's love of enemy civilians over others - the message is quite clear to leaders in places like Pakistan - assist terrorists in WMD and if you are discovered, you risk national obliteration with Russia America and China in agreement that obliteration or a lesser response possibly that allows some to survive is the fate of any implicated in a WMD attack.
Chris, on recommending yet another strategy that plays into our enemies's hands. Thank goodness that someone sensible like Obama is running, instead of an irrational partisan and ideologue like yourself.
You don't know history. You've never studied it. Hillary is just continuing the Truman Doctrine as applied to deterrence, and articulately defending it. Obama is seeking to overturn 60 years of strategic doctrine as a man lacking any experience or knowledge of military deterrence, optimum conduct of foreign policy at a Presidential level, international strategic policy...and his advisors have sent the naive young man into trap after trap. So bad that he is making Hillary look sage and responsible on National Security.
She has impressed me lately. As a moderate Republican, I had considerable doubts about her, but she has high intelligence and it appears, very good judgement on several matters..Like most Americans, I think the Clinton years weren't so bad, especially given the Republican melt down after they had Congress and the Presidency and blew it. I could see her as President. Obama, after his blunders and showing what an empty suit he is, I don't even see as a credible VP, only as an entertaining inspirational speaker in the Senate and at Fat Cat fundraisers in Hollywood and Manhattan.
Following what Bruce said, does anyone know whether our notoriously touchy Pakistani comrades have found out about this exchange yet? And if not, can we please all say a prayer that they continue not to notice?
And might there not be some mileage in somehow pushing a new law and/or treaty that the person ordering a first use of nuclear weapons against human targets will be guilty of crimes against humanity and sentenced to the maximum punishment the law allows (death or life in solitary). There could perhaps be an exception in the case of near certain evidence to prevent a truly iminent use of nuclear weapons or contagious biologicals (not that I can see how a nuke would be preferred as a counterweapon even then). The informal post-WW2 taboo against first use has served us well, but it seems to be crumbling and needs to be shored up. Clinton is scum for playing around with the taboo for a little bit of political gain.
If you advocate using Nuclear Weapons in any scenario, you are insane and should be locked up for the good of humanity.
Unless, of course, you are Bruce Willis, and Osama is the name of a rogue asteroid headed straight for your daughter's snowy white, virginal pubis mons.
Seriously, lock up these raving lunatics, preferably in a gulag. Nukes should be off the table for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is they really fuck it up for everybody and UHH give kids cancer.
I am puzzled by Hillary's views on deterrence. Deterrence "works" when we rule out a first strike (mind you, the Soviets didn't have the same beliefs about MAD). So, ruling out nukes to weed out terrorists in a nuclear country seems to me the right attitude. Moreover, the key to the 1990's was not deterrence, but getting the nukes out of the Post-S.S.R. states. Obama's comments are completely appropriate for a post-Cold War candidate running for president.
I personally don't want to hear a Dem's intellectual musings about tactical nuclear weaponry and limited war. Those are not tactics that will combat Islamism. They simply hark back to the Cold War. Again, people attack Obama for his naivety. Let's not forget that the Gipper intellectually mused about ridding the world of nuclear weapons when he was president.
The Obama-bashing media is really beginning to tire me out. I read his speech on "war on terror" foreign policy. That Pakistan line was a blip. No candidate would say anything different. In fact, they affirmed it in the first S.C. debate. As for the rest of the speech, with the "American Voices" centers abroad, it sounded a bit like the high school senior promising a soda machine by the locker room. I am not one to criticize a candidate, though, for pledging to increase foreign aid by $50 billion, particularly when it isn't being used for weaponry (*cough- Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel, Bahrain, Oman, UAE).
Re: Chris- I don't think you can make such high flying claims about deterrence. Deterrence really only worked once and that was with the Soviets (I encourage you to expand your historical knowledge. The Soviets didn't hold our understanding of MAD leaving me to question you with the precise mechanisms that allows deterrence to work). Our having 6,000 nukes doesn't stop nuke trafficking (read A. Q. Kahn), and it doesn't stop proliferation (read: Pakistan, North Korea). Obama is spot on with containing all of the loose fissile material out there. He has made it a main part of his FP platform, and he is dead on with the risks it poses. The threat of a terrorist network actually having a nuke is pretty minimal. The threat of a terrorist exploding a dirty bomb is much higher. Frankly, I don't see how an outmoded philosophy of deterrence is going to stop that from happening.
