Good Lede

John Richardson writes a profile for Esquire:

In the years after 9/11, Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann worked at the highest levels of the Bush administration as Middle East policy experts for the National Security Council. Mann conducted secret negotiations with Iran. Leverett traveled with Colin Powell and advised Condoleezza Rice. They each played crucial roles in formulating policy for the region leading up to the war in Iraq. But when they left the White House, they left with a growing sense of alarm -- not only was the Bush administration headed straight for war with Iran, it had been set on this course for years. That was what people didn't realize. It was just like Iraq, when the White House was so eager for war it couldn't wait for the UN inspectors to leave. The steps have been many and steady and all in the same direction. And now things are getting much worse. We are getting closer and closer to the tripline, they say.

For further reading on what Richardson terms the "secret history of the impending war with Iran" I'd recommend Gareth Porter's "Burnt Offering". If you're interested in an account of why "War with Iran would be a catastrophe that would make us look back fondly on the minor inconvenience of being bogged down in Iraq" read Fallows.

Comments

For those pressed for time, I'll save you the trouble of clicking on the Fallows link. According to Fallows, this is why we should be really, really, afraid of bombing Iran: because Iran would launch

"a short-term effort to make things really difficult for Americans in Iraq (where Iran obviously has huge leverage), in world energy markets, and everywhere else — plus a long-term, renewed effort to build Iran’s own bomb."

I think I'm still more afraid of Iran having nukes than those potential Iranian responses to air strikes.

Posted by Fred | November 5, 2007 3:16 PM

I think I'm still more afraid of Iran having nukes than those potential Iranian responses to air strikes.

That's because you are a member of the "all war all the time" party.

Posted by goethean | November 5, 2007 3:29 PM

"Potential Iranian responses to air strikes." That's the problem in your thinking: it's not just the Iranian response. Islam throughout the Middle East would become even more fundamentalist and politicized. It'd use guerrilla-like violence to eat at Western powers, using the politically powerful victimhood thing to win elections in other countries. ("Well we can just bomb them too!")

Iran is a modern country with messed up leadership. Forcing the population to side with the bad guys is a bad, bad idea.

Posted by no | November 5, 2007 3:41 PM

Atually, if you link to the earlier "Atlantic" piece ( http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200412/fallows ) that Fallows mentions in his new article -- which concerns the results of a Dec. 2004 war game starring Sam Gardiner, David Kay, Ken Pollack, Reuel Gerecht, Kenneth Bacon and Michael Mazarr -- they were also very skeptical that such an attack would actually work:

"The participants touched only briefly on the Osirak-style strike during the war game, but afterward most of them expressed doubt about its feasibility. The United States simply knew too little about which nuclear projects were under way and where they could be destroyed with confidence. If it launched an attack and removed some unknown proportion of the facilities, the United States might retard Iran's progress by an unknown number of months or years—at the cost of inviting all-out Iranian retaliation. 'Pre-emption is only a tactic that puts off the nuclear development,' Gardiner said after the exercise. 'It cannot make it go away. Since our intelligence is so limited, we won't even know what we achieved after an attack. If we set it back a year, what do we do a year later? A pre-emptive strike would carry low military risk but high strategic risk.'...

"The problem is that Iran's nuclear program is now much more advanced than Iraq's was at the time of the raid. Already the U.S. government has no way of knowing exactly how many sites Iran has, or how many it would be able to destroy, or how much time it would buy in doing so. Worse, it would have no way of predicting the long-term strategic impact of such a strike. A strike might delay by three years Iran's attainment of its goal—but at the cost of further embittering the regime and its people. Iran's intentions when it did get the bomb would be all the more hostile.

"Here the United States faces what the military refers to as a 'branches and sequels' decision—that is, an assessment of best and second-best outcomes. It would prefer that Iran never obtain nuclear weapons. But if Iran does, America would like Iran to see itself more or less as India does—as a regional power whose nuclear status symbolizes its strength relative to regional rivals, but whose very attainment of this position makes it more committed to defending the status quo. The United States would prefer, of course, that Iran not reach a new level of power with a vendetta against America. One of our panelists [Gerecht?] thought that a strike would help the United States, simply by buying time. The rest disagreed. Iran would rebuild after a strike, and from that point on it would be much more reluctant to be talked or bargained out of pursuing its goals — and it would have far more reason, once armed, to use nuclear weapons to America's detriment...

