ElBaradei: Iran not an Immediate Nuclear Threat

The 2005 Nobel Peace Prize winner and head of the International Atomic Energy Agency made some remarkable statements about the non-threat the Iran poses to the world. Mohamed ElBaradei said that Iran does not constitute an immediate threat, and that we should be cautious in how we proceed:

"Our assessment is that there is no immediate threat," the winner of the 2005 Nobel Peace Prize told a forum organized by the Monterey Institute of International Studies south of San Francisco. "We still have lots of time to investigate."

"You look around in the Middle East right now and it's a total mess," he said. "You can not add oil to that fire."

I don't think I need to remind anyone who caused that "total mess" in the Middle East. We've set conditions that are far from favorable for overt action against Iran, or anyone else for that matter.

ElBaradei said he believed a majority in the Iranian leadership was still interested in a negotiated solution and normal relations with the world. The United States is pressing for tough U.N. sanctions if Iran does not comply.

"It would be terrible" to try to strengthen sanctions, which could force Iran to retaliate, he said.

"We have learned some lessons from North Korea," he said. "When you push a country into a corner, you are giving the driver's seat to the hard-liners there."

Ouch. Seeing it spelled out like that hurts me. We've made so many terrible mistakes...

Direct Talks? Maybe, Maybe Not.

The Washington Post has an important story about the ongoing nuclear drama with Iran. The United States has moderated its position on direct talks with the Iranians, and is now saying that talks would be beneficial. How they're going to walk back all the rhetoric about direct talks "legitimizing the regime," I don't know. Of course, the stipulation is that Iran halt all nuclear enrichment activities before final agreement to talks will be given.

I must say, I'm a little embarrassed I didn't think of this Administration tack in my previous post relating to direct talks. Effectively, what us clever Americans have done is to start the negotiation before the negotiation begins! In order to talk to us, the Iranians have to make a key concession, thereby moving the goalposts significantly before the real talks even begin and weakening their hand. Pretty clever, I must say, and something that's only partially directed at derailing talks completely, since the Iranians lose only a sliver of time by assenting. They can easily restart their program if they're unsatisfied with the talks.

Wanted Dead or Alive

Bush had a press conference last night which I missed until just now. Famously, he finally talked about mistakes made during the war in Iraq. That's amazing, I suppose. But one of the items he felt regret for was:

Wanted Dead or Alive. That kinda talk. It, uh, I think in certain parts of the world it was misinterpretted, and so I learned from that.

Excuse me? What's going on here? Who disagrees with wanting Bin Laden "Dead or Alive?" How is the message that sends a mistake? You're damned right I want him dead or alive. Preferrably alive, sure, so we can squeeze him for information then execute him. The message wanting him Dead or Alive sent was exactly right: "We will rain holy hell down on the people that did this to us, and anyone that helped them. We will continue to defend ourselves aggressively, and if anyone out there does something like this again, we'll get them and their enablers too. No conception of reasonableness will slow us." It's exactly the sort of primordial rage that I require, and more importantly, it evinces the genuine Bad-Assedness that the world needed to see in the wake of of attacks. This exagerated stick serves to make the carrots that much more appealing, and thereby decrease the support worldwide for using terrorism against Americans. Of course, that's assuming there are meaingfull carrots also in the mix, and the Bush Administration doesn't really do that...

Dissent in the Ranks

There's been continued insistence that given the "internal weakness of Iran," we can overthrow them with a little sustained pressure. Or rather, that we can cause the Iranian dissidents to overthrow the government for us. We've all seen the Iranian polls showing popular discontent with the theocratic government.

Granted, what follows doesn't acknowledge American Exceptionalism, but I think it's illustrative all the same. Let's play a game: Imagine you're you. You live in a country where 29% of the population supports the President. You live in a country where just 22% approve of the job the legislature is doing. Where there's growing disparity between the rich elites and the pinched middle and lower classes. Where the populace is allowed almost open access to firearms. Now imagine China bombing something that is ours, and killing our brothers and sisters. "Let's overthrow the government" is not the reaction I would expect.

Iran and Sanctions

So, I've been thinking of what can be done about Iran short of giving them a non-aggression guarantee. Sanctions are the only response that I've seen on the table as possible reactions to an ongoing nuclear program. The common wisdom is that Russia and China would oppose such sanctions in the Security Council, so unified UN member state sanctions are unlikely. That leaves multilateral sanctions via another incarnation of a "coalition of the willing," not including Russia and China. But would such sanctions have teeth? If Iran could weather the sanctions, our negotiating position would be a shadow of its former glory.

