1

Or maybe we should have attacked the country with the *actual* WMD program the first time around.

But, heck, war in three huge, contiguous islamic countries at once sounds like a great plan to me. Maybe we'll get the rest of them to join in also.

Oh, I forgot, rationality and diplomacy are for latte-drinking morons, whereas the good Christian thing to do is to start as many wars as possible to satisfy the bloodlust of the people watching Fox News in trailer parks.

2

Hi GM:

I am loath to engage in issues in the context of your country's politics but it seems to me that some things need to be set in order, especially where the political issues over your current policy as a nation are spilling over into rage-filled, hostile accusations against the Christian faith and people.

I must take strong exception to such accusations.

I comment on a couple of points:

1] maybe we should have attacked the country with the *actual* WMD program the first time around.

--> Looks rather like your country did just that:

[a] Pakistan: the choice is to be the first ally or the first target [Its intelligence agency ISI was a key part of Taliban-al Qaeda; the Khan network was the key to proliferation], it chose to be the first . . . i.e. diplomacy backed up by credible muscle worked.

[b] Afghanistan: (nascent WMD program, weaponised suicide terrorism one] -- became target no 1, on refusal to hand over the terrorist leaders linked to the 2001 attacks. Diplomacy failed, as the Taliban thought itself immune -- Pakistan's and Uzbekistan's response to the US caught them off guard.

[c] Iraq: Mr Hussein both had and used WMDs, and had a running development program pending only the impending collapse of the sanctions to ramp up to full scale. The evidence that key items were run across the border into Syria should also be examined carefully . . . the smoking gun is liable to be a mushroom cloud or an anthrax epidemic [cf late 2001 on this] etc these days. The renewal of the major hostilities was occasioned by persistent material breach of armistice terms joined to a plain pattern of cheat and cover up on WMDs. [History note: French and British failure to act swiftly bought the time and credibility Hitler needed to rearm sufficiently to precipitate WWII.]

[d] Iran: started the new cycle of Islamist expansionism. Has had a longstanding nuclear physics programme [one of my physics profs was a former scinetific manager of a research nuke reactor there], but the suspicion that the NPT-supported development of nuke technology is being transferred into a weapons programme is a serious issue. With the moderate candidates blocked from standing for election by the COuncil of Guardians [THAT's what a real theocracy looks like . . .], we now have an extremist who is talking about wiping out not only Israel but the USA and has characterised the UK as the "mother" of the satans etc. THis sort of rhetoric and semi-concealed rearmament is very familiar to those who have read their . . . William Shirer. [And yes, some of us "fundy dummies" do read books like the Rise and Fall ofthe Third Reich.

2] rationality and diplomacy are for latte-drinking morons, whereas the good Christian thing to do is to start as many wars as possible to satisfy the bloodlust of the people watching Fox News in trailer parks.

--> Perhaps you should read up on the just war framework developed under Christian auspices ever since Paul [Rom 13] and Augustine. Short summary: the state in part exists to protect the innocent from enemies foreign and domestic, so in some cases it is forced to use the power of the sword as the lesser of evils in defence of justice.

--> Lesser of evils in reasonable defence of justice and the innocent is not the same as playing to blood-lusts. Of course, in that attempt many mistakes can be and are made, and the temptation to move from justice to abuse of the sword is real -- and should be watched for. [But, equally, one does not have a right to make harsh blanket accusations without sound basis: in responcsew to issues in US policy and action, with it so happens an Evangelical as president, you have given in to the temptation to make accusations that implicate Christians in general. In short, moderation is in order, as well as fairly adressing the other side of the story in your own country.]

--> That Christian intellectual tradition as summarised in brief is both long and distinguished, and addresses the issue of what is the least bad course in a world in which real bullies live, from the school yard to the global stage.

--> The most credible recent lesson on these is that diplomatic attempts to appease bullies that end up feeding them resources and time to develop their capacity to carry out their fantasies of domination backfire bigtime: you get a later, bigger war under far more disadvantageous terms. Cf on this Hitler in the 1930s. (But then, that should not have been news even then: Machiavelli long ago drew that lesson from the Roman empire, summing up more or less: political/strategic disorders are like wasting diseases: at first, easy to cure but hard to diagnose; but, if at length for want of prompt diagnosis and treatment the course of the disease is obvious to all, it is then too late to cure.)

--> Similarly, strategies of containment work only with those who respond rationally to deterrence -- if there is no return address on the bomb, who do you retaliate against . . . as the early debate on 9/11 aptly illustrates. Same goes for the still "mysterious" anthrax epidemic of 2001. With Islamism, you are dealing with a network of regimes, intelligence agencies, religious figures and terrorist networks, who are fully capable of exploiting the sense of fairness to paralyse the West's response until it is too late. (But then, Hitler was doing that very well in the 1930's. Fro instance when Roosevelt asked him about restraining further demands int he aftermath of Munich, he hit him for six with a speech that played the following cards: (i) R. was speaking as one who had failed to pull his country out of the recession, unlike Germany [of course the rearmament did that!), (ii) he was speaking while sitting on the bones of the dead Indians, (iii) diplomatic inquiries all over Europe showed that Germany's neighbours did not feel threatened, (iv) if R was interested in international adventurers shouldn't he be looking at Britain and France who between them had carved up the world into colonies and were suppressing liberation movements? Only problem: six years and ~ 60 million dead later, the world learned the wisdom of Rossevelt's concerns.

--> In this case, perhaps you should consult the history from 622 - 1683 of Islamist expansionism, and what stopped it: counter-offensives from Spain to the ME to Vienna and Russia. Then, consider the implications of the 1979 revolution in Iran and the resurgence of islamist expansionism, given the ~ 40 y window in which OIL will remain a key factor in the global economy [that's as good an estimate as any as to when the follow on technologies will be viable and ramping up]

--> Note: I am not here talking about ordinary people who have been raised in the Islamic tradition and are seeking to serve God best as they know how and would live at peace with their neighbours. I am speaking of those who are caught up in radical islamist expansionism, a global conquest ideology partly motivated by a particular reading of the relevant traditions. [I am also very aware that there is much in the Quran, Hadiths and Sharia as well as the first 1,000 years of Muslim history for such to appeal to. My hope is thatt here will be a reformation that moves Islam as a whole away from that path. Maybe, it is a forlorn one, but if the Christian faith could be reformed 500 years ago, so can the Muslim one today.]

+++++++++++

Trustt hat helps

GEM

3

We're quick to enjoy the rush of a new "historic moment," but loathe to pay the price those new missions often demand (didn't Jesus say something about those who start something without counting the cost??). Public support is measured in months at best, which led one of my coworkers to a Johnny-Cochran-type slogan: "if you can win in four, then kick down the door..."

4

I don't disagree with the claim that public opinion is fickle. Obviously, it is.

I do think it is worthwhile, however, to note that if public opinion had been the determining factor for White House decisions about another war, I would now be living in the Confederate States of America.

I think we all need to remember as well that George W. did not "go to war" with Iraq. We were at war with Iraq when 9-11 occurred, and had been for a decade. There was never a cessation of hostilities from either side after Desert Storm, nor was there a peace treaty. There was merely a reduction in hostile action while Saddam defied the world and failed to abide by the terms he agreed to.

Regarding the canard about "no WMDs", ask the Kurds.

5

Dear Mr. Carter,

Thank you for expressing your views with such strength. This is my first time here, and I am pleased to find a compelling mind at work. Of course, you may deem these remarks as so much empty flattery once you read the following disagreements I have with your essay.

This perhaps is my weakest point, but the very first poll question you cite clearly points out one thing: the vast majority of those polled did not think Saddam Hussein was "very likely" involved in the 9/11 attacks. As you know, even the 9/11 commissioners concluded as much, though they did not conclude, as was wantonly reported by many, that there was NO connection between Iraq and 9/11, only that there was no COLLABORATIVE connection between them.

It is worth noting that most Americans do not get their information from President Bush. Few ever listen to his press conferences; hardly a soul listens to the White House press briefings held nearly daily (nor do most people read those briefings' easily accessible transcripts). Most Americans get their information through a filtered, pick-and-choose source -- a newspaper, newscast, talk-radio, blog, or gossip. Hence, it is doubtful that most people were under the "false" impressions you claim they were under due to direct comments from the President. Democrats, as you know, were also quite alarmist after 9/11.

