Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

"Despite the fact that I think that George Bush is in many ways disastrous, and wish that there were a viable alternative, I remain convinced that the only realistic alternative would be even worse."

Right, and your position has nothing to do with the political party that Kerry represents. Oh! Wait!

So you're not choosing him based on his personality at all? As if :-)

"to force them to face reality, and shed themselves of their delusions about the enemy we face."

That was Iraq with WMDs wasn't it? Oh! Wait!

Still, at least Bush stabilised Iraq, and has the oil flowing. Oh! Wait!

So what is an American president for anyway- is it really to have someone to decide which small countries to screw over?

Posted by Me at October 4, 2004 08:11 PM

Anonymous Coward:

I see you wish to share in the delusions about the enemy we face.

Posted by Rand Simberg at October 4, 2004 08:21 PM

Bush thinks Iraq was too tied to terrorists, Kerry thinks Iran isn't.

Resolving that takes non-Euclidean space.

Posted by Al at October 4, 2004 09:00 PM

What the hell is the Bush adminstration's position on Iran, if not "passivity and illusion"? All that have done is fume on the sidelines, and that is all they have to offer in the future. That particular method has failed with North Korea.
Whatever you think of engagment, it is a objective fact the 1994 agreement delayed the North Korean bomb by a decade. And with Iran's demographic realities and halfway democracy, a similar strategy to buy time may be all that is required.

Iran has huge political leverage in both Afganistan and Iraq. With elections about to be attempted in both countries, a near term offensive against Iran would be desperate lunacy. And invasion? Iran is five times the size and three times the population of the country whose occupation has stretched the U. S. military to its breaking point. It's not gonna happen.

At least Kerry is proposing something to get rid of Iran's nuclear weapons program. All Bush can do at this stage is fling insults.

Posted by Duncan Young at October 4, 2004 09:17 PM

Rand is right! We do desperately need a second major party that is strong on defense. We need a Strong Libertarian party--one that rejects the social conservatism of the right but embraces a strong defense and active foreign policy that is a legitimate function of federal government.
it's too bad the actual libertarian party picked such a foreign policy dud, because now would be a prime time to send a message to the Democratic party that their embrace of the enemy is unacceptable.

On another note--maybe it's because of the military presence here in Monterey, CA, but there are two tables set up at Monterey's tuesday Farmer's Market every week, Democrat and Libertarian. I have noticed for three weeks running the Libertarian table is always surrounded by people. Not so for the Democrat table.

For this to actually happen,a legitimate republicans would have to come out as actual libertarians. Dana Rohrbacher, where are you?

Posted by Tom Cuddihy at October 4, 2004 09:17 PM

The main reason why the democrats need to be repudiated is their continued obsession with left-wing ideology.

Left-wing ideology has been completely discredited for over 15 years. It has destroyed our public school system in its obsession to suppress excellence and meld everyone into an equality of mediocrity. It has destroyed effective government in its obsession to base hiring on equal opportunity rather than ability and effectiveness at doing the job.

The sooner the democrats ditch left-wing ideology, the sooner we will have a competitive two-party system that can best promote a more effective American society.

I despise anything "left" and want to see it irradicated once and for all.

Posted by Kurt at October 4, 2004 10:06 PM

Duncan wrote: "Whatever you think of engagment, it is a objective fact the 1994 agreement delayed the North Korean bomb by a decade."

Why couldn't we have used some other strategy that would have prevented it entirely? Maybe the agreement allowed it to happen?

Duncan wrote: "At least Kerry is proposing something to get rid of Iran's nuclear weapons program. All Bush can do at this stage is fling insults."

Yes, Kerry proposed something that Iran rejected on SUNDAY, less than a week after Kerry mentioned it in the debate:

"'We have the technology (to make nuclear fuel) and there is no need for us to beg from others,' Asefi told a weekly news conference."

Not even elected and he's already been shot down. What a good start. I guess Khatami wasn't one of those foreign leaders Kerry claimed supported him.

And Kerry's backup strategy? Sanctions! After all, they worked so well with Saddam.

That's the best Kerry can do? And we're supposed to take him seriously, why, exactly?

