Boomer knee-jerks

ARTICLE: U.S. and India Finalize Controversial Nuclear Trade Pact, By Robin Wright and Emily Wax, Washington Post, July 28, 2007; Page A14

The thing about this is, Russia's going to want the same package on Iran.

I mean, India's a country that's blustered quite ominously about nuking Pakistan and yet we trust them in this way. India doesn't sign the NNPT and develops weapons and we trust them.

Fine by me, as I see India as a key future ally.

Then again, neither Pakistan nor Israel signs NNPT and both develop weapons (Israel has a couple hundred) and they're both trusted friends.

So Moscow and Beijing are going to argue similarly for Tehran--just watch.

None of that will change the minds of Israel's staunch supporters in the U.S., like new Giuliani top-adviser and full-time advocate for war with Iran, Norm Podhoretz, so expect them to press the case for strikes like none of this exposes us to charges of hypocrisy--much less being pawns of regional powers Israel and the House of Saud.

Isn't it great to live in the age of Boomers, where every other government (don't forget all the terror nets) except our own seems to run our foreign policy? Don't your knees get tired from all the jerking?

Wouldn't it be nice to run toward a future of our own creating instead of constantly running away from the past?

Think the Boomers will get any better as old men and women?

Thanks to Vonne Meussling-Barnett for sending this.

Comments

[Al Alborn]

This comment doesn't relate to the content of the post. It relates to the title. I don't think it actually passes muster regarding your comment policy; however, as a long time blog fan (I read it right after the Washington Post for your analysis of others comments) I suspect you might consider the content worth pondering.

One thing Boomers do have is long memories. I remember General Vo Nguyen Gap’s Tet Offensive launched on 30 January 1968 (the day after I enlisted in the Army). It took advantage of the United State’s general dissatisfaction with the war, took the lives of 4000 US and allied soldiers as well as 45000 North Viet Namese soldiers, and created a crisis for the Johnson administration. The Tet offensive was the turning point for the war. While the North Vietnamese “lost” this engagement, they “won” the political war with the United States. Johnson withdrew as a candidate for re-election in March 1968.

As a boomer remembering, I keep waiting for Al Qaeda to initiate its version of the Tet offensive. I would guess the timing is right. Public support for this war is lower than the support for the War in Vietnam in January, 1968. Iraq still has no effective military in place. I see the decrease in activity as a potential sign of planning for something bigger. To complete the comparison, I can point out to that the answer to the Tet offensive was a request from Westmoreland for 206,000 additional troops.

I would be interested in a grand strategist’s opinion on this Boomer’s comparison of circumstances. One thing I have learned is that our enemies read the same books we use at the Army War College (and a few we don't).

[Michael]

This quote caught my eye:"The whole system is stacked against testing. The American president would have the right to ask for return of any technology. That's a huge penalty to pay. India would also have to think about the reaction from the Europeans and other suppliers of nuclear technology."

How much of this is substantive, how much is hot air? IF we've really given the Indians incentive to stop testing and IF we make good on the implied threat, this deal isn't so bad after all. And deals between Russia and Iran, and China and Pakistan (or us and Pakistan, if we think that far ahead) would be no problem as long as they also provided incentives with teeth to not test.

But that's a lot of ifs.