Who's on first in terms of WMD?

Another thing that baffles me with this neocon/hawk push to define Iran as near-term military action (e.g., pushing hard to position the "what is to be done?" argument in the 2008 race), is that Iran remains years away from the serious combo of missiles and nukes, while North Korea is already there today (tests missiles, detonated a nuke). North Korea can't fight us asymmetrically like Iran can due to our Iraq tie-down. Plus, dealing with NK first settles us out considerably with China, freeing resources in Asia for the fight and potentially tapping an ally with very similiar interests (you think China doesn't want cheap dependable oil from the Gulf?).

The radical Salafi jihadist movement's only hope long term is to pit rising East against aging West. By holding Iran short-term and China long-term as preferred enemies, the neocons and hawks do their myopic best to deliver this outcome right into bin Laden's hands with their inability to discriminate the strategic battlefield whatsoever. China's actions on energy signal a clear overlap on strategic interests, our willful ignorance of which is just plain sad. And conflating Iran-the-Shiia-threat with Al-Qaeda-the-Sunni-based-movement is just plain dumb. The conspiracy theorist in me just wonders if Bush simply does want one conflict following upon another, it's that strategically stupid.

Again, where is the grand strategic thinking with Bush and Cheney? Where is a sense of sequencing and making the fight as unfair to our enemies as possible by constantly maximizing our assets while minimizing theirs?

This is a Long War? But Bush fights it with no sense of time. If FDR had fought WWII like this, we would have invaded Europe and pushed on Japan at the same time (instead we worked Japan for years and didn't open real second front in Europe til summer 44--made possible by alliance with past-and-future foe (but then ally of convenience) Soviet Union.

Where is this sort of strategic vision from Bush? He and the neocons just seem to want to fight everybody all at once, which accomplishes the twin problems of: 1) making us look confused and isolated (who wants to join this merry-go-round approach?) and making us look ineffective (Iraq), which only emboldens our enemies more and cows potential allies.

Bush and Cheney are our own worst enemies in this regard. Their inability to think strategically preordains suboptimal outcomes. It is tragic, really, given the huge costs: people, money, but most of all--opportunity.

To me, this is a strategic incompetence that history will judge very harshly.

This administration is urgent in all the wrong places and slow-footed in all the necessary areas. Our leadership remains our greatest weakness.

Comments

[Patriot]

What do you know about "strategy" anyway!!! If Hugh and the heroic wartime leader say we are winning and a surge while fighting everyone will ensure Liberty who are you to question such wise men! Are you defeatist or do you just hate liberty!!!!

[Anonymous]

Patriot: assuming you're joking, i'll joke along with you and say it should be 'strategery'.

if you're not joking, let me know, and i'll unpublish this comment ;-)

[Tom Jedrzejewicz]

I fear the lack of strategic thinking, and the way that you structure this ongoing conflict does make sense. In the long term, both regimes have to fall, and in the long term the order that they fall matters little.

I am on the fence about this issue, but I am more afraid of Iran having nukes than NK, with missiles or otherwise. Kim Jong Il is certainly a megalomaniac, and a sociopath. But he cares about remaining alive, so is unlikely to use nukes against us after the Saddam Hussein example. Iran, OTOH, is far more likely to (for example) put a nuke on a ship and sail it into New York harbor, because their leadership feels called by God.

[Tom Barnett]

Patriot: You're going to have to offer a bit more logic than that to be taken seriously. And a real name would help too. My credentials and life experience are well documented. Just screeching "what he said!" and calling people names makes you sound like a child.



Tom:

Huge difference on Iran is that the country's been in existence for several hundred years, and its leadership has shown real cognizance in its support for terror as to what targets it can attack and get away with and which it can't. Extrapolating all the way to a nuclear attack on New York is a stretch. Iranians play chess. Look past the propaganda they want you to swallow.

As for Kim, there you're talking a real dictator and nothing to lose. His country is slated for extinction. Nobody's talking about making Iran go away.

Ahmadinejad just got his ass kicked in local and national elections in December. Odds are he's gone in two years, replaced by the current major of Tehran.

Kim ain't going anywhere. His own exit strategy is a wooden box and he knows it. He has the bomb now. Iran's enriching uranium. I find that distinction important--time-wise, and wish Bush would too.