Iran has 132 billion barrels in known reserve, and they produce 4 million barrels per day(mbpd), leaving them to export 2.5mbpd. China is a growing economy - if we take ourselves and much of the rest of the world out of the running for Iran's oil, they'll certainly see a price slump, but perhaps not an economic implosion that we'd be banking on. They have over $40 billion in foreign reserves and gold that's been built up over these last few years of skyrocketing energy costs. If China, or other oil hungry countries can take up the slack we leave, then our sanctions will accomplish little of nothing. The Iranian elite might not be able to order their Chippendale furniture from Europe anymore, and they might start using more of the 5 cent junk we're inundated with by China, but they'd survive it. I don't think it would be the tipping-point inducing regime change we hope it would be.

My fear...

During the last post, I fought the urge to just say right out: The Bush Administration doesn't want peace with Iran. Well, Juan Cole is there to embody my doubts given voice.

And we have a charming piece disagreeing with direct talks in the inestimable Charles Krauthammer.

It is not rare to see a regime such as Iran's -- despotic, internally weak, feeling the world closing in -- attempt so transparent a ploy to relieve pressure on itself. What is rare is to see the craven alacrity with which such a ploy is taken up by others.

He begins here with a shot at us who think talks would be a good way of achieving our goals with the assumption that the Iran government is "internally weak," thereby floating the idea that if we keep up the pressure, the regime will fall by itself. Is Iran really weak enough that they might not maintain control of their population? I think not. Plus, there's nothing like the threat of military action against your country to cause a rally around the flag reaction.

Needless to say, Charles is against direct talks with Iran, and darn it, for the life of him he can't figure out how we could even suggest direct talks would be a good thing. Or, excuse me for overstating it. He can think of a reason we support direct talks: because we have no principles.

Just yesterday the world was excoriating the Bush administration for its unilateralism -- on Kyoto, the ABM Treaty and, most especially, Iraq -- and demanding that Washington act in concert with the "international community." Just yesterday the Democratic nominee for president attacked President Bush's foreign policy precisely for refusing to consult with, listen to and work with "the allies."

Another day, another principle. Bush is now being pressured to abandon multilateralism and go it alone with Iran.

Nice play with the false analogies, Charles. The unifying principle on my side of the aisle is to do what's best for the country, putting as much pressure to bear on our problems as is possible. The unifying principle of the Administration seems to be to avoid at every step actions which significantly decrease the justifications for military action. Take the Zarqawi asssination opportunities we had before the Iraq war that were not exercised because we feared it would "anger our allies and thereby decrease the support for the war." Likewise with direct talks with Iran.

Bilateral talks cost America nothing if they are enacted wit' a quickness. While the Security Council track is proceeding and the threat of eventual sanctions becomes more and more real for the Iranian regime, we can talk behind closed doors and come to an understanding of what the Iranians require in order to stop compiling their nuclear know-how. I suspect that a non-aggression guarantee will be required, but we can keep that quiet. Publicly, Russia will handle the enrichment side of their fuel cycle, and the Iranians will ratify the Additional Protocols so that every step the fuel takes will be monitored. At that point, America's publicly stated goals are acheived - an Iran without the possibility of syphoning off nuclear material for clandestine uses, and without the high-enrichment expertise that is so difficult to come by.

Request for Talks

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's first letter to President Bush was written more for the "Arab Street" than as an actual diplomatic opening for the American government. But now, it seems we do have a bona-fide request for talks from the Iranians.

In that request, they put everything on the table that we want on the table, and nothing that we don't. Of course, if a settlement would be reached it would require a compromise on both sides, but the Iranians aren't playing it that way while making the overture - which is smart given the "resolve" of the Bush Administration.

This stikes me as an important development. We've now arrived at the point where, should the Bush Administration refuse talks, there can be no further claim that resolving the nuclear issue is the primary concern of the United States. Instead, it is clear that they're merely angling for further escalation of tensions. There's simply no reason not to engage these talks.

So I think they'll have to embrace this. If they entrench themselves further it is a losing proposition for America, if not for their electoral chances.