Hillary didn't say that she would be willing to threaten to nuke any nation whose GOVERNMENT gave nukes to terrorists; there is an excellent argument for making that threat, bloodcurdling though it is. Instead, she made a bullshit comment about perhaps being willing to use nukes to crush the terrorists' camps in Pakistan (or Afghanistan) BEFORE there is any threat of their acquring nukes. Which is stark, raving mad.
HRC said that to cover the macho vote of which Chris Ford is a perfect example. It doesn't make any sense beyond that, since the days of cold-war nuclear deterrence are over and hunting terrorists or threatening countries that 'harbour' them with nuclear weapons is just plain stupid. She might as well have said, that the US reserves the right to rape 14 year old virgins in front of their parents.
Well, you know, on that last subject, we still don't know a lot of what went on and was photographed at Abu Ghraib -- except that even Sen. Levin says we should keep it covered up from the rest of the world...
Hillary is just continuing the Truman Doctrine as applied to deterrence, and articulately defending it. Obama is seeking to overturn 60 years of strategic doctrine as a man lacking any experience or knowledge of military deterrence, optimum conduct of foreign policy at a Presidential level, international strategic policy...and his advisors have sent the naive young man into trap after trap. So bad that he is making Hillary look sage and responsible on National Security.
Gee Chris, have you ever hear of "fighting the last war?" You do realize, don't you, that Truman was facing other nation states, when he formulated his doctrine? The cool thing about nation states is that they stay put. Terrorists, on the other hand, have this awful habit of moving around and spreading out.
So, Mr. serious foreign policy man -- unlike Mr. unserious Obama, who (like me and many others) opposed the Iraq invasion for precisely the correct reasons -- tell me: when you leave nuking on the table, precisely who do you nuke?
Really, I think the best way to combat this nuclear dick-swinging is to ask for maximum clarity.
Do you have your potassium iodide pills?
http://www.consumerlab.com/results/potassio.asp
When Bush declared first use was on the table against the axis of evil the era of non proliferation officially died. Which pretty much guarantees their use sooner or later.
Re: a lot of others will start thinking that an immediate alliance with al-Qaida may be necessary for the country's damned physical survival.
Huh? What use would an alliance with Al Qaida be? A better idea for a country in such circumstances: an alliance with China or Russia.
Re: When Bush declared first use was on the table against the axis of evil the era of non proliferation officially died.
Ugly a truth as it is, first use of nukes has never been off the table as far as the US goes.
Shock! The same people who thought Obama would lose the "meeting with foreign leaders" spat think Obama will lose this one too! Could it be that these people simply want Obama to lose this battle?
Let's not forget who the audience for this is. It's the Democratic party base. It's not the entire electorate+ all the wingnutjobs. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the person who favors nuking people is likely to lose this spat, because the Democratic base doesn't generally consider nuking people to be a wise idea.
If fact, if you think nuking people is an excellent way to solve problems, you're probably a right winger yourself. They're the only people I ever hear talking about doing that kind of thing.
Hillary strikes me here as the smartest kid in school going into panic because the new kid in school is both cool and smart...
Also, in the Post story even Michael "superhawk" O'Hanlon defends Obama:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/02/AR2007080202288.html?hpid=topnews
"Michael O'Hanlon, a Brookings Institution scholar, said Obama "clearly gave the right answer."
"He's certainly right to say you would never use a nuclear weapon to get Osama bin Laden," he said. He said that if intelligence officials were able to locate bin Laden with the precision required for a nuclear attack, they would also be able to catch or kill him by more conventional means that would not signal to the world that using nuclear force is acceptable.
Newsday has Clinton's FULL comment:
"I think that presidents should be very careful at all times in discussing the use or non-use of nuclear weapons," she said. "And I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons. But I think we'll leave it at that, because I don't know the circumstances in which he was responding."
Hillary did not "threaten" to use nuclear weapons against terrorists in Pakistan. Not even close. Not that this will change anything for the people who have already decided she's more of a warmonger than Bush.
This is the third time in two weeks that Obama has said something about foreign policy that makes him look naive and inexperienced and at the same time gives Hillary a chance to bolster her foreign policy credibility at his expense. Is he really trying to win the nomination, or is Obama just a plant to make Hillary look good?
'The "nothing off the table" thing is one of the most annoying cliches in American security policy.'
I think it's a good thing to have, though it should rarely be stated.
The value lies in not answering the next stupid hypothetical. "Would you nuke country A to kill Osama Bin Laden? No? How about country B?" Once you start answering these questions, they will never stop. Eventually, they will get to questions where ambiguity is of real value.