Posted by Jim C. at October 4, 2004 10:16 PM

Yes, Kerry proposed something that Iran rejected on SUNDAY, less than a week after Kerry mentioned it in the debate:

Negotiations by press conference rarely ahve any relationship to reality.

And Kerry's backup strategy? Sanctions! After all, they worked so well with Saddam

Um, Jim, hate to break it to you - but they did work, so far as WMD was concerned. And remember how long Saddam's army lasted?

That's the best Kerry can do.

It's better than Bush can. Their current plan - take it to the famous U. N. Security Council (if you read to the end of that article you linked to)

Posted by Duncan Young at October 4, 2004 11:55 PM

"All that have done is fume on the sidelines,"

1) Do _you_ think the Bush Administration sees Iran as a major threat? Or did they draw Iran's name out of a hat for the "Axis of Evil" comment?

2) Do you think Kerry thinks Iran is a major threat?

I come up with 'Absolutely Yes' and 'Not so much' respectively.

Given changes in Pakistan, India, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE, Yemen, Egypt, Indonesia, Palestine, Israel, Lebanon, and Libya - and a clear recognition that both North Korea and Iran need attention - I have trouble believing they aren't getting attention. Summits aren't the only way things end up happening, just the way things end up in print.

Posted by Al at October 5, 2004 12:04 AM

(To Duncan's 11:55 post)

And John Kerry _wouldn't_ go to the UN? Is France going to go to the mat for Iran also? "We will veto _anything_ from the Americans?" The French aren't doing joint sea exercises with China or directly opposing US diplomacy just because they think we're led by a chimp. So there'd better be something more than the overt diplomatic efforts going on.

Posted by Al at October 5, 2004 12:15 AM

1) Do _you_ think the Bush Administration sees Iran as a major threat? Or did they draw Iran's name out of a hat for the "Axis of Evil" comment?
As Jon Stewart said, this is the administration that believes words speak loader than actions.

2) Do you think Kerry thinks Iran is a major threat?
He said nuclear proliferation was the number one threat to the security of the United States. As the most obvious country pushing for membership in the nuclear club, yes, he considers a nuclear Iran a major threat.

Posted by Duncan Young at October 5, 2004 12:45 AM

Rand, a 50.5 to 49.5 Bush victory will not slap anyone.

It will only energize the Democrats to fight even harder for 2008.

= = =

On Iraq, visualize Saddam as a cancer. Okay, get a scalpel and cut it out.

But don't leave an open wound and a raging infection and proclaim: "Mission Accomplished"

= = =

In a global war on terror that is civilizational in nature (Huntington's Clash of Civilizations), for the West (US & Europe) to have a diplomatic civil war at the same time the West confronts Islam is simply foolish and UNDERESTIMATES the threat from the Islamo-fascists.

When Bush (and Rove? playing to the GOP-er base) attacked France diplomatically, it was as if FDR decided to cancel LendLease to the Soviets in 1942 because we wanted Stalin to enact market reforms.

Karl Rove has been running the Iraq war with the 2004 election in mind from the very beginning.

Now, WHO is it who fails to understand the threat we face from an enemy who states openly they are prepared to fight for 100 years?

Bush NEEDS bin Laden politically and Bush has been bin Laden's best recruiting sargeant and the Brits have been saying quietly for months or years.

Posted by Bill White at October 5, 2004 05:04 AM

Rand, a 50.5 to 49.5 Bush victory will not slap anyone.

Who said it would? Why do you come over here and offer up strawmen?

When Bush (and Rove? playing to the GOP-er base) attacked France diplomatically, it was as if FDR decided to cancel LendLease to the Soviets in 1942 because we wanted Stalin to enact market reforms.

We declared diplomatic war on France? What planet were you on for the past couple of years? And frankly, Bill, your analogy is...stupid.

Posted by Rand Simberg at October 5, 2004 05:15 AM

Mr. Young is wrong, as follows:

The Bush administration's position on Iran is quite clear. The Bush administration's actions in support of their position have been "passive" only to the most bellicose and blinkered (or hypocritical) of observers.

(1) Diplomatically, the Bush Administration has been pressuring the IAEA to take a firm position on Iran's nuclear program and to refer unsatisfactory results to the Security Council in short order, which are as much as Mr. Kerry can suggest. (There are no economic sanctions which the U.S. can still apply to Iran.)