Support for Another War

I was speaking to a friend last weekend about politics, as usual, and he brought up Iran. He's retired career Army, now working for a school system doing IT. His position was that we need to" bomb the hell out of them," and that if we did, we could kill the nuclear program and topple the regime. My response was to google the following picture:


I showed him the infamous Strait, told him the shipping lane for deepwater vessels was 2-3 miles wide, and that 30-40% of the world's oil production flowed through it. I asked him what had happened when a few percentage points of supply fell off in America after Katrina, and he didn't seem to see the significance of the question. "Sure, oil prices will go up, but it will be temporary," he said. Oy.

Now, I'm a big believer in the near omnipotence of the US military, having been schooled in the First Gulf War, but after experiencing bitter reality in Iraq, how can you hold the position in your head that "taking out Iran would be no big deal"? Leading up to the Iraq War, I was convinced of its inevitability. But with Iran, the American people at large must have better sense, right? "Fool me once, shame on... shame on you... ifuma can't get fooled again," is my position.

My Immigration Position

This is one of the things that makes me an atypical Democrat, I guess, but I think that something closer to an enforcement only law is what I'd like to see. The ridiculous criminalization bill that the House passed isn't at all what I have in mind, but it's closer than the President's proposal.

If we secure the borders via real and virtual fences, increase the boarder patrol to levels specified by the 9/11 commission, and start enforcing the laws against
employers (which should be easy enough given the Social Security Payments for accounts that don't exist), the problem will largely solve itself. Illegal immigrants will have an increasingly difficult time finding work, and many of them will leave of their own accord. Compliment this with a scientifically-based guest-worker program to protect the industries that swear up and down they can't find Americans, and I'm happy.

In the real world, though, I'm happy that the only law that's passed thus far is the House's. It has almost no chance of becoming law, but the Hispanic groups know which party passed it, which is just as good for the Democrat's electoral chances. Thank god for self-inflicted wounds. The Republican's just can't help themselves these days.

Maybe I'm just a Thicky

So before the big Immigration Speech this week, the press narrative was that it was designed to mollify the conservative base. Since Bush's approval amongst self-identifying conservatives stands at 45%, the quest to bolster the President's approval ratings must begin there. As usual, they leaked the entire contents of the speech before hand, with a special emphasis on the National Guard stop-gap measure. The only thing that ended up being unspecified was the number - 6,000 troops on a 2-3 week rotation. Fine.

So, as I thought about the speech during the preview period over the weekend, I couldn't quite understand where they were going. If the President stuck to his guns, as he always seems to, the speech couldn't possibly please the conservative base. The sticking point in his plan was clearly "amnesty," which there was no way the base would accept. The rhetoric over amnesty and boarder protection has simply been too vehement - there was no way the conservative Representatives and commentators could walk it back. I mean, they had been proposing impeachment over this issue! Clearly, if "amnesty" as they define it was included, the speech couldn't possibly help Bush's numbers. The Democrats are long gone, having been called traitors a few thousand too many times, and he's been polling abysmally amongst independents for over a year.

Watching the speech itself, I kept thinking, "where's the surprise? Where's the play that will actually make someone happy?" It never came.

Surprise, surprise! The conservative base is pissed. So what was the point of the speech? The only way the speech translates into a net positive is if Bush actually gets his plan passed. Then, they can spin a narrative of "fighting his own party to claim the holy middle ground on a contentious issue." But do you think Sensenbrenner and Tancredo in the House are going to have anything to do with it? I can't imagine the arm-twisting that would be required, and with Mr. 29%'s political capital not even registering, I just don't see it happening.

So, maybe I'm just a double-thick Thicky from Thickonia, but I don't get it.

Why on Earth am I a Democrat?

In my head, I feel conservative. I often adore George Will, for instance. But here I am, a Democrat. I was thinking about that this morning, when I realized that this sort of free form musing is right up a blog's alley. "What the hell," I thought, "thinking in public is totally hot right now."

So, why am I a Democrat when so many of the conservative-dreaded social programs that classical liberals support make me uneasy? Affirmative Action and welfare, I suppose, are the two main boogeymen. It is undeniable that giving artificially inflated care to a group results in the members of that group becoming accustomed to that level of subsidy. Living things tends to adapt to their environment, after all - especially living things with a respectable neocortex/body mass ratio (i.e. us). With the onset of that comfortableness, the incentive to genuinely improve your lot in life is diminished, creating what Will calls a Moral Hazard. It is also undeniable that any person in America that can speak English has a chance to succeed, so why "penalize" the succesful to help the less fortunate?