The key is to make your stance clear without forcibly stating a policy position, and without sounding like a nuclear warmonger.
"Would you use nuclear weapons against Pakistan to kill Osama Bin Laden?"
"I will not harm our relationship with a valued ally in the fight against Al Qaeda by answering ridiculous hypothetical questions."
It is implied that the responder believes that using nukes is ridiculous here, but, as a policy, it has not been officially ruled out. That way, annoying reporters can not proceed to the next ridiculous hypothetical situation.
Fred, I would suggest you learn about Democratic primary politics. This is the second time in 2 weeks that Hillary has made an issue of something that will likely bite her in the ass. She doesn't have any real political skills, she just knows how to make the washington post happy. she clearly has no ability to show political agility, she knows the tricks she knows and only the tricks she knows. Unfortunately for her, those tricks are better suited for a run in 1992 than they are for a run in 2008.
Soullite,
I would suggest you look at the national polls. Specifically, see the divergence between the purple line (Hillary) and the green line (Obama) over the last week or so. As Hillary and Obama have sparred on foreign policy, Hillary's poll numbers have trended up, while Obama's have trended down. Apparently, I'm not the only one who thinks Hillary has gotten the better of these exchanges. And by the way, she's not using any tricks on this: just playing the sober adult role, which would be completely unremarkable if Obama's improvisations weren't tripping him up.
Barack Obama's speech on Pakistan is beyond my understanding, given the supposed foreign policy experts working for him. Talking about attacking Pakistan, makes no sense at all other than to give the impression that he is crazy tough and so deserves to be President even though he is a Democrat.
Sober adults toss nukes around? What an odd definition of sobriety...
I think the one thing that this confirms for me is that Hillary Clinton would not be a change from any of the policies pursued under Bush. She is fully in the sway of the Washington War Machine.
God, I live inside the Beltway and I still hate this town. How so many people can be so wrong is beyond me. As to Mr. Chris "Moderate Republican" Ford--if you think there is some safety to be gained in the rest of the world thinking we're murderous lunatics, you might just want to be honest with yourself. That's not a "moderate" position.
Why can't we talk about how Hillary is unelectable? The 51% negatives? Why, when we have our best shot since Bill, are we forced to waste time talking about Mrs. Clinton?
She is hated by a majority of likely voters. She can't even get a majority of Democratic primary voters. SHE IS UNELECTABLE. She stands for nothing. She takes insane positions like advocating for nuclear strikes against Pakistan and continuing the George W. Bush "Silent Treatment" foreign policy.
I take heart in the fact that the national polls don't mean crap. It scares me to think that they're polling likely primary voters, because if they're that out of touch, we've got some big problems.
Why can't we talk about how Hillary is unelectable? The 51% negatives?
You can talk about it all you want. Over at Daily Kos there have been like 5 diaries a day for the last year all saying the exact same things about how Hillary is unelectable. The comments are always the same 10 people clapping each other on the back and decrying the fact that no one else can see the self-evident truth.
In the interests of truth over truthiness, however, I must point out that Hillary's unfavorables have never been over 50%. You must be citing some outlying poll as gospel, probably not the wisest course.
Actually Chris Ford, it is your reading skils that aren't so hot. I did not refer to supporters of terrorists being harmed by the use of nuclear weapons; I referred to innocent bystanders being harmed by the use of nuclear weapons. In other words, I was talking about people who are NOT supporters of AQ, but who can be made into supporters if we play into the hands of AQ's propagandists. If we show a disregard for innocent bystanders through truly reckless & naive ideas like threatening to use nuclear weapons when taking out Al Qaeda, we won't deter them from supporting AQ; we will encourage them instead. If we show no discretion in the choice of tactics we use to get AQ, we will play into their propaganda that the West is at war with Islam itself, and willing to commit genocide in the process. You may not have noticed, Mr. Ford, but the reaction of the Muslim world to threats like this is not to quiver in fear of the Great Satan; instead, they will whole-heartedly sign on for the Great Jihad. It is doesn't matter if we make life hell for them, like we have in Iraq; like the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, they will never concede defeat and give up fighting the infidel West once they have converted to the Jihadist cause. Unfortunately, unlike King Arthur we don't have the means to deprive them of their ability to harm us.