(2) The President has kept Iran's program in the international public eye through many speeches and policy statements. Presumably Mr. Young believes along with Mr. Kerry that international opinion is a powerful and important force, e.g. something that should deeply concern the American voter right now. Hence, logically, Mr. Young would agree with Mr. Kerry that the President's keeping the issue of Iran in the international public eye is a powerful force on the Iranians.

(3) Covertly, the Bush Administration has worked closely with the Government of Pakistan to disrupt the nuclear technology black market associated with A. Q. Khan. This has certainly set back the Iranian nuclear program.

(4) The President has explicitly refused to rule out the use of force should the need arise, and he has established the credibility of this threat by his firmness elsewhere.

What, exactly, would Mr. Young propose further? Military attack? A demonstration of flexibility? Buying them off?

In addition, Mr. Young's assertion that the 1994 agreement delayed the NK nuclear program by a decade is unlikely to be true. It was in 2002 that the United States confronted North Korea with evidence that they had been pursuing their nuclear program in secret for at least several years, in violation of the 1994 Agreed Framework. Even assuming "several" means no more than 3 or 4, this means the North Koreans stopped work on their program for at most 4 or 5 years, and in fact there is no evidence they stopped work at all.

In which case the only purpose the 1994 agreement served was to allow the Clinton Administration to pretend the problem had been solved.

The idea that Iran has "huge leverage" in Afghanistan and Iraq is laughable. To be sure, they have nontrivial influence, both private and public. But the failure of a serious, broad movement towards the establishment of an Islamic Republic in either country is ipso facto evidence of the severe practical limits of Iranian influence.

Finally, Mr. Young's naive skepticism about military options reminds me of the quagmire quacking of his fellow travelers before the Iraq war. The Brookings Institute, for example, suggested 600 U.S. casualties each day of war. Yeah, right.

In fact, the President enjoys a wide range of military options for compelling the Government of Iran, ranging from the creative and covert use of Special Forces on up to the completely effective if horrifyingly final nuclear option.

What's important about military force, however, is that it works best when it remains a suspended threat. This can only be achieved when the person wielding the force is credible when he lays out the conditions for its use or abeyance. This, fortunately, the President has in spades. He is the only world leader who can tell the Iranians "Or Else" and, based on his previous actions, be completely believable. I doubt Mr. Kerry could successfully threaten his dog.

Posted by Patsy Cline at October 5, 2004 05:23 AM

Dunc,

If you believe false things to be true, you will draw false conclusions from your beliefs.

First, re: N. Korea - "passivity and illusion" pretty much defines the Clinton approach to N. Korea. The 1994 Carter/Clinton agreement did nothing to slow N. Korea's acquisition of nukes. While NK's plutonium producing capability was being watched 24/7, there was a clandestine NK uranium enrichment effort going on out of sight.

It's fairly difficult to enrich uranium, but simple to make a bomb with enriched U once you have some. No outsider can be sure of the exact date the last bolt was cinched down on NK's first uranium bomb, but it's more likely than not to have been on Bill Clinton's watch. Exactly how many uranium bombs NK now has is murky for the same reasons all info about NK is iffy.

Despite my utter disdain for Mr. Clinton, I want to emphasize that, short of pre-emptive war, there might not have been any course of available action that could have guaranteed no NK bomb on his watch. But it's also a good bet that a U.S. President who took his job seriously might have made improving American intelligence capabilities in NK's part of the world a quiet priority. He might even have borrowed a page from the Israelis and ordered "Gerald Bull" operations against A.Q. Khan and whomever the NK version of Sergei Korolev happens to be. No one can know, of course, whether such measures would have, if taken, delayed NK acquisition of nuclear weaponry, but a case can certainly be made that it might have done so decisively. Mr. Clinton is, at a minimum, culpable of being both gullible and stupid in giving an extraordinarily devious adversary a several year-long windfall of free imports and an equally free hand in pursuing its nuclear ambitions both unmolested and unobserved.