I keep my mouth shut about my doubts because I believe that it is immoral and, more importantly, strategically unwise to allow the ossification of power and resources in a society. Without means of redistributing wealth down the economic ladder, the lower classes are progressively squeezed by those that control the resources and thereby control the society itself. This is the steadily worsening environment that leads to revolution, and I'd like to avoid those unless they're really necessary, because I like being a superpower. Furthermore, dedicated labor is not always enough to ensure success. Irrefutably, hard work is requisite, but luck plays a bigger role in life's success than contemporary conservatives would have you believe.

Ultimately, I think of America as a group comprised of its citizens. What's good for all is good for America, and therefore a personal good in excess of how I personally benefit. What's good for the few is not necessarily bad, but is necessarily less good. Demonstrably, modern conservatives feel as if they have to govern for the elites. As a result, the middle class gets squeezed. That's just plain wrong, but I'm not sure it would have been enough by itself to turn me slowly into a Democrat.

Truly, it was the foreign policy enacted by President Bush that made me a committed member of the Democratic Party. They call it a doctrine of preemption, but it clearly isn't. There are threats around the world that are completely ignored because they haven't elicited a public outcry, or are simply too difficult to tackle in the way that the Bush Doctrine would indicate. North Korea is a sharp example of the latter. Before North Korea had nuclear weapons, the Bush Doctrine demanded preemptive military action - the argument would have been nearly identical to the one used in Iraq's case. I can see it now: "A brutal dictator, who rules with an iron fist of cruelty against his own people, is hell-bent on acquiring nuclear weapons for nefarious purposes. Can we allow ourselves to be held hostage by the threat of this madman extorting the international community? The U.N. is in danger of sliding into irrelevancey if this grave and gathering danger is not addressed." Ultimately, we didn't address North Korea militarily because we could not win such an engagement (reference the 2 million man army). Even if we destroyed the country's burgeoning nuclear facilities, it would only set them back and confirm our hostile, militaristic posture. The consequences of military action can be slow in coming, and so are very difficult to predict.

What pushed me to think of myself as a Democrat was the way we executed the War on Terror. The unfinished job in Afghanistan hurt me. I felt like physically mourning the life we allowed Bin Laden to continue living. I wanted the big gets. I wanted Mullah Omar. I wanted Al-Zawahiri . I wanted them killed, or even better, brought to the dock in American courts, so the world could see the sagacious exercise of Justice. Instead, no such news arrived. Even then, it was clear that we held back for some reason. 15,000 troops in Afghanistan? To capture the most hated villains in American history? Fewer boots on the ground than police in New York City? For the love of god, why would we pursue with such daintiness?

The fog surrounding the answer started clearing soon after the Afghanistan conflict cooled - we needed those troops for Iraq. As we started banging the war drums about Iraq, I read everything I could get my hands on, and unlike Afghanistan, there was some dissent about pursuing "the terrorists" to Iraq. There were no Al Qaeda operating in the Saddam controlled portions of Iraq, I learned. To me, it was automatically apparent that no American would be on the side of Al Qaeda - outside the normal collection of the literally insane. No American could have watched the murder of our brothers and sisters and not felt the same rage and sorrow that I did. So when dissent began, I listened, considered, and came to the conclusion that Iraq was no threat to us and was in no way responsible for 9/11. I didn't conclude that the anti-war types must have been objectively on the side of Al Qaeda. Luckily for me, I opposed the Iraq War from the start. Thank god.

There was a second reason I opposed the Iraq War. I hesitate to even state it, since it is so painfully obvious. If the goal of the War on Terror is to decrease the amount of terrorism directed against Americans, then it's unforgivably immoral and strategically myopic to pursue that goal by bombing the living hell out of people that have nothing to do with terrorism directed against Americans. To paraphrase one of the greats: It's like ordering a pizza and getting a free walrus. Even if the walrus were excellent, I mean truly exemplary, I'm really not in the market for it and it's not why I ordered the pizza. Similarly, no matter what rationale the administration stated or how "fun" and well executed the war would be, ultimately, wars of choice work against the main goal of the war on terror - protecting me and mine. Imagine how you would you react if your father was scattered around the block because of no fault of his own. I know how I would react: exactly the same way I did on the morning of September 11th. I felt Hatred, Rage, and a desire for Revenge so deep it took on a color. And that was for the murder of people I had never even met! Increasing the number of people who feel that way towards America only makes my family less safe.

