4:32PM
Bill Roy's at it again
Saturday, May 13, 2006 at 4:32PM Tom wrote about Bill Roy back in January. Dr Roy is a retired physician and former member of Congress. He writes opinion columns periodically for the Topeka Capital-Journal. My Google Alerts brought him up tonight. He has a new column called Preemption may not be best option with Iran.
Last week, I wrote about Thomas P.M. Barnett's unusual concession that Iran is going to get a nuclear bomb regardless of what the rest of the world does, and that we, the United States should be thinking primarily about what we can get from them in return.Of course, that lead sent me scrambling for last week's column, too: A nuclear Iran might not be the worst thing. Boy, do I love the lead on this one:
The crisis for 2006, unless a better one unexpectedly comes along, is Iran's efforts to have a nuclear bomb in one to 10 years. Everyone seems to think this is a very bad thing and that anything and everything, including bombing Iranian nuclear sites, perhaps with tactical nuclear weapons, must be done to stop this from happening.Thanks, Bill, for getting out the word. We hope for better results than your close to today's column:This near-universal alarm sent me scrambling to find Thomas P. M. Barnett's 2005 book, "Blueprint for Action, a Future Worth Creating."
I like Barnett's analysis best, but know George W. Bush is "the decider." And that the American people, 99 percent of whom have not been asked for a darned thing to support the Iraq War, will go along.So prepare for more multicolor ribbons supporting our troops, standing in line to buy $5 gas, and beyond trivia, possibly an Armageddon arranged by two men who seem to be getting conflicting messages from God.
Reader Comments (7)
Roger Simon says:
But suppose Ahmadinejad actually means what he says about the eradication of Israel and the decline of Western Civilization (not to mention that, to me, psychotic blather about 12th Imams and so forth). Suppose too that this man is not just some minor figurehead for some sinister mullahs (bad enough) but a genuine potential Hitler with (soon enough to be sure) nuclear weapons and an army of believers behind him that could easily dwarf Der Fuhrer's in numbers and fervency. And finally suppose that the letter he just sent was really intended to rally those same believers (not an unlikely possibility). Then this decision to talk is not so easy, is it?
Amir Taheri says:
It would be wrong to dismiss Ahmadinejad's letter to Bush as just another of the Islamic leader's many weird habits. It would be more prudent, and better politics, to take Ahmadinejad seriously and try and understand him in his own terms. His letter contains a crucial message: The present regime in Iran is the enemy of the current international system and is determined to undermine and, if possible, destroy it. It would be wrong to dismiss that message as the product of a 50-year-old teenager's folie de grandeur. Ahmadinejad believes that the "Hidden Imam" is about to return and that it is the duty of the Islamic Republic to provoke a "clash of civilizations" to hasten that return.
Spengler says:
... they [the leaders of Europe in 1914] could not untangle the twist skein of interests that impelled the European powers to war:
1. With a stagnant population, France could not hope to win back the provinces of Alsace and Lorraine it had lost to Germany in 1870 unless it fought immediately.
2. Germany could not concentrate its army on a crushing blow against France if it waited for Russia to build out its internal railway network.
3. Austria could not keep its fractious ethnicities within the empire if it did not castigate Serbia.
4. Russia could not maintain control over the industrialized western part of its empire - Poland, the Baltic states and Finland - if Austria humiliated its Serbian ally, and Russia depended on these provinces for the bulk of its tax revenues.
5. England could not maintain the balance of power in Europe if Germany crushed France.
None of them wanted war, none of them expected war, yet all of them found war preferable to the consequences of avoiding war. If an Aeschylus were alive today to dramatize the outbreak of World War I, he could lift the chorus' every line from the private dispatches of European leaders in July 1914. Like the old men of Mycenae observing Agamemnon's return to the home where his unfaithful wife Clytemnestra would murder him, the old men of Europe watched in horror as peace slipped out of their hands.
If Kaiser Wilhelm II had had the presence of mind to attack France during the First Morocco Crisis of 1906 - while Russia was busy with Japan and England was uncommitted - the horrors of World War I never would have occurred ... By the same token, if Washington waits too long to disarm Iran, the consequence will be a Thirty Years' War in the Middle East quite as terrible as World War I. Harsh as it might seem, preemption - an aerial attack on Iran's nuclear facilities - is the most humane solution.
Is the choice war or peace before the next administration begins (either Republican or Democrat) in January 2009! Then each of the potential candidates needs now not later to line up with their vote and policy one way or another because they not the current administration is going to have to live with the consequences. If its war, then there needs to be consideration of reinstitution of compulsory military service. I was technically drafted and then volunteered to get a slightly better option. Also, immediate conservation of gas and oil must be put in place. These measures will still require 12-18months preparation. Also the complete re-equipment of active, reserve and National Guard must be fully accomplished. We must not leave Iraq but lager up in redoubts and airfields that have utility against Iran. We must immediately take steps to have major allies and explain in detail our plans (not just that we are going to bomb and forget) for dealing with Iran. We need to work on a replacement government now.