Unlike you, Mr. Ford, I am actually aware of history and its meaning, and not the ideological distortions and false parallels that you bring to it. People who are currently not supporters of our enemies will support them if you show a disregard for their lives and well-being when trying to fight with our enemies. If you are willing to kill people who are currently not your enemies in the name of killing your enemies, you will simply gain more enemies. If you were truly knowledgable about history, you would realize that one of the keys to defeating your enemy is to coopt their potential allies and make them our actual allies.
I don't know. A nuke might have come in handy at Torah Bora when we didn't have many troops on the ground. One of those real deep penetrator types we developed for Soviet C2 bunkers would have really screwed with the Taliban cave network. The other thing it would have done would be to show our resolve. I don't see any utility in using nukes today. I don't think any country is stupid enough to have their fingerprints on a WMD attack on the US or its allies.
One idea I heard was to promise to wipe out Tehran and Saudi Arabia if we are ever struck by a WMD. Kind of puts the monkey on their back to solve the terrorism problem. I am not advocating this tactic but bringing it up does serve to scare off people at cocktail parties.
Ironic that anyone would be pointing to polls right now when the most recent Iowa poll, released today by the Wash post, shows Obama tied for the lead there. The latest NH poll (run by ARG, which has trended consistently in Hillary's favor) shows Obama...tied for the leader there. The latest SC poll (again by ARG)...shows Obama with the outright lead there.
Seems like the people that matter most are responding well.
Eltoro,
You mean sign up for the "lesser" Jihad as in the defense of Islam?
One idea I heard was to promise to wipe out Tehran and Saudi Arabia if we are ever struck by a WMD.
Did the speaker then take their lithium and go back to rocking back and forth in the corner?
But one mustn't rule out nuclear weapons at any time because then we show weakness and the terrorists win. Obama is naive!
Danceswithgates,
If AQ convinces the vast majority of the Muslim world that the West is out destroy Islam itself, they will win. They won't win in terms of conquering the West; rather, they will win by creating regimes throughout the Middle East that are perpetually hostile to the West. Considering the strategic importance of the Middle East, our national security interests will be severely damaged in the long-run by such a situation. So from OUR point of view, a Jihad against the West in the name of defending Islam is not a "lesser" Jihad.
Now, what would be a "lesser" Jihad from a Wester POV is a sectarian war within the whole of the Muslim world itself. Yes, such a war creates instability in the Middle East region, but the violence itself will be directed within the Muslim world, and not toward the West.
I don't want either scenario to happen, but if we are stuck with a choice between the Muslims killing each other in their version of the Hundred Years War, and the Muslim world attacking the West, the former is far preferrable to the latter. Let's hope we never have to make such a choice.
The naivety on Obama's part was in opening
this debate in the first place. Rather than
re-assuring Pakistan, it'll inevitably lead
to a debate which will needlessly humiliating
and antagonizing them.
If Pakistan were to use its nukes against us, of course Obama would do the same. That is way the Cold War was "fought". If Pakistani leaders were to start shipping their nukes to OBL, they would not be in power for very long. This much is a given. Him saying the option is "off the table" does not give Pakistan carte blanche power to fling nukes around or sell them to OBL. That should be self-obvious.
It means he won't fire the missiles and kill thousands of civilians and poison the land pre-emptively in the hopes he'll nab Osama. Seems to me to be the sensible position, but who knows what the fuck is up in this country after the past 7 years.
Re Chris Ford: "I would like it in the back of the mind of any nation that assists AQ in getting a few nukes or adequate stocks of anthrax spores, tulerima, pneumonic plague to cause mass casualties in the cities of America and/or its allies, that the US could possibly come back with a very one-sided thermonuclear war. We count on that deterrent. Not for the fanatics that seek apocalypse, but for the scientists and businessmen tempted to sell stuff to terrorists but fearful their family would end up roasted in a fireball, and for the security people and leaders of such nations to keep an eye on their people with access to technology terrorist seek, because if they fail, their families end up roasted in a fireball. "
----------
And Chris wonders why other nations are trying to develop nuclear warheads. And why other major nuclear armed powers might consider helping them.
A little hint. Thermonuclear war is not something for FOX armchair warriors to play with. ( Especially when such warriors have never been within a 1000 miles of an active battlefield-- their aggression is usually the result of still brooding over that time in their early childhood when other kids beat them up and took their lunchmoney. )
He who lives by the sword dies by the sword. Effective self-defense is one thing -- convincing everyone that you are a murderous psychopath is just asking for a knife in the back.
If you want the help of other major powers, try not to appear that you are even worse than Al Qaeda is. Otherwise, those powers may decide to deal with you before you grow stronger. They may decide to use Al Qaeda as a proxy.