"A realistic awareness of these constraints will put the next President in an awkward position. In the end, according to our panelists, he should understand that he cannot prudently order an attack on Iran. But his chances of negotiating his way out of the situation will be greater if the Iranians don't know that. He will have to brandish the threat of a possible attack while offering the incentive of economic and diplomatic favors should Iran abandon its plans. 'If you say there is no acceptable military option, then you end any possibility that there will be a non-nuclear Iran,' David Kay said after the war game. 'If the Iranians believe they will not suffer any harm, they will go right ahead.' [Marine Col. Tom] Hammes agreed: 'The threat is always an important part of the negotiating process. But you want to fool the enemy, not fool yourself. You can't delude yourself into thinking you can do something you can't.' Is it therefore irresponsible to say in public, as our participants did and we do here, that the United States has no military solution to the Iran problem? Hammes said no. Iran could not be sure that an American President, seeing what he considered to be clear provocation, would not strike. 'You can never assume that just because a government knows something is unviable, it won't go ahead and do it. The Iraqis knew it was not viable to invade Iran, but they still did it. History shows that countries make very serious mistakes.' "

The conclusion seems to be that Richard Nixon's "act crazy" strategy might have its uses after all -- but how convincingly can we do so when the word is out that our strategists actually think an attack would probably be nuts? Especially now? In his new article, Fallows adds: "More than two years ago, this exercise in the Atlantic indicated that it was simply too late for the United States (much less Israel) to deny Iran a nuclear option via surprise attack. Since then — well, it’s even later."

If I myself thought such a strike would work, I'd favor it in a split-second -- for the same reason as Fred. But what if it probably won't, and definitely will produce very serious side effects? And is anyone willing to gamble on THIS administration doing it properly?

Posted by bruce moomaw | November 5, 2007 3:59 PM

Fred being an ignoramus, he still can't be forgiven despite Matt's incompetence at referring to Fallows piece as an indication of the problems attacking Iran would cause.

Fallows doesn't even come close to being specific.

It's going to be far worse than he thinks.

For example, a war game held back in 2002 where the part of Iran was played by a retired US Marine Corps general ended up with Iran sinking 14 US warships in the Gulf. Had it occurred in reality, it would have been the biggest US naval disaster since Pearl Harbor.

And while I doubt the Iranians would be so successful at this point, there is the fact that the US still has no known defense against the Iranian swarm tactics. Count on Iran sinking at least one US warship with the loss of most of the US sailors.

More importantly, Iran can simply mine the Gulf. No oil tanker captain will risk sinking his ship despite assurances by the US of escorts - especially when said escorts are under constant attack by small boats with anti-ship missiles.

Follow that up with a couple dozen Iranian missiles landing on US bases in Qatar and the Green Zone in Iraq.

Follow that up with IRGC agents in Iraq assisting the Iraqi Shia militias in cutting off US supply lines from Kuwait, leaving the US forces in Iraq with no food, water, fuel or ammo within thirty to ninety days. Add to that Turkey shutting down the northern supply route as part of their assault on the Kurds.

And if William Lind is correct, things could get much worse. Under cover of bad weather, the Iranians could simply roll in four to six divisions and roll up the US forces in Iraq, forcing an evacuation under fire - if the Iraqi Shia militias and the Sunni insurgencies haven't already with IRGC assistance.

Personally I doubt that scenario. Much more likely will be the Iranians doing smaller border incursions into Iraq to lure US forces into Iran. Since Dick Cheney wants the Khuzestan oil province, this will be easy. What won't be easy is the US running into the sort of defenses Hizballah used on Israel last year.

Now take that sort of guerrilla war - the same sort of thing the Iraqis have been doing for four years - successfully - against the US and extend it for about ten years like Vietnam. Imagine instead of 50-100 US casualties a month, the figure is double, triple or quadruple that. Imagine instead of $10-12 billion a month, the cost is more like $20-30 billion per month. Extend that for ten years. You think $1-2 trillion is a small price to pay for Iraq - try $4-6 trillion.

Add to that the probability of major Muslim backlash - including Pakistan, already having its own troubles. Imagine that Pakistan falls midway in that ten-year Iran war. What will the US do to secure the nuclear weapons there when it is bogged down not only in Iraq but also in Iran?

