An Ounce of Prevention

I was a bit surprised to see Jonathan Zasloff recommend this pearl of wisdom from Roger Simon:

Who would you like to be in the White House if Pakistan fell to al Qaeda and the Islamists gained control of its nuclear arsenal?

Answer that question and you will know your candidate. All the rest, as they say, is commentary.

One issue here is that this is a pretty outlandish hypothetical. The odds of the Pakistani government collapsing and al-Qaeda taking over are low. But more to the point, much more than a president who'll respond effectively when al-Qaeda seizes control of a nuclear arsenal you want a president who'll make it unlikely that al-Qaeda seizes a nuclear arsenal. There's an unfortunately tendency to look at crisis-response as the essence of statesmanship when in reality it's avoiding crises that is most important. I think, for example, that George H.W. Bush did the right thing in prosecuting the first Gulf War and, indeed, that he did a good job of waging the war. But an even better president might have been able ot avoid the whole thing in the first place by dissuading Saddam from invading Kuwait.

My hope, in short, isn't that the next president will be better than Bush at reacting than disaster strikes, but that he (or, more likely, she) will be better than Bush at forestalling disaster.

Comments

How about just: "or she." Too soon for "more likely," isn't it? Sorry, I'm being really annoying this morning. And I don't know why. Maybe it's because I'm really annoying. Anyway, I'll stop.

Posted by Ari | January 20, 2008 11:54 AM

McCain. I would want him in the White House, if Obama is not the nominee for the Democratic Party.

HRC cannot handle that situation. She would be teary-eyed. Bill Clinton would take over. The VP (I assume it will be Bill Richardson or Wes Clark) would do what Bill would want.

Posted by eorse | January 20, 2008 11:55 AM

Most real people care more about the economy and the problems directly facing their family, no matter how much wise men like Roger Simon might try to persuade them that it's all about the Islamofascists.

Posted by Steve | January 20, 2008 11:58 AM

Matt's hope, is, I feel, the response most mature adults would give. As I see it, the real point here is that if Pakistan gets to that point, there's not much any US President can do.

I've followed the links back to the original articles Zasloff and Simon, though, and I can't find anyone offering a meaningful answer to the original question. What's the "correct" response here supposed to be? "In such a situation, I want a President who's manifestly belligerent and stupid enough to immediately nuke Islamabad?"

Posted by James Gary | January 20, 2008 12:02 PM

If radical Islamic groups seized control of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal I suspect that India would solve that problem before anyone in washington could get done calling the NSC meeting to order.

Posted by JonF | January 20, 2008 12:07 PM

The question presumes that the current occupant of the presidential office in Pakistan is a lily white anti-terrorist warrior.

The naivete of this assumption is quite charming.

Posted by gregor | January 20, 2008 12:14 PM

Wimp. If you want a real man's question, it would be something like this:

Who would you like to be in charge of America when all that remains are small packs of survivors huddling together hidden in the rubble while packs of flesh-hungry zombies roam the night seeking new victimes?

Answer that question and you will know your candidate. All the rest, as they say, is commentary.

Posted by El Cid | January 20, 2008 12:15 PM

I'm with El Cid, I can't support any candidate who's soft on zombies.

Posted by guineapigfury | January 20, 2008 12:31 PM

This is a damn good point.

George Bush has created a truly demented view of America's ability to prevent and respond to crisis. Frankly, he's really lowered the bar on what kinds of reasonable expectations people should have that their government will keep them safe.

The appropriate crisis hypothetical isn't how the President reacts to crises that he could have stopped--the appropriate hypothetical is how the President is going to respond to the things he couldn't have stopped but should have reasonably foreseen as possible events.

Fundamentally, this is the Katrina question, not the Al Quaeda question. And, frankly, we can ask this hypothetical of candidates, but we're not. We know there's going to someday be a huge earthquake or hurricane that again decimates a major American city. And yes, it could easily happen in the next 4-8 years. Who do we think will respond best to that?

We know there's going to be a business cycle recession at some point in America's future, because there always are. Who's going to respond best to that?