Here's an excerpt from something I wrote that proves this:

"...let us first point out that President Bush never described Saddam Hussein as an "imminent threat." In fact, the only person on record to have said such a thing with alarm and passion was Democrat Senator Jay Rockefeller, who is now a critic of the war's genesis. I implore you to read this speech by Mr. Rockefeller from 2002 (wherein he also connects 9/11 and the assault on Hussein). President Bush's position was that the United States needed to deal with Hussein before he became an imminent threat."

But the most obvious connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda's 9/11 attacks was not made by President Bush, or Tony Blair, or even Jay Rockefeller. It was made by Osama bin Laden in his 1998 fatwa against the United States. Therein OBL called for war against America because of its continued involvement in Iraq (and not merely because of the USA's presence in the region). In other words, Iraq is the causal reason for 9/11: OBL attacked the USA in defense of and retaliation for Iraq. It is this sort of reality that MOST people remember. Of course, the point then is not whether Iraq is either causal or central (OBL claimed it was both), but whether as such invading Iraq was the proper response to OBL's fatwa. That's a point worth debating. But debating whether 9/11 and Iraq are connected strikes me as so much vacuity.

Peace to you,

BG

6

But I’ll be the first to say that when it comes to supporting military action, my people are a fickle, flighty, and faithless bunch. Sure, before the fighting begins they’ll certainly say they have your back. Just don’t expect them to actually still be there when you turn around.

Ok, something is wrong with this and when I think about it I realize the problem here is that Joe just doesn't like America very much. By that I don't mean that he doesn't like shopping malls, McDonalds, Wal-Mart etc. (Hell, even Islamists in Pakistan will stop at McDonalds after a 'death to America' rally!). What I mean is that he doesn't like the idea of America, which is a very odd thing for a Marine.

First of all the Founding Fathers understood 'public opinion'. They understood it in an age long before polls of any type (with computers it's really easy to conduct polls of thousands of people asking them dozens of questions every week...back then would have had to add and divide such results by hand making them all but impossible). They understood, however, that public opinion represented the back and forth arguments over politics conducted by all levels of the people. This included the 'elitist' opinion that Joe sneers at (BTW, I thought Micheal Kinsley humiliated the childish fake 'common man' style of political debate when he went after Bill O'Reilly a few years ago...it's sad to see Joe still acting like 'Dumb and Dumber' represents the best approach to presenting yourself to the American people) as well as the angry discussion conducted by drunks in the bars (and they also knew the two overlap more often than many think).

Second they understood the value of 'public opinion', which Joe does not. They understood that public opinion would bring all points of view to bear on a policy which increases the chances of making the best choice. Even more important, though, AFTER a decision is made the decision is constantly being judged by 'public opinion'.

Third they understood the value of the 'fickleness' of public opinion. Policy made by elites or command and controllers suffer from pig headedness, something Joe should be careful of. People do not want to admit an idea is wrong after they have invested time and energy into it. This fallacy effects policies made by 'experts' greatly as well as by leaders.

Joe should take heed of the lessons of the Soviet Union which fell apart even though its policies were made by well educated people who were experts in their limited fields who didn't have to worry about appealing to 'fickle' public opinion. Likewise Hitler and Stalin made diasterous decisions from a military POV despite enjoying a very loyal public that supported his military decisions.

Finally the image Joe paints is exactly backwards. One should remember that Bush took a pledge to be loyal to the Constitution and the American People when he took office. Reading the above by Joe one would think it was the other way around!

7

It was made by Osama bin Laden in his 1998 fatwa against the United States. Therein OBL called for war against America because of its continued involvement in Iraq (and not merely because of the USA's presence in the region). In other words, Iraq is the causal reason for 9/11: OBL attacked the USA in defense of and retaliation for Iraq. It is this sort of reality that MOST people remember. Of course, the point then is not whether Iraq is either causal or central (OBL claimed it was both), but whether as such invading Iraq was the proper response to OBL's fatwa. That's a point worth debating. But debating whether 9/11 and Iraq are connected strikes me as so much vacuity.

Bill, you're a pretty good thinker but I guess everyone can have a bad Monday. This is just a stupid point. OBL cited numerous reasons for war on the US. The presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia was the primary one but there was a laundry list of other reasons, some of them rather bizaar such as our refusal to sign the Kyoto Treaty, the atomic bombings of Japan at the end of WWII, the inability of the Congress to convict Clinton for getting a blowjob etc. Like many he cited the sanctions against Iraq as inhumane. However it doesn't follow from that there was a meaningful connection between Iraq and 9/11. When we talk about a connected we are not playing a game of six degrees you know.

Now some points that Joe fails to address in his plea to the American people to become blind sheep to be guided by Bush:

1. If Israel is Iran's primary target and Israel is itself a potent military power with nuclear capacity shouldn't it take the lead in invading or using military force against Iran if that is necessary?

2. Isn't the evidence clear that Iran learned the lesson from Israel's bombing of Iraq's nuclear reactor? Their nuclear program is spread out and it isn't clear we know where it all is. A military strike could therefore fail on two accounts. First it would fail to eliminate the problem. Second it would give a power with nuclear potential cause to retaliate.

3. Iran is democratic. It is a very flawed democracy where it's theocrats are allowed to veto reformist candidates & laws but it is probably democratic enough to inspire its citizens to fight for it if invaded. The US, unfortunately, does not have a good image in Iran due to its previous support for the Shah's dictatorship. Despite the opinion of some on the left the US did not have that bad a record with Iraq. Saddam was not viewed as a US tool even in the 80's. I suspect most Iraqis believed when the US was invading their intentions was to establish some type of democracy there. Many Iranians, even those that don't like their gov't, probably will not. This means an invasion of Iran to 'reform it' is likely to be very bloody, very messy and very costly.

4. Ethically keep pushing the idea of 'preemption is justification' and it can come back to bite in a very bad way. Ironically Iran probably accelerated its nuclear program when Bush invaded Iraq. Why? Simple game theory. If you're far from a nuke it makes sense to ditch it and make peace with the US as best you can to avoid invasion if it looks like the US is getting more active. If you're close to it, though, it makes sense to finish work on it as fast as possible. A nuke is a potent 'poisen pill' against invasion. Who is going to think a mushroom cloud over Seattle or even over the spot where US troops are landing in Iran is a worthwhile price to pay?

In the end the more sensible policy is probably going to be efforts to isolate Iran diplomatically coupled with deterrence (as in launch one nuke on Israel or anyone else and we'll give you a few dozen).

8

Joe,

This is such a strong post, thank you very much for writing and posting it.

In last Wednesday's comment thread about Joel Stein, I linked to a post I had written about Hillary Clinton and Iran (and about a horrible American war crime, too, among other things), but I think it got kinda lost in there because the thread was already very lengthy. So I'd like to link to it again, since it's even more on-topic for today:

"Hillary Clinton and the late Hugh Thompson".

Last night I went to a very interesting meeting of a neighborhood group that is against the war in Iraq, the Riverdale Society for Ethical Culture.

They were supposed to be meeting with our local congressman, Eliot Engel, about the war in Iraq. But for some reason, Congressman Engel didn't want to meet at the Society's meeting room, and we all had walk a few blocks over to the Mr. Engel's office. It was a very interesting meeting, particularly since I was the only Iraq "hawk" in attendance among two dozen very committed pacifists and/or isolationists.

If anyone would like to hear more about how the meeting went, I can write it about later today when I have some more time. For now, I'll just say that I learned more in two hours about the psychology and group dynamics of anti-war protestors than I could learn in 100 hours of reading anti-war bloggers.

Boonton,

I agree with everything you say about the nature of policy debate in America, but only in principle. I think you are missapplying the principle to the public debate on Iraq when you conclude that George Bush disagrees with you. George Bush understands what you say and agrees with it wholeheartedly.

And I suspect Joe agrees with you too, although sometimes it may be hard to see that when he is busy defending his own point of view in a particularly emphatic way.

Moreover, today's point by Joe is valid and very cogent: the American public is more willing to start a fight than to see it through.

