"Not worried about Iran getting nukes..."
Sunday, January 7, 2007 at 2:03PM As those who warn Hugh Hewitt against engaging me in interviews describe my position on Iran.
Isn't it amazing that a guy who supported (and still supports) the war in Iraq and advocates regime change in North Korea is so easily characterized as some surrender monkey on Iran simply because I have the unfortunate tendency to point out that there's nothing we can or will do militarily against Iran before it gets the bomb--primarily because of the Iraq tie-down?
Even better is the notion that I want to "give Taiwan to the commies" (as if we can find any in China nowadays) simply because I don't want to see our entire military force structure held hostage to this fantastically defined requirement and would prefer to exploit China's already large presence inside the Gap for our own purposes (no, no, please don't offer any grand strategy like that when we prefer focusing our entire long-term acquisition strategy on the high-end Taiwan scenario, no matter how many Marines and Army that kills between now and that mythical date!).
Too often in the blogosphere, being a hawk is confused with advocating military interventions in all occasions, no matter how fantastic the prospect.
And that is a sad reflection of the state of our current public dialogue on grand strategy, which consists of primarily "over [somebody else's] dead body" versus "cut and run."
Being a grand strategist ain't about telling you what you want to hear. It's about telling you what you need to hear.
Reader Comments (18)
TPMB: I'm the one telling you how it's going to be! ;-)
Here's a grand strategy question for you, and please pardon me if you've already addressed this somewhere:
Should the domestic political situation force a withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, is there a way to salvage the situation in the Middle East in the long run? Or would a withdrawal completely undermine U.S. (or Tom Barnett's) policy objectives in the region?
In other words, is there a positive step that could be taken in the event of a U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq?
Cheers,
Shawn
Furthermore, the periods Taiwan spent under Chinese rule throughout history are very nonconsecutive and rarely, if ever, was it held as tightly under the central government as any part of mainland China. Often as not, the island was either unclaimed and unruled by the Chinese, or ruled by the Dutch, Spanish, local tribes, and finally the Japanese. Given the history, Chinese claims of sovereignty over Taiwan are only marginally more substantive than like claims over Tibet, and arguably less so than any claims they would make on territories north of the Amur River, or the Koreas, or Indochina.
T.B. have you read "War of the World" by Niall Ferguson? If you have, what's your opinion of the book?
As someone who is just a little right of Genghis Khan, I'd like to say I could not agree more with you.
People who object to a Chinese Anschluss you just mocked in your lead comment to this thread. Nobody uses the word "commie" anymore and you know it. It may make you feel better to brand all people who have some problems with your blueprint as walking anachronisms, but that's not necessarily the case, now is it.
I intend to listen closely to your interview with Hugh Hewitt. I haven't anything against you personally, you seem quite affable and witty. And I'd have no problem sharing a beer and a hoagie with you. But I've some, REPEAT SOME problems with your blueprint, specifically your proposals about Iran and China.
If you speak with ordinary civilian Iranians about nuclear weapons, the discussion is about when and where to use them, not if they should. Some say that the moment they have a working weapon they should use it on Tel Aviv. Most, though, say they must have a stockpile, and bombs in place in the western targets, before setting them off all at once, with enough in reserve to threaten a second strike.
There is no debate among them that the complete destruction of Israel is their first goal, though they argue about whether they should destroy Jerusalem, due to the Dome of the Rock and the Arab population there. (they don't care much for the Arabs, just the mosque).
They also argue about which western targets to destroy. Many believe that destroying America's large cities and military bases will guarentee them victory, because the EU will never act against them. A minority believes that the EU capital cities should also be destroyed in the first wave. There is disagreement about which American cities should be destroyed. Most agree on Washington and New York, some agree about Chicago, Los Angeles, Miami, Seattle, San Francisco, Houston, St. Louis, and Denver. Also the major navy bases, San Diego, Pearl Harbor, Norfolk, etc. But a smaller minority believes that smaller non-military population centers should also be destroyed, like Miniapolis or Phoenix.
None of them believe that Iran's nuclear program is for electricity. None of them believe that Iran will NOT use their weapons to destroy Israel and the United States once they are obtained, tested and ready. They only discuss schedule.
I'm quite well aware that you want to fight it out in Iraq.
But I reject wholeheartedly your despair about what we can or can't do about Tehran. If Lt. General Thomas McInerney says we can take action against the Iranians, and he was former Vice Chair of the Air Force, who are you to gainsay him. We have a variety of measures we can take to prevent them going nuclear. And your despair is uncalled for.
