Obama Versus the CW

Speaking of corrupt cartels, I think it's nice to see Barack Obama's campaign taking on the conventional wisdom more directly:

For years, Washington’s conventional wisdom has held that candidates for President are judged not by their wisdom, but rather by their adherence to hackneyed rhetoric that make little sense beyond the Beltway. When asked whether he would use nuclear weapons to take out terrorist targets in Pakistan and Afghanistan, Barack Obama gave the sensible answer that nuclear force was not necessary, and would kill too many civilians. Conventional wisdom held this up as a sign of inexperience. But if experience leads you to make gratuitous threats about nuclear use – inflaming fears at home and abroad, and signaling nuclear powers and nuclear aspirants that using nuclear weapons is acceptable behavior, it is experience that should not be relied upon.

Barack Obama’s judgment is right. Conventional wisdom is wrong. It is wrong to propose that we would drop nuclear bombs on terrorist training camps in Pakistan, potentially killing tens of thousands of people and sending America’s prestige in the world to a level that not even George Bush could take it. We should judge presidential candidates on their judgment and their plans, not on their ability to recite platitudes.

Now, obviously, the next step would be to develop some clearer actual policy differentiation. Silly as it was for Hillary Clinton's campaign to criticize Obama for being unwilling to launch a nuclear attack on Pakistan, I'm pretty sure President Clinton won't use nuclear weapons in South Asia either. But since both campaigns seem to think that public disagreements about foreign policy serve their interests, maybe I can hold hope open that they'll move on to some broader issues.

Comments

Man, I like how he counter-punches.

It may be lamentable that he's sparring with another democrat--or it may not be, I don't know. But in any case, it's good to see his time come back swinging, and saying sensible stuff.

Posted by Count Cant | August 3, 2007 5:31 PM

his *team* come back swinging. his *team*.
which is doubtless right on time.

Posted by Count Cant | August 3, 2007 5:32 PM

Cross-posted at the Washington Monthly (I'm awfully full of myself for a stupid comment):

It's kind of funny to read so many people arguing vehemently over the teeny-tiny differences in policy evidenced by the candidates, many of which come down to one candidate declaring firmly that he/she will consider a particular course and the other refusing to confirm or deny that he/she would consider such a course.

This whole thing on their part is not about policy. It is about crafting the intangibles of how they will be perceived by Demiocrats and by the general electorate. Barack is open and honest. Hillary is measured and cautious. Barack is intellectually prepared. Hillary is tough. Barack is compassionate. And so on and so on. The policy prescriptions differ in the most quibbling of details. The stakes, though, are immeasurable.

Posted by Daddy Love | August 3, 2007 5:57 PM

Well, MY can still hope that the presidential candidates decide as a part of their campaigns that they tell people what they will actually do in office. Sure, it's a wonkish fantasy, and Mr. Yglesias knows it, but surely a man can dream, right?

Posted by Gordon Lightfoot | August 3, 2007 6:06 PM

"But since both campaigns seem to think that public disagreements about foreign policy serve their interests, maybe I can hold hope open that they'll move on to some broader issues."

First of all, let's note that he's not picking these fights; she is.

This difference is significant, and the Obama statement makes clear why: There is a huge difference between a president who thinks she has to be coy about when she'd push the button, and one who thinks he needs to be clear that the U.S. isn't going to be launching nukes when it is neither morally nor strategically justified.

Ask yourself this: Which of those two candidates would be more successful at getting the world behind an American-led effort to get nonproliferation back on track?

Posted by Bob Narus | August 3, 2007 6:26 PM

For years, Washington’s conventional wisdom has held that candidates for President are judged not by their wisdom, but rather by their adherence to hackneyed rhetoric that make little sense beyond the Beltway.

I think I just fell a little bit in love with Powers.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | August 3, 2007 6:31 PM

The allegation is that Obama is inexperienced because he's not ready to use nukes on targets in Pakistan?

I hadn't been paying attention; I couldn't believe that the first time I read it.

I think we're officially into the dog days of summer.

Posted by Kit Stolz | August 3, 2007 6:32 PM

Crazy:

Pakistan criticizes Barack Obama

In a major policy speech Wednesday, Obama said as president he might order strikes in Pakistan's tribal zone to get terrorists, including those responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States.

"There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again," Obama said. "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will."

Top officials in the government of Pakistan President Gen. Pervez Musharraf, a key U.S. ally in the fight against terrorism, bristled at Obama's comment.

"It's a very irresponsible statement, that's all I can say," Foreign Minister Khusheed Kasuri told AP Television News. "As the election campaign in America is heating up we would not like American candidates to fight their elections ... at our expense."

Bush called Musharraf Friday to congratulate him on the 60th anniversary of Pakistan's independence from India, but also mentioned "recent statements emanating from the U.S. regarding possible U.S. action inside Pakistani territory," the foreign ministry said .

Bush "said that such statements were unsavory and often prompted by political considerations in an environment of electioneering," the statement said, adding that Bush said the United States fully respected Pakistan's sovereignty.

Given the substance of what Mr Yglesias quoted (plus everything he didn't quote) from an Obama campaign supporter, I find Pakistan's response -and Bush's comments- amusing.

Posted by Monty | August 3, 2007 6:44 PM

Re Clinton

If Hilarys' husband had used a nuclear weapon when he tried to assassinate Osama Bin Laden instead of the smart bombs that were used, he would might gotten his man and 9/11 might have been averted. Sometimes, if one wants to make an omelet, one has to break a few egg shells.

Posted by SLC | August 3, 2007 6:46 PM

It is also the case that a nuclear exchange between the Soviets and the US at the height of the Cold War would have prevented every bad thing in recent history from happening. It's really a shame that the leaders of the era were so squeamish about egg breaking.