And Joe's point is backed up by hard polling evidence.

I'd say the number one rationale people cite for being lukewarm towards or even in opposition to the invasion of Iraq is the fact that we never found large caches of WMD's. But as Joe points out, most Americans in March 2003 didn't really think it was necessary to find those weapons in order to justify an invasion. So Joe's point is very well taken.

9

I agree with everything you say about the nature of policy debate in America, but only in principle. I think you are missapplying the principle to the public debate on Iraq when you conclude that George Bush disagrees with you. George Bush understands what you say and agrees with it wholeheartedly.

Actually I didn't say Bush disagrees with me, I said that Joe seems to be the one disagreeing.

Moreover, today's point by Joe is valid and very cogent: the American public is more willing to start a fight than to see it through.

Perhaps but I see no evidence that the public 'started a fight' in Iraq. With the exception of Afghanistan after 9/11 I think the public has been at best lukewarm with nearly all of the modern military actions the US has gotten engaged in. In fact this is probably true of just about every war except WWII which was forced upon us by Japan (even there keep in mind FDR ran on the slogan 'he kept us out of war' and the Republicans ran on the line that FDR would get us in the war).

Joe's mindset is proper for a soldier under a commanding officer. Show loyalty and obey orders without question is the ethic unless the situation gets really extreme and you are ordered to commit a war crime. This is not the proper mindset for a free people, though. The support for Bush & the war in Iraq has waned not because the American people are very fickle but because they demand results and they see a lot of mistakes from Bush. Like a company whose profits have turned sour for the last few years, the Board is on the verge of firing the President but for now are willing to be patient to see if he turns things around in the end.

10

Boonton,

Actually I didn't say Bush disagrees with me, I said that Joe seems to be the one disagreeing.

Thank you for correcting me -- I have to disagree with myself now!

Like a company whose profits have turned sour for the last few years, the Board is on the verge of firing the President but for now are willing to be patient to see if he turns things around in the end.

This is an excellent analogy. I think you have captured the mindset of many, perhaps even a plurality of American voters.

However, I myself don't think profits have turned sour. I think we have done amazing things in Iraq in a very short period of time, and that we are on track to pull off most of the things we had hoped to accomplish there.

11

I probably agree with you on Iraq. We have accomplished many things however the project has come in over budget & the benefits are not yet so clear. If the results were really amazingly good there would be no problem here but considering what we've paid we have only gotten a maybe.

If we are using business analogies it's like buying a franchise for $500,000 and then finding out that you really have to pay $750,000. Now you're making sales and maybe they will start getting strong in a few years but there's a real possibility the town might zone your business out & you'll be left with a financial diaster.

You may not fire the financial advisor who got you into this but you wouldn't exactly be considering giving him a big bonus.

12

Also reading Joe's post more carefully I'm not even sure he really does show that public opinion is unreliable. He shows that it is unstable but does that make it unreliable? Stock prices are unstable but they are consistently a better guide to a company's worth in the long run than even the smartest analysts.

Perhaps what Joe has found is that public opinion on both Iran and Iraq has altered both as more information has become available and the focus of attention has shifted back and forth.

Shouldn't opinion change as more information is brought to light & the debate about the issue becomes greater or lesser?

13

One would hope that our foreign policy is not poll-driven anyway.

14

Boonton:

Finally the image Joe paints is exactly backwards. One should remember that Bush took a pledge to be loyal to the Constitution and the American People when he took office. Reading the above by Joe one would think it was the other way around!

Exactly. The highest office in this country is that of the citizen. George W. Bush is our employee.

And he hasn't had our back since ...well, not at all, actually.

15

Finally the image Joe paints is exactly backwards. One should remember that Bush took a pledge to be loyal to the Constitution and the American People when he took office.

The Presidential oath of office does not mention the American people, only that the President swears execute the office and "preserve, protect, and defend" the Constitution. What happens when defending the Constitution goes against the will of Congress, the Courts, or even the American people?

16

I suppose he'd have to choose the Constitution although since the Constitution begins as a statement of The American People (in the formal sense) I'm not sure how the two could be in conflict. Since The People can alter the Constitution I don't see how the President could be in a position where he either would have to fight The People or the Constitution.

17

It was made by Osama bin Laden in his 1998 fatwa against the United States. Therein OBL called for war against America because of its continued involvement in Iraq (and not merely because of the USA's presence in the region). In other words, Iraq is the causal reason for 9/11: OBL attacked the USA in defense of and retaliation for Iraq.

This is what I call a Microsoft answer: technically correct but totally misleading.

Bin Laden didn't give a fig about Iraq as a country or a people. His 1998 fatwa was denouncing the U.S. presence in Saudi Arabia, which Wahhabis like Osama consider sacred territory, in response to the 1990 Gulf War. In other words, Bin Laden declared war on the US because we were near the sacred Muslim sites of Mecca and Medina (which he mentioned in that fatwa), not because of anything we were doing in Iraq.

A tangential connection, but not the one you're implying in your post.

18

I suppose he'd have to choose the Constitution although since the Constitution begins as a statement of The American People (in the formal sense) I'm not sure how the two could be in conflict. Since The People can alter the Constitution I don't see how the President could be in a position where he either would have to fight The People or the Constitution.

What about the US Civil War?

19

ucfengr:

Ah, well, Republicans do have a history of over-reaching...

Let's face it, what Lincoln did with suspension of habeus corpus, the draft, and other measures was flat-out unconstitutional.

However, the Constitution, being a product of humans, wasn't exactly a good document when "the people" didn't include people who were in bondage.

There are laws higher than the constitution, they're just not your religion's laws...

20

Did the President fight The People or just some of the people?

21

However, the Constitution, being a product of humans, wasn't exactly a good document when "the people" didn't include people who were in bondage.

Not to argue with your main point, but the Constitution did include people in bondage; they just counted as three-fifths of a person, not a whole person.

22

Dear Everwise Boonton,

I am glad that you believe my point to be "stupid," I guess, considering that you've not shown why: You've merely sat in pontifical judgment upon it, infallibly dismissing it with a sweep of the hand. The fatwa to which I directed you does not say any of the things you've included, though I have no doubt OBL may have said the stupid things you've suggested. Would it be dumb of me to ask, "So what?" The fact remains that OBL stated that his objectives were rooted in the verifiable fact of US aggression towards Iraq. You have not disputed that claim. All you've said is that OBL said other things as well. How, pray tell, is that observation helpful? Irrespective of OBL's whack-job status, I suspect you have never made the connection I and many others have made, namely, that the 9/11 attacks were indeed causally linked to America's involvement in Iraq; a connection that is more than mere whim, fancy or academic noodling.

In addition, I am not the only dunce making these claims. As more confiscated Iraqi documents (numbered in the millions) are sifted and pored over by American intelligence services, it appears the Iraqi/al Qaeda connection is not a fiction conjured up by overly imaginative minds. Leading the way, like a Scott Ritter with literary skill, is Stephen F. Hayes, who is tirelessly bolstering a very interesting thesis, namely, that the connection was dynamic and not fabricated. Granted, Mr. Hayes might be wrong.

In a way, I am honored that you dismiss me as a "good thinker" who makes a "stupid point" (though I've never penned such a "stupid" line such as yours, I can assure you). I am glad that you take the high road in debate; it is refreshing to see someone resist the temptation to commit the fallacy argumentum ad hominem abusive.

Good luck defending the indefensible.

Peace,

Gnade

23

Not to argue with your main point, but the Constitution did include people in bondage; they just counted as three-fifths of a person, not a whole person.

Actually they counted as 3/5 only in determining how much representation a state got in Congress. It's often missed that the 3/5 comprimise was done at the demand of ANTI-slavery forces. The south wanted slaves to count fully since that would have given them more representatives. The objection from the anti-slavery side was that if the south didn't give the vote to slaves why should they count when it came time to decide upon representation in Congress? If it wasn't for the comprimise, if the south had had its way intially, slavery might never had been outlawed and Lincoln could never have won election.

Bill
In a way, I am honored that you dismiss me as a "good thinker" who makes a "stupid point" (though I've never penned such a "stupid" line such as yours, I can assure you). I am glad that you take the high road in debate; it is refreshing to see someone resist the temptation to commit the fallacy argumentum ad hominem abusive.