As to that plutonium production at Yong Byon, NK agreed to the formerly pervasive monitoring mandated in the Clinton/Carter pact because, in a reversal of the situation with uranium, it is relatively easy to get plutonium by pulling it out of spent fuel rods, but tricky as hell to make the stuff go BANG! While NK was going thru a protracted process of trading illicit missile technology for illicit nuke engineering know-how with Pakistan, the monitoring of their plutonium cooker not only wasn't inconvenient, it actually served as a diversion for the clueless (Clinton/Tenet) who wouldn't be watching what the "other hand" was doing in the meantime. When NK had accumulated the other necessary precursors for constructing P bombs, they kicked out the observers, turned off the cameras and got down to that business too.

Note that GWB being in the White House was not a decision factor here. NK would have done just the same, and on the same schedule, if Al Gore had been sitting at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

As for what GWB has been doing about NK, he's been pulling together a rump coalition of the concerned neighbors so as to effectively isolate NK and squeeze it slowly to death. The key to this strategy is keeping China involved as NK depends upon China for all of its energy and much of its water. This means that China, by itself, can keep NK a going concern even if every other country on Earth wants things otherwise.

The Chinese hate the idea of helping the U.S., but they're not wild about sharing a border with an unpredictable crackpot nation armed with nukes either. It's unsurprising that the diplomacy needed to make China decide that de-fanging Kim is more in their interests than keeping him is a lengthy process.

In the face of these realities, Mr. Kerry's notion of direct talks with NK is ludicrous. China is the key player in this game and Mr. Kerry's facile dismissal of the other players in the NK-in-a-bottle talks is about as "nuanced" as his numerous sneers at the Iraq Coalition.

As for Iran - similar game plan. The two countries thus far invaded in the War on Terror both border Iran. Diplomatic efforts in the other nations bordering Iran are aimed at completing this encirclement.

As for military options, there are any number of things that might be done short of formal invasion and occupation: a decapitation strike on the ruling mullahs; an "Osirak" against Iranian nuclear installations; a UAV-only bombing campaign.

Posted by Dick Eagleson at October 5, 2004 05:43 AM

We declared diplomatic war on France? What planet were you on for the past couple of years? And frankly, Bill, your analogy is...stupid.

Boycott France?

Freedom Fries?

Pouring good wine in the sewer? (That is just dumb!)

Cheese eating surrender monkeys?

But okay, whatever. Support Bush and it will be a long time before a true libertarian movement gains real momentum.

Remember this.

When asked which political philosopher most influences his thinking, George W. Bush answered:

Jesus Christ

How libertarian is that?

Posted by Bill White at October 5, 2004 06:02 AM

And I think that the best way to slap the Dems in the face, to throw the bucket of icewater on them, to wake them up from their hysterical dreamland, is to repudiate them thoroughly at the polls--to force them to face reality, and shed themselves of their delusions about the enemy we face.

PS - - My point is that a close victory for Bush will go in the opposite direct than what you describe here. It will solidify opposition.

Therefore, for the long term libertarian agenda a Bush loss may actually be better than a razor thin Bush victory.

Posted by Bill White at October 5, 2004 06:06 AM

Well if you stepped back away from the globe a second and looked at how we are engaging the entirety of the Eurasian continent one can see quite clearly that we are surrounding our greatest threats with pinching maneuvers.

When we attacked Afghanistan we had the help of Pakistan to press in on both sides of afghanistan. Now that we control Afghanistan we take Iraq to contain two significant borders around Iran. We have effectively blockaded a large route that was previously used by terrorists trained in Afghanistan and then transported into Europe and maybe eventually into the U.S. Same thing with N.Korea, we disengaged with one on one talks with N.Korea and got other involved namely China to give them that impression that we have them surrounded.

There is a saying that when you go to Prison, unless you want the butt rape, the best thing to do is find the biggest, toughest guy you can take and just walk over and deck him. Everybod will thing your so crazy they will leave you alone. When 9/11 happened we got hard butt rape and we had to show that region that we meant business. We found the toughest guy that we could take, Saddam, and laid his ass out on the floor. We went into Afghanistan and practially made Osama a none factor in my opinion with a very short period of time and very few military forces. That engagement just didn't provide the shock to the region that was really needed to stir things up. It also didn't really satiate our desire for revenge. So thats why we went after Iraq. We already had taken them before and knew it could be done.