The response on the Republican side, as I referenced earlier, was to question whether the opponents of the war in Iraq loved the Terrorists more than the United States of America. Whether we were labelled Pro-Al-Qaeda, Pro-Saddam, traitors, cowards, or just "on the wrong side," the rhetoric didn't match the reality I was living since we all want the terrorists dead. I wondered how the Republicans could possibly believe the things they said about us, and that lead down a road of thinking similar to the one Glenn Greenwald has outlined repeatedly. Combined with their attitudes towards science, it was clear that the modern Republican party wasn't interested in rational thinking, or real debate. It seemed that they had been out of power so long that now that they had their chance, no liberally-biased facts would get in their way of ensuring a successful presidency. To them, that meant brooking no dissent, never wavering in their religious support, and being seen as Commander-in-Chief via the Iraq War. The government that enabled was one of desires fulfilled over empiricism applied. They wanted war, so they got one, and forever alienated me.

"Getting Tough" with Iran must be Politics

Let's be clear from the start: There is No Possibility for Military Action against Iran.

First, let's just look at the feasibility of an attack from a U.S. Military standpoint, and discount possible consequences, even though those consequences are the really frightening aspect of possible war. This is known as the “Iranian regime will collapse on itself with a few well-placed bombs" strategy. It may remind you of the "We'll be greeted as liberators" strategy that has us on the smooth-sailing path to victory in Iraq. Despite neoconservative's utterly laughable assertions to the contrary, it should go without saying that our military options are heavily curtailed by our previous commitments. The War in Iraq is the largest, of course, stretching our military to the breaking point. Every few weeks you hear another General on the Sunday morning shows saying that we can't sustain the current level of deployment indefinitely. If current levels are prohibitive, imagine what a strain for the Army it would be if we invaded Iran as well!

Furthermore, Iran is roughly three times larger than Iraq, with twice the population. The ethnic group that would cause us trouble in Iran is not the minority it is in Iraq, but rather a substantial majority of the population. The Shiite population base for an insurgency is four times greater than is the Sunni population in Iraq, so if an insurgency does form in Iran (and I wouldn't hold my breath on that one), the threat posed by them would dwarf that from the Sunnis.

An aerial bombing campaign is the remedy the giddy hawks see for those otherwise insurmountable problems - just don't put in troops. Don't do any fighting where the bad guys can fight back. As a nice side benefit, dropping bombs on things does produce the best footage, and that would play nicely on the 24x7 news networks. Iran's upgraded defenses might actually cause hiccups for our sorties, though, since they haven't been strangled by years of sanctions as Iraq had. In fact, the Russians have been selling them defense systems like crazy. Given that, I wouldn't be blase about an air campaign, but it, at least, is an option while ground forces are not.

Now, let's grant that a "successful" air campaign has been achieved and look at the consequences.

To begin, a little geography. The Persian Gulf empties into the Gulf of Oman through the Strait of Hormuz. The Strait is a two-mile wide shipping pathway bound by littoral waters though which 35% of world oil production is shipped, and which is bound on the north by Iran. The problem with that just screams. To wit: the Strait of Hormuz can be closed using 1980's or earlier technology, and there's absolutely no telling how high that would drive oil prices. Go to your local library and look at Jane's Weapons Systems - the anti-ship missile section alone is veritably bulging with the elegant lines of decades of perfected naval-killing ordinance. Even with modern CIWS (Close-In Weapons System) to attempt interception of incoming missiles, all your enemy need do is fire one missile more than the number of CIWS units they have on board simultaneously, and the target is literally sunk. One missile is enough, and with the predictable movements any large ship would be making in the constrained Strait, one missile would certainly get through. Here I'm being easy on the Pro-War argument by making no mention of Iran's recent acquisition of supercavitating torpedoes, new air defense systems, or Russian submarines. Hell, now that I mention the Russian subs, it occurs that all of those technologies are from the Russians. Gee, I can't wait for Russia to support our U.N. sanctions! There's no way they'd screw us on that, right?

