Monday, April 23, 2007
Harry Reid agrees with George W. Bush!
I think we can all agree that President Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech on the deck of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln was not one of his better photo ops. Imagine our confusion, therefore, when Harry Reid, the leader of the Democrats in the Senate, declared today that Bush had, in fact, been spot on:
The military mission has long since been accomplished. The failure has been political. It has been policy. It has been presidential.
Whatever. The military misssion has been accomplished! At least we have that straight.
I have to admit, when the Democrats promised new bi-partisan government, I wasn't expecting this.
Isn't there somebody in either party that knows how to play this game?
CWCID: John Hinderaker, here and here (and don't miss this delightful Photoshop).
16 Comments:
By 
, at
Tue Apr 24, 01:58:00 AM:
>Isn't there somebody in either party that knows how to play this game?
These know:
"Then you should say what you mean," the March Hare went on. "I do, " Alice hastily replied; "at least I mean what I say, that's the same thing, you know."
"Not the same thing a bit!" said the Hatter. "Why, you might just as well say that "I see what I eat" is
the same thing as "I eat what I see!"
Alice in Wonderland.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it
to mean - neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all."
Through the Looking Glass.
They're experts.
By 
Cassandra, at
Tue Apr 24, 05:42:00 AM:
Shame on you.
Just when you thought there was no limit to Democratic incoherence.
*sigh*
By Cardinalpark, at
Tue Apr 24, 08:40:00 AM:
Actually guys, it might be the first sensible observation Reid has made in quite some time.
Politics in Iraq is not "succeeding" because the regime has been unable to impose its will to ensure peace and security. I think before this settles down, we are going to see Iraq go through a period of martial law or leadership to ensure the peace.
The NYT ran an interesting and somewhat critical piece this weekend about how Iraqi security forces used aggressive interrogatio techniques -- beyond those whic we would accept -- to spur information flow from a captured insurgent.
This leads me to believe that if we were to withdraw and let the ISF go to work for some period of time, they might have more success in imposing their will to quell extremist violence then we will have. They will simply be more ruthless, get more information, and undermine the ability for extremists to organize mayhem and violence as they currently are able to do.
Just one opinion...
By Christopher Chambers, at
Tue Apr 24, 01:49:00 PM:
Gee I don't know...maybe we aren't quite finished yet. We still have room for Bush and the military to manufacture more Rambo stories around folks like Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch in time for the veto, right?
On the other side, I think Harry was just, as black folks say, talking out his neck. Making gobbledygoop to appease the hawks about "the war is lost," nodding to the utter political failure of these gangsters and cadres who call themselves a government in Iraq, etc. etc. As I said--what to do expect? He comes from the state that gave us $15 buffets on the Strip at 4am...
By Catchy Pseudonym, at
Tue Apr 24, 03:13:00 PM:
Wait... Reid says mission accomplished and Cardinalpark suggests withdrawel? What's going on here?
By Cardinalpark, at
Tue Apr 24, 04:48:00 PM:
Catchy - I have previously argued that a) we've already won; and b) we should withdraw to the desert and let the Iraqis govern and impose their will. I think I can still dredge up the archives if you make me. I've been quite consistent actually.
By Dawnfire82, at
Tue Apr 24, 09:09:00 PM:
While I can appreciate the attitude of, "just let 'em fight it out," things are not that simple. As I've said here many times before, you can't think about these things in a vacuum. Our continued presence ensures some things...
1st of all, Iran is continuously trying to manipulate and even co-opt the Iraqi system. I say 'system' and not 'government' because they operate both in and outside the realm of politics. Absorbing Shi'i Iraq is a sort of wet dream for them. The Iraqi elites, the PM included, rely on us to do things that they themselves cannot due to political reasons, like lay the smack down on the Badr Brigade, Mahdi Army, or Iranian agents. Currently, the idea of overtly interfering in Iraq is impossible for Iran to entertain mainly because of our potent presence. Should that end, it will be almost certain.
2ndly, the Gulf states have already warned that if Iraq either begins to suffer real 'ethnic cleansing' (i.e. the Sunni portion does) or drifts into the Iranian (Persian) sphere of influence, then they will interfere themselves. If we demonstrate that we're not man enough to keep playing in the sandbox, the monarchies will. Visit Yemen for an idea of potential consequences.
3rdly, the Turkish chief of staff has recommended, publicly, military operations into Kurdistan, Iraq, to try to 'subdue the Kurdish Workers' Party.' (read: destroy the possibility of an independent Kurdistan, since the Turkish version of the Workers' Party has pretty much nothing to do with Iraqi Kurdistan's government, being communists and all) What has prevented this to date is Baghdad glaring down the barrel of our guns at Ankara, warning that Iraqi Kurdistan is IRAQI Kurdistan. The Iraqi and Kurdish militaries without their American friends is a lot less scary. Additionally, if the central government in Baghdad loses its legitimacy Turkey may use that as an excuse to take out 'terrorist factions' Iraq is unable to deal with itself, a la Israel and Hezb Allah.