At this moment, we have a crisis that is a harbinger of future disaster to come--the Atlanta drought. As more and more Americans move to places that don't have enough water to support their current and future population, what are we going to do? For God's sake, someone should be asking the candidates what we should be doing in response to Atlanta--both short-term and long-term! What's the federal government's role there?

We know in the next 40 years there's going to be a major crisis of affordable energy (not to mention the very unpredictable effects of global warming). Who's laying the foundation to respond to that?

We know there's going to be a major contagious and deadly disease outbreak. Because after we cured infectious disease with antibiotics, we got AIDS. What should we be investing in or doing right now? What would they do if a new disease showed up during their Presidency, like AIDS did with Reagan? Yes, it's unlikely, but still very possible and very much beyond our control.

Crisis response is very important--but you're exactly right, foreign policy should not be thought of as crisis response! There are actual crises that we know are coming and we are actually powerless to stop. But Al Quaeda is not one of them, and pretending that our ability to constrain Al Quaeda is in the same category as our ability to control the weather is incredibly destructive to our public debate.

It's absolutely incredible that debate moderators don't regularly ask what candidates would do to prevent another 9/11. And that while debates regularly ask candidates what they would do in response to another 9/11 or worse, none of them ask what they would do in response to another Katrina.

Right now, our public debate is favoring a President much like Goerge Bush. One who pretends that he can't stop things that are in his power to stop, like Al Quaeda. And one who pretends that the proper planning for catastrophes that are beyond our power to stop is to stick your head in the sand and hope it doesn't happen on your watch.

It's a fatalistic and passive worldview that's in dramatic opposition to American traditions, and it's incredibly toxic. If we don't expect the next President to prevent a terrorist attack, he won't. And if we don't expect him to have a better response to the next Katrina-like disaster, he won't.

Posted by anonymiss | January 20, 2008 12:33 PM

A new book shows Saddam did support al Qaeda and the Taliban:

'Both In One Trench: Saddam's Secret Terror Documents'

http://www.bothinonetrench.com

Posted by Ray Robison | January 20, 2008 12:36 PM

Excellent point Matt. But it's (apparently) not the way the human mind works. For example, a person who foresaw 9/11 and made a law regarding pilot cabin doors before the disaster occurred, would not be viewed as a "hero." In fact, the opposite is likely. The person would be vilified for "over regulating" a struggling industry.

Posted by duffy | January 20, 2008 12:41 PM

Eorse, the stinking sexist is a good reason why Hillary Clinton is doing so well and will continue to. You rotten, stink weed.

Posted by Jennifer | January 20, 2008 12:42 PM

Nice blogwhore, Ray.

And anonymiss is on point here: the Katrina scenario is the more pertinent one, and it's not glamorous enough for hide-under-the-bedders like Simon. It also scares GOPpers, because they basically believe that NOLA should be flooded over, ideally with its population still there.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | January 20, 2008 12:42 PM

Shorter Simon: Do you or don't you want a president with the balls to kick a hornets' nest?

Posted by Aaron S. Veenstra | January 20, 2008 12:42 PM

Re Ray Robison

Mr. Robison apparently likes to appear on the Fascist News Channel. That's already 2 strikes against anything he has to say. Just another right wing nutcase trying to justify the coke snorting, draft dodging, pot smoking, lying drunk int he White House.

Posted by SLC | January 20, 2008 12:48 PM

An Americanocentric perspective that postulates all events overseas happen because of US! And if only - if only - a different American leader existed - all foreign decisions would somehow be better or worse for us.

Both sides play that silly game.

If only Dubya had been in charge in the 90s, the neocons argue, Al Qaeda wouldn't have dared bomb US embassies, initiate the 9/11 Plot. If JFK had only not been assasinated, we would not have had the tilt to Israel that started with LBJ sucking up to wealthy Jewish donors.
If only Barack was President, all tribal and Pak-Hindi conflict would end in an Era of Goodwill and Peace that would emanate from His Goodness in Washington DC and lead to secularists and radical Muslim Pakistanis dancing arm-in-arm on Hindu Kush hilltops renouncing nuclear weapons and Jihad in favor of helping America's Katrina "Victims".