[Lou Heberlein]

Reality check. FDR on Marshall's guidance first drew Hitler's resources into North Africa, and by helping Stalin, into Russia. Even our Italian campaign drew Hitler's resources away from the key attack route across the English channel. Our Pacific campaign was very selective until the European campaign reached a secure pattern. Even the Battle of the Bulge served to draw down German army resources and confidence. Without that Marshall approach WW II could have had an inconclusive end in Europe with many more American casualties. I doubt that a poll of public, media, and establishment politicians and military leaders would have supported that strategy before the results became clear.

[Tom Barnett]

Not forgetting history, Lou. I said "real" second front. Our skin in the European game prior to Normandy was considered serious by no one on the other side, and Moscow had a good reason to bitch.

But your larger point only emphasizes mine: we picked out points over time, maximizing our definition of allies and being very specific about who the enemy was.

[Tom Jedrzejewicz]

Our host replied to me ..Extrapolating all the way to a nuclear attack on New York is a stretch. Iranians play chess. Certainly it is the far end of possibility spectrum. But an attack on Jerusalem isn't. Iran has an objective beyond survival, whereas Kim Jong Il really doesn't. Sabre rattling aside, if we leave NK alone he isn't likely to act for the short term. OTOH, Iran's leadership has repeatedly spoken of it's imperial Islamist intentions.

[gringoman]

Plus, dealing with NK first settles us out considerably with China, freeing resources in Asia for the fight and potentially tapping an ally with very similiar interests (you think China doesn't want cheap dependable oil from the Gulf?)

But why does it fall yet again to the US to solve the world's problem with Little Kim, aside from the goal or theory that this helps in making China an "ally" (by concessions to "encourage" China's assistance? Why hasn't China done what it should have done long ago with its monster client in Pyongyang? It's waiting for more U.S. concessions before becoming a "warmer friend"---maybe a nice steaming dish of noodles and Taiwan? This is diplomacy? International relations? Not, by any chance, blackmail? It's possible that even in Washington they're losing patience, waiting for China in this volatile situation. In fact, it may have reached the point where they are ready to let a certain party who knows how to get China's attention---and has the will--- to get it. And get it dramatically. Japan. A nuclear Japan. Nobody is losing patience with Little Kim like Japan is. You can bet your last yuan that Beijing is now taking note.

[BesottedTom]

To me NK and Iran are apples and oranges. KJI IS a religion (tho a slowly failing one), Iran is RUN BY religion. I think KJI has more to lose. He doesn't get 70 virgins when he dies. He feels he is better off alive, therefore, much more to lose.I do not think that New York has to worry about nukes. Why should they when there are plenty of soldiers, politicians, and civilian contractors right up the road in Bahgdad. A stretch I know, but would our current baby boomer government have the guts to retaliate if Iran let off a "battlefield" type nuke?As far as Ahmadinejad, I agree he is gone in two years or less. I suggest less because after last nites speech, the military types are already reading into it as a "go" to take out Iraq, or so they hope. IMHO I think it is a show of force ("do this because our carrier group is right on your beach"). Unless there is a drug deal with China, I do not think we will be attacking Iran or Syria. I do not know if Bush would make such a deal, but it is feasable something was worked out behind the scenes. Maybe some promise of low cost oil and something to do with Africa? Or have I missed the boat?

[Anonymous]

g-man: there are many good reasons:

1. China is rising, like it or not. the sooner we lock them in, the cheaper the price. Tom has long argued taking down Kim is the way to get an E Asian NATO.

2. a regional security agreement takes the Taiwan Straights almost totally off the table.

3. add up 1 and 2 and you get to reallocate military resources in S Korea, Japan, and the entire Pacific, for starters. then you get to change massive issues in force-sizing and acquisitions. and maybe you can finally start funding the SysAdmin right and getting ready for this Long War to go to Africa.

[JRRICHARD]

"The radical Salafi jihadist movement's only hope long term is to pit rising East against aging West. By holding Iran short-term and China long-term as preferred enemies, the neocons and hawks do their myopic best to deliver this outcome right into bin Laden's hands with their inability to discriminate the strategic battlefield whatsoever."

Is there anyone in DC that gets this? Isn't the Long War a Big enough War?

[gringoman]

Sean,

I'll take a time-out on the Problem of Pyongyang. There's this from Tom:

Another thing that baffles me with this neocon/hawk push to define Iran as near-term military action (e.g., pushing hard to position the "what is to be done?" argument in the 2008 race), is that Iran remains years away from the serious combo of missiles and nukes,

I keep hearing different estimates of when those Iranian centrifuges will result in what I call the Mullah Bomb. Some indicate Tom's time-line. Others say no, it's much sooner than we thought. Of course the Michael Ledeens are sounding the alarm. I don't pretend to know. I'm sure that Tom has some interesting sources. However, I think we can all agree that the question is critical, matters globally, and miscalculation could be disastrous. Ergo, I'd like to ask the following: Would Tom stake his reputation on the assertion that Iran is at least 5-10 years away from the Mullah Bomb?