Finally, there is the domestic terror threat. If Iran wants, it could place suicide bombers in the US. It wouldn't take many: maybe a dozen. Once a few blow up car bombs in Times Square at rush hour, or blow themselves up on subway stations at rush hour in New York, Chicago and Boston, where will US civil liberties be? A dozen suicide bombers could kill as many Americans as 9/11. Even more if they don't bother being suicide bombers, but just half-way competent terrorists with enough explosives and stolen cars. The US is MADEfor the car bomb tactic.

Now add in China, pissed off at losing access to Iranian oil and gas, dumping the US dollar. Add that to the oil price being $200/barrel. Bye-bye, US economy.

There's more that Iran could do. The point is, Fallows didn't even touch on the consequences.

The problem is that Bush and Cheney and the neocons do not care. And they're still running the show - not the naysayers in the Pentagon.

And the notion that it's all a "crazy act" to scare the Iranians not only clearly is not working, it can't work - the Iranians have no other options than a nuclear energy program.

Not only that, it's NOT a "crazy act" - Bush and Cheney actually intend to attack Iran and have, as the Leverett article shows, intended to do so all along. Israel only went along with attacking Iraq in 2002 because Bush and Cheney told them the US would attack Iran later. Israel was initially pressing the US to attack Iran back then. Now there's even more pressure from Israel to do so. And Israel is not trying to "scare" Iran.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | November 5, 2007 5:16 PM

Richard, don't you have, like, a blog where you can post such lengthy discourses?

Posted by Bill | November 5, 2007 6:58 PM

"For example, a war game held back in 2002 where the part of Iran was played by a retired US Marine Corps general ended up with Iran sinking 14 US warships in the Gulf. Had it occurred in reality, it would have been the biggest US naval disaster since Pearl Harbor"

Good thing that happened in a war game then, Hack. Now the Navy has absorbed those lessons learned and will adjust its posture and tactics accordingly in any future conflict with Iran.

"And while I doubt the Iranians would be so successful at this point, there is the fact that the US still has no known defense against the Iranian swarm tactics."

You mean aside from sinking all these little boats piloted by the crackerjack Iranian navy?

"More importantly, Iran can simply mine the Gulf."

With what? You think the U.S. Navy would leave any Iranian mine-laying ship that left port un-sunk?

"Follow that up with a couple dozen Iranian missiles landing on US bases in Qatar and the Green Zone in Iraq."

You don't think these missiles would be targeted on the ground during the initial air strikes on Iran, as a prophylactic measure?

"Under cover of bad weather, the Iranians could simply roll in four to six divisions and roll up the US forces in Iraq..."

Yeah, that's likely: the Iranian army that was fought to a standstill by Iraq for 8 years is going to "roll up" the U.S. Army that routed Iraq's army in 100 hours in the first Gulf War.

"Much more likely will be the Iranians doing smaller border incursions into Iraq to lure US forces into Iran. Since Dick Cheney wants the Khuzestan oil province, this will be easy."

Dick Cheney wants the Khuzestan oil province? Can't we just give him ANWR and not invade Iran?

"Add to that the probability of major Muslim backlash..."

Wouldn't want them to start not liking us...

"including Pakistan"

So the Sunni nutters in Pakistan will be angry if we bomb Shiite Iran?

"Finally, there is the domestic terror threat. If Iran wants, it could place suicide bombers in the US. It wouldn't take many: maybe a dozen. Once a few blow up car bombs in Times Square at rush hour, or blow themselves up on subway stations at rush hour in New York, Chicago and Boston, where will US civil liberties be?"

Where would anti-war sentiment be? Obliterated. Iran's regime would be too.

Posted by Fred | November 5, 2007 7:26 PM

Re: More importantly, Iran can simply mine the Gulf.

I don't see Iran doing that for the simple reason that Iran desperately needs to maintain its oil sales or its economy will collapse like a house of cards. Not to mention that such an action would invite the hostility of a large number of other nations, including the one nation on whose good side the Iranians really want to remain, that is China.

Re: Follow that up with IRGC agents in Iraq assisting the Iraqi Shia militias in cutting off US supply lines from Kuwait,

Nonsense. The Iraqi guerillas lack the force to perform such an old-fashioned open war maneuver. In open battle with US forces they would be crushed just as Saddam's much stronger and better armed forces were. That's why they are guerillas and insurgents, not regiments and battalions.