As an aside: Why, then, do we still put so much emphasis on the Carrier Battle Group? Certainly, the ability to project air superiority anywhere in the globe is valuable, and they do have a strategy for avoiding having fleets sunk en masse. That strategy is called "We'll be more careful to keep ourselves away from possible missile sources." This is the "over the horizon" argument for continued relevance of the navy. However, it's just as true that, as Sinclair said, "It is hard to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding." Can you imagine the British abandoning battleships? You'd need retroviral genetic therapy to even get them to consider it! Plus, when your enemy can use ostensibly civilian boats to fire multiple missiles, the principles of asymmetric warfare start to apply, and in those cases we don't do well - "over the horizon" notwithstanding, since the attackers don't need to see you to shoot missiles at your shiny carriers.

The real issue is not the Iranians sinking our hardened targets - if you can call the giant target a battleship or carrier represents "hardened." The real issue is that oil tankers cannot be considered hardened targets, and cannot stay "over the horizon" as they navigate the Strait. As likely as it is to sink a navy warship with a single missile or mine impact, it is virtually assured when the target is a tanker brimming with fuel. Put a nice hole in one of those and 35% of world production has to be routed a different way. Even the credible threat of an attack on a tanker would probably close the Strait. Granted, there is some excess pipeline capacity in the area, but no alternatives for transporting that quantity of oil exist. There would be a bidding war for the remaining oil on the world market, and it would be fierce. America would take the hardest hit, since we're the biggest consumers. Even discounting lengthy supply disruptions, the economic consequences of $250/barrel oil are difficult to overstate. I have to imagine some starkly cataclysmic events before my Unlikely Alarm goes off. The fact that we are over a decade behind removing the threat to national security and civilization continuity posed by our total dependence on a limited resource is the central failing of our fathers.

In the list of consequences let us not forget that, as a majority Shiite nation, the Iraqi government naturally has strong ties to Iran. With the prominence of cleric Muqtada Al-Sadr, who is arguably becoming the most influential politician in Iraq, and the power wielded by the Ayatollah Sistani, two men with loyalty to Iran, a war with Iran could make things very uncomfortable for our troops in Iraq. Remember, our 140,000 servicemen and women in Iraq depend on poorly defended supply lines running North from Kuwait, right through the heart of the Shiite provinces. With the popular Shiite uprising either of these men could accomplish with a single fiery speech, our troops could be marooned.

Finally, there is Hezbollah, which is the most effective terrorist organization in the world, and which would be at the command of the Ayatollah Khomeini. Hezbollah has shown it's ability to strike in meaningful ways around the world, and it seems unlikely we could avoid a domestic retaliation.

And what real benefit would bombing the Iranians have? Unless the neoconservatives' magical bombing-away-the-regime strategy works, the prizes won by our "successful" air campaign would be transitory at best. By filling Iran's nuclear site's entrances with rubble, we could slow their program, but with the urge to retaliate they may redouble their efforts. In other words, it does nothing to solve the problem, and it escalates the current cold conflict to a state of open war. Iran will find a way to strike back, and they have a plethora of options to do us grievous damage.

So, I'm not saying that attacking Iran would be idiotic, I'm just saying that it is the stupidest idea that has ever existed, or will ever exist in the history of the universe. It makes going to war with Iraq look like thesis material.

Cross this with the fact that the Administration has seemingly done everything in its power to avoid serious and aggressive diplomatic engagement with Iran over our combined grievances - most importantly our explicit threat to their country and their nuclear program - and you see that they must not think Iran is actually that much of a crisis. Furthermore, the only derivable lesson from the immensely stupid Axis of Evil speech and America's subsequent starkly different treatment of Iraq and North Korea is that America will not mess with you if you have nuclear weapons. Who can blame them for acting on the only lesson available to them, as rational humans do?

Now, consider this critical post by the estimable Josh Marshall:

With respect to what's coming on Iran, what is in order is a little honesty, just as was the case with the Social Security debate a year ago. The only crisis with Iran is the crisis with the president's public approval ratings. Period. End of story. The Iranians are years, probably as long as a decade away, and possibly even longer from creating even a limited yield nuclear weapon. Ergo, the only reason to ramp up a confrontation now is to help the president's poll numbers.

I agree completely with Marshall's sentiment. I pray my leadership is paying attention. My argument would change the penultimate sentences as follows: "There is no military engagement option against Iran, meaningful U.N. sanctions will be blocked by Russia and China, and the Bush Administration steadfastly refuses to engage aggressive diplomacy. Ergo, the only reason to ramp up a confrontation now is to help the president's poll numbers."

Of course, that's just the continuation of the thought. I prefer Marshall's from a message framing and structure standpoint.