If Iraq falls down, there are plenty of folks nearby ready and willing to fight over the scraps.
A tangent; specifically, our willingness to oppose Iran both in Iraq and in general. Saudi, Jordan, and Egypt have all hinted at pursuing nuclear programs *specifically* in response to the threat posed by Iran. 30+ years of Israeli nuclear arms didn't bother them, but the prospect of a nuclear (and expansionist, if they control Iraq) Iran really, really does.
There is way more at stake here than a few more American lives and our international credibility. (which I think is sufficient reason to stick it out in the first place) If Iraq fails to stand on its own should we leave, it is entirely possible that the Middle East will see it's first multi-sided (Turks, Kurds, Arabs, Persians; Sunni, Shi'i) regional war in centuries, with nuclear frosting.
Imagine what such an event would do to the international oil market and, thereby, the global economy.
Is the possibility of a major regional war and worldwide economic crash good enough reasons to stick it out? Apparently not if you're a Democrat. I'm not even a professional analyst, I just do it as a hobby. Surely they have people to tell them these things. Or perhaps they just don't care, so long as they can "beat Bush."
By Gordon Smith, at
Wed Apr 25, 08:07:00 AM:
CP - "I've been quite consistent actually."
Jeez. Defensive much?
By Cardinalpark, at
Wed Apr 25, 08:51:00 AM:
By Cardinalpark, at
Wed Apr 25, 09:01:00 AM:
DF82 -
I'm curious as to your thoughts regarding letting the Arabs have a nuke. I know that seems bonkers, but let's discuss this for a moment. It may not be all bad if it's driven toward achieving a balance which can recapture some concept of MAD.
The problem we currently have with a Persian bomb is that it really disrupts a regional balance of power which is basically driven by oil and economics, and moves it into the sphere of raw destructive power. We think we can forestall that of course by use of military and intelligence assets to accomplish the end of the Persian nuclear capability.
The problem is that the Russians (or Chinese) will always mess around with trying to curry favor with these morons due to their own strategic objectives, and the fact that they are bascially locked out of the sunni Arab sphere.
So what if you let a "friendly" Arab regime build a bomb in response to Iran's bomb? Let's face it -- either we stop Iran from building one, or the race is on. Then it becomes a little like Pakistan and India. They hate each other, stare at each other, but know they could cause each other a world of hurt -- to much hurt even for the lunatic fringe.
Israel will be very uncomfortable with this idea, yet I wonder if that balance wouldn't in fact be stabilizing.
Game it!
By skipsailing, at
Wed Apr 25, 11:18:00 AM:
Mr chambers reminds me of a speech I heard from Cornell West. It was so full of clichees and spittle flecked hatred that is was simply incoherent.
It is sad in a way. Mr Chambers brings us an entirely new genre: over educated incoherence.
Thanks pal. well done.
By Cardinalpark, at
Wed Apr 25, 11:23:00 AM:
Catchy -
here you go...
http://tigerhawk.blogspot.com/2006/10/2007-in-iraq.html
By Escort81, at
Wed Apr 25, 06:59:00 PM:
CP + DF82 -
You have touched on the concept that I have wondered about with respect to Iran's nuclear program -- does the MAD concept still work if the Mullahs are involved? Are they rational actors in the Western sense of the term? Do the answers to those questions inform our analysis as to whether or not regional nuclear proliferation might be an acceptable status quo in 2017 (and we may get that result even if it is not "acceptable")?
If Iran uses a Hiroshima-sized weapon against Israel, with the Mullahs knowing that an Israeli second strike will take out the majority of its population, I'm not sure what good a Saudi or Egyptian nuke does while it sits on the sidelines or adds on to the carnage in either of the principal combatants.
If Iran used a weapon against Saudi Arabia (not in Mecca or Medina), why would Israel intervene?
I am trying to think of a scenario where there is some incremental benefit to more countries in the Middle East having nukes. I guess there are a few, but they all seem to fail the common sense test, but that tend to be the case when gaming out nuclear scenarios. The one case that is always clear-cut is when you have the weapon and the other side doesn't (1945).
By Dawnfire82, at
Wed Apr 25, 08:15:00 PM:
"I'm curious as to your thoughts regarding letting the Arabs have a nuke. I know that seems bonkers, but let's discuss this for a moment. It may not be all bad if it's driven toward achieving a balance which can recapture some concept of MAD."
That's tricky. My first response is, "which Arabs?" Not all Arabs are created equal. I might trust Bahrain or Kuwait, for instance, with atomic weapons because they are both stable and friendly, and so small that they couldn't possibly use them in an offensive capacity. Saudi and Jordan are a little more iffy, and I think Egypt is right out. But I think it's most likely that of all the Arab powers, Saudi would get it first.