I believe that Osama is no longer the threat that requires major military interaction. Remember a little drug czar down in South America named Pablo Escobar. Despite the Columbian gov't military marching around from one end to the other of their country they couldn't round him up, he'd always slip through somehow. A handful of American delta force operatives trained Columbian law enforcement and eventually tracked him down and killed him. It didn't take a standing army of tens of thousands after all just to find and kill one kingpin.

Posted by Josh "Hefty" Reiter at October 5, 2004 06:15 AM

Boycott France?

Freedom Fries?

Pouring good wine in the sewer? (That is just dumb!)

Cheese eating surrender monkeys?

Again, I ask, on what planet have you been residing? What do those things, done by private citizens, have to do with a "diplomatic war"?

We didn't declare diplomatic war on France. Those things were just our citizens' response to the fact that they declared diplomatic war on us, in order to maintain their corrupt deals with Saddam.

And why do you obtusely continue with the strawmen? When did I claim that George Bush was good for libertarianism? When did I claim that a close election would be a good thing? Who are you arguing with?

It's certainly not me, so I wish you'd go over to whoever's blog is making those arguments, and take it up with them.

Posted by Rand Simberg at October 5, 2004 06:20 AM

Billy, Billy, Billy,

We don't hate the French, we just don't really care to LISTEN to them. Do you think they care to listen to US? Frankly, I think we've treated the French better than they deserve. After all, they ARE cheese-eating surrender monkeys (I love that description!).

And, if you think a Bush loss is better than a small Bush win in support of a Libertarian objective, then maybe you better start working real hard to ensure a BIG Bush win. Because a Bush loss equals a Kerry win, and that's gonna make your life REALLY suck.

Posted by Dave G at October 5, 2004 06:24 AM

I am little confused but perhaps that is just because I'm from Canada. I've read several passages that talk about "delusions about the enemy we face". I feel I need some education. What are the delusions? What do you "believe" about the enemy versus what you "know"?

Posted by Easterndesert at October 5, 2004 07:49 AM

We didn't declare diplomatic war on France. Those things were just our citizens' response to the fact that they declared diplomatic war on us, in order to maintain their corrupt deals with Saddam.

Hah! :-)

More Rand-Rove-ian spin. . .

Posted by Bill White at October 5, 2004 08:46 AM

Now, even Paul Bremer says America did not send in enough troops to properly sterilize the wound caused when we removed the cancer named Saddam. Troops to seal the border and prevent looting and impose order. Just like General Shineski predicted.

The choice was not whether the world is better off with or without Saddam, the choice was how to fight the cancer of Saddam without leaving a gaping wound and a raging infection.

Posted by Bill White at October 5, 2004 09:00 AM

Bill, why do you keep changing the subject, whenever one of your previous arguments is shown to be bogus?

Oh, yes. Right.

Posted by Rand Simberg at October 5, 2004 09:01 AM

Changing the subject? I learned that trick form you, Rand. ;-)

Since you asked:

(1) A big Bush win will demoralize Democrats and a razor-thin Bush win will energize them to fight harder in 2006 and 2008.

A second Bush term combined with failure in Iraq and elsewhere will mean a Democratic landslide in 2006 & 2008.

By all indications, a big Bush win is not in the cards.

(2) Bush is no libertarian. He has done much to solidify the role of big government both in the private sector and concerning personal rights.

How libertarian is the Patriot Act?

Many of the most loyal Bush supporters would be quite happy with a Christian theocratic state.

(3) Saddam was a cancer. Some cancers are inoperable. Removing Saddam and leaving behind a raging infection and an open wound does not make the world a better place.

As Paul Bremer said, not enough soldiers were sent to sterilze the wound after our invasion. Why?

IMHO because Chalabi convinced the neo-cons they were not needed. A simplified description of the neo-con group-think that fostered the current insurgency.

(4) France. We could have invaded Iraq without UN approval but with Bush and Powell saying we disagree with France and we respect their right to a differing opinion.

Even if Bush/Rove did not fuel the France bashing, failing to criticize it was a mistake.

Cheese eating surrender monkeys?

Terrorists hi-jack a plane with plans to smash it into the Eifel Tower. French commandos storm the plane and kill the terrorists. Yup. Weak.