Posted by Gordon Lightfoot | August 3, 2007 6:52 PM

SLC - yes, what a great idea... kill tens of thousands in one shot at the same time opening the world to nuclear attacks in order to avoid three thousand being killed here.

Posted by cms | August 3, 2007 6:55 PM

This is quite an unserious post, and I mean it.

Does Matt Yglesias really believe that the actual rhetoric used by leaders regarding foreign policy issues is nothing?

Ithink it really is a sign of youth that permits such a disregard for 5 decades of deterrence theory.

This is actually a fairly SUBSTANTIVE and complicated subject and Matt just demonstrated that he is unaware of the substance behind this.

Bad post.

Posted by Armando | August 3, 2007 7:01 PM

Yes, SLC! And Pakistan (which already had several dozen Bombs and was stuffed with a-Q sympathizers, especially in its military) would have responded so favorably to such an attack!

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | August 3, 2007 7:03 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/photo/070803/481/kar10108031313

Wait till they hear about Hillary...

Making sure she comes nowhere near getting the nomination just might turn out to be a necessity for America's national survival now.

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | August 3, 2007 7:04 PM

Yes, Armando, Matthew Yglesias, a man currently writing a book on foreign policy, who gets published in respected newspapers and magazines, and who has a firm grasp of the logic of politics is just too stupid to understand the concept of nuclear deterrence. Or maybe... NUCLEAR DETERRENCE DOESN'T WORK AGAINST SUICIDAL TERRORISTS WHO ARE HAPPY TO DIE IN ALLAH'S NAME!!!! You need to catch up on a couple of decades of counterinsurgency doctrine before you comment on matters clearly beyond your kenning. And maybe, if you operated with a little good faith, and assumed that there was something to what this guy was saying, instead of jumping to the hasty conclusion that he's an ignoramus, you might learn something. How about it, eh?

Posted by Gordon Lightfoot | August 3, 2007 7:09 PM

Wait till they hear about Hillary...

Well, personally, I think you people who think Hillary is "pro-nuke" are blowing the whole thing way, way out of proportion.

So if the good people of Pakistan do not, in fact, have a massive freak-out over her comments - even though they would be the ones consumed in the nuclear fireball you postulate - will you concede that maybe, just maybe, there's a less dramatic interpretation that can be attached to her words?

Posted by Steve | August 3, 2007 7:25 PM

Power's memo is great, and I really want to believe every word of it. I especially want to believe the part where she says the US should "[e]nd a war we should never have fought. . ."

But how is that consistent with her advocacy of partitioning Iraq in order to forestall a genocide? She was making that argument just a few months ago. (See here: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-power5mar05,0,3348120.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail )

Wouldn't putting a bunch of troops in the middle of a vicious civil war--even if their mission was humanitatian--constitute something other than withdrawl?

Posted by Scott E. | August 3, 2007 7:31 PM

Re Bruce Moomaw

If I recall correctly, the aforementioned attack took place while Mr. bin Laden was in Afghanistan so Pakistan would not have been involved.

Re cms

To quote the late Nikita Khrushchev, my hand would not have trembled while giving the order. And I would have authorized the use of a 15 megaton bomb if it were required to do the job.

Re Gordon Lightfoot

Since Afghanistan has no nuclear capability, I fail to see what the notion of a US-Soviet nuclear exchange has to do with anything.

Posted by SLC | August 3, 2007 7:39 PM

Why, the reasoning is quite simple. You start with a time machine, right? You would need a time machine if you were Bill Clinton to take you into the future so that you could see that Osama Bin Laden, an anti-Soviet Afghani freedom fighter who had at one time enjoyed US support, was going to help arrange the successful execution of the most devastating terrorist attack in history. But Bill Clinton, as we know, had this time machine, which is why we know he should have had the guts to launch a nuclear missile into a terrorist training camp to "make sure" 9/11 never happened. No... wait, now we're talking about the logic behind your inane assertion that we should have engendered a major international crisis by dropping a nuke onto a foreign country in the Eastern hemisphere to kill a single man. But that would be okay, because we would just show the international community all the news footage of what would have happened if we had not done this, and everything would be hunky dory.

Posted by Gordon Lightfoot | August 3, 2007 8:07 PM

Oh the "new" crednitalism.

You know, Michael O'Hanlon has written more books than Matt, written more article done more of that which imreses you so.

The irony is Matt is arguing against just that type of credentialism you just threw at me.

But tell me, is Matt addressing the issue of deterrence is THIS post? Or any post on the issue?

He may understand it, I do not know, I do know he has NOT addressed it!

I for one will not trade one credentialed expert, O'Hanlon, for another, Yglesias. Let him show his work so we can consider it. He has none to show so far.

Posted by Armando | August 3, 2007 8:09 PM

I think you people who think Hillary is "pro-nuke" are blowing the whole thing way, way out of proportion.

Of course. And they're mostly not people who think Hillary wants to nuke Pakistan, just people who say that. Just like the people who say Obama wants to invade Pakistan.

Posted by KCinDC | August 3, 2007 8:12 PM

Yes, there are legions of eyeballs out there, silent yet supportive, who all understand you, Armando, and think you are right about everything you say. They just won't pipe up, because they know you can handle yourself just fine.

Posted by Gordon Lightfoot | August 3, 2007 8:23 PM

To quote the late Nikita Khrushchev, my hand would not have trembled while giving the order. And I would have authorized the use of a 15 megaton bomb if it were required to do the job.

