Consider the Source

We've mostly been getting this in unsigned editorials from The Washington Post but here Sebastian Mallaby puts a name to it:

Likewise on sanctions, Clinton is the only one to insist that sanctions are less a prelude to war than a means of forestalling it. They are more likely to work, moreover, if the military option is looming in the background, which is why bellicose comments from Bush or his vice president don't prove that war is the preordained strategy. The idea that the threat of war can prevent actual war is the most basic lesson of nuclear doctrine, but it appears to escape the Bush haters.

"Bush haters" is a cheap rhetorical move by which to pre-emptively discredit the notion that one, perhaps, ought not to trust that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney will handle murky and complicated situations with skill and moral rectitude. But why shouldn't one be, in this sense, a "Bush hater" — one who is inclined to expect the worst rather than the best from Bush and Cheney? I'll say that I don't find Mallaby's line of reasoning to be categorically absurd. It's in the nature of the office of the presidency that one is entrusting a great deal of discretionary authority to its holder and that one is thereby assuming that he or she will be capable of acting in the broad national interest. But this is obviously a defeasible assumption. And what, if not the actual Bush-Cheney record, would defeat it? I wish I could share Mallaby's certitude that bellicose rhetoric is all part of a clever and well-designed plan to avoid war, but I have no idea where he gets it from.

Comments

Mallaby's line of reasoning, not "Ignatius' line of reasoning"?

Posted by dwight Meredith | October 29, 2007 10:56 AM

Yeah, I had to click through to see who actually wrote the article, since Mallaby turned into Ignatius halfway through the post before transforming back by the end.

Posted by Haggai | October 29, 2007 10:57 AM

An understandable mix-up, of course.

Posted by Glenn | October 29, 2007 10:59 AM

Also, the threat of the complete destruction of the world is different from simply "war" or "invasion," and deterrence might differ with that variance. If Mallaby weren't such a useless owl-eyed ponce, he might address that.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | October 29, 2007 11:01 AM

The idea that threatening war, and then actually waging war, doesn't always lead to useful results either is the most basic lesson of the Iraq war, but it seems to have escaped Sebastian Mallaby.

Posted by James Gary | October 29, 2007 11:03 AM

"bush haters" is not just a cheap rhetorical move; anyone who uses it with a straight face has forfeited any basis to be taken seriously.

of course, mallaby writes for the wapo oped page, so i repeat myself.

PS. haggai, did you see nani's goal on saturday?

Posted by howard | October 29, 2007 11:06 AM

Deterrence?

The fallacy here is asssuming that Iran is an existential threat to the US or, maybe, Israel, and, in any case, the moral equivalent of the Soviet Union or Pol Pot's Cambodia, or Saddam's Iraq.

None of that is true.

In any event, bellicosity as not necessary or sufficient to nuclear deterrence.

Again, the Washington elite is awash in ex post apologies for their past failures and ex ante justifications for what appears to be policy rooted in instability and indecision within both the BUSH/RICE and OLMERT/LIVNI regimes with CHENEY/NETANYAHU on the outside.

And, of course, we have a "permanent campaign between and within two parties that represent, mostly, rich people with no blood or treasure at risk, little sense of morality, and confused patriotisms.

Our own political dysfuction is bad enough, without being linked to Israeli coalition politics and sheer racism.

Posted by John Robert BEHRMAN | October 29, 2007 11:09 AM

The truth is that Clinton did not give Bush any sort of "blank check" -- if Bush wants to bomb Iran or hit Iranian units inside Iraq, he can do so without a Senate resolution.

the US Constitution: a quaint remnant of an earlier time, to be followed only by suckers and small children.

If you believed that a resurgent Saddam Hussein presented an intolerable threat, it was worth taking the risk of unseating him by force, sooner rather than later.

if you believe that Santa is swell, you'll absolutely love what fun gifts the Easter Bunny will bring.

war can sometimes be the least bad option.

Bush-Lover Derangement Syndrome: a WaPo Clinical Disorder

Posted by mrs. ibrahim al-jafaari | October 29, 2007 11:11 AM

PS. haggai, did you see nani's goal on saturday?