Tsk tsk tsk. Let's say that OBL was indeed so outraged by the sanctions on Iraq that put him over the edge and decided to embark on 9/11. What connection to Iraq does that make? That's like saying we should have invaded Saudi Arabia as a response because that was his big beef. It would matter in a relevant fashion if OBL was being directly supported or managed somehow by Hussein but it's not important that OBL choose to side with Saddam over the US.

As for the other things OBL has claimed to be his motivation, all of that is out there on the web. perhaps he didn't mention it in the one particular declaration you cited but I can find it for you if you wish.

24

It's often missed that the 3/5 comprimise was done at the demand of ANTI-slavery forces.

Yep. File under "historical ironies."

25

Gman Or maybe we should have attacked the country with the *actual* WMD program the first time around. But, heck, war in three huge, contiguous islamic countries at once sounds like a great plan to me. Maybe we'll get the rest of them to join in also.

So are you saying that we should have went to war with Iran instead of Iraq?

Oh, I forgot, rationality and diplomacy are for latte-drinking morons, whereas the good Christian thing to do is to start as many wars as possible to satisfy the bloodlust of the people watching Fox News in trailer parks.

What happened to the good old days when the Left thought it was a bad idea to have diplomatic relations with brutal terrorist totalitarian regimes?

Jemison "if you can win in four, then kick down the door..."

That’s a great slogan. Where the “four” used to be able to refer to years, it now appears to have shrunk to months.

I do think it is worthwhile, however, to note that if public opinion had been the determining factor for White House decisions about another war, I would now be living in the Confederate States of America.

Good point. Which it is imperative to elect Presidents with more foresight and fortitude than we often have as a people.

We were at war with Iraq when 9-11 occurred, and had been for a decade.

Another good point.

Bill Most Americans get their information through a filtered, pick-and-choose source -- a newspaper, newscast, talk-radio, blog, or gossip.

You are absolutely right. I would even say that gossip and hearsay are the primary methods of information transmission about the war.

Hence, it is doubtful that most people were under the "false" impressions you claim they were under due to direct comments from the President. Democrats, as you know, were also quite alarmist after 9/11.

Let me clarify that I don’t think there was ever a reasonable argument that the President had made a false impression. I think people had formed that opinion with no examination of evidence for or against it and when it turned out to have little substantial support, the media needed someone to blame it on.

What I mean is that he doesn't like the idea of America, which is a very odd thing for a Marine.

Are you questioning my patriotism? I thought that was only something that right-wingers did. ; )

First of all the Founding Fathers understood 'public opinion'.

Indeed they did. That is why they did everything possible to insulate the operations of government from it.

This included the 'elitist' opinion that Joe sneers at … as well as the angry discussion conducted by drunks in the bars (and they also knew the two overlap more often than many think).

Um, no not really. They mostly just included the elistist opinion. The Founders did even think that the drunks in the bar (i.e., the non-landowning rabble) deserved the right to vote.

And I’m not anti-elitist. I have a lot of respect for intellectual hierarchy. I just don’t think that going to an Ivy League college qualifies one to join the elite. In fact, I would say that majority of those that are included in the “cultural elite” (including the Harvard grad Bill O’Reilly) deserve that title.

Second they understood the value of 'public opinion', which Joe does not.

You appear to have a poor grasp of history. The Founding Fathers, for all their virtues, would have looked down upon people like my family and neighbors. They certainly had no love for the 17th century equivalent of rednecks.

Joe should take heed of the lessons of the Soviet Union which fell apart even though its policies were made by well educated people who were experts in their limited fields who didn't have to worry about appealing to 'fickle' public opinion.

What does any of that have to do with my post?

Finally the image Joe paints is exactly backwards. One should remember that Bush took a pledge to be loyal to the Constitution and the American People when he took office.

No, actually he only pledges loyalty to faithfully execute the office of President and to protect and defend the Constitution.

1. If Israel is Iran's primary target and Israel is itself a potent military power with nuclear capacity shouldn't it take the lead in invading or using military force against Iran if that is necessary?

Are you saying that as an ally of Israel we should support them in there use of military force? If so, then how should we do that? By the way, Israel likely will take the lead because they have the most to lose. It will also likely start a complete regional war in the Middle East.

A military strike could therefore fail on two accounts. First it would fail to eliminate the problem. Second it would give a power with nuclear potential cause to retaliate.

I completely agree. A military air strike isn’t a viable option. Broader use of force would be required.

This means an invasion of Iran to 'reform it' is likely to be very bloody, very messy and very costly.

Again, I agree. Unlike Iraq, I don’t think we can implement regime change simply by applying military force. In fact, I hate to be pessimistic but I’m not sure we can stop the Iranians from acquiring nukes or lobbying them at Israel. The best we can probably hope for is that we get lucky and catch the terrorists they sponsor to detonate a suitcase nuke in the U.S.

Why? Simple game theory.

Normally, I’d be inclined to agree. But game theory presupposes rational actors. The Iranians are not rational and only want nukes so they can threaten both Israel and the U.S. They are going to move ahead with the program regardless of what actions we take.

In the end the more sensible policy is probably going to be efforts to isolate Iran diplomatically coupled with deterrence (as in launch one nuke on Israel or anyone else and we'll give you a few dozen).

All those proposing a diplomatic solution seem not to be aware of the diplomatic failures that have been accumulating since the 1950s. The Iranians have oil and a friend (China) willing to pay for it. No matter how much the West tries to isolate the country they will eventually get the nuclear weapons they want and use them against either America or Israel.

You also seem to think that Islamic fundamentalists can be deterred by threatening them with death. Exactly how many suicide bombers has that stopped?

Matthew If anyone would like to hear more about how the meeting went, I can write it about later today when I have some more time.

I’d definitely like to hear about that. My experience is that hardcore activists of all persuasions and causes tend to be a bit different than the rest of the community.

Boonton With the exception of Afghanistan after 9/11 I think the public has been at best lukewarm with nearly all of the modern military actions the US has gotten engaged in.

Then why isn’t that reflected in the polls I cited?

Joe's mindset is proper for a soldier under a commanding officer. Show loyalty and obey orders without question is the ethic unless the situation gets really extreme and you are ordered to commit a war crime. This is not the proper mindset for a free people, though.

What in the world are you talking about? Did you even read the post? I’m not saying that America should follow the President. In fact, I’m saying the exact opposite! I’m saying (albeit tongue-in-cheek) that the President shouldn’t be following the American public’s lead on this issue because they will leave him high and dry when the actual fighting begins.

The support for Bush & the war in Iraq has waned not because the American people are very fickle but because they demand results and they see a lot of mistakes from Bush.

So was Bush responsible for the Korean and Vietnam wars also?

Like a company whose profits have turned sour for the last few years, the Board is on the verge of firing the President but for now are willing to be patient to see if he turns things around in the end.

What is the evidence you have that things are going bad in Iraq? I highly suspect that like 90% of the American people, you have absolutely no idea about the current situation in Iraq. You are responding to perceptions rather than facts. If I am wrong then I would be willing to review the evidence that you find so convincing. Maybe it’ll give me cause to ignore what the military says on the matter enough to make me change my opinion.

Rob One would hope that our foreign policy is not poll-driven anyway.

That would be nice. But I think that is likely never to be the case again.

26

The Iranians are not rational and only want nukes so they can threaten both Israel and the U.S. They are going to move ahead with the program regardless of what actions we take.

From where I sit they look pretty rational to me, or I should say at least as rational as some of the religious extremists in this country. They're threatened by a superpower. They know the logic of MAD. They know that nuclear weapons act as a deterrent.

In the book Getting to Yes, Fisher and Ury show that in the 1979 hostage crisis, the Iranians' actions were spectacularly logical once they had taken the hostages. Once they had them there wasn't much point in releasing them until there were terms favorable for them for doing so (and that ignores the well-documented-except-in-the-US "October Surprise." True, we could have bombed 'em back into the stone age, but that wouldn't have achieved our goals.

But this is interesting for another reason.