You consistently make me embarassed to call myself pro-Israel. You're nuttier than the goon who killed Rabin.

Posted by Steve | August 3, 2007 8:26 PM

I can see where Obama wants to take us.

He has got my vote. 100%.

Posted by 100 PCT | August 3, 2007 8:31 PM

Does Matt Yglesias really believe that the actual rhetoric used by leaders regarding foreign policy issues is nothing?

I think it really is a sign of youth that permits such a disregard for 5 decades of deterrence theory.

There is no deterrent rationale that applies to terrorists. Terrorists are just as likely to invite a nuclear attack on themselves because of the horrifying consequences it would have for us.

Such an attack is, in my opinion, tantamount to a war crime. There is no rationale that supports the use of nuclear weapons against terrorists, let alone such a use that would obliterate hundreds if not thousands of civilians and spew toxic radioactive materials throughout Central Asia (and I don't want to hear a thing about "tactical" nukes; there's really no difference, except in size.)

There's nothing irresponsible about Obama coming out and ruling out the use of such weapons in such a horrifying attack. I suspect about 20% of the American people would be in favor of such an action, and a majority of Americans would be against it. Clinton was irresponsible though in calling Obama to the carpet for it, while implying that she herself would not rule out such an attack. Either she buys into the ridiculous deterrence rationale, or she's afraid to make waves among Beltway pundits who think nuking civilians in the GWOT is okay. Neither rationale I find very reassuring.

Posted by Xanthippas | August 3, 2007 8:31 PM

So if the good people of Pakistan do not, in fact, have a massive freak-out over her comments - even though they would be the ones consumed in the nuclear fireball you postulate - will you concede that maybe, just maybe, there's a less dramatic interpretation that can be attached to her words?

The problem here, or, rather, basic disagreement, is that Obama rhetorically excludes nukes (or, let's say, force) from his foreign policy views while Clinton rhetorically includes them. As Daddy Love opines, "Barack is open and honest. Hillary is measured and cautious."

Yes, well...maybe Obama could be less "open" and Clinton likewise less "cautious." Shouldn't any feasible foreign policy include elements of honesty, openness, measurement and caution? Given history, either school of thought could reasonably have greater weight over the other.

I doubt Hillary Clinton is closed to the idea of possible diplomatic engagement with, say, Iran, any more than Barack Obama would ignore the possible need for a military strike against Iran.

Posted by Monty | August 3, 2007 8:34 PM

Silly as it was for Hillary Clinton's campaign to criticize Obama for being unwilling to launch a nuclear attack on Pakistan...

Matt, this is exactly what Clinton said:

"Presidents should be very careful at all times in discussing the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons," Clinton said. "Presidents since the Cold War have used nuclear deterrence to keep the peace. And I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons."

Nowhere in that statement does she criticize Obama for being unwilling to launch a nuclear attack on Pakistan.

Not only is you're characterization of Clinton's statement sloppy, it appears to be deliberately untruthful.

Posted by JoeCHI | August 3, 2007 8:41 PM

Re Gordon Lightfoot

Excuse me, maybe I'm missing something here but Mr. Clinton tried to assassinate Mr. bin Laden. Whatever did he do that for? Was it because he had intelligence that Mr. bin Laden was behind the attack on the World Trade Center in 1993? Was it because he had intelligence that Mr. bin Laden was behind the attack on the USS Cole? The fact is that the assassination attempt was ordered because there was reason to believe that Mr. bin Laden was a very dangerous man would try again. The only problem was that the bombs were delivered 20 minutes too late. Had a nuclear device been used, he would not have gotten away. By the way, Mr. Clinton is not the only one who screwed up. Mr. Bush allowed Mr. bin Laden to get away at Tora Bora when he failed to block the exits into Pakistan.

Re Steve

What does Israel have to do with the subject of this thread? Mr. bin Laden didn't attack Israel and to this day he has not attacked Israel. He attacked the US.

Posted by SLC | August 3, 2007 8:42 PM

Perhaps you are correct about Ms. Clinton Monty...this is a political campaign and all candidates have to distinguish themselves somehow from the rest of the pack.

I can't see how it would hurt Ms. Clinton's chances for her to either simply agree with Mr. Obama or keep silent rather than use each opportunity to pipe up with her supposed *experience* card. By doing that, what is she implying and how is it helpful to honest discourse?

We have huge problems facing us as a nation that require the best of the best to step forward and lead to solutions. Perhaps the *Clinton Machine* would do well to remember that.

I'm continuing to be impressed with how thoughtful this young man Obama appears to be. I continue to also be impressed that he would not be afraid to gather the best and brightest from all walks of life, all around the world to solve serious problems.

Long way to go yet...we'll see what surfaces...

Posted by G Davis | August 3, 2007 8:48 PM

JoeCHI...if Ms. Clinton didn't intend this as a rebuke, why say it?

Posted by G Davis | August 3, 2007 8:51 PM

G Davis:

You would have to ask the Clinton campaign why she said what she said.. I can only speak the fact that Matt's characterization of her statement is contrary to the public record.

Posted by JoeCHI | August 3, 2007 9:05 PM

Yes, President Clinton had reasons to try to whack (as one might so elegantly put it) Bin Laden. But these reasons were not so cataclysmic in significance that they would have warranted the use of a nuclear weapon. Moreover, doing so would have completely eradicated decades of diplomacy between the US, Russia, and all the other nuclear states, as well as all of the work done with numerous nations who have agreed to not produce nuclear weapons. It is almost certain that this would have resulted in a nuclear escalation with Russia, reviving the Cold War and all of the civilizational risks associated with that. In short, it would have signaled an end to the possibility of any kind of international cooperation with the US regarding the production and proliferation of nuclear weapons. This would significantly increase the odds that other states would consider the use of nukes "fair play," with a great deal of unforeseeable but probable tragedy. Compared to the potential consequences of something like that, 9/11 really would have just been a drop in the bucket. Killing Bin Laden, even to prevent a 9/11, is a goal that has to be considered in relation to a whole host of factors, and if it would have taken a nuke to kill the man, the cost would have been far too high. It's as simple as that.