Re: Add to that the probability of major Muslim backlash - including Pakistan, already having its own troubles.

Iran is well-hated in the Middle East except maybe by fellow Shi'ites. My guess is the Sunni Arabs would be cheering for both sides to maul each other to death.

Re: Finally, there is the domestic terror threat.

We keep hearing about this from everybody from Bush and Cheney on down: terrorists under the beds! Well, they got lucky on 9-11 it's true. Where have they all been since?

Re: Now add in China, pissed off at losing access to Iranian oil and gas, dumping the US dollar.

Um no. Add China pissed off at having its oil supplies cut off and joining an international force to restore order and oil pumping in the Middle East.

Re: Add that to the oil price being $200/barrel. Bye-bye, US economy.

A lot of economies would go to hell. The US would hold out longer than most. Europe and Asia (not to mention Africa and Latin America) would suffer worse damage sooner. One reason why I don't see this scenario playing out at all: too many powers that be are against it and will not permit it. Bush and Cheney are not gods. There are hidden thumbs that can crush them too.

Posted by Jonf | November 5, 2007 8:32 PM

Actually, Fallows' article only tangentially addresses the issue of the consequences of attacking Iran. To clarify, the most negative consequence of attacking Iran in regards to Iraq is the threat it would pose to our supply lines in Iraq:

" American troops all over central and northern Iraq are supplied with fuel, food, and ammunition by truck convoy from a supply base hundreds of miles away in Kuwait. All but a small amount of our soldiers' supplies come into the country over roads that pass through the Shiite-dominated south of Iraq....

Southern Iraq is thoroughly infiltrated by Iranian special operations forces working with Shiite militias, such as Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army and the Badr Brigades. Hostilities between Iran and the United States or a change in attitude toward US forces on the part of the Baghdad government could quickly turn the supply roads into a "shooting gallery" 400 to 800 miles long."

Also, as William Lind has pointed out in The American Conservative:

"Iran has a second, bolder option it could combine with a Shi’ite insurrection at our rear. It could cross the Iran-Iraq border with several armored and mechanized divisions of the regular Iranian Army, sever our supply lines, then move to roll us up from the south with the aim of encircling us, perhaps in and around Baghdad. This would be a classic operational maneuver, the sort of thing for which armored forces are designed.

At present, U.S. forces in Iraq could be vulnerable to such an action by the Iranian army. We have no field army in Iraq; necessarily, our forces are penny-packeted all over the place, dealing with insurgents. They would be hard-pressed to assemble quickly to meet a regular force, especially if fuel was running short."

This is not to mention the other probable consequences of attacking Iran - attacks on NATO forces in Afghanistan, attacks on Persian Gulf States oil refineries and installations, blockade of the Straits of Hormuz, severe disruption of oil flow, etc.

Posted by Peter H | November 5, 2007 11:07 PM

Most pathetic in all of this is the Iranian peace overtures shunned by the Israel Lobby's neocon cabal in the Bush administration. Porter noted that the Jan 2001 bill re-imposing sanctions was of course pushed by AIPAC. (It's pleasant to contemplate the fact that Feith's staff member Larry Franklin is now behind bars.) As pointed out, Iran would accept the Arab League Peace Plan (as Arafat did in 2002) but that is anathema to Israel which has no intention of returning stolen Palestinian land. Thus Israel won't even discuss final solution issues at the upcoming Anapolis talks. Israel prefers wars, especially when fought with American blood and money.

Posted by Eleanor Lambertson | November 6, 2007 12:34 AM

I see Richard Steven Hack made many of the same points I made. As for Fred's response:

"And while I doubt the Iranians would be so successful at this point, there is the fact that the US still has no known defense against the Iranian swarm tactics."

You mean aside from sinking all these little boats piloted by the crackerjack Iranian navy?

I agree that swarming tactics could probably be successfuly repelled by the US (as they were in 1987-88 Tanker Wars), but Iranian underwater tactics - mines & submarines, especially - could pose a big threat to the US Navy, as explained by this naval blogger.

You don't think these missiles would be targeted on the ground during the initial air strikes on Iran, as a prophylactic measure?

And you don't think a surprise U.S. attack may miss some Iranian weaponry?