Re Ford's comment "As Hillary and Obama have sparred on foreign policy, Hillary's poll numbers have trended up, while Obama's have trended down. Apparently, I'm not the only one who thinks Hillary has gotten the better of these exchanges. "
----------
I disagree. Rasmussen poll indicated a lot more DEMOCRATS agreed with Obama than agreed with Hillary re talking with foreign leaders.
What's of value is NOT national polls of Republicans -- it's polls of people Likely to go out and vote in the DEMOCRATIC primaries. Esp in the first few primaries -- Iowa, New Hampshire,etc.
Obama's laudable concern for enemy civilians
'Nuff said.
Is there even such a thing as an enemy civilian?
eltoro-bs - You may not have noticed, Mr. Ford, but the reaction of the Muslim world to threats like this is not to quiver in fear of the Great Satan; instead, they will whole-heartedly sign on for the Great Jihad.
NOthing like telling the Islamoids - that say they will take back Andalusia and put all present inhabitants to the righteous sword of Allah, that Europe will be conquered effemeninate weaklings bowing to Sharia, or Jews to be exterminated and thrown in the sea - that we will fight back.
Oooooh! Great Jihad??? I imagine Lefties like you pissing in their panties just as craven grand daddies melted in fear when Nikita Kruschev warned the 1.5 billion people ofCommunism would bury us. Or as one soldier in Wittemburg told a drunk German Red "warning" of the consequences of "really pissing off the German people" - that would likely end up as before with several million Germans dead, half their landmass lost, and the German Red's mother and sisters fucking American and Russian GIs for cigarettes.
Scared shitless that the invincible Jihadis will attack us if we defend ourselves, eltoro-bs? Well, shiver away!
One idea I heard was to promise to wipe out Tehran and Saudi Arabia if we are ever struck by a WMD. Kind of puts the monkey on their back to solve the terrorism problem. I am not advocating this tactic but bringing it up does serve to scare off people at cocktail parties.
Realistically, if Muslim Jihadis nuke a major Western or Asian city like Beijing, Paris, LA - the response to wipe out the centers of Islamic strength with thermonuclear retaliation is quite rational, and is the lynchpin of Cold War deterrence.
Essentially, use of WMD on civilians automatically puts the enemy outside Geneva, and it's own civilian population of supporters, enabling enemy actions ....is completely fair game in reprisal.
eltoro-bs - If you are willing to kill people who are currently not your enemies in the name of killing your enemies, you will simply gain more enemies.
Not of the people you kill, or the survivors worried they will be next.
As historians are fond of saying, only a tiny percentage of Germans were actual Nazi supporters, the rest of the "innocent Germans" just supported jobs, better highways, ending Communist mass murder in the East, and for those reasons, not Nazi ideology, were foursquare behind war.
Roasting their Teutonic innocent asses in their cities was our gentle way of saying that fencestraddling, deploring Nazis but doing nothing to stop them was a real bad idea,
We didn't "gain more enemies" when we did so. We eliminated great masses of enemies and made eight times more enemies or "innocent German war industries employees" homeless, jobless as their factories and transporatation was shattered. And no longer effective enemies or :German moderates: behind the SS brigades.
We did see in interviews with the wrecked survivors, that desire to "do national service" steeply declined as fathers then sons were progressively slaughtered - from oldest to youngest.
If we have to seriously pound the Islamoids like the Mongols, Russians, and colonialists did before they were infected by Lefty qualms ---the Great Jihad will end up in the Great Calamity of the Ummah.
Chris Ford, yet another in a very, very, very long line of jingos who will never, ever, ever come anywhere near risking having a bullet hole in him.
I think it's safe to say that many of those reading here were alive during the Cold War and remember the USSR.
The USSR was about a million times the threat to the US that Muslim radicals are.
I'm not sure what this whole episode says about us Americans... either we're VERY forgetful, or we just don't know what to do without a war or without a mortal enemy.
Either way, very sad.
Comments closed August 16, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I'm not sure what's more horrifying: that such an obvious and uncontroversial assertion ("I'm not going to nuke people") is considered controversial, or that the prohibitive Democratic nominee jumped at the chance to imply that she, of course, would have the presidential stones to vaporize whole cities in order to play an extended game of atomic terrorist whack-a-mole. Next on the Obama/Clinton faceoff: should the president have unchecked baby-raping powers? "Everything must be on the table," the junior senator from New York sagely scolds!
Posted by Christmas | August 2, 2007 11:23 PM