Posted by Gordon Lightfoot | August 3, 2007 9:10 PM

Great idea, SLC. Let's start nuking terrorists. That way, they'll know that THEY don't have to kill thousands or tens of thousands of people themselves. Aall they have to do is kill a few hundred, or even just a few dozen; we'll take care of the rest on their behalf.

Posted by Jay Allen | August 3, 2007 9:49 PM

Gordon Lightfoot needs the support of others to feel confident in his analysis.

I am not afraid to voice my views whether you or a hundered agree.

Agrue the issue, stop appealing to outside authority.

Your new credentialism isa as oboixous as that Matt rails against.

The blogs can be as mindless as the foreign policy community.

Your appeal to bloggism does not impress me.

Posted by Armando | August 3, 2007 10:03 PM

Your courage, your willingness to say what you think no matter how stupid it may sound is truly awe inspiring. I tip my hat to you, Armando.

Posted by Gordon Lightfoot | August 3, 2007 10:13 PM

I'm puzzled by some of this discussion. I was unaware that the maintenance of studied ambiguity on the question of the first use of nuclear weapons against non-state actors, whether preventatively or in retaliation for non-nuclear attack, had achieved the status of "conventional wisdom". When did this happen? Nor was I aware that that wisdom was so conventional that opposing it amounts to a disregard for five decades of deterrence theory. I did not realize that maintaining a nuclear first use option was a part of established US terrorism deterrence doctrine.

Unlike some other counties, the US has never adopted a nuclear no first use policy, and has reserved the right to retaliate with nuclear weapons against conventional attack, or use nuclear weapons to preempt such an attack. However, our declaratory nuclear policy is mostly concerned with states. My understanding is that the actual policy with regard to nuclear first use against non-state actors is in an indeterminate state, not even having settled on a policy of studied ambiguity, so that Obama's indication that he would not use nuclear weapons against terrorist camps is neither more nor less in conformity with conventional wisdom or established policy that the statement that one must leave all such options on the table.

Sometimes announcements that certain things are off the table can have clear benefits for overall strategic and security policy. In the 70s, the United States issued a negative security assurance in which it stated that it would not
threaten or attack with nuclear weapons any non-nuclear weapons states that were parties to the NPT, unless these states were allied with a nuclear nation in a conflict with the United States.

I think someone should ask candidate Clinton to address the Bush administration's overall nuclear posture, and identify areas of agreement or disagreement. Many Senate Democrats criticized the Bush administration, following its nuclear posture review in 2002, for lowering the threshold for first use of nuclear weapons. This seems like another area in which Clinton's policy preferences might be closer to Bush than to the Democratic mainstream.

Posted by Dan Kervick | August 3, 2007 10:34 PM

Well Dan. Then youn learned something tonight.

As for Gordon, well as your brilliant arguments shine through it shocks me that you have not written 10 books on the subject and are not yet at the pinnacle of an Yglesias.

Your arguments convinced me that you are mindless idiot who can not imagine that those you deemed credentialed might need to make an actual argument.

Stupdity indeed. It is a word that needs no argument to back it up.

Posted by Armando | August 4, 2007 12:13 AM

Now, obviously, the next step would be to develop some clearer actual policy differentiation.

I disagree. These disputes are fundamental to how they will conduct foreign policy. Obama is being straightforward and precise - he'll engage all comers, but is willing to use the American military against a legitimate threat if necessary.

Yet he doesn't make nonsensical threats. You say nobody believes Hillary will nuke Pakistan, so why won't she say so.

The pragmatic, experienced view is nonsense and is precisely what gave us every foreign policy fiasco in the last 6 years, including the Iraq war. You might remember, that threat was supposed to be a bluster to get Saddam to the bargaining table (declare war to avoid war). Hillary embraced that idea wholeheartedly, while the neophyte Obama spoke against it.

I have no doubt that they will act fundamentally differently if elected president.

Posted by Jinchi | August 4, 2007 12:27 AM

Rather than arguing with SLC about practical reasons for why we shouldn't have dropped a nuclear weapon on Afghanistan, I'd just say he's advocating a crime against humanity and leave it at that.

Posted by Donald Johnson | August 4, 2007 12:33 AM

Well, personally, I think you people who think Hillary is "pro-nuke" are blowing the whole thing way, way out of proportion.

I don't think so. If bin Laden was hiding out in the Scottish highlands do you imagine she would've made the same comment?

You don't nuke an ally. You don't even "reserve the right" to nuke a friendly country.

These aren't the weapons you fight terrorists with.

Posted by Jinchi | August 4, 2007 12:37 AM

You know though, the tragedy is that the whole point of SLC's insistence on the wisdom of dropping a nuke on humble Afghanistan to kill Bin Laden is simply to have a reason to blame 9/11 on Bill Clinton. It isn't just that he's advocating a crime against humanity, but that he's doing it to make some juvenile, right wing argument about how everything bad that's ever happened in the world is the fault of Democratic presidents.

Posted by Gordon Lightfoot | August 4, 2007 1:14 AM

Unlike some other counties, the US has never adopted a nuclear no first use policy, and has reserved the right to retaliate with nuclear weapons against conventional attack, or use nuclear weapons to preempt such an attack.