Let me ask you this question, IF, IF you were convinced that we HAD a military option that would prevent the mullahs getting their bomb, would you favour using it? Notice I didn't ask if would you favour using it after all diplomacy had failed, because all diplomacy HAS failed, and will continue to fail. No. I'm asking you if you were convinced that a viable military plan existed, would you favour executing it.
I've often sensed when reading you, perhaps I'm wrong here, that part of the reason you are so eager to damn any military proposal as sheer folly is that it fits within your larger blueprint. If a military option is doomed to failure, what other option is left but your blueprint.
About China, who proposed our ENTIRE military procurement packages being tailored to meeting a Chinese threat? Not me. We have to be able to do both, fight quasi-colonial wars in the third world, stave off any forcible absorption of Taiwan.
You suggested that we should co-opt China's large presence in "the gap." China has HUGE influence in North Korea. This is a test case Sir, for your theory. IF WE CAN co-opt them there for purposes of advancing genuine stability, then YOUR theory has passed an important test. But there is a problem isn't there, China is being uncooperative. Sure they participate in the discussions, but they don't take any action that would actually advance the agenda, disarming or neutralizing North Korea. Why? God knows our State Department has asked them REPEATEDLY to use their VAST economic influence over North Korea to restrain them. And all the time, China does nothing. Oh occasionally they'll curtail power for a while, usually just to get North Korea back to the sham discussions. But SUBSTANTIVELY, to achieve the objective of the United States AND the other democratic states in the region, THEY DO NOTHING. Why?
But this little fact of Chinese noncooperation on North Korea doesn't seem to dampen your enthusiasm about Chinese intentions.
Look what the Chinese are doing in Sudan. They've deployed troops to protect a genocidal regime. That's part of their "presence" in "the gap." Sure, they have oil concerns. Does that justify PROTECTING a genocidal regime?
I find it fascinating too to see you complaining of being deliberately misunderstood, and then you go on to deliberately misconstrue some of the rational objections to your proposals. Again and again and again you use snide mockery to marginalize those that raise objections about the blueprint.
You're irritated about aspersions of being a "surrender monkey." No term that I ever used, but then you respond how? By likewise engaging in caricature.
So are you against caricature or are you for it, or are you for it when you use it, but against it when it tells against you.
For my part, I don't give two damns about caricature. You can caricature me to your heart's content. I'm an Irish, Catholic American, and made of sterner stuff.
The only thing I want to hear is an lengthy interview where you are engaged on the merits. That's all.
Of course, you have no way to know if I've been there or not, this is the Internet and I could be a bull mastiff with thumbs. :)
The people I've talked to in Iran are, I admit, a somewhat selected group. Unlike Hitchins, I haven't been talking to academics or dissidents. I've been talking to people who work in the petroleum industry, and thus for the government. They are loyal to the revolution, they are that societies insiders, the equivalent of party member apparatchiks in the USSR.
I may also have an advantage over Hitchens because of my background - I am Algerian originally. My Farsi is nowhere close to fluent but is passable for conversation.
In any case, the people I've worked with know to the kilo how much gas is burned at the well heads - hundreds of times more than the energy that would result from Iran's atomic program. They know the atomic program has nothing to do with energy. It would be like Americans saying that pornographic videos are an important cultural expression, and are purchased in large numbers because Americans value freedom.
They have an odd schizophrenia about America. For 20 years they thought the US impotent, proven again and again. There was great fear after they were surrounded, with the US in Afghanistan and Iraq, but now they are sure that Bush is an aberration. Once he is gone and a Democrat ("like the coward Carter" they say) is in office, they will take back Afghanistan and Iraq (and Arabia and Kuwait, some add) and destroy The Great Satan.
As for the youth - who, I admit, I have had less contact with - I am not at all sure that Hitchens is correct either. They have been raised through an education system much like that of the Palestinians. They are not the revolutionaries, they are the product of the revolution. If they are ever given a free vote (and I doubt they ever will be) I would expect them to vote for the only system they know. The ones that understand the deep corruption and hopeless economic situation they face are simply emigrating, leaving the firebrands behind.
I think most would agree that if the populations of Egypt, Arabia, Algeria, Pakistan, Jordan or Syria were given a free vote an Islamist government would be selected. Why would anyone think Iran would be any different, after 25 years of Islamist education?
Who is Dan?
Does his lowly station mean his opinions should be ignored?
this particular Dan has been commenting here for as long as i can remember.
so, relax, Walt. you are welcome here (within the comment policy, of course ;-).