Actually, I think it's likely Iranian missles would try to sink tankers to set off a worldwide panic for oil rather than just aim at U.S. Navy ships. Even the threat of this would cause insurance rates to skyrocket and possibly shut down the straits.

Yeah, that's likely: the Iranian army that was fought to a standstill by Iraq for 8 years is going to "roll up" the U.S. Army that routed Iraq's army in 100 hours in the first Gulf War.

Totally different situation. The US military in Iraq is (1) totally undermanned & overstretched (2) bogged down in counterinsurgency operations (3) extremely vulnerable to disruptions in its supply lines passing from Kuwait through the Shiite-dominated South. None of these factors were applicable in the 1st Gulf War. The William Lind article linked to by me & Richard Steven Hack laid out a scenario in which the Iranian army crossed the Iran-Iraq border (under cover of bad weather) teamed up with Shiite militias to sever our supply lines, and then encircled us in Baghdad.

Is this scenario unlikely? Perhaps. Should it be ruled out? Absolutely not. In any case, even if the Iranian army stayed out of Iraq, here is still the very real threat of having our supply lines disrupted by Shia militias. There's a reason why US Generals are threatening to quit if the Bush Administration attacks Iran.

"Add to that the probability of major Muslim backlash..."

Wouldn't want them to start not liking us...

Yeah, it's true that anti-Americanism is already pretty bad, but there's no reason to think it can't get much worse, just like it did with Iraq.

So the Sunni nutters in Pakistan will be angry if we bomb Shiite Iran?

Absolutely. There are lots of Pakistanis who don't like Shias and don't like Iran but would still be enraged by the US bombing Iran. Anti-American feelings usually overwhelm any dislike for Shias. Just look at the Arab & Muslim world's support for Hezbollah in the July 2006 war.

Posted by Peter H | November 6, 2007 1:19 AM

"All but a small amount of our soldiers' supplies come into the country over roads that pass through the Shiite-dominated south of Iraq...."

Actually, the bulk of their supplies come through Turkey in the north -- that's why the Armenia bill in Congress was such a big deal.

"Iran has a second, bolder option it could combine with a Shi’ite insurrection at our rear. It could cross the Iran-Iraq border with several armored and mechanized divisions of the regular Iranian Army, sever our supply lines, then move to roll us up from the south with the aim of encircling us, perhaps in and around Baghdad..."

William Lind is on crack if he seriously believes this. Iran's mechanized divisions would do as well against us as Iraq's mechanized divisions did.

Posted by Fred | November 6, 2007 1:34 AM

Fred is just a big ole wuss. Typical 24%er. What else are you afraid of Fred?

Posted by merlallen | November 6, 2007 2:47 AM

Shorter Fred: we should attack Iran because we would win militarily.

Woo-hoo, I'm convinced.

Posted by Bill | November 6, 2007 6:41 AM

"Richard, don't you have, like, a blog where you can post such lengthy discourses?"

Not yet - I'm working on it.

Needless to say, once I get one up, the right wing trolls and Zionist freaks will be banned from Day One.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | November 6, 2007 7:09 AM

Fred and JonF have the military strategy talents of F Troop...

Point by point, as usual:

"Good thing that happened in a war game then, Hack. Now the Navy has absorbed those lessons learned and will adjust its posture and tactics accordingly in any future conflict with Iran."

The point of the Marine Corps general's comments at that time was the US military learns nothing.

Aside from that, I have yet to hear any strategy from the US Navy for dealing with swarm tactics. The last thing I heard was some lame comment that it was hard to coordinate swarm tactics - thereby establishing that the idiot doesn't get the point of swarm tactics at all - they are uncoordinated precisely so that a coordinated strategy cannot be used against them.

"you mean aside from sinking all these little boats piloted by the crackerjack Iranian navy?"

You forgot to mention the ONE THOUSAND little boats piloted by suicide pilots armed with thousands of anti-ship missiles.

"With what? You think the U.S. Navy would leave any Iranian mine-laying ship that left port un-sunk?"

Uhm, including the ONE THOUSAND small boats loaded with mines that happen to be hard to detect in anything but calm water on a clear day?

"You don't think these missiles would be targeted on the ground during the initial air strikes on Iran, as a prophylactic measure?"

And as successful as the SCUDs we missed in Iraq in 1991? Sure, Iran will lose many of them in the first 8 hours. They'll still have plenty to choose from in the second 24 hours...