If its peace, which I hope, then Iraq must be revealed to the world for what it really is an autocratic theocracy that is isolated from its citizens real interests. This means starting a program of training 25 -50,000 pharsi speaking Americans and study of Persian literature and culture in US universities. (This also probably is needed for war as well). Domestic programs that are funded but not authorized must also be terminated. (This might also be the case for war). The State Department is tragically underfunded and the decline of language ability there and the Intelligence agencies is a scandal. A complete review of Iran policy either peace or war must be conducted in a way for the American people to sign on to the issue. Congress is practically in an isolationist mode and even the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is sound asleep.
We are going to need Mexico as an ally not a distant cousin or worse. Fortification of the border won't be necessary if as in all wars in the past, even non-citizens are subject to compulsory military service. The numbers crossing back into Mexico will rapidly increase and the flow this way cease. At the same time, English speaking non-US volunteers must be welcomed and given expedited citizenship perhaps even automatic if they serve honorably in the Armed Forces. Rummy' s reforms make no sense if it is war, since we might again need the 100 mech-infantry divisions to end the rule of autocrats in the mid-east. Our future lies with India/Pakistan/China/Russia not with the oilagarchy's and they must assist and understand and share in the costs and benefits of war against the autocracies even while we promote reform. We must be blunt with China, S. Korea and Japan and say we have important work elsewhere and they must assure us anyway they can that North Korea is not on the table at the same time.
The country faces hard choices. They are truly being forced on us but they must be made. The thrust of Tom's maps is economic and cultural integration. If war comes it will be really awful. If peace is the future it could also be awful if we surrender our way of life. But for the next 25 years it looks like we have little choice. Our options were foreclosed by a redolant Presidency in Clinton and total ignorance and incompetence in the current President. Now is the time for the big hitters to step up. Otherwise we are going down and the next 25 years will prove it. We have chosen to invest in individual wealth that is largely wasted and have collectively starved our institutions that might have served us better, like the State Department. This is not going to be pretty but perhaps some out-side-the box thinking could help. Maybe it is empire but it certainly looks better than the alternatives. If the costs of that empire are too much than just admit it like the rest of the west and pretend that a cafe society where no one works everyone talks and the heavy lifting is not done anymore and perhaps the next 25 years will pass somewhat pleasantly. I doubt it but fighting a war or waging peace with Starbucks and Walmart is not going to be easy. This may be the last throw of the dice for Western Civilization! Tom, Iran is destroying your map and blueprint, time for the next book.
“…. 99 percent of whom have not been asked for a darned thing to support the Iraq War, …..”
Bill Roy could not be more wrong. America has been asked to give up most of its conservative ideals for Right-wing considerations. This is no small thing. When Bush said, at the start of this war, for us to go about our spending ways, it was not done so lightly or conservatively. If our poor and middle class stop or are unable to continue to spend instead of saving, our economy will collapse. We are in a period of a consumer economy. This collapse would mean a two-front war, one in the Middle East and the other in the East.
No, a house of cards looks strong, until you lose one. Bush has carried on the liberal ways of Clinton. To nuke Iran would be a continuation of this road we find ourselves on. To somehow find the means to negotiate would probably mean a collapse of this house of cards, but, conservatively, we would become "Americans" once again.
Or we can become more resilient, which I think is what Dr. Barnett is advocating. This is not without precedence in America. Our Native Americans became resilient in defending their nation. Instead of being exterminated, they folded back into our culture. While I am sure Dr. Barnett is not advocating cultural genocide, what he does offer doesn’t look very “American” to me. Globalization does use our explicit laws, but implicitly it isn’t very “American”.
Larry:
The definition of what is "America" has changed quite a bit since the founding of our nation. I came across an article recently that took a heavily economic/power sharing view of American history and declared that there have in fact been 3 different incarnations of America over the years.
#1: Revolutionary War-->Civil War
#2: Civil War-->New Deal
#3: New Deal--> approximately today
#4: Being created as we speak.
We are currently starting #4, though it won't be clearly defined for at least another decade or more.
What I'm getting at here is that America is changing and has always been changing. The conservative ideals that you mention dominated an earlier era, one that we have moved past now. I hope that the best of those ideals do stay with us, but a new order is in the making. Mr. Barnett's ideas (which I too have major reservations about) are just one of the proposed paths for the new order--a very healthy, optimistic, yet hollow path. Another path was the article mentioned above, and there are yet even more (ranging from apocalyptic to utopian, with most falling somewhere in between).
We'll see what the decades bring. In the meantime, hold onto those values. They inform the future about the mistakes of the past. Odds are they'll survive in some form or another.
Larry: in this case, being more resilient entails, among other things, being more connected to the global economy with the multiple paths and redundancies of any good network.