Unlike every other nation on the planet, the US has deployed nuclear weapons.

Posted by Monty | August 4, 2007 1:27 AM

Gordon Lightfoot - Matthew Yglesias, a man currently writing a book on foreign policy, who gets published in respected newspapers and magazines, and who has a firm grasp of the logic of politics is just too stupid to understand the concept of nuclear deterrence. Or maybe... NUCLEAR DETERRENCE DOESN'T WORK AGAINST SUICIDAL TERRORISTS WHO ARE HAPPY TO DIE IN ALLAH'S NAME!!!!

Terrorists are just the tip of the spear of an ideology in conflict with others. You deter WMD attacks NOT by holding out the possibility of annihilating the terrorists - but the possiblity of annihilating all their children, friends, anyone that gives them a dime, the regieme that gives them HEU, the Mullahs that preach their butchery is good and holy, the university and the whole city they got the anthrax technology from.
Those with less commitment to death are the ones that are properly threatened with nukes if their beloved holy fighters are allowed to continue unchecked.

Dan Kerwick - I was unaware that the maintenance of studied ambiguity on the question of the first use of nuclear weapons against non-state actors, whether preventatively or in retaliation for non-nuclear attack, had achieved the status of "conventional wisdom". When did this happen?

Sometime in the 50s, actually, Dan. When America and the Soviets were engaged in bloody proxy wars and both the US and Russia had succeeded in minaturizing nukes down to AA rocket warhead or artillery shell size. At that point, both sides then later China discussed and agreed on a 4th Protocol - that any nuclear, biological, or nerve gas attack from proxy non-state actors or proxy states like Vietnam, Turkey supplied by any parties in a primary WMD nation would be considered as a direct attack by that primary nation. This also covered any attempts to smuggle WMD into an opposing nation. Indeed, both the Soviet and American planners believed that any attempt to smuggle WMD in by Spetnaz, embassy pouch, Cuban exiles, Navy SEALs, PRC special action teams - even if not detonated, just detected - would trigger a full thermonuclear strike on the "caught party", since no one could be sure other weapons were not smuggled in place. Which planners considered as intant, no warning, decaptitation weaponry.

And the Soviets and Americans agreed that detection of non-state actors given nukes or certain other WMDs for use against the main nations or their allies would also trigger a thermonuclear strike - not against elusive 50s -90s era "terrorists" like communist guerillas - but against the nation or the main supplier and funders...

In that context, Hillary, keeping with the abiguity of what consequences await a Saudi Prince who is found to have given 100 million for purchase of Pak HEU, all Saudi Cities, and Saudi rulers who failed to stop and then whack the Prince - is right on mark, following the best wisdom the 60 years of think tanks and seasoned leaders came up with. The Saudis, not knowing if we would just hit the Prince with a precision-guided bomb if the Prince's friends succeeded and wiped out Chicago - or vitrify their whole country except the oil fields and smoke Mecca and Medina - tend to strongly go after any such Prince as a possible threat to their very existence.
Young Obama, though, would seek to say that his judgement is better than the past 60 years of strategic deterrance and say that he never would harm "innocent enemy civilians"....which would be a relief to Saudis previously concerned about their fate if Saudi Arabia was implicated in getting AQ nukes.

This was known as the 4th Protocol.

Posted by Chris Ford | August 4, 2007 2:48 AM

"Terrorists are just the tip of the spear of an ideology in conflict with others. You deter WMD attacks NOT by holding out the possibility of annihilating the terrorists - but the possiblity of annihilating all their children, friends, anyone that gives them a dime, the regieme that gives them HEU, the Mullahs that preach their butchery is good and holy, the university and the whole city they got the anthrax technology from.
Those with less commitment to death are the ones that are properly threatened with nukes if their beloved holy fighters are allowed to continue unchecked."

Yes, sounds real convincing, except, again, all you are saying is that nuclear deterrence works against states, rather than suicidal non-state actors. And it doesn't work well enough, does it? Wasn't the whole rationale for invading Iraq based on the idea that Hussein might have thought he could get away with a hail-mary WMD pass to Al Qaida and score against the United States? Sure, that actually wasn't going to happen, but that was the big national security justification for war. By your assertion, we should have just been content that nuclear deterrence would work out just fine. You would have been right! Not for the right reasons, but luck counts for something.

This is the whole basis for Bush's "National Security Strategy": That we don't have to deal with terror cells in foreign countries if we can just coerce those governments into cleaning out the terrorists themselves. I think after a few years of trying this strategy out, it's pretty clear that it's a failure as a policy generally speaking. The regimes in the Middle East like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan and Jordan who are sympathetic with the eradication of Islamic extremism would have long since wiped these factions out to preserve their own stability if it were really in their power to do so. It isn't. We can't threaten Musharraf with a nuclear attack if he doesn't get in line, and then expect the magic to happen-by all accounts he barely has a grip on the country, and if his regime collapses something like 25 to 30 nukes could potentially fall into the hands of the very extremists whose possession of such weapons it was the intent of our threat to deter. I don't really know why I'm bothering to say any of this, actually. It's pretty fucking simple, really. The threat of a nuclear attack on an entity which is not in possession of any definable attackable territory is simply absurd. The point of nuclear deterrence has been, since the Cold War, only to prevent other states from deploying nuclear weapons against us. We cannot as a simple matter of political necessity deploy nuclear weapons against the piddling threat of Al Qaida without totally altering the geopolitical landscape (literally and figuratively) in a way wholly disproportionate to what we might gain by such an attack. There is no practical value in pretending that we would behave otherwise, and it might actually improve our standing in the world a little if we weren't constantly tapping our warheads suggestively whenever the conversation drifts that direction. And, as I have said before, if Bin Laden thought that he could provoke a nuclear attack against a Muslim city, he would do it in a heartbeat-it would drive millions of Muslims straight into his arms. So the deterrence value against terrorist organizations like Al Qaida of claiming in grand fashion that the nukes are on the table, next to the pack of Marlboro Lights and the half empty Miller cans remains, for all intents and purposes, totally insignificant.