Iran is hopeless unless you're going to put 10 million boys under arms (IOW, D-R-A-F-T), and even then, there'll be strong support for theocracy within Iran no matter what.

I mentioned the other day that this reactionary Republican heyday's day's are numbered, because the only thing that will really address the problem of peak oil is something that will dwarf the New Deal.

Invade Iran impoverish America. Even Kansas will get that point eventually.

27

Boonton,

I have to take exception to your characterization of the Founders' view on public opinion. To them, "democracy" meant mob-rule, and they went to extraordinary lengths to lessen the impact of public opinion on national politics. Hence the indirect election of senators and the electoral college. Never were they eager fora time when the tides of public passion determined policy.

28

I find it implausible to think that Bush will attack Iran under any circumstances short of indisputable evidence of imminent danger. It would be vastly unpopular in very short time, as Joe notes, and Bush et al. know this. We don't have the military to do it right and Bush won't make THAT mistake twice. The people of Iran are probably the most pro-American in the middle east and going to war would surely undermine that attitude. We would completely undermine our relationship with the rest of the world if we did it unilaterally. Or even if we led a coalition.

This whole question is a non-starter for me.

29

From where I sit [the Iranians] look pretty rational to me ... They're threatened by a superpower. They know the logic of MAD. They know that nuclear weapons act as a deterrent.

Not in Iran's case. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is part of a sect that believes in the so-called 12th Imam (sometimes called the Hidden Imam), a messianic figure who will come to restore order to a world overtaken by violence and chaos. Ahmadinejad believes this Imam's return is imminent and has engaged in huge public works programs such as widening a main boulevard in Tehran for the 12th Imam's victory reception.

These people believe that Muslims can help create the violence and chaos to speed along the Imam's arrival. Ahmadinejad's seeking of nukes has nothing to do with deterrence and everything to do with hastening the 12th Imam's return. Listen to his speech before the UN and about how Allah was hastening an era of Islamic peace and his later discussion of this speech with contemporaries and how God had rendered the UN membership dumbstruck as he (Ahmadinejad) spoke.

We are not dealing with a rational actor here.

30

"A military strike could therefore fail on two accounts. First it would fail to eliminate the problem. Second it would give a power with nuclear potential cause to retaliate."

I completely agree. A military air strike isn’t a viable option. Broader use of force would be required.

I think that a massive air strike is an option to consider.

If we (and our allies) are convinced that Iran is very close to developing a nuclear bomb, then we can go through the usual channels (such as the U.N. Security Council) as far as we can go. Then if Iran doesn't back down, we can issue an ultimatum: dismantle your nuclear program in 48 hours on our terms or we will do whatever is necessary to resolve the problem.

If Iran still doesn't back down, we launch our planes and our cruise missiles and continue to bomb until every last site and potential site is utterly destroyed.

We obviously want to do everything we can to avoid this worst-case scenario, but if it comes to it, we can dismantle and destroy without invading.

As for Iran retaliating, we can issue another ultimatum when we're done bombing: any retaliation against us or our allies will be met with military strikes against the leadership of the mullah-cracy. Once again, not something we want to do, but certainly something we can do if we have to.

31

Our President has never shown himself to be persuaded by the vagaries of public opinion. Its questionable whether he even pays attention to public opinion in the first place. Unless he can manipulate it into getting more votes. But then again, thats probably more Rove's line of work, not the President.

32

mumon:
Ah, well, Republicans do have a history of over-reaching...

Unlike say, FDR?

Let's face it, what Lincoln did with suspension of habeus corpus, the draft, and other measures was flat-out unconstitutional.

Unlike say, FDR?

However, the Constitution, being a product of humans, wasn't exactly a good document when "the people" didn't include people who were in bondage.

Can you think of one better, in practice, not theory?

There are laws higher than the constitution, they're just not your religion's laws...

What, you mean like the UN charter?

Boonton:
Did the President fight The People or just some of the people?

It was nearly 1/3 of American citizens who opposed the Constitution enough to take up arms against it. Isn't that enough?

33

"Rob: One would hope that our foreign policy is not poll-driven anyway.

Joe: That would be nice. But I think that is likely never to be the case again."

I think this is dead wrong. There are still heroes (they have always been few and far between). These heroes, by definition are the types who do not so slavishly bend to fads like opinion-poll politics. They will survive (and eventually rise) whether we are weak as a people or not; however, I do think its true that heroes are more often enabled when we start to believe in them and support them. Courage has not always been a lonely and unrewarding virtue--but it becomes a lot more solitary when the weakness of most human beings makes skeptics of us all.

I don't think you really believe that all foreign policy henceforth will be guided by opinion polls. Isn't there still reason to believe there are people out there worthy of our admiration and support (and isn't that reason enough to seek them out and vote for them, regardless of whether this vote seems "wasted" at first glance or not). As a Christian, don't you almost have to believe that at certain times such moral fortitude, such virtue, will prevail?

34

Matthew I think that a massive air strike is an option to consider.

Well, it’s definitely being considered. Over the past few years the Israeli air force has practiced bombing-raids on replicas of Iranian reactors. But the problem is that the facilities are scattered across the country and some are buried deep enough underground that even a “bunker buster” missile can’t reach them.

(Of course, even I would take my assessment cum grano salis. I’m admittedly biased against the idea that air power alone can solve such problems. Having spent 15 years in the Marine Corps air wing, I’m very skeptical of “aviation solutions.”)

John I think this is dead wrong. There are still heroes (they have always been few and far between). These heroes, by definition are the types who do not so slavishly bend to fads like opinion-poll politics.

I too share your optimism in the Great Man theory of History. ; )

They will survive (and eventually rise) whether we are weak as a people or not; however, I do think its true that heroes are more often enabled when we start to believe in them and support them.

On this point I’m rather more skeptical. I truly think that unless there is a direct, imminent threat, the U.S. public will never truly support long-term military engagements. This is only the fifth year in the GWOT and most people are already fatigued and ready to let down our guard.

I don't think you really believe that all foreign policy henceforth will be guided by opinion polls.

Actually, I do but for reasons that are not as cynical as they appear. I believe that we have to treat polls like any other form of transformative technology. Lincoln may have felt the “mood of the people” but modern Presidents can get an almost minute-by-minute pulse of where the people stand. Combine this with a 24-hour news cycle an it makes it almost impossible for the polls not to have some impact on the production of foreign policy.

We have to keep in mind that the President is not the one who examines the data and makes policy recommendations. Most of it is compiled by advisors. Even if the Chief Executive can block out the poll-static, it is unlikely that the entire staff at Foggy Bottom can do so too. I think its inevitable that the polls—both in our country and in others—will affect what decisions are made.

And, in fact, I would argue that they should. As KAM noted, the Iranian public is amongst the most pro-American Muslims in the region. How do we know this? Polling info. Even if we choose to ignore the polls in our own country we would need to consider the data they provide in foreign lands.

35

Ahhh...I think you have a point in that last blurb particularly, but I think that such heavy attention to opinion polls would not only contradict the purpose of the elected officials envisioned in the federalist papers (those who might, through their somewhat lengthy tenures, combat and assuage the passions of the people--the reason we have a republic rather than a democracy), but it would contradict the very spirit of a leader--someone who leads others rather than reflecting their thoughts and ideas or working within the confines of their limitations. Almost by virtue of the American public's lack of information (necessary and proper in the eyes of the founders--not everyone can spend all day on politics)and the fact that the "common man" is precisely that, common and incapable of great leadership--strong executives MUST buck opinion polls to make correct decisions; and they must do so with a force of moral will and persuasion capable of not just appealing to the prejudices of the public but changing their hearts and minds. Isn't that the kind of person we long for and deserve as president? Someone strong and charismatic enough to weigh more heavily on the spirits of their staff at foggy bottom than any opinion poll could? Someone who is strong and sure enough that he or she doesn't have to block out the static of opinion polls--but instead sees them as a challenge--a barometer of the long task ahead. Just because president Bush and others have failed to rise to this task of persuading the public (Bush does have moral force I think, but has failed to make his case), doesn't mean we should forget that others have--Our very country was founded on the will of a few strong men willing to buck opinon polls and fight for hearts and minds to strive toward a goal that was right. We all might live by the passions of a "minute-by-minute world", but then again, there is a reason most of us won't wind up in the history books. Shouldn't we hold those we vest with so great a power to a higher standard than that to which we hold ourselves?