An American President - unlike Clinton - where radical Islam reached an apogee of control over Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Yemen, Afghanistan - someone like Hillary Clinton! Yeah, that's the ticket! They see an infidel woman in charge and correspondingly abandon any desire to run Pakistan and acquire neat new weapons for Jihad! Yeah, that's the ticket!

Because we ALL know that the only reason they'd behave that way, wanting nukes and heads chopped off - given all that 3rd World goodness in all their hearts - is if an American President somehow oppressed and vexed the noble brown people in Allah's bosom!

That leaves unexplained all Jihad before American Presidents compelled them to act that way and bring down other civilizations....but if Yglesias is right, we can take valuable clues on how Bill Clinton acted that led to the 1996 and 1998 War Declaration Fatwas by AQ and 5 other Islamist groups. And what Clinto did that forced, yes forced, Al Qaeda & Jamuu al Kashmir to work on WMD gases and seek nuclear secrets, including Pakistan's security around weapons and fissile material at the time - from A Q Khan's Network.

What was it about Bill Clinton?

What was it about Dubya?

What was it about FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, LBJ, Nixon, and Reagan that kept the Jihadis so peaceful?

Posted by chris ford | January 20, 2008 12:50 PM

The person who has used this weak argument the most has been Hillary Clinton. She has attempted to use it against Barack Obama, even though we see time and time again that Obama would be the best at preventing crisis in the first place.

Posted by cm | January 20, 2008 12:50 PM

A new book shows that Saddam Hussein faked the Apollo moon landings.

You can read about it at

http://www.futuramaff.com/archive/index.php/t-428.html

Posted by El Cid | January 20, 2008 1:02 PM

After watching Air Force One on TBS the other night, I would have to say the only person suitable to handle a situation Simon describes is Harrison Ford. We need a president who can't just talk big to terrorists, but someone who can drop out of the sky, wolvy-beserk style, and take them out one by one on their home ground.

All the rest is commentary, as they say.

Posted by Helter | January 20, 2008 1:03 PM

Well, we would be remiss in forgetting to mention Bill Pullman, who actually defeated an alien invasion by leading a fighter squadron to blow them up, after the alien saucers appeared to not have renewed their subscriptions to Norton AntiVirus.

Posted by El Cid | January 20, 2008 1:06 PM

I'm with Steve above. The economy will be the most important issue by far come election day and post-Labor Day. If the Republican nominee (who has no chance anyway) tries to make it the main issue, it will only hurt him. There is real fear about the economy, fear that no one is capable of dealing with the nature or scope of the problem. Some smart people believe the country is facing its worst economic situation since the Great Depression. You know something is up when both parties are in agreement that something needs to be done and now. Does that sound like an environment in which people will be voting based on who would be better should the leadership of the country believed to be housing Bin Laden is toppled? It doesn't to me.

Like the good news spouted by the Bush administration about, oh, everything, I'm not buying the cheery analysis some are exhibiting over the current economic situation. Sure Paul Krugman incorrectly predicted seven of the last zero recessions, but maybe if this housing bubble had been pricked back in 2004 or 2005 the fallout of the collapse would not have been as bad as it is now. These guys aren't bad:
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/
http://www.rgemonitor.com/blog/roubini

Posted by Mitch Schindler | January 20, 2008 1:08 PM

I know who I don't want in charge when that happens. I don't want somebody who has never had command responsibility before. I don't want somebody who has never been responsible for a large organization before. I don't want somebody who hasn't proven he or she won't wilt under pressure.

I don't want:
*Dubya Bush
*Hillary
*Obama
*Edwards

I do want somebody with executive experience. I do want somebody who has dealt with negotiations with opponents in serious war or business issues. I do want somebody who holds up under pressure. I do want somebody who has handled tough situations and come out on top.