Posted by Gordon Lightfoot | August 4, 2007 3:21 AM

Clinton's inability or unwillingness to SAY the right thing must cast into doubt her ability or willingness to DO right thing, for any rational voter.

Posted by sherifffruitfly | August 4, 2007 3:27 AM

Lightfoot - And, as I have said before, if Bin Laden thought that he could provoke a nuclear attack against a Muslim city, he would do it in a heartbeat-it would drive millions of Muslims straight into his arms.

You fail to think this through. The only way we would use nukes is if we had nukes or other WMD used on Western or Asian cities or caught a serious nuke weapon or biowar plot underway. At that point, we are at a Clash of civilizations. No muslim travel out of the Ummah, perhaps the Gulf seized by a consortium of Asian and Western nations as part of that war. No Geneva rules, no sanctity of civilian life honored by either side. At that point, yes, millions would flock to radical Islam and terror (not bin Laden - he is a minor factor and AQ is actually one of the smaller Islamist Jihad groups - he is no CEO of all global terror).

But if millions flock to the Jihadi cause when a full war started by Muslim WMD use is underway, so what? Millions of Japanese in the end of the war volunteered to die on suicide missions against the American Navy or invasion force before that last bit of fanaticism was blasted out of them by conventional firestorm bombing, 2 A-bombs, and the Emperor's words. They were totally useless except for the few hundred that could project force in Kamikaze planes. The rest were just left to stew in rage, powerless to attack the American enemy.

Millions and millions of rabidly enraged Muslims would want to kill us if we retaliated after seeing Islamists nuke major cities in America, Europe, Asia? Pouring out on the street swearing blood oaths to kill infidels? So what?

They can swarm and seeth and rage all they want in the Ummah, because travel by Muslims by sea or air will be barred in a global war. Their 5th column in most nations will be in internment camps. We have the ability to blast any aircraft they launch, and any ship out of the water.

So the deterrence value against terrorist organizations like Al Qaida of claiming in grand fashion that the nukes are on the table, next to the pack of Marlboro Lights and the half empty Miller cans remains, for all intents and purposes, totally insignificant.

No, because Muslims are not stupid. They "get" that they would be pounded to dust in a real war if they used WMD on any infidel population. All the trite stuff about the "sanctity" of enemy civilian lives goes out the window if Muslims break that taboo with a major WMD attack on infidel civilian populations - and politically, payback would be a popular tidal wave unstoppable by any Lefty institution that sought to protect the Muslim nation(s) behind the Jihad's use of WMD. Not a semi-war like Iraq where the true might of the American military has been carefully constrained. Real, toatal, gloves off war.
The not-stupid Muslims in Pakistan also realize in a real war their nukes are undeliverable except on India and US forces in Afghanistan and would only result in a full thermonuclear response if used, or even suspected of being planned to be used by Paks or non-nation Jihadi groups..

That is effective deterrence.

And I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall as top US generals and diplomats demanded an urgent summit with the Paks in 2003 after Iraq's invasion resulted in Libya spilling the beans on AQ Khan's network - when they informed their Pak counterparts of consequences they would have suffered if AQ Khan had completed his plans and transferred nuclear fissile materials to Jihadis. Supposedly, the fear of Allah was instilled by particularly chilling, but of course, ambiguous words from a US general and an admiral about the survival time of the Pak AF, Navy, government, nuke arsenal, Pak scientists in a conventional war and the time they would have to say their last prayers in a nuclear one...

Posted by Chris Ford | August 4, 2007 7:18 AM

You fail to think this through. The only way we would use nukes is if we had nukes or other WMD used on Western or Asian cities or caught a serious nuke weapon or biowar plot underway. At that point, we are at a Clash of civilizations. No muslim travel out of the Ummah, perhaps the Gulf seized by a consortium of Asian and Western nations as part of that war. No Geneva rules, no sanctity of civilian life honored by either side. At that point, yes, millions would flock to radical Islam and terror

I think someone's going to need a clean keyboard.

Your psychosexual excitement over the prospect of race war places you squarely in the insane bigot camp that comprises a significant chunk of the batshit 27%. Enjoy your race war porn, the rest of us will discuss the real world.

Posted by DivGuy | August 4, 2007 8:26 AM

Re Gordon Lightfoot

"You know though, the tragedy is that the whole point of SLC's insistence on the wisdom of dropping a nuke on humble Afghanistan to kill Bin Laden is simply to have a reason to blame 9/11 on Bill Clinton."

Former president Clinton must share in the blame for what happened in 9/11 for having been unsuccessful in taking out Mr. bin Laden. However, the major blame must go to his successor who was too busy ignoring the warnings of people like Richard Clarke because he considered the latter a Clinton holdover and therefore was not to be relied upon. This insanity was repeated when he ignored the advice of the Chief of Staff of the Army, General Shinseki that 300,000 or more troop would be required for the Iraq adventure because General Shinseki was also a Clinton holdover and therefore also not to be relied upon. Comparing the failings of Mr. Clinton with those of Mr. Bush is like comparing the man who steals some silverware from a restaurant with a serial killer.