No, I didn't. I'll check it out later if there's a Youtube link.

Posted by Haggai | October 29, 2007 11:13 AM

In the immortal words of dear leader:

"Fool me once...shame on...shame on you... fool me...you can't get fooled again"

History repeats itself because of fools like Mallaby.

Posted by 2cynicalbyhalf | October 29, 2007 11:15 AM

hating bush is a waste of energy. opposing his foreign policy is not.

Posted by jerry | October 29, 2007 11:24 AM

"The idea that the threat of war can prevent actual war is the most basic lesson of nuclear doctrine, but it appears to escape the Bush haters."

Ludicrous. The idea of "Iran as threat" is a conjuration of the administration and elite press. War is a possibility only if we pursue it.

Posted by Mark | October 29, 2007 11:27 AM

The idea that the threat of war can prevent actual war is the most basic lesson of nuclear doctrine, but it appears to escape the Bush haters.

What a tool. The threat of war can only prevent actual war if it is paired with an incentive not to go to war in the first place - the threat is the stick and the incentive is the carrot. The Senate resolution offers all stick and no carrots. And if Iran thinks it's going to get the stick eventually no matter what they do, there's no reason for them to even consider the US position at all.

Mallaby's argument might be effective if there was a reason to believe that Bush would provide the carrots if the Senate provided the stick - but there's no reason to believe that. The Iraq AUMF actually gives evidence to the contrary - that Bush is more than willing to use a stick when it's handed to him without thinking of the consequences or attempting to use the stick to convince the bad actor to think about the carrots instead.

I mean, jeebus, have these people never played a game of Diplomacy? Or even Monopoly? Or perhaps read any history? These things are basic diplomacy 101 that middle schoolers should be able to pick up from playground games and the history of World War I. I guess that's what happens when you stack the administration full of bullies instead of nerds.

Posted by NonyNony | October 29, 2007 11:37 AM

First we are demanding that Iran stop something they deny doing to begin with. How will we know if they stop when we cannot prove they ever started working on a nuclear bomb?

Second, in Iraq we threatened, then even though the inspection demonstrated Saddam had complied, we bombed them anyway. In Afghanistan, threatening did not prevent war. In North Korea, we acknowledged that we did not have the intention to invade and diplomacy worked. So, when exactly has the threat of war worked? I can't see it anywwhere. Israel threatening Lebanon? That worked great. Israel threatening the Palestinians, not working out so well. Threats against a country that thinks they are in the right do not work. They unify that country against the oppressors wanting to destroy them.

Posted by apishapa | October 29, 2007 11:41 AM

I'm afraid he's absolutely right about this. There would be nothing illegal about Bush bombing Iran or anyone else without congressional approval.

He could continue it as long as he wanted and only action in Congress could force him to stop. Assuming he'd listen.

Posted by Davebo | October 29, 2007 11:58 AM

Mallaby apparently believes - or pretends to believe - that the purpose of White House Iran policy is simply to get the Iranians to freeze their "scary" nuclear program. This interpretation is hard to accept, since the administration has rebuffed or ignored past Iranian overtures related to suspension or modification of its nuclear program.

His comment about "nuclear doctrine" is also puzzling:

The idea that the threat of war can prevent actual war is the most basic lesson of nuclear doctrine...

I'm not sure which particular "nuclear doctrine" he is thinking of here. Perhaps he is thinking about deterrence doctrine? Threatening overwhelming nuclear retaliation, in the case of nuclear attack, is one way to deter an adversary from launching nuclear aggression. But no one could seriously think the Iranians are threatening nuclear aggression against the United States at this point. So there is nothing to deter.

Perhaps the doctrine Mallaby has in mind is this: Compelling another country's submission to one's will by threatening a military attack is one way to avoid the cost of compelling that country's submission by an actual attack later on. This has nothing to do with "nuclear doctrine" But it is classic imperial doctrine, and an application of the law of the strong.