Meta-Blogging Addendum: Blogging is interesting. There's so much more I feel the need to add, but I just don't have the time. I want to add shoot-down percentages, acknowledgements that the strategic situation isn't as cut and dry as my technology arguments make them out to be, CIWS variants, and nuance on the defenses the modern navy possesses to defend itself... It's great fun!

Glenn's First Triumph

Glenn Greenwald writes Unclaimed Territory, a spectacular blog that sucked me in with the first few posts. He's a lawyer - and a talented writer to boot - so he brings an expertise and clarity to his writing about the NSA domestic spying case that is unmatched.

I've had the pleasure of reading the book through a few times (and yes, I'm aware that this marks me as one of the elite who gets galley copies of up-and-coming hits), and I've loved it.

So go pre-order his book and help build the progressive infrastructure that the conservatives have enjoyed for decades. He's currently at #1 on the Amazon.com book rankings, so let's keep him that way.

Revolt of the Generals against Condoleeza

Sure, they say that a driving force behind the "Revolt of the Generals" was the publishing of the book Cobra II : The Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq. But there was another event that angered me just as much:

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice accepted on Friday the United States had probably made thousands of errors in Iraq but defended the overall strategy of removing Saddam Hussein.

...

"Yes, I know we have made tactical errors, thousands of them," she said in answer to a question over whether lessons had been learned since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.

The military, who deserve better treatment than they get at the hands of Republicans, is in charge of tactics. The civilian policy makers in Washington are responsible for stategy. Secretary Rice no doubt thought she was being quite progressive, since she was admitting to any mistake at all - admittedly a big step for this administration. But she was, in fact, putting the burden of responsiblity for Iraq's lamentable state on the military. When I heard that comment, I reacted as if I had smelled something foul, like being a 12 year old forced to clean out the cooler after a few too many hot days. Her comments were on March 31, and General Newbold spoke out on April 9.

And since this whole General's Revolt storyline has focused on one man, Donald Rumsfeld, I think we can introduce one of the Secretary's valuable Rules under the heading Keeping Your Bearings in the White House:

When asked for your views, by the press or others, remember that what they really want to know is the president's views.

President Bush and Condoleezza Rice have a widely reported close relationship. They finish each other's sentences. Her views most certainly reflect his, and that's why it's politically dangerous.

This is why the Revolt hurts military-civilian relations: because the civilians are politicians. The plain truth - that there were strategic errors made again and again - is politically devastating and so must be fought by the administration, thereby pitting the two groups against each other. When the inevitable blame game comes for the failure of the Iraq misadventure it will be politically devastating for the military to say that it was the civilian leadership that was making strategic errors, rather than military leaders making tactical ones.

Backed into that corner, out comes the caricatured response that is almost too predictable at this point. On Fox News, which I was watching as I was waiting for Fox News Sunday to come on, the Generals were being discussed on a segment moderated by Page Hopkins. The guests were "strategists" - a Republican and a Democratic. The Democrat's statement didn't strike me as anything out of the ordinary, but my ears perked up when the Republican started responding. This middleaged woman was calling retired generals "Ninnies!" Actually using the word "ninnies!" Poor Page Hopkins gasped in astonishment off-camera. She went so far as to say that speaking out now was an act of cowardice, since they didn't say anything while they were still in a place to do something about it, thereby calling a number of them liars as well. She got in at least one more Ninny-call before a break, and poor Page had to gasp over and over. It was remarkable.

The responsibilty for all facets of the Iraq debacle rests on the civilian policy makers in Washington. We cannot allow the military to be tarnished like it was after Vietnam when it was the Bush Administration at fault.

Biden and Oil Embargos

Two posts in a row referencing Biden. What fun!

During his appearance on This Week, Biden said that embargoing Iran's oil production would be an option for putting the maximum pressure on Tehran to forgo its nuclear ambitions. Iran's current production is around 4.5 million barrels per day (mbd), worldwide consumption is near 84mbd, and worldwide supply is above 85mbd. Given how inelastic the price of oil has proven to be, a shortfall of 3mbd on the world market could have drastic consequences.

While it may also be true that Iran could not weather such an embargo, since according to Biden "all their durable goods are imported," it is certainly the case that low oil costs are the basis of America's economy. A radical price hike would do us serious damage, perhaps as much as the Iranians, and is a reckless policy. Don't mess with my oil until we've got a President seriously putting us on the road to energy independence.