Spain "caves in" during their recent election?

In September, France and Spain successfully capture Basque terrorists who exploded some bombs. Yup. Weak.

No head scarves in French schools? Yup. Catering to the enemy.

If I changed the subject and missed some topics, I apologize and will repsond to anything I missed.

Cheers!

Posted by Bill White at October 5, 2004 09:36 AM

Bill White said earlier: "But don't leave an open wound and a raging infection and proclaim: 'Mission Accomplished'"

You know that Bush never used those words and that the sign posted on the USS Abraham Lincoln was put there by the crew, because their mission was accomplished. Bush did declare that major combat operations had ended. I know that's a mouthful, but it's not the same thing as the words you put into his mouth, and you know it.

You've shown in the past that you can do better than spout Dem talking points, so why are you stooping to that level now?

Posted by Raoul Ortega at October 5, 2004 09:36 AM

PS- - Before we invaded Iraq, France and Germany said their intel about WMD suggested there wasn't anything of significance to be found in Iraq.

They were right, we were wrong about that point.

CBS forged documents? Maybe. But what about those Niger letters?

Posted by Bill White at October 5, 2004 09:40 AM

You know that Bush never used those words and that the sign posted on the USS Abraham Lincoln was put there by the crew, because their mission was accomplished. Bush did declare that major combat operations had ended. I know that's a mouthful, but it's not the same thing as the words you put into his mouth, and you know it.

The truth about who arranged for the banner is ambiguous at best. But anyway, General Shineski was right, we needed more troops in restore roder after Saddam was removed.

Major combat operations? What do we have now?

Posted by Bill White at October 5, 2004 09:42 AM

(1) A big Bush win will demoralize Democrats and a razor-thin Bush win will energize them to fight harder in 2006 and 2008.

Again, you pput forth a strawman irrelevancy. I AGREE WITH THIS! So you're somehow pretending that I don't so that you can spam my comments section with your latest talking points from Terry McCauliffe.

Bush is no libertarian.

I AGREE WITH THIS. Once again you use an argument I never made to simply use my blog as a soapbox for your pathetic candidate.

You have been warned, and yet you continue to do this, without apology. I've never banned anyone here, but you're pushing the limit, Bill.

Posted by Rand Simberg at October 5, 2004 09:47 AM

(1) A big Bush win will demoralize Democrats and a razor-thin Bush win will energize them to fight harder in 2006 and 2008.

"Again, you pput forth a strawman irrelevancy. I AGREE WITH THIS! So you're somehow pretending that I don't so that you can spam my comments section with your latest talking points from Terry McCauliffe."

My original motivation was to point out the unstated corollary to your original point about a big Bush win serving to crush the left. I sought to complement and round out your point, not dispute it.

It seems you agree. Good. ;-)

Why do you assume I always disagree with you?

Your frequent point about public support for space being a mile wide and an inch deep matches my own thoughts EXACTLY.

Next, as far as spouting Dem talking points, I am astonished and somewhat dismayed at how much I agree with Pat Buchanan on foreign policy issues.

Last I checked, Mr. Buchanan was not the Left's most popular perosn.

= = =

To respond to a comment, and not you Rand,

I also despise the leftist egalitarian mind-set in education. I am figting it with my own daughter's schooling.

So, can we agree with Barack Obama that we must "eradicate the slander that a black youth with a book is acting white"

Posted by Bill White at October 5, 2004 10:09 AM

Rand - Just wanted to thank you for linking to this post for its great explanation of the Kerry disaster-in-waiting, instead of focusing (as so many blogs) did on the "Owen Wilson" analogy. Katzman's explanation has been received well by many of the undecided, anti-Bush voters that I've shared it with...