Since the international body that is actually in charge of investigating these things, and which proved its competence before in the case of Iraq, indicates that there is no evidence at this point that the Iranian nuclear program is anything but legal, any use of force or threat of force to compel Iran to halt its legally sanctioned program is a violation of international law and a threat to the peace. It would of course be legal to get Iran to pursue a different course by trading something in return.

Achieving a reasonable and verifiable assurance of US security where Iran's nuclear program is concerned is easily within our diplomatic grasp. One could hardly make a reasonable argument that these channels have been exhausted, and that sanctions and threats are the only recourse, since the US has so far not engaged Iran in direct diplomacy on the topic at all, and will deign to negotiate only through proxies who lack the power to credibly deliver any US concessions or considerations.

The administration's real goal here is not to freeze Iran's nuclear program, which I frankly doubt the White House finds as scary as Mallaby does, but to crush and eliminate the Iranian regime. If Iran suspended the nuclear program tomorrow, the US line would shift entirely to Iranian "meddling" in Iraq, to Hizbollah, or whatever.

The US also wants to send a message that if the US and another country are in dispute about any matter whatsoever, that other country cannot expect to resolve the dispute through square dealing or diplomatic negotiation between sovereign equals, but must choose between abject submission or compulsion under the application of military or economic power.

Posted by Dan Kervick | October 29, 2007 12:00 PM

I wish I could share Mallaby's certitude that bellicose rhetoric is all part of a clever and well-designed plan to avoid war, but I have no idea where he gets it from

He gets it in late night emails from the RNC and other pro republican entities that want to bamboozle the American public into another war. Haven't you got the memo Matt? When it comes to national security we're all soviets now. Their methods are the great example that informs our leaders imagination on FP matters.

Posted by Northern Observer | October 29, 2007 12:10 PM

Tangential point to the usefulness of deterrence.

It struck me yesterday that I've often seen praise for the peace that Mutual Assured Destruction afforded coming from the same people who denounced the Rosenbergs who helped make that peace possible.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | October 29, 2007 12:51 PM

Dan Kervick, I had almost forgotten what well-reasoned analysis of international relations looked like.

Thank you.

Posted by Brautigan | October 29, 2007 1:03 PM

There are two separate issues here: whether Clinton (or anyone else) believes it's good to apply sanctions and threaten military force right now (which Bush is still president), and whether she thinks it's a good idea on January 20, 2009 and thereafter. By the same token, there are two separate issues at play for opponents of sanctions and the threat of force. It's one thing to say you don't trust Bush with any authority at all (kind of a moot point, because he will continue to invent his own authority, but still...), quite another (and more hard-core) to say you don't want the US government, whatever its leadership, to have that authority.

I assume that Clinton would rather not give Bush that authority, but she's gambling that he won't be in a position to do anything with it before leaving office, and it's more important for her to have it once she gets it. I think that's a defensible gamble, a position that can only be countered by arguing that Bush is too great a risk to attack Iran thanks to that grant of authority (and as suggested above, I think that's kind of an irrelevant claim), or that sanctions and the threat of force are inherently bad policy against Iran.

As for Dan Kervick, the next time one of these US sabre-rattlings is directed against a regime that inspires even the slightest bit of empathy by anyone outside of its own leadership, please email me and I'll ponder the substance of his point. (Venezuela, if it comes to that.)

Posted by Rich | October 29, 2007 1:24 PM

So in the case of Libya, which came around as a result of sanctions and patient diplomacy, we are to be lead to believe that there was a credibly serious threat of military intervention on the table? And don't say about Reagan's one-time bombing - that was 20+ years ago.

Posted by Ethel-to-Tilly | October 29, 2007 1:33 PM

I'm afraid he's absolutely right about this. There would be nothing illegal about Bush bombing Iran or anyone else without congressional approval.

He could continue it as long as he wanted and only action in Congress could force him to stop. Assuming he'd listen.

Posted by Davebo | October 29, 2007 11:58 AM
===============================================

True. Worked for Clinton in Serbia. Tacit approval was Congress willing to pay for it

Posted by Campesino | October 29, 2007 1:34 PM

I think that the diplomatic effort is doomed becuase there is no way in which Iran can satisfy our demands.