This is a great post, BTW. Don't let my goofy youthful idealism think I have a purely contrarian take on this...

36

All:

Some sobering points overnight! (I observe too that there has been a backing off on Christian bashing, which is good.)

A few notes:

1] George: I think we all need to remember as well that George W. did not "go to war" with Iraq. We were at war with Iraq when 9-11 occurred, and had been for a decade. There was never a cessation of hostilities from either side after Desert Storm, nor was there a peace treaty. There was merely a reduction in hostile action while Saddam defied the world and failed to abide by the terms he agreed to. Regarding the canard about "no WMDs", ask the Kurds.

--> You are correct: an armistice is not a peace treaty, and indeed low level hostilities continued for a decade and more, in a context of plainly material breach.

--> add to that, the point that the non-existence of WMDs in Iraq at the time of the renewal of major hostilities was a point that Hussein's regime had the burden of proof to show to the UNSC, and which he flouted. So, if there were signs that convinved the US, UK, German, Russian, Chinese, French and Israeli intel agencies [not to mention leading Democrats in the US] that he had such weapons, there is probably a fire underneath all that smoke.

--> THe discovery of suspicious stocks of "insecticide," of vehicles that fit the description of the biowar vans, of equipment and materials for reconstituting a nuke programme in full force [including ton-lots of the yellow cake and the explosives, plus centrifuges etc -- note how "effective" UN seals are proving with N Korea and Iran], the missiles and plans for further missiles, and the issue of suspicious convoys and flights heading to Syria should give pause before repeating the chant: "Bush lied on WMD."

2] Tom: Not in Iran's case. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is part of a sect that believes in the so-called 12th Imam (sometimes called the Hidden Imam), a messianic figure who will come to restore order to a world overtaken by violence and chaos. Ahmadinejad believes this Imam's return is imminent and has engaged in huge public works programs such as widening a main boulevard in Tehran for the 12th Imam's victory reception . . . . We are not dealing with a rational actor here.

--> Now Tom, how could you leave out the part about the GREEN glow around his head as he spoke?

--> More directly, this is a part of the wider, widely believed muslim escahatology and understanding of the world; but in the shiite 12th imam version. We should note:

a] Islam divides th eworld into dar ul Islam and dar ul harb. THe former is the house of submission to Allah, his prophet, his warriors and law, which therefore enjoys peace and order. THe latter, isthe house of war/the sword, which stands in rebellion against Allah, etc. Thus, it is the house of chaos and tumults and the abode of the Satans. It is understood that over time, the latter will be reduced to the former.

b] Excerpting from my short primer on Islam: Treaties with non-Islamic states, on this classic Islamic view, are inherently temporary truces,[36] and the expansion of Islam by military means is always an open option. (According to some observers, the classic example of this was set by Muhammad himself, who they say broke a peace treaty between Medina and the Quraysh of Mecca,[37] and so conquered his native city, putting to the sword key opponents and critics, including a poetess who had composed satirical poems challenging his integrity.) However, from the Middle Ages on, there have been Muslim scholars, jurists and statesmen who have argued for a more permanent character to such treaties.[38]

c] Islam views the Old Testament prophets and Jesus as Prophets of Allah, and regards the Bible as inspired, to the extent that it has not been corrupted.[39] In particular, the concept of the Trinity is viewed as an attempt to elevate Mary — yes, Mary — and Jesus to divine status alongside Allah, that is Shirk,[40] and Christianity is therefore often viewed as idolatrous. Muhammad, as Allah’s final Prophet, has the last say on matters of revelation and fact.

d] As Surah 4:156 – 158 records, the Quran specifically denies the crucifixion of Christ: “they killed him not, nor crucified him . . . . Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself.”[41] Thus, the Quran’s message is explicitly incompatible with the core gospel message: “on which [we Christians] have taken [our] stand. By this gospel [we] are saved if [we] hold firmly to the word . . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures . . . . And if Christ has not been raised [from the dead], our preaching is useless and so is [our] faith . . . [we] are still in [our] sins.” [1 Cor. 15:2 – 5, 14, 17.]

e] “Muslims believe that Jesus will come back to earth as a Muslim, will marry and have children, then die and be buried near Muhammad. Some traditions assert that at this second coming He will destroy every cross, kill all Jews, convert the Christians to Islam, and reign as king of all Muslims.” [Sookhdeo, p. 22.]

--> In short, there is a massive confrontation between Islam and the rest of the world built into the Quran, Hadiths and Sharia, one that sees Islam as eschatologically triumphing over especially the Judaeo-Christian West. Notice, for instance the built-in baseless accusations of fraud in the NT and the dismissal of the objective testimony of history: Jesus suffered and died under Pontius Pilate.

--> If the new president of Iran sees himself in that light and understands himself to be a forerunner for the 12th Imam, then that is serious.

--> Further to this, the root of Bib Laden's declaration of war is not the American presence in Saudi Arabia [he in fact had offered the Saudi Government to take the lead in fighting against Hussein after the latter occupied Kuwait, but was refused in favour of the US], but rather the above context: the USA is the major state in dar ul harb and so is the source of chaos and troubles.

--> So, the real issue is just a matter of finding real or imagined slights and sins of the US -- which are many. [Notice that one of his organisation's appeals is to the defeat and expulsion of the Moors in spain 500 years ago. Similarly, the issues over the crusades of 800 - 1,000 years ago are often raised. And more.]

3] Joe: I truly think that unless there is a direct, imminent threat, the U.S. public will never truly support long-term military engagements. This is only the fifth year in the GWOT and most people are already fatigued and ready to let down our guard.

--> I think you have a serious point, and one with implications, given that we can prbably expect a very active next 40 years or so as Islamists seek to exploit the geostrategic window of the remainder of the oil economy. [And no, one does not have to buy into the idea that oil production is shortly to peak and decline due to absolute shortages to see that the ME domination of the sources of oil, coupled tot he ideological situation, is a volatile and explosive mix.]

--> The question is plain: can the USA sustain a decades long geostrategic initiative in the context of the sort of issues that are tied to the islamist agenda?

++++++++++

Grace, open eyes

Gordon

37

As Saddam's Air Force General said his buddies moved the WMD to Syria before our troops arrived.

A fickle public is the price our leasder's pay for an open society. Hopefully, our leaders will not be spineless when it comes to prosecuting treasonable actions.

38

Are you saying that as an ally of Israel we should support them in there use of military force? If so, then how should we do that? By the way, Israel likely will take the lead because they have the most to lose. It will also likely start a complete regional war in the Middle East.

Well the how will really depend on the circumstances, won't it? The deeper point, though, is that if Iran is primarily a threat to Israel then Israel should be taking the lead if attacking Iran is the solution...not the US.

Again, I agree. Unlike Iraq, I don’t think we can implement regime change simply by applying military force. In fact, I hate to be pessimistic but I’m not sure we can stop the Iranians from acquiring nukes or lobbying them at Israel. The best we can probably hope for is that we get lucky and catch the terrorists they sponsor to detonate a suitcase nuke in the U.S.

So basically your estimate for the cost of this policy is an Israel gutted by a nuclear explosion, a possible US city nuked by a suitcase (unless we get lucky and catch it) and a possible regime change in Iran. What's your upside again?

Normally, I’d be inclined to agree. But game theory presupposes rational actors. The Iranians are not rational and only want nukes so they can threaten both Israel and the U.S. They are going to move ahead with the program regardless of what actions we take

Indeed which from their POV is a rational policy. A nuke buys them insurance from invasion or major attack. The question to us is whether or not they are far enough along so that its too late. They probably are.

All those proposing a diplomatic solution seem not to be aware of the diplomatic failures that have been accumulating since the 1950s. The Iranians have oil and a friend (China) willing to pay for it. No matter how much the West tries to isolate the country they will eventually get the nuclear weapons they want and use them against either America or Israel.

They will probably get them, whether they will use them is an open question not a foregon conclusion.

You also seem to think that Islamic fundamentalists can be deterred by threatening them with death. Exactly how many suicide bombers has that stopped?