I do want:
*Bill Richardson

I would also consider:
*Mark Warner
*Evan Bayh
*Slick Willard Romney
*John Kerry

I might take:
*McCain
*9u11ani
*Huckabee

And a look at that issue tells me why I've already started wondering whom we'll nominate in 2012 to end twelve disastrous years of Republican misrule.
*

Posted by Brian | January 20, 2008 1:10 PM

I do want somebody who has dealt with negotiations with opponents...

And this, of course, never happens in a narrowly balanced legislature.....

Posted by Davis X. Machina | January 20, 2008 1:20 PM

This idea that having "executive experience" like the raving-mad Huckabee and 9iu11iani over a sane person without "executive experience" in a crisis is absurd.

I've had zero political or governing experience, and I would have led this country after 9/11 a million times better than George W. Bush Jr. on his best day.

Posted by El Cid | January 20, 2008 1:42 PM

(or, more likely, she) will be better than Bush at forestalling disaster.

What I don't get, and what Hillary supporters generally avoid talking about, is why we should have any confidence in Hillary's foreign policy inclinations.

The Hillary supporters sometimes try to argue that the AUMA was not a vote for war. But anyone with their eyes half open knew that it was. The best pro-Hillary argument is that she didn't really have the wool pulled over her eyes by Bush, she knew she was voting for war against Iraq, and she didn't really want war against Iraq, she was simply doing what she thought would give her the best shot at a presidential run given what the polls were saying at the time.

But you don't hear Hillary supporters making that argument. And I'm not sure the argument actually works. Look at how long after that vote she continued to say positive things about Bush's handling of the war. Up until last summer, at least, and that was after the polls were saying the opposite. Look at her votes and comments about the surge. Look at her support for military action against Iran. Where is there any evidence that she wouldn't choose to err on the side of war?

The next best pro-Hillary argument is that she's seeking political cover against charges of "weakness" and she didn't really want the war in Iraq, didn't really think the surge was "working" in any meaningful way, didn't really think that threats of war against Iran were an effective way to seek change, etc. And then you could optimistically argue that if she were president, she'd not have to err on the side of war to avoid appearing weak. But why? If she's so worried about appearing weak now that she can't vote against a war or surge or threat of war, why is it going to be different when she is trying to keep the Repugs from attacking her as president, and when she's trying to stay politically viable for a second term?

My expectation is that if Hillary is elected, there will be some point at which she'll have to decide between trying to look "tough" by attacking some country quickly, or trying to work with a real coalition and work through diplomacy and economic and other measures in order to defuse a potentially explosive situation. And she'll yet again err on the side of war.

Posted by bob | January 20, 2008 1:45 PM

Morgan Freeman, who has the additional advantage of being God.

Posted by Henderstock | January 20, 2008 1:54 PM

The first Gulf War was a post hoc, improvised reaction necessitated by George H.W. Bush's breathtakingly spectacular failure of diplomacy.

While Saddam amassed over 100,000 troops on the Kuwaiti border, Bush and his ambassador April Glaspie did nothing to deter the invasion. Saddam interpreted this passivity as a green light to invade.

Bush made no mention of force until after Saddam's tanks had rolled. Even then, the initial response was merely Operation Desert Shield: the defense of Saudi Arabia against further aggression. Desert Storm was another couple of months coming.

To call that a good, well-fought, successful war is the same analytic error that the so-called "grownups" are making today. They conflate military victory with strategic success.

Desert Storm looks good in retrospect because the bar has been lowered. "Victory" today is driving a Humvee around the block without getting blown up. The "grownups'" inability to prevent disaster has been quietly forgotten.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE7DC133EF931A15753C1A964958260

Posted by Jalmari | January 20, 2008 2:08 PM

NOT McCain.
If McCain is in the White House and this event happens then the world goes boom.
The fact that an overwhelming majority of ordinary Americans and elite opinion makers do not understand this speaks poorly of the USA. Not good.

Posted by Northern Observer | January 20, 2008 2:17 PM

I guess Morgan Freeman wins, as not only could he largely save the Urf from a giant asteroid, He could also bring in all the Evangelicals, being God and all. That is, if Evangelicals would be willing to pray to a black God.