Posted by Eric at October 5, 2004 11:09 AM

A couple of things:
1) We don't know if the Agreed Framework would have worked as congressional republicans blocked a key part of the deal - the non=proliferating power reactor technology.
2) The last reports I saw on the intel was the the weapons NK now have are Pu-based from Yong Byon rods, not derived from the uranium track, which still had several years to run. Those rods were pulled in reaction to the Bush adminstration aggressive stance in 2001-02. Humiliating your close ally South Korea probably did not persuade NK to the merits of a diplomatic solution. If it is true that the uranium track was a lot more immature than you say (you are the first mention I have seen mentioning U-bombs prior to 2001), I think my point stands - NK was months away from a Pu-bomb in '94, and was months away in 2002.
3) The key issue for NK is diplomatic recognition from the United States, and a formal end to the Korean War. NK recognizes that current U.S. policy is that NK really shouldn't exist. Whether an evil little state like NK deserves to exist is beside the point - that is the diplomatic reality, and why bilateral negotiations are the important part of any short-term NK solution (China already has diplomatic relations, and Russia, AFAIK, still has that slave labour arrangment running with Pyongyang.)
4) Kerry hasn't ruled out military action against Iran, NK or, for that matter, France. It was Bush, in the debate, who said that he never expected to go to war during his term.
5) While it is OT, the "Freedom Fries" incident was not conducted by private citizens - it was a measure passed by the House of Representatives.

Josh: If you can't contain the massive amounts of opium coming out of Afganistan and reaching Europe these days, it is hard to see how the posited terorist blockade is working. As Allawi said "Terrorists are pouring over our borders". Dont confuse control of a few (or even most) of the cities with control of the borders - you cant even do that in the United States!

Posted by Duncan Young at October 5, 2004 11:26 AM

You know that Bush never used those words and that the sign posted on the USS Abraham Lincoln was put there by the crew, because their mission was accomplished.

Raoul,
It was technically put up by the crew. It was designed and paid for by the White House communications shop.

Posted by Duncan Young at October 5, 2004 11:38 AM

"Josh: If you can't contain the massive amounts of opium coming out of Afganistan and reaching Europe these days, it is hard to see how the posited terorist blockade is working."

Well, hopefully we're devoting a lot more effort to stopping terrorists than to stopping the flow of opium. (Actually, it's too bad the new Afghani government didn't have the sense to legalize it, but that's a different story...) Not only that, but opium doesn't rush to Iraq and set off bombs whenever the Great Satan moves into the neighborhood, but continues peacefully on its merry way to Europe, so opium's going to be a little harder to find than terrorists.

"Now, even Paul Bremer says America did not send in enough troops to properly sterilize the wound caused when we removed the cancer named Saddam."

We're not even finished removing the cancer. We're still in surgery, and thanks to excising the cancer "Saddam", we're now in a position to reach the cancer "Iran".

Posted by Ken at October 5, 2004 11:45 AM

...the "Freedom Fries" incident was not conducted by private citizens - it was a measure passed by the House of Representatives.

It was both--many private restaurants did it spontaneously. And while the House resolution was dumb, it hardly constitutes waging "diplomatic war," at least not at the level of pressuring Turkey to prevent us from opening up a northern front, or blocking an (unneeded) resolution authorizing the removal of Saddam in the Security Council...

Posted by Rand Simberg at October 5, 2004 11:50 AM

i'm not one of these commenters who likes to see himself type. so i'll just say, well said. i think you're absolutely right.

(said dig was not directed on above long posts and is purely self depracating intro/disclaimer for my minimal response to author rightness).

>end blather.

Posted by jason at October 5, 2004 12:29 PM

When we attacked Afghanistan we had the help of Pakistan to press in on both sides of Afghanistan. Now that we control Afghanistan we take Iraq to contain two significant borders around Iran.

Good plan. Too bad we don't control those countries or their borders, nor does it look like we will anytime soon, if current trends continue. Are you forgetting that the president admitted in the debate that terrorists are pouring into Iraq? How are they getting there if not through largely unprotected borders?

Posted by Ben at October 5, 2004 01:12 PM

In response to the post, Kerry supported military operations in Afghanistan and Kosovo. If you look back to comments by Bush Sr. and (yes even) Cheney back in the early 90s, their view of what would happen had we chosen to depose Saddam are playing out right now. Perhaps it wouldn't be this way under a more competent Commander in Chief, but Bush has severely bungled operations in Iraq. Flip-flopped in the middle of the Fallujah seige. Ignored the advise of generals on the ground.

Posted by Ben at October 5, 2004 01:38 PM

Oh, and there are plenty of problems with the Missle Defense System, foremost being that it doesn't work and isn't being adequately tested.