If the regime itself was suicidal it probably would have gotten itself wiped off the face of the earth by now. The regime does promote suicide bombers but reserves pragmatic action to itself. During Iran-Contra, for example, it was perfectly happy to deal with both the US and Israel to purchase weapons for use against Saddam's Iraq.

Regarding the popularity of wars:

Then why isn’t that reflected in the polls I cited?

What makes you think public opinion can be perfectly captured in all its nuance by polls? What types of percentages do you think these questions will get:

If Bush chooses not to attack Iran over its nuclear program will you be disappointed?

If Bush chooses to try to isolate Iran diplomatically and warn them not to use their nukes do you feel he would have hurt America's security and that of its allies?

Would attacking Iran be worth pulling out of Iraq before a stable gov't is formed? Would it be worth a 10% income tax increase? Would it be worth drastic cuts in Social Security, Medicare etc?

Most people would have answered no to those types of questions leading up to most of the wars the US has been in with the exception, IMO, of AFghanistan after 9/11.

So was Bush responsible for the Korean and Vietnam wars also?

No Bush was not alive during Korea and his impact on the Vietnam war serving in the National Guard was limited.

Chris:

I have to take exception to your characterization of the Founders' view on public opinion. To them, "democracy" meant mob-rule, and they went to extraordinary lengths to lessen the impact of public opinion on national politics. Hence the indirect election of senators and the electoral college. Never were they eager fora time when the tides of public passion determined policy.

Yes they believed that public opinion had to be refined so there were many twists before angry people in a bar translated to a different party taking office. But they never thought leaders should be immune from pulic opinion. In fact they recognized that the Revolutionary War happened both from learned arguments as well as broadsheets, protests, rabbles etc. (Boston Tea Party anyone?). As for the 'great lengths' they went to lessen the impace of public opinion on national politics, you are measuring from today's norms rather than the norms of their time. The US was remarkably open to public opinion, in fact they guaranteed it with both the Bill of Rights as well as the requirement that states had to have a 'Republican form of Government' (i.e. no monarchies, dictatorships etc.).

What they also understood, though, was that public opinion was not simply a poll. Democracy by poll is just mob-rule without having to get your clothes dirty. You are correct in that they rejected that . Joe, however, places far too much emphasis on polls which are easy to collect in this day but really only supply limited information.

Matthew
As for Iran retaliating, we can issue another ultimatum when we're done bombing: any retaliation against us or our allies will be met with military strikes against the leadership of the mullah-cracy. Once again, not something we want to do, but certainly something we can do if we have to.

Perhaps we should first start a "I hate America" blog and ask every commentor from Iran to give us their GPS coordinates. Then we can take out the mullahs using data we fooled them into giving us? Alternatively we could mail them big hats as 'presents' that have huge bulleseyes on top of them. Then just drop the bombs!

Ohhh, wait I'm sorry were you being serious?

ucfengr:

It was nearly 1/3 of American citizens who opposed the Constitution enough to take up arms against it. Isn't that enough?

It would seem not.

39

Boonton: If you really want to take the postiion that when nearly a third of the population take up arms to defy the Constitution and a significant plurality of the rest are either neutral towards or in favor of letting them, that the President isn't defending the Constitution against the people, okay, but I think you are arguing semantics as opposed to reality. That said, the point isn't really important enough warrant further debate.

40

1. When people enter into a contract there are often mechanisms to alter or amend it however simply because a portion of the people in the contract choose to breech it does not make the contract null. The South asserted a right to nullification that did not exist in the Constitution. It lost.

2. You didn't say a third of the people but a third of the citizens. It remains unclear how the Constitution viewed slaves who in some cases made up a majority of many slave communities in the south. If you follow the Dred Scott ruling then their voices didn't count at all but the Constitution has little to say bout the distinction between citizen and person until the Civil War so it becomes even less clear how many people in the US were really rebelling against the Constitution.

41

Also, regarding the founders and public opinion:

1. They were very familiar with the lower types of debate. The press in the founders time would make the most partisan newspapers today seem as mild as milk. Pamphleteers were even worse. Also without TV or radio or even a national press much campaigning was indeed done in bars and street corners & was...shall we say roudy.

2. The founders did not reject public opinion. All of them found public opinion to be essential in both selling the Revolution itself and years later the Constitution. What they did understand, though, was that public opinion was more complicated than a snapshot poll. It was a process where both high and low debate contributed to the decision.

3. In this light one sees that the founders did not shield the gov't from the public. Yes Senators & Presidents were not choosen by nation wide popular vote but you're comparing the status quo of today (for Senators at least) rather than comparing the status quo of then. States were expected to choose their legislatures by popular vote. The legislatures were seen as the most organic representation of public sentiment...especially since it was difficult to command a national audience with little media besides local papers and relatively few books being published.

4. The Founders lived in a time when voting was difficult and prone to either serious errors or fraud. They did not seek to capture public opinion in a single ballot but needed a process where public opinion would make itself felt throughout. A single vote may be stolen or distorted but not all the votes all the time so there are overlapping elections, checks and balances and so on.

This hasn't changed today. While you can use statistics and computers to do a lot more polling it isn't in itself sufficient to understand public opinion. Polls can easily be distorted by asking loaded questions (either on purpose or by accident), for example. But if you want proof just look at companies. How many base all their market research on surveys? Even ones that are done with be best practices?

42

ucfengr:

Internment and the draft; you got that on FDR. But otherwise...

Can you think of one [constitution] better, in practice, not theory?

Venezuela's got some nice bits that ours doesn't- and they enforce 'em too.

Japan's has some nice bits too; like the anti-war thingy.

Oh, and technically- the UN charter is equal in stature to the US constitution.

I know, it breaks your heart, but if you were a strict constructionist, you'd agree with me.

43

Dear Everwise Boonton,

I appreciate your assistance in helping me understand my point, which was not to discuss the merits of the war in Iraq, or any justifications of it, but to state definitively that Iraq and OBL are indeed connected. I was quite clear that neither Iraq nor OBL were in collaboration with each other.

You wrote: Let's say that OBL was indeed so outraged by the sanctions on Iraq that put him over the edge and decided to embark on 9/11. What connection to Iraq does that make?

Well, it makes a CAUSAL connection, doesn't it? That would not be a tangential one, nor would it be a theoretical one. And that is the point I made which you at once called "stupid". If OBL is the enemy we should be fighting, and if OBL declares that the MAIN battleground is Iraq, then involving ourselves in Iraq is part of our battle with OBL, perhaps even the essential part. Now, I also said that the only debatable point is not whether Iraq is central (it is), but whether invasion was the proper way to engage Mr. Bin Laden. As it stands, my stupid point challenges Mr. Carter's contention (as I [mis?]understood it) that many Americans fallaciously connected Iraq and OBL. Moreover, the Iraq/OBL connection was made all the more clear when OBL offered a "truce" last week in his released tape. It seems that fighting him in Iraq and Afghanistan is indeed, at least for him, a proper, viable, and even threatening reality. Again, this does not justify war, it only justifies the Administration's view that Iraq was central.

Dear Mr. Carter,

In your answer to me above, you include text that was not drafted by me but by Mr. Everwise Boonton. Far be it from me to question your patriotism.

Peace,

Gnade

44

Bill,

Perhaps I should clarify, how is the connection you paint at all relevant? Because OBL states that he does not like US policy towards a particular country does not serve as grounds to invade that country nor does it serve to 'connect' that country to OBL in a meaningful way. Meaningful in the context of this disucssion means some connection that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that Iraq either supported, aided or instigated 9/11 or supported, aided or instigated OBL after 9/11.

The fact that OBL supported Saddam's Iraq is quite frankly not important nor relevant.

45

All:

1] Dragon Skin:

Kindly cf the next thread to see some of what the article B refers to draws out. [There is much more to the story than has been summarised above.]

The article begins:

WASHINGTON (AP) - Just 29 Army soldiers have sought reimbursement so far for body armor and other equipment they bought to protect themselves on the front lines. The scant number of requests are largely for updated ceramic body armor and total just $21,000, The Associated Press has learned . . . .