Re Donald Johnson

"Rather than arguing with SLC about practical reasons for why we shouldn't have dropped a nuclear weapon on Afghanistan, I'd just say he's advocating a crime against humanity and leave it at that."

I guess to the Donald Johnsons of the world, the 9/11 attack was not a crime against humanity. How about the attack on the Embassy in Kenya and the 1993 World Trade Center attack?

Posted by SLC | August 4, 2007 8:28 AM

I guess to the Donald Johnsons of the world, the 9/11 attack was not a crime against humanity. How about the attack on the Embassy in Kenya and the 1993 World Trade Center attack?

Yup, there it is.

Mom, Timmy got to commit a crime against humanity!! Why don't I get to commit a crime against humanity??

I've done a good bit of teaching with adolescents. One of the main ethical notions that we try to get them to understand is that this sort of thinking is immoral, that a bad act does not justify another bad act, certainly not a much larger bad act. They usually have a little trouble with this, because moral sense takes a while to develop, but it sets in eventually.

For the neocon right, the notion of "it's wrong" has never quite set in. As long as al Qaeda does it to us, then it's moral and right for us to do. That's certainly a code to live by.

Posted by DivGuy | August 4, 2007 8:35 AM

People like Chris Ford are insane. He was clearly driven so mad as to not realize that we are no longer involved in a cold war. In fact, the majority of people over the age of 30 are stricken with this insanity. They simply can not comprehend that we live in a different world today than the one they grew up in. Trying to institute cold-war paradigms against a Guerrilla movement is just fucking nuts. It's not going to work. It will not effectively deter them, because they are too small a target and have no real territory. So yes, if Obama had said this in 1962, it might have been a mistake. But he didn't say this in 1962. He said this is 2007. Some of you elderly gentleman need to understand that your age is over, it's done with. You can't recreate it, and the rules you thought up no more apply to now, than the rules of 1930 applied to 1949.

Posted by Soullite | August 4, 2007 8:44 AM

DivGuyYour psychosexual excitement over the prospect of race war

Muslims are not a race anymore than Catholics or Communists are, idiot.

DivGuy - Enjoy your race war porn, the rest of us will discuss the real world.

Again, idiot, Muslims are not a race. And my hypotheticals are real world nuclear deterrance strategy as applied to preventing a Muslim nuclear attack on infidels globally that would trigger a Clash of Civilizations in a war that would be outside Geneva rules simply from 1st use of WMD.

Soullite - People like Chris Ford are insane. He was clearly driven so mad as to not realize that we are no longer involved in a cold war. In fact, the majority of people over the age of 30 are stricken with this insanity

It is one of the toughest barriers in life to get past the video-game rotted brains of half-educated products products of the public school system to convince Lefties that the 60 year old nuclear deterrance policy is still in place. The Chinese have about 95 ICBMs with 4 megaton warheads able to reach us in 30 minutes if they were nutty enough to destroy themselves even worse. The "Cold War" with Russia is over, but they still have around 4,000 deliverable nuclear warheads - again- ready to go in minutes. They don't because they have similar nuclear deterrence policies in place and fairly high confidence that the US has no interest in striking them, or China.

The American nukes are there - ready to go - they aren't a fantasy, Lefty-boy. If our nation is attacked by WMD, they very well might be used under the same nuclear ambiguity strategic policies as applied to Russia if they gave nukes or nuke aid to terrorists....or in certain biowar attacks..On my Naval post, they were for air defense and ground attack. If you saw them, you would first feel the queasy "holy crap" reaction that they say is common when someone sees such awesome, awful weapons the 1st time, then your next thought is God help us never to use them, and the 3rd response is supposedly most people are schocked they are far smaller than you would think..

Trying to institute cold-war paradigms against a Guerrilla movement is just fucking nuts. It's not going to work. It will not effectively deter them, because they are too small a target and have no real territory.

Hard to beat it into the heads of Lefties that terrorists are just the combat elements of a much larger population sharing their ideology. No one is talking about applying strategic deterrence to just the combat wing of the enemy in the radical Islamist ideology anymore than Cold War deterrence was about sparing all civilians and only targeting Soviet bombers, missiles, and subs if our cities got smoked. It was about our ability to end the viability of the Soviets to exist as a nation if they attacked, and their ability to end our viability similarly. Knowing that made it untenable for us or the Soviets allowing pro-nuke attack hotheads in positions of power, or even think about giving nukes to terrorists or other proxies to attack other strategic forces. It was politically unacceptable, internal to each political system.

With Islamists, it works the same, because if Muslims wish to save Cairo, Quetta, Peshewar, Damascus, Tehran, Karachici, Mecca, Riyadh or whatever major population centers we believe supported a WMD attack on Asia or the West - they must keep their extremists in check or pay a most unpleasant collective price if they fail.

Some of you elderly gentleman need to understand that your age is over, it's done with. You can't recreate it, and the rules you thought up no more apply to now, than the rules of 1930 applied to 1949.

Clueless Lefties with no military service and a crushingly vapid ignorance of "rules" of strategy and combat going back to Sun Tzu
and Ur and constantly challenged and modeled by National War Colleges and Thinktanks would think that a smart inspirational speaker with no training, no executive experience, and no knowledge of the "rules basis" he proposes breaking would be just ideal.
In all walks of life, there is the constant presence of the naive and dangerous and supremely overconfident Jr. executive, the politician with 2 years in a national position, the eager Army captain with 2 years command experience - all considered by wiser folks that see them come and crash as trainwrecks in waiting - who think they are so much better than all the others in similar position that "all the rules should be cast out". Rules the naive fool doesn't understand, but with supreme overconfidence in their mostly untested judgment, believe can be cast aside. So great is the young officer's, the Jr Executive, the 2-year wonderful Senator's judgement!

