TNR BLOGS

July 04, 2009 | 11:58 AM
July 04, 2009 | 11:32 AM
July 04, 2009 | 8:16 AM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM
June 29, 2009 | 9:09 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

July 03, 2009 | 10:13 PM
July 02, 2009 | 12:57 PM
July 01, 2009 | 7:02 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
11.03.2008
Hillary and Foreign Policy

Today the Clinton and Obama campaigns exchanged long and testy memos arguing about whether Hillary played any substantive foreign policy role in her husband's administration. The memos touch on Northern Ireland, Rwanda, China, and the flow of refugees from Kosovo. (Obama: She did nothing. Clinton: Yes I did!) But neither side mentions something more interesting and relevant than all those subjects: Her advocacy during the 1990s for the use of force abroad.

I spent some time on this general subject last spring, by way of a TNR story about the genesis Hillary's 2002 Iraq vote. But a key refresher point is this: Hillary is on the record as having supported military intervention in at least two key Clinton-era crises. One was the in the Balkan conflict of the early 1990s. From my piece:

Her memoir recounts hearing a speech by Elie Wiesel in April 1993 in which he invoked the Holocaust as he pleaded with the president to take action in the former Yugoslavia. "Sitting in the gray drizzle," Hillary writes, "I agreed with Elie's words, because I was convinced that the only way to stop the genocide in Bosnia was through selective air strikes against Serbian targets." This was more than two years before her husband finally brought himself to commence the bombing.

I suppose it's possible that Hillary never actually badgered Bill to intervene, but it would be odd if she harbored such grand thoughts in silence. More definitive, however, is this episode, also from my piece:

In March 1999, for instance, as Slobodan Milosevic's Serbian forces conducted a rising campaign of ethnic cleansing against Kosovar Albanians, her husband considered a series of airstrikes to stop the killing. His generals were nearly unanimous in opposition: Bombing wouldn't work, they said, and, in any case, military engagement wasn't worth the risk of American casualties. Russian