Posted by El Cid | January 20, 2008 2:23 PM

I think the Simon quote actually concluded, "All the rest, as they say, is Commentary."

Posted by Steve Smith | January 20, 2008 2:42 PM

Americans vastly exaggerate the capabilities of Alqaida in order to give themselves thrills!

If the US doesnt know where Pakistan's nukes are, how do you expect folks hiding in caves and mountains to have a clue?

Please spend your energies discussing more realistic scenarios.

Posted by Aamir Ali | January 20, 2008 2:52 PM

Americans vastly exaggerate the capabilities of Alqaida in order to give themselves thrills!

Thrills indeed. As others in this thread have noted, the entertainment keeps our mind off our problems.

Posted by James Gary | January 20, 2008 3:04 PM

Sadly, that hypothetical is not really more unlikely than the fall of the Shah of Iran, the 9/11 plot, and the attack on Pearl Harbor. Unlikely things happen.
Hopefully, The JCS has a plan to deal with just such a hypothetical situation. You will need a good leader to be in there to deal with such a crisis.
Frankly, I think a good question to ask is, How well will X Candidate do when they are faced with an unexpected crisis? In this world, unexpected crises are almost bound to happen.
Yes, you should try to prevent FORESEEABLE crises, but its the UNFORESEEN crises that will really hurt you.

Posted by stonetools | January 20, 2008 3:07 PM

I think it's enormously hubristic to suggest we can forestall these sorts of events in other people's countries; not everything is determined by American actions, and like it or not there's going to be a lot of stuff we just have to react to.

Posted by Shoshana | January 20, 2008 3:10 PM

Yes, you should try to prevent FORESEEABLE crises, but its the UNFORESEEN crises that will really hurt you.

What a profound observation! As it happened, an ancient sage thought along similar lines:

As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
We don't know.

—Feb. 12, 2002, Department of Defense news briefing

Posted by James Gary | January 20, 2008 3:40 PM

Good point Matt.

I'm curious about "more likely she" line.

Are you saying that you believe Hillary Clinton has over 50% chance of winning? (I assume all other womens chances can be neglected.)

Or do you mean that she has over 50% chance of winning conditional on the next president being more competent.

Posted by Johan Richter | January 20, 2008 4:41 PM

In the words of the first mayor of the Foundation

"Violence is the last resort of the incompetent."

not that violence always reflects incompetence, but that the incompetent (e.g. Bush) can't find the nonviolent solutions.

Posted by frank | January 20, 2008 5:28 PM

Re JonF

"If radical Islamic groups seized control of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal I suspect that India would solve that problem before anyone in washington could get done calling the NSC meeting to order."

Mr. JonF is absolutely correct and accurate. India, an emerging power in Asia, will take action if it even appears that an Islamist takeover in Pakistan is eminent.

Posted by SLC | January 20, 2008 5:44 PM

TURGIDSON:
Mr. President, we are rapidly approaching a moment of truth both for ourselves as human beings and for the life of our nation. Now, the truth is not always a pleasant thing, but it is necessary now to make a choice, to choose between two admittedly regrettable, but nevertheless, distinguishable post-war environments: one where you got twenty million people killed, and the other where you got a hundred and fifty million people killed.

MUFFLEY:
You're talking about mass murder, General, not war.

TURGIDSON:
Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I do say... no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops. Uh... depending on the breaks.

Posted by MJF | January 20, 2008 7:37 PM

Matt,

While I think it makes your point *stronger*, I'd say the real strength of Bush the Elder (sadly lacking in Bush the Younger) was that he was actually very *good* at forestalling malign events, and therefor had a far more "boring" foreign policy presidency than he might have. The Fall of the Wall, the crises over the Baltics and Ukraine, the reunification of Germany (in NATO, no less), and the way in which Israel was kept from entering Gulf War I, are all things that could have turned into incredibly bloody crises, but didn't because of apt diplomacy and an understanding of the needs, fears, and sensitivities of other states. GHWB screwed up lots, it's true, but he deserves some real accolades for having lived "in interesting times" and having had relatively few of those flare up into the sorts of crises that show up in the history books.