Globalization, indeed, is not 'American' strictly speaking. it is, by definition, bigger than that. we can still have an American identity within globalization, but it will be (in Tom's vision) an identity that is less 'sole superpower' and more 'first among equals' economically and sole superpower (in the context of a world without Great Power War, in which military superpower provides security but does not threaten domination).
Bolo: why must Tom's vision be 'hollow'? i call the eradication of Great Power War and the ultimate lifting of many millions of people out of poverty a future worth creating. it's part of the reason i work here. not only do i think Tom's right. i hope he is...
I think people here are making the mistake of thinking that President Ahmadinejad runs Iran, because the President in the US is the leader of America. In Iran, Khamenei is the top person. Khamenei, the Supreme Leader, is up for re-selection this November (or maybe October, I see both months online). When Iran elects their Assembly of Experts who then select the Supreme Leader. The BBC has an interesting scorecard, and their system is tangled to where I need to refer to it a lot.
On June 15, 2006, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization will vote to add 4 new member states: Mongolia, India, Pakistan and Iran. Other existing members of SCO include Russia and China. They'll have 45% of the world's land and 28% of the world's population, as well as 2 seats on the UN Security Council.The Reagan administration taught the Iranians that we barked a mean bark, but dealt with them behind closed doors anyway. In the current administration, there are a number of figures who played parts in Iran-Contra. This means it would be reasonable for the Iranians to believe that we're going to bark real loud now, but continue to do business with Iran. As I pointed out over at John Robb's site (click my name to take you there), taking down Iran with military force will be more expensive than we can afford at this time. As rabid as Ahmadinejad sounde, Iran produces too much oil to be allowed to go offline at this time. If we try to beat them with force, they can shut off their oil supplies (at the minimum) and watch our economy tank from the shockwaves that taking 5% of the world's oil production offline will involve (last time they took their supplies offline, world oil prices only doubled). If we try to go for the "soft kill," can we tolerate someone chattering that way for long enough before we just. can't. take. it. any. more. And smack him something fierce.
The Germans didn't march children volunteers across minefields to clear them. The Iranians did. That puts them more into the Soviet mindset, as in charge those machine guns until the barrels melt. For all their "fervor" during the Iran-Iraq war, the Iranians didn't have the tactical skills that God gave to squirrels. If they had any tactical skills, they'd have won that war. They may have manipulated us into invading Iraq and winning the Iran-Iraq war on their behalf, and installed the first friendly (to Iran) Iraqi government in more than 3 decades.
Normally, when a country sends troops to their border, it is in preparation (or perhaps just threats) to invade. Or, it is done when the other guys send troops to the border. I dunno, we haven't invaded Mexico in almost a hundred years, and we probably will never do it again, but the leftists south of the Rio Grande all the way to Tierra Del Fuego are going to be making hay out of this for weeks and months to come. We in the US will make distinctions between the regular military and the national guard. Outside the US, the distinction vanishes: both wear a uniform, carry M-16s and serve in Iraq. It is like the definition of Yankee: in the US it refers to someone from north of the Mason Dixon line; to someone from outside the US it merely means anyone from America.
On July 2, 2006, Mexico elects their new president. Their constitution prohibits re-election of a President, so there is no chance that Fox may be re-elected. Troops to the border? You can bet real money that the winner this July will be to the left of Fox. How far? Chavez far? Morales far?
This looks like it will be an interesting summer in the "chinese curse" sense of the word.
"For all their "fervor" during the Iran-Iraq war, the Iranians didn't have the tactical skills that God gave to squirrels. If they had any tactical skills, they'd have won that war."
I don't know if what I am about to say is true or not, but it has been said that the Persians, who the Iranians represent, invented Chess. While their society has gone through many changes since that time, I don't believe the tactical skill that the game of Chess represents has been driven from the Persian mindset. No, the reason they lost was because of other factors than poor tactical skills. If we eliminate the attrition factor (maybe their side could simply no longer carry out war), the reason they lost tactically was because the enemy they were fighting knew all their tactical moves and the Iranians knew all their enemy's moves. This was because both sides were fighting by the same implicit laws.
The same thing happened during our civil war. The North and South were brothers and knew how each other fought. It wasn't only the deadly accuracy of the new technological advancement in rifles that killed so many on both sides, it was also because both side knew how the other would move in battle. During our Civil War, it really wasn't until one side fought differently than the other that a real advantage showed. Sherman's march through the South represented an un-American way to fight and something one brother would not do to another. Besides attrition, this ability to fight unlike your enemy must have been the deciding factor in the outcome of our Civil War. Saddam may have found a way to fight other than the way of his enemy, who he knew so well.
The reason it appears that Iran is winning the war in Iraq is because they got us to plan the war to their advantage. They used agents of Iran to plan the war, so how hard is it to figure out how to win? The reason it seems that Iraq will end up being represented by a government with the same implicit laws as Persia, is because Iran is fighting on both sides, so to speak. It is very hard to win when you are trying to put your enemy into power.