Posted by Ben at October 5, 2004 01:43 PM

On the Missile Defense System (not sure why that link is broken...)
http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?DocumentID=2484

Posted by Ben at October 5, 2004 01:44 PM

"Not controlling the border" is different than "Under intense fire for being near the border inside a hostile country."

In 1990 (and 92 and 94 and 98 that I distinctly recall) it was judged that the problems outweighed the benefits. Not that there _were_ no benefits, or that we couldn't deal with the problems if we decided to.

No one but the press accused anyone of saying there wouldn't be problems in 2003. Pretty much exactly what we're seeing in fact - according to primary source material. Unless you buy the 'native popular insurgency' line.

Posted by Al at October 5, 2004 03:29 PM

Dunc,

(1) There's no such thing as "non-proliferating power reactor technology." If you split U, you can't avoid making some P along the way - period. Once those "non-proliferating" reactors were in and the relevant additional engineering art for P bombs was in hand, NK would have done just what they did at Yong Byon - kicked out the overseers and shut down the cameras. "Non-proliferation" is not a technology, it's a system - one that, in NK's case, requires long-term compliance with intrusive measures administered by foreigners. On what basis is one to believe NK would put up with such for a second longer than it felt necessary to get what it really wants - i.e., electrical capacity and a second source of P?

(2) The scenario I laid out is based on an assumption of complete self-interest and duplicity on the part of NK and the objectively known difficulties of the relevant engineering. I pay no attention to alleged American intelligence estimates about what NK supposedly has or what it's made out of because these opinions are the product of the same dysfunctional agency that got it wrong about WMD's in Iraq, missed the A.Q. Khan network entirely and is now engaged in an orgy of disinformation leaks vainly aimed at accomplishing the impossible job of retroactively covering its pretty pink ass. Or do you have some other sources I should know about?

(3) The key issue for NK is that the rest of the world should get out of its way and let it conquer and enslave SK. Diplomatic recognition? Please.

(4) Kerry hasn't ruled out military action against the U.K., Italy, Australia and Poland either, but I deal in probabilities. On the basis of Kerry's campaign-long policy of sneering at actual current allies and sucking up to nations that are objectively our enemies, I figure there's a greater likelihood of seeing Kerry's occupation troops in Rome or Warsaw than in Tehran or Pyongyang.

Bill,

The troop levels employed were the practical maximum we could both deploy initially and keep in the field for an extended period. Doing so has stretched our reserves and NG manpower, but not to the breaking point - as much as anti-war types wish it were so. This is the best refutation I know of the "didn't plan for the aftermath/rosy assumptions" argument so beloved of Kerry-ites. If Bush, Rumsfeld, Franks, et. al., had really figured our post-Saddam paths would be strewn with roses, we would have sent the whole damn Army and Marine Corps in, secure in the knowledge that most of them could come right back home. If we had sent in double the initial troop numbers, then had to pull most of them out immediately, what effect do you imagine that would have had on Iraqi, "World" and "insurgent" perceptions?

War is always a come-as-you-are affair. It's too bad that half of the NATO "allies" turned out to be allied with Iraq instead of with us, but that's life in the big city. You takes your lumps and you moves on. I shudder to imagine what today's nitwit lefty press corps and Democratic Party would have had to say about Guadalcanal had they been around in '42.

The post-war looting thing wasn't a matter of numbers, but of restrictive rules of engagement. A "shoot on sight" rule would have damped down the looting very quickly even with fewer boots on the ground, but we Americans tend to err on the side of mercy. I can so imagine the support we'd have gotten from the anti-war left if we'd cut loose. Same goes for the "insurgents." If we'd gotten "Carthaginian" on Falloujah's and Najaf's asses right away, we might be rid of one problem by now, but we'd have traded them for others we'd like a lot less.

The border security thing is a matter of priorities. Even with Shinseki-approved levels of troop deployment, sealing the entirety of Iraq's borders wasn't in the cards. As is, we're doing a decent job of securing the Jordanian border and the Kurds aren't making it easy to sneak in over their piece of the Iranian border either. Personally, I don't think things would be better if it somehow became easier for armed jihadis to sneak into the U.S. than into Iraq.

Posted by Dick Eagleson at October 6, 2004 06:21 AM

Post a comment