In case of Saddam it was rather obvious, because we demanded to have hidden weapons delivered, and none existed.

In case of Iran, the latest so-called diplomatic salvo imposes sanctions on Iran not because of any nuclear program, but because we deem part of their military to be a terrorist organization. And how they can "unterrorize" it? Prove the negative, and not that they do not have something, but that they do not intend something that we do not like. And what precisely --- the beauty of "terrorist" is that can be absolutely anything.

Dan Kerwick is absolutely correct, except that the only way Iran can change regime is on its own. We cannot hope for success in a country that has 3 times the population of Iraq, and more modern military, proven military doctrine that stood well in IDF-Hezbollah confrontation, larger percentage of regime supporters than Iraq, strategic position that even Russia cannot match etc. A military stalemate can be just enough to cause a recession in USA and EU.

If there will be a debacle, our ability to bully other countries will be undermined for good, which may be a good thing, and popularity of low-efficiency-vehicles can be undermined, which also can be good, while nuclear holocaust is really not in the card. Ripples of the aftermath can affect Israel in a nasty way, but this is not a worry for USA. So perhaps we should be more sanguine about attacking Iran.

But we should also prepare "I told you so" for the future use.

Posted by piotr | October 29, 2007 1:38 PM

But I thought that we have an atomic bomb... maybe what Mallaby means is that if Iran gets it too - we cannot go to war anymore with them? Maybe that is his main argument?

But then I wonder - what to do with Pakistan? Here is an unstable islamic country WITH a bomb here and now? A country that most likely hosts Bin Laden and Al Qaeda in the North West? It seems as if we are not looking for our keys where we have lost them but rather where there is light?

Obvioulsy we need different strategies than war in order to deal with Pakistan. And if this the case with Pakistan - why should Iran be oh so different?

Preventing a real nuclear country like Pakistan from harming the US without intervention is more difficult than preventing a non-nuclear country from getting a bomb? Why do we not practise this technique now where less is at stake in Iran than potentially with Pakistan?

We will obviously need expiriece with home land security that goes beyond waging wars? Economics alone dictates so. How will we get there if our leaders mention those infamous three letters in every second sentence?

Mr Mallaby - give us your thoughts on Pakistan and then put this into context with Iran. Where is Bin Laden do you think? Who is the most dangerous nuclear threat here and now?

Unless you do so - there is no need to listen to you, Bush sucker, any further.

Posted by Hugo Pottisch | October 29, 2007 2:51 PM

long PS: I understand that Mr Mallaby's argument was that unless you look determined - the enemy will assume that you are only bluffing regarding a real attack.

Well – let’s hope that we look determined enough after Afghanistan and Iraq? Do you think that “acting” in an exaggerated and absolute manner will help the matter on top of the action that has taken place? I reckon that the world wonders if the US can not go to war right now and not the other way around?

The world has changed since 9/11.. you claim to understand that we are dealing with networks and not countries with central control anymore and yet you divide the world like in the good old times?

Of course - there is nothing wrong with putting Iran under pressure. And ideally we all do this collectively on an international scale. I strongly believed that if France and Germany had joined the rhetoric pressure of the US, UK, Spain, Italy, Poland, etc. - the democratic world would have looked more determined. Instead - German ministers calling Hitler has not helped and the world seemed to be on Saddam's side.. not good, not good. I agree. BTW - who is to blame for the bad public relations and diplomacy of those times? Will you complain that France and Germany were merely Bush haters? Maybe..

But Iraq has worked. The world is afraid. France is now using the same rhetoric with Iran as Bush before Iraq (which does not meant that he won't veto a war again). Germany is attacking Iran more than the US (which was different before Iraq).

That alone is, however, not that helpful as the real issue is how to be effective without wars (in places like Pakistan where a real nuke exists)? Right now - it should not matter to you what the Bush haters think. The international constitution looks good. Iran is taking the threat seriously. Now what, Mr Mallaby?

Chances are that we will eventually bomb some fields like Clinton has done in Iraq. Then what?