Message Test - Ignoring Facts Gets You Into War

Joe Biden just missed a golden opportunity that I would have swung at. That doesn't happen often, given his feistiness. Biden characterized the cascading failure in Iraq as a "disaster," to which Sen. Allen reposted with: "We can't get so depressed about it that we ensure failure."

Here was my reply, ranting at the tv:

That's really the Republican Bush supporter's thinking encapsulated, isn't it? "We can't get so depressed by the facts on the ground that we ensure failure." I never said I was depressed, but I do think the likely outcome in Iraq is a disaster because of the facts on the ground. And since the facts are what convince people of this, the only way to march forward with a happy face is to ignore the facts. Ignore the facts that lead to a conclusion you don't like. It's that precise philosophy towards facts and empiricism that got us into this war in the first place! Hell, you wouldn't want someone with that philosophy to build your HOUSE, much less invade and rebuild a country!

Furthermore, it's classic tinker-bell logic. "If we only clap louder," my colleague says, "and we'll win the war in Iraq!" No, clearly we need an actual plan on the ground to deal with the facts on the ground. But you can't have a real plan without acknowledging the real facts. I'm telling you, this is the same thinking that got us into the war in the first place, and made us lose so many good men for a corrupt, militia-ridden, Iranian vassal state "democracy?"

Prediction

Kevin Drum offers possibilities for the ultimate outcome of the Dubai Ports Deal:

The full House and Senate concur and then George Bush backs down from his promise to veto any attempt to kill the deal. This could be facilitated by some kind of "new information" that Bush claims to have been previously unaware of.

Bush vetoes the bill and Congress overrides. Bush is humiliated.

Congressional leaders manage to fudge the issue in such a way that Bush can sign the bill while still pretending to stick to his guns. Since Dems will fight this, Republicans would have to be almost 100% united to pull it off

My money is on a fourth option. All of Kevin's choices involve a political loss for the President, and god knows that the powers that be wouldn't allow that. It seems likely that the Administration will invent some gambit whereby they save face entirely. What about somehow convincing Dubai Ports World to withdraw its bid to take over the US ports? I'm sure there'll be a way for them to swing it. If there's one part of the Bush Administration that's frighteningly competent, it's the political office.

UPDATE: The Times is reporting that the UAE has agreed to divest itself of its American holdings. Big surprise.

"... will burn the Constitution"

There has been much to be disturbed about in the last 5 years. The events of September 11th still bring a tear to my eye, and the Iraq War still seems like a gigantic strategic error. As blogosphere readers, you hardly need a recitation of issues to be concerned about in today's political atmosphere.

But all of the corrupt policies of the Bush Administration or even American Deaths don't begin to terrify me the way some of our leaders talk about the consequences of the next terrorist attack. On Wolf Blitzer's Late Edition a number of months ago, Wolf had some general on talking about homeland security in the context of the newly disclosed NSA illegal spying program. Specifically, the general said that the most important thing was to protect our cities from nuclear attacks, because "as that city burned, the constitution would burn with it." He was of course implying that all of you namby-pamby Americans who are concerned about your civil liberties would have a lot more to be concerned about should another attack occur, so stop complaining and let us break the law to protect you. "You don't like what we're doing now, well just wait until you don't have any rights at all," he seemed to be saying.

This is a theme that's not constantly repeated, but rather seems to be on some longer lifecycle. It crops up a few times a year - "if there's another terrorist attack, the constitution will be torn up." WHY? So help me, this infuriates me. Why should a few civilian deaths rob me of my inalienable rights? Where do you draw the line? Will 100 civilians killed be enough to torch my constitution? 1000? 100,000? Emphatically, I say there is no line. There is no point at which I will give my consent.

In fact, there is a line, but it is one which I would cross going in the other direction. If the threat was real, I would gladly take up arms to protect my constitution. Let me make my position crystal clear: Our nation is great, but it is only great because of our constitution. The freedoms it guarantees are the only thing that has brought this nation to the pinnacle of exceptionalism it now occupies.

On September 17, 1787, as Benjamin Franklin left Constitution Hall he was asked what kind of government the newly forming nation was to have, "a monarchy or a republic?" "A Republic," he replied, "if you can keep it." I fear that we are in danger of losing our Republic, because we are not keeping it. I love life, but I will fight and die to protect that noble document that seperates us from the savages, the Constitution of these United States.