Posted by Hamiltonian | January 20, 2008 8:03 PM

TURGIDSON:
Mr. President, we are rapidly approaching a moment of truth both for ourselves as human beings and for the life of our nation. Now, the truth is not always a pleasant thing, but it is necessary now to make a choice, to choose between two admittedly regrettable, but nevertheless, distinguishable post-war environments: one where you got twenty million people killed, and the other where you got a hundred and fifty million people killed.

MUFFLEY:
You're talking about mass murder, General, not war.

TURGIDSON:
Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I do say... no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops. Uh... depending on the breaks.

Posted by MJF | January 20, 2008 8:51 PM

Another truly stupid issue, demonstrating once again that if you don't ask "the next question", you end up as an idiot.

First of all, as Matt says, the actual preferred scenario is avoiding the collapse of Pakistan.

Unfortunately, this is not possible. Pakistan IS going to collapse. When and in what manner may not be immediately predictable, but no country run the way it is being run is going to have a stable government that lasts. Sooner or later, Pakistan's government will collapse. This is guaranteed.

My prediction is that Pakistan's government will collapse within the next five years. I could be wrong, but since it looks like the US is going to try to put troops into Pakistan this year, it is likely that this will accelerate the process by angering most of the Pakistani population and radicalizing some of them, thus increasing the destabilization.

Next, the issue is what does the US do to deal with this reality that the Pakistan government IS going to collapse.

The US cannot invade Pakistan - totally impossible. Even more so if Pakistan is on the verge of collapse - that would merely hasten the collapse and make the invasion even less successful.

If the US in fact knows where the nukes are, then the US may be able to take them out - with nukes, if necessary. This is the only scenario that even has a vague chance of working - ignore everything else, and take out the nukes. But it depends on the US knowing, somehow, either with or without the assistance of the Pakistan military, where the nukes are.

If the US does NOT know where the nukes are - and whoever gains control of them does not by doing so reveal their location - there is no viable solution to the problem that involves doing anything in or to Pakistan. None. The US has no targets that are not instantly replaceable and no way to prevent those who want the nukes from getting them.

The only option then is to deal with the issue on a higher level - either by dealing with whoever has the nukes (Taliban, Al Qaeda, some other group) directly, or by dealing with them in some sort of counterintelligence methodology, or by altering US policy to avoid that group having any desire to use the nukes on the US.

The latter is the preferred solution. Changing US policy with regard to the ME would take the US off the Al Qaeda target list. This is THE only long term solution to deal with ME terrorism against the US.

Unfortunately, it is virtually guaranteed that none of the existing politicians in the US government understand this. None. Therefore, what almost certainly WILL happen is the following:

1) The US will put troops into Pakistan, ostensibly for "training" purposes.

2) Said troops will be targeted and some killed.

3) The US will put MORE troops in to protect the others.

4) More US troops will be killed.

5) The US will put MORE troops in to directly engage the Islamic elements.

6) Pakistan will be destabilized.

7) The Pakistani government will collapse.

8) Pakistan will turn into Iraq - or worse - with nukes.

9) The US will invade Pakistan to try to secure the nukes, resulting in an all-out war with Islamists across Pakistan and Afghanistan.

10) Millions of Afghans and Pakistanis will die, and both countries will become non-state regions harboring literally hundreds of thousands of Islamist fighters with an undying hatred of the US.

11) The war will spill over into Iran somehow, if it hasn't already done so via Iraq or the Hormuz Straits.

Within ten years, the US will have succeeded in destabilizing most of the ME and Indian subcontinent and will have literally scores of millions, if not hundreds of millions, aching for the total destruction of the United States.

Sooner or later, because of the depth of this hatred, somebody is going to get a nuke into the US and the US will lose 100,000 to 300,000 citizens. You'd better hope it's one of the less smart groups that do this, but if it's a smarter group that manages to steal an Israeli city buster, the US might lose an entire major city of one million or more - or even more than one.

The picture doesn't look good, sweetheart.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 21, 2008 3:39 AM