"Yeah, that's likely: the Iranian army that was fought to a standstill by Iraq for 8 years is going to "roll up" the U.S. Army that routed Iraq's army in 100 hours in the first Gulf War."

As mentioned, two entirely different situations. One was a concentrated push by US forces against Irag. Today those US forces are scattered all over Iraq. And if they manage to get them together before the Iranians can break through - which is by no means impossible, I grant you - well, they just handed the rest of Iraq to the Sunni insurgents. Nice going, Georgie...

"Dick Cheney wants the Khuzestan oil province? Can't we just give him ANWR and not invade Iran?"

Dick doesn't settle for anything less than ALL the oil.

"So the Sunni nutters in Pakistan will be angry if we bomb Shiite Iran?"

We will be bombing and invading yet another Muslim country, that's what counts.

"I don't see Iran doing that for the simple reason that Iran desperately needs to maintain its oil sales or its economy will collapse like a house of cards."

Quite possibly. However, Iran's oil exports will be under attack anyway. The important thing is that Saudi Arabia's oil and much other oil won't be going anywhere either.

"Not to mention that such an action would invite the hostility of a large number of other nations, including the one nation on whose good side the Iranians really want to remain, that is China."

China is intelligent enough to know who the real problem is here - and it's not Iran. And China will dump the US dollars it's holding in reprisal.

"The Iraqi guerillas lack the force to perform such an old-fashioned open war maneuver. In open battle with US forces they would be crushed just as Saddam's much stronger and better armed forces were. That's why they are guerillas and insurgents, not regiments and battalions."

Nobody said anything about "open war maneuver". They will use the same guerrilla tactics they've been using against US convoys - except they will do more of it, supported by the IRGC, and by the larger number of Shia militias who will join in the effort. Moreover, the more US forces are tied down attempting to control these attacks, the fewer will be available to deal with Iran's forces on either side of the border.

"Iran is well-hated in the Middle East except maybe by fellow Shi'ites. My guess is the Sunni Arabs would be cheering for both sides to maul each other to death."

Saudi Arabia, possibly. Syria will not be cheering because they will be fighting Israel at the same time. And the Arab street will not be cheering for the US, no matter what.

"We keep hearing about this from everybody from Bush and Cheney on down: terrorists under the beds! Well, they got lucky on 9-11 it's true. Where have they all been since?"

It's not where have they been, it's where will they be once a major state decides to undertake an actual terrorism operation in the US. So far, they have had no reason to do so. Even Saddam didn't during the sanctions. Iran, however, has access to personnel who are willing to do suicide bombings. Iran also has access to trained urban guerrillas. Both types of terrorists could be smuggled into the US with little difficulty. As I said, it wouldn't take many.

"Um no. Add China pissed off at having its oil supplies cut off and joining an international force to restore order and oil pumping in the Middle East."

Yeah, right. China knows who is at fault here and it isn't Iran. China has no interest in allowing the US to turn Iran into another puppet state like Iraq, or allowing the US to turn off the spigot in favor of the US. You're hallucinating if you think China will support the US in this war. They don't even support sanctions on Iran now.

"The US would hold out longer than most."

Not when the US is the biggest importer of oil.

"Europe and Asia (not to mention Africa and Latin America)"

Ever head of Venezuela?

"One reason why I don't see this scenario playing out at all: too many powers that be are against it and will not permit it. Bush and Cheney are not gods. There are hidden thumbs that can crush them too."

Sorry - those thumbs are on the people who would benefit from an oil spike and the war profits from another war. They are the same people who started the Iraq war and are keeping it going now. You're hallucinating again that they would do anything to prevent a war in Iran.

Amateur night analysis, guys. Go back to rooting for the Dodgers...

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | November 6, 2007 7:32 AM

Actually, the bulk of their supplies come through Turkey in the north -- that's why the Armenia bill in Congress was such a big deal

Most of the air cargo comes through Turkey via Incirlik Air Base, but the bulk of supplies like fuel, food, & ammunition come through southern Iraq.

Posted by Peter H | November 6, 2007 10:05 AM

There was a good "FRONTLINE" on this recently:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/showdown/

I think there's a link to the whole show on that page.

Posted by Njorl | November 6, 2007 11:39 AM