And regarding MAD. 1st of all, MAD is a theory that almost failed several times during the Cold War. It's not a sure thing. Also, it relies on certain given facts. This point is always overlooked, so I end up repeating it over and over. Both sides *have* to have secure second strike capability. That is, it has to be a certainty/extreme liklihood that both states can survive a first strike with enough capability to strike back and obliterate their opponent. If either side has the ability to disable its opponent with a first strike, MAD doesn't work. Period.
Now to my knowledge, there are three ways to maintain a secure second strike: 1) super-fortified silos; ones that can survive a direct hit from a nuclear weapon and still fire. 2) nuclear armed submarines in safe locations able to retaliate on behalf of their nation. 3) keeping a sufficient amount of atomic firepower continuously airborne and thereby able to survive a nuclear first strike that way.
None of these are cheap or easy, and even the superpowers in the Cold War didn't achieve quasi-MAD status until the 60s.
All of this also assumes a working continuity of government plan, and/or sufficient warning to launch a counterstrike. With the US and USSR on opposite ends of the world the window of warning was only measured in minutes. With countries that are literally within sight of one another, it's probably impossible to detect, identify, and respond before first impact.
For additional theoretical issues, visit here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_Assured_Destruction#Criticism_and_challengeable_assumptions
Another problem is that these countries would all be starting essentially from 0, with limited production capacity. In terms of actual utilization, the difference between 1 atomic weapon and 3 is huge. If belligerent A believes that it can strike its opponent with 4 warheads and only suffer 1 in retaliation because belligerent B's 2nd warhead won't come out of the factory till next week, it's in A's interest to strike sooner rather than later. Everyone knows this. Talk about heightened tension.
Hippies and peaceniks of various stripes always used to harp on the fact that the US had enough atomic warheads to destroy the whole earth X times over, the damned idiot warmongers. Well, there was a reason. If the Soviets ever estimated that a Soviet first strike might disable a significant enough amount of the US atomic armament so as to prevent a proportionate counterattack, a first strike became advantageous. A massive surplus of usable weaponry solved that little issue.
The countries in question here will not reach that level of preparedness for very long, long times, if ever, and I already demonstrated how small nuclear arsenals can be more volatile and dangerous than large ones.
"So what if you let a "friendly" Arab regime build a bomb in response to Iran's bomb? Let's face it -- either we stop Iran from building one, or the race is on. Then it becomes a little like Pakistan and India. They hate each other, stare at each other, but know they could cause each other a world of hurt -- to much hurt even for the lunatic fringe."
This is essentially a question of rationality, and I submit that the Pakistan/India example probably won't apply here. It's more or less accepted that if it came to total war, India could quash Pakistan with conventional arms. Pakistan wanted the bomb for the same reason Israel wanted it; as a deterrent against invasion. India wanted it as a deterrent against invasion by China. (a possibility oddly absent from almost all Western thinking) That is a rational act, defensive in nature, and has proven to be mostly stabilizing.
Why does Iran want the bomb? They didn't even begin their program until after the war with Iraq ended, and possibly even after the Gulf War. They can't really justify their pursuit of atomic arms with the, "we have to deter our enemies." They were not in danger from anybody. Acquiring atomic arms for defensive utility just doesn't gist. It isn't rational. Why spend all this time, effort, trouble, and money to deter a threat that doesn't exist? The only other options are offensive utility and prestige, and IMO the cons (sanctions, et al) outweigh the pros concerning prestige.
"Are they rational actors in the Western sense of the term?"
No, but they have their own version of rationality. The trick is to understand it. And it is a trick.
"If Iran uses a Hiroshima-sized weapon against Israel, with the Mullahs knowing that an Israeli second strike will take out the majority of its population, I'm not sure what good a Saudi or Egyptian nuke does while it sits on the sidelines or adds on to the carnage in either of the principal combatants."
Arab weapons would be to protect Arabs. It has nothing to do with Israel. As I mentioned, decades of Israeli nukes didn't bother them, but the possibility of Persian ones does. They are afraid of Iran, and I suspect they know Iran better than we do.
By Cardinalpark, at
Fri Apr 27, 05:04:00 PM:
DF 82
I only just got back round to this post. Thanks for the response. I agree with much of the gaming, but would posit that the US would be the second responder on behalf of a friendly Arab nation in the event Iran chose to become an aggressor. I might also differ from the argument that Iran is developing nukes only offensively. They could argue persuasively that they are developing them as a defense against the US, which now surrounds them.
My concern is that our current administration seems to have lost its ability to project force, certainly in a new context, absent it being a response to an attack. So, if that is right, and with Congress effectively roping down Gulliver, we are going to need to adapt to Iranian nukes. I don't like it, but I think it's likely.
By Escort81, at
Fri Apr 27, 09:38:00 PM:
CP -
"we are going to need to adapt to Iranian nukes. I don't like it, but I think it's likely."
With regret, I agree.
The question is, will the Israelis? What is the least worst option for them? How much does the answer to that question vary by political party?