Iran was close to getting where Turkey is today and there are better chances than in Iraq for change from within. How would you facilitate this? Not that it would help much to get Iran or Iraq to where Turkey is today if we then treated them like the EU (and the US now) treat Turkey...

Posted by Hugo Pottisch | October 29, 2007 3:43 PM

It's in the nature of the office of the presidency that one is entrusting a great deal of discretionary authority to its holder and that one is thereby assuming that he or she will be capable of acting in the broad national interest. But this is obviously a defeasible assumption. And what, if not the actual Bush-Cheney record, would defeat it?

Oral sex.

[This is where one does the "simple answers to simple questions" thing . . .]

Posted by rea | October 29, 2007 6:14 PM

The idiot's arguments contradict themselves.

First he says sanctions can work. Then he says they work better if military threat is there.

This makes no sense. What does the military threat have to do with the sanctions?

Either the sanctions are painful or they are not. If your opponent doesn't give in and you have to attack, then the sanctions simply did not work.

Calling them a "prelude" to an attack also is meaningless, except in the sense that they are an attempt to "ratchet up" hostilities - which of course they are. But a "prelude" normally means something more direct. Clinton ran sanctions on Iraq for years - and even bombed them a couple times - but never actually attacked Iraq directly. He did, however, used them as a means of diverting people from his domestic problems. So they weren't a "prelude", merely a means of ratcheting hostilities for the Administration's benefit.

And the sanctions against Iraq didn't work to overthrow or modify Saddam's behavior.

So either sanctions work or they don't. There aren't a lot of examples where sanctions worked. A recent article in WaPo indicates that Iran is adapting to the existing sanctions recently applied - and of course has survived nicely despite sanctions applied for the last thirty years. Most analysts are not confident that the sanctions so far will have any serious effect on Iran's leadership, even if they pinch the Iranian citizen or the Iranian economy somewhat.

The bottom line is that Iran HAS to have a nuclear energy program, and therefore is in no position to stop enrichment.

That being the case, it's clear that sanctions really are in most cases an attempt to ratchet up hostilities - or in Clinton's case, used as a diversion - rather than an actual attempt to solve a problem.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 29, 2007 6:21 PM

haggai, take a look here (the first goal, although the third is very nice as well):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qO7y6JNvX-A

back to regularly scheduled evisceration of mallaby now....

Posted by howard | October 29, 2007 6:35 PM

Bush hater? You're fucking-a right I'm a Bush hater! And I have great reasons for being so.

But I'm not a blind Bush hater. The wingnuts purposely and dishonestly draw the causal arrow pointing in the wrong direction. The arrow goes from extremely well-founded judgments about Bush's character and behavior to my extremely well-justified Bush hatred, NOT, as the wingnuts like to pretend, the other way around.

George Bush is a goddamned war criminal who started a war of aggression based on a despicable WMD hoax that led to torture and genocide in the form of 1,000,000 dead Iraqis. Not to mention the anti-American political effects at home where Bush is busy unravelling about 1000 years of western progress as he attempts to foist his degenerate crypto-royalism on our proud democratic system.

There's another name for Bush hatred. Its called accountability. If you don't hate Bush, you're either stupid, not paying attention, or you have no morals.

Bush hater? That's right. Bush hater and proud of it, motherfucker.

Posted by Junius Brutus | October 30, 2007 8:24 AM

"The idea that the threat of war can prevent actual war is the most basic lesson of nuclear doctrine, but it appears to escape the Bush haters."

It's rather obnoxious for Mallaby to suggest that the only reason people disagree with him is that they don't understand his argument. This argument was made when Congress was debating the resolution authorizing Bush to use military force against Iraq, and few if any people from any part of the political spectrum were persuaded by it. The argument not only failed to convince opponents of the war to support the resolution; it also failed to convince supporters of the war to oppose the resolution.

We now know the outcome of that debate: Congress passed the resolution and the United States invaded Iraq anyway. So Mallaby's position, inherently implausible to begin with, has been put to the test and has failed.

Posted by Kenneth Almquist | October 30, 2007 10:58 PM