In Obama's case, his advisors have only praised him, it seems, as a God.....and appear to have delivered the cocky young Senator up as shark bait for Dodd, Biden, Hillary.

I would agree that while Obama knows less than dirt about most foreign policy, he could give Tony Robbins and other luminaries a real run on the inspirational speech circuit. Just him calling guilty white liberals to stand up and come forward, a la Billy Graham and sinners, to be absolved of their sins against PC as white oppressor males - would be worth it to watch...

Posted by Chris Ford | August 4, 2007 10:10 AM

poor Chris.

It really must hurt to worship the Conventional Wisdom--the War Colleges and Thinktanks and Wise Old Men with years of *awesome* experiential experience--

and have had them so thoroughly, completely and consistently wrong about every single move on the chess-board since 2000.

Posted by Count Cant | August 4, 2007 11:26 AM

"With Islamists, it works the same, because if Muslims wish to save Cairo, Quetta, Peshewar, Damascus, Tehran, Karachici, Mecca, Riyadh or whatever major population centers we believe supported a WMD attack on Asia or the West - they must keep their extremists in check or pay a most unpleasant collective price if they fail."

Chris, you realize that this is completely insane, right? You've named cities in what, six different countries, including both large Sunni and Shia population centers. If you haven't noticed, the Sunni and Shia are fighting a civil war in Iraq. You've also managed to lump together both moderate Arab states allied with the US and much more radical states. You do realize that Muslims are in fact actual people, not some amorphous herd of identical video game characters, right?

Posted by Tim Sackton | August 4, 2007 11:35 AM

You can tell all you need to know about poor Chris from this quote alone:

"Not a semi-war like Iraq where the true might of the American military has been carefully constrained. Real, total, gloves off war."

There it is, folks--Vietnam Derangement Syndrome in its full glory. Total neglect of political complexities on the ground, combined with the incipient stab-in-the-back fantasies.

Look, Chris--removing the "constraints" from the American military would not allow us to "win" in Iraq, because Bush is so confused at the political level that he has made "winning" impossible.

Should we take the gloves off and kill all the Sunnis? But Bush keeps telling us that he wants an Iraq with all sects represented--and we certainly don't want to strengthen Iran.

Should we take the gloves off and kill all the Shia? Why; so the pro-Saddam Sunnis can run the country? Or maybe any of the Sunni Saudis lured there by our presence? Bush keeps telling us that it's the Sunnis and the Saudis who are attacking our troops. Oh--sorry; he doesn't say "Saudis", because they are his family friends. He says "Al Qaeda in Iraq", which is his attempt to protect the Saudis from the truth.

And didn't Bush tell us we're spending our blood and treasure to build a democracy in Iraq? So maybe the plan of taking the gloves off and killing the entire population isn't so good either.

Look--the problems in Iraq are political. There is nothing more for our military, constrained or unconstrained, to accomplish there.

But keeping pumping up those pipe dreams about how we coulda won if only they'd let us take the gloves off....And don't forget that it was Bush who left us with nothing to "win".

Posted by Count Cant | August 4, 2007 12:37 PM

Chris Ford:

You've lost me. What you are talking about is nuclear retaliation against a nuclear weapons state in response to an attack by possible agents or proxies of that state, whether states, individuals or non-state groups.

But the question Obama was asked is whether the US should use nuclear weapons directly against an Al-Qaeda base or Bin Laden hideout, inside the territory of Afghanistan or Pakistan, as part of the war against terrorism itself. And he was asked specifically about the use of tactical nuclear weapons for this purpose. The clear implication of the question was whether a President Obama would, having identified an Al-Qaeda training camp or Bin Laden hideout somewhere in Pakistan, use a tactical or battlefield nuclear weapon against this camp or hideout.

He was not asked whether he would use nukes to punish Pakistan, or decapitate its government, in response to WMD attacks coming from non-state actors inside its territory. So the "4th protocol" scenarios you are discussing, such as the case of hypothetical Saudi prince, do not bear on the question Obama was asked to address. The Saudi price scenario concerns the question of the extent to which states should be held responsible for the actions of individuals living in them. But that wasn't the question posed to Obama.

My contention is that it is by no means established US policy or even conventional wisdom that the US should either (a) declare it would use nuclear weapons against terrorist camps or even (b) maintain a studied tactical ambiguity on the question of using nuclear weapons against terrorist camps. If a candidate implies that it is, or should be, US policy to maintain such a studied ambiguity about this kind of nuclear attack, then that is a very significant statement about a possible extension of, clarification of, or innovation in current US policy, not merely a restatement of conventional wisdom.

So I think it is a mistake to criticize Obama for rejecting conventional wisdom with his answer. It is equally a mistake to praise him for bucking conventional wisdom with the answer. The implication that, prior to Obama's answer, it was conventional wisdom in Washington that the US would or should use nuclear weapons in the war against terrorism against terrorist camps or individuals is just mistaken.

As for 4th protocol, I wonder if you can document your assertion that this alleged protocol exists outside the realm of spy novels, movies and computer games. But in any case, ultra-super-secret protocols that may or may not exist hardly rise to the level of conventional wisdom

Posted by Dan Kervick | August 4, 2007 7:11 PM

dloywz pcsajuit zpnavulh tepuzvn gtwmnxj yiwua nrfpvyltj

Posted by mzunwov ahkidfeg | August 16, 2007 9:18 PM

dloywz pcsajuit zpnavulh tepuzvn gtwmnxj yiwua nrfpvyltj

Posted by mzunwov ahkidfeg | August 16, 2007 9:18 PM