[Ron]

Moscow had a reason to bitch? Perhaps they should have remembered that before signing the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, giving Germany free reign in the West. Perhaps Stalin thought France could hold them off long enough, but that wasn't exactly an innocent assumption on his part.

[Thomas Pamelia]

These are questions for TPMB and the rest of you that seem to be more informed that I.

I don't see KJI having religious expansionist hegemonic aspirations, whereas Iran does. Iran is working hard to disrupt our building of democracy in Iraq - and is not afraid to voice their wacko views of Isreal.For a country that is so domestically in trouble (Tom just posted an article about educated Iranians looking to emigrate first chance they get), they sure seem to put a lot of effort in influencing the region around them (Lebenon anyone?).

Are you all saying that NorKor needs to be a bigger priority just because they are ALREADY nuclear? Are you saying that when Ahmadinajad is gone - Iran will be less influential in the region?

Also what is to be expected from NorKor after KJI is dead and gone? Another crazy relative?

[Blair Stewart]

Still think the answer for KJI is to bluntly tell China, Pakistan, India, South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan that "YOU have a problem. We've got a missile defense system (will it work? Don't know definitively, but it appears to work well enough to make KJI think about betting the farm on a CONUS strike) so we're reducing our military presence in SK and the region and letting you people deal with this nut. You guys need to handle this bozo before he causes you some REAL problems." One would have to think these functioning core nations would eventually have to come to their senses and understand that KJI has the potential for reeking much more damage to them than to us. Just a thought...

[RKKA]

"Moscow had a reason to bitch?"

Yup.

"Perhaps they should have remembered that before signing the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, giving Germany free reign in the West."

He did, which is why he offered GB and France a triple alliance on 17 April 1939.

"Perhaps Stalin thought France could hold them off long enough, but that wasn't exactly an innocent assumption on his part."

That was his assumption, once the GB had shown they weren't interested in having a serious Eastern front.

[TM Lutas]

I think that Bush is far wiser on Iran than anybody on this thread gives him credit for. In large part we won on the USSR because we broke them financially ($10/bbl Saudi secret deals and threatened expensive arms race with SDI). I believe that we are doing the same with Iran. By making war noises, we provoke upgrades in spending as Ahmadinejad's revolutionary guards buddies get to raid a dangerously empty Iranian treasury to stock up Hezbollah, Hamas, and Iranian defenses.

Iranian petrol infrastructure has had so much maintenance deferred it's losing 8% of pumped oil to leaks in the system (up from 0% a few short years ago). Ahmadinejad is engaging in bread and circuses behavior to maintain sufficient core support in Iran to maintain his power (though that is being nibbled away by old pro operators like Rafsanjani) but that costs money. Why send in division after division into Iran when merely threatening to do so causes the Islamist house of cards to collapse in on itself? When Rafsanjani takes power away from Ahmadinejad and sees the real books (I don't think Ahmadinejad is keeping honest books even within the power circle of mullahs) he'll be forced to change his intended course to one much more amenable to US interests.

Bush wins the war with Iran's regime without firing a shot in this scenario and it all depends on this well practiced sucker-puncher not playing it straight with Ahmadinejad. But Bush wouldn't lie to our enemies, would he? Think about it.

[Michael]

""YOU have a problem. We've got a missile defense system (will it work? Don't know definitively, but. . .""How about "You have a problem, meaning we've got a problem. And a missile-defense system that seems to worry you. And other military abilities you don't have. Why don't we work together to keep KJI from hurting ANY of us instead of squabbling over something that happened before any of us were born?"

TM, I seem to recall Reagan's strategy required actually building the military and took several years. How long can Bush threaten a build-up before people figure out he isn't doing it? Would Achmadinejad bankrupt his country trying to counteract something that hasn't happened yet, or just wait until he sees our actions before responding?

[Thomas Barnett]

TM,

You need to spend some time in the USG. There is no better version or history hidden from public view, despite all hopes and fan fiction. It is painfully WYSIWYG.

Having been accused of being too kind to Bush's thinking for years, I'm the wrong person to lecture on the subject. But I'd buy your analysis more if you weren't so consistently GOP = good and Dems = bad. It just makes you stretch too hard.