--> TO put in context, the current cost per unit of the Dragon Skin personal armour is US$ 4,600 per copy, and 150 K sets UCF has estimated might require an outlay of US$ 1 bn, relative to US$ 724+/case so far reimbursed, and for a relatively low number of cases. Nor can the plea that the Pentagon has not promoted this hold in a blog age, if there was critical mass of support for the shift to DS now. That surely factors into an assessment of hte balance on costs and benefits to be made. Back in 03, there was a clear support for going to ceramics, and that has happened. Now, I am not so sure or the support on DS, at least at this stage of the emergence of this technology.

2] Are Iran's Nukes a threat or not?

B also plainly needs to be reminded that it is a common perception that extremist regimes who issue threats motivated by their ideologies are not serious. Let's just say that the best predictor of Hitler's behaviour was his writings and speeches.

So, when the new president of Iran speaks aboutr wiping our Israel and a worlds without the USA, in a context where nukes and bioweapons give the capapbility to do just that, it would be wise to take that seriously.

--> I am particularly concerned for the impact of an EMP attack scenario, which would fire off a nuke high above the earth triggering an electrical surge that would burn out every unprotected piece of electrical or electronic equipment for a radious of maybe 1,000 miles: no fridges, radios TVs PCs, phones, electronically controlled engines, etc etc, all of a sudden.

--> No immediate deaths, but the resulting collapse would destroy the economy and capability to govern the region in view, leading to massive chaos and death, indeed, collapse.

--> All that would be required is one nuke and a missile to loft it high enough to do the damage, a missile that could be launched from a tramp freighter in international waters quite easily. Iran is very close to that capacity, and the implication of making dar al harb implode through internal chaos must be a sore temptationto one looking for the 12th Imam to emerge from hiding and imagining himself surrounded by a green halo when he speaks to the UN.

+++++++++

Grace to all

GEM

46

PS: Hussein's regime was a key instance of the nexus between dictatorial regimes, their intel agencies and terrorist groups all across the ME world. There is evidence of support for the further development of the technology of hijacking, and there are serious question marks on that anthrax attack of 2001. The potential to equip a terror group with a suitcase nuke or weaponised anthrax etc should not be discounted.

GEM

47

Internment and the draft; you got that on FDR. But otherwise...

Don't forgot that pesky court packing thing. The result of the Supreme Court invalidating as unconstitutional, several key parts of the "New Deal."

Venezuela's got some nice bits that ours doesn't- and they enforce 'em too.

Some specifics would be nice, but again we get into theory and practice. Please feel free to make the case that Hugo Chavez's Venezuela is more respecting of their citizen's rights than George Bush's Methodist theocracy (aka the USA).

Japan's has some nice bits too; like the anti-war thingy.

An "anti-war thingy" is easy to uphold when your defense is guaranteed by the strongest military in the world. In the absense of that, it would be unsustainable, especially in light of a nuclear North Korea and an expansionist China. Again, theory vs. practice. Suppose we (the US) inserted an "anti-war thingy" into our Constitution, would the world be a safer place (remember George Bush won't always be president)?

Oh, and technically- the UN charter is equal in stature to the US constitution.

Not really. If the two conflicted, one would be upheld over the other, most likely the U.S. Constitution (in the US anyway), making it the higher law.

48

Gordon,

An EMP bomb? I do not know much about them, so I looked here: http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/emp.htm

They state: A large device detonated at 400–500 km over Kansas would affect all of CONUS. The signal from such an event extends to the visual horizon as seen from the burst point.

500 km? Isn't that higher than the satellite that beams my XM radio signal? So your "high enough" has to be very high for Iran to affect a widespread area. Moreover, I don't see how that leads to widespread chaos and death. Military equipment would still work, so order could be maintained.

Regarding anthrax, isn't it somewhat misleading to say that there are "serious question marks" about the 2001 attack? There are serious question marks about the Kennedy assassination, too, but that doesn't mean that Islamic terrorists did it. If anything, the anthrax attacks proved how difficult it is to kill a large number of people.

Iran is certainly led by a dangerous and irrational person, but so is North Korea and a bunch of other countries. Should we engage in more pre-emptive strikes, as in Iraq? I cannot understand why we would do that.

49

Moreover, I don't see how that leads to widespread chaos and death. Military equipment would still work, so order could be maintained.

Well for starters all TVs, radios, and wireless and cell phones would go out. It is likely the wired phones systems would go out as well, so no modern communications. Most military equipment would probably still work, but since we've never experienced a large scale EMP, we can't be sure (the military uses lots of civilian electronics), but what about civilian police equipment? I am pretty sure that is not hardened. What about civilian aircraft, are they hardened? Imagine a few hundred 737's suddenly losing their electronics while airborne and what about civilian airports? What about hospitals? Their equipment is not hardened. Does that sound like a recipe of chaos and death?

50

Imagine if an EMP attack occured during DC morning rush hour. All cars on the road (at least the ones built since 1985) would suddenly stop because their computers were suddenly toasted. Imagine the chaos; it would make the evacuation preceeding Katrina look pretty mild. At least those cars where capable of moving.

51

B also plainly needs to be reminded that it is a common perception that extremist regimes who issue threats motivated by their ideologies are not serious. Let's just say that the best predictor of Hitler's behaviour was his writings and speeches.

Of course regimes are motiviated by their ideologies and one must keep their speeches and writings in mind but one must acknowledge that past behavior coupled with the real restraints of their situation are a better guide. You'd go broke very quickly, for example, if you simply took the promises and speeches of American politicans at face value.

--> I am particularly concerned for the impact of an EMP attack scenario, which would fire off a nuke high above the earth triggering an electrical surge that would burn out every unprotected piece of electrical or electronic equipment for a radious of maybe 1,000 miles: no fridges, radios TVs PCs, phones, electronically controlled engines, etc etc, all of a sudden.

I'm not sure how feasible this is (I'll have to check out Bob's site). In the 50's and 60's there were tests done where nuclear warheads were detonated in the upper atmosphere or in space. The idea an older version of SDI where a nuclear explosion would be used to destroy incoming nukes. The tests did generate an EMP that disabled electricial equipment & electricity but I don't think the range was 1,000 miles & I'm not sure the damage was permanant. Strategically I'm not sure what the value of such a move would be to Iran. The primary victim of doing this would be Iran and other Arab countries. The militaries of the US and Israel almost certainly have more protection against EMP than Iran does. If Iran launched a missile towards Europe or America with the intention of detonating it in space it would likely be viewed as a 'first strike' even before it arrived on target and the response would be similiar to what the old MAD doctrine of the Cold War predicted.

--> All that would be required is one nuke and a missile to loft it high enough to do the damage, a missile that could be launched from a tramp freighter in international waters quite easily. Iran is very close to that capacity, and the implication of making dar al harb implode through internal chaos must be a sore temptationto one looking for the 12th Imam to emerge from hiding and imagining himself surrounded by a green halo when he speaks to the UN.

This is a simple madman model for understanding Iranian behavior which might make sense if you only look at rhetoric, campaign statements and propaganda. Iran, though, could easily pull somethign similar off without a nuke. For example, if Iran simply refused to pump oil it could generate huge economic costs by simply letting the world oil price spike (it's unclear that Saudi Arabia still has enough excess capacity to deploy oil in a rush to keep prices stable).

52

I too am skeptical of Iran's ability to generate an EMP capable of significantly damaging US infrastructure. Boonton is right to say that there are much easier ways to damage the US. Suppose for example, instead of trying to generate an EMP over the US, they instead nuked (through OBL or some other proxy) Saudi Arabia's or Kuwait's oilfields. Sort of a "Goldfinger" scenario where the oil becomes much more valuable, while wrecking a couple of their political and religious (Sunni vs. Shia) enemies.

53

The result would be most likely that the US would take over their oil fields and leave the rest of the country to fend for itself....worst of both worlds. Oil money would no longer flow to Muslim states on either the Sunni or Shia side.

But if this was their goal they could simply refuse to pump. Morally or legally it would be hard to assert a right to retaliate militarily against such a non-violent move so it would be a win-win for their ideology. So why haven't they done it when radicals have controlled the gov't since the late 70's?

Because then they wouldn't have money. Radical they might be they are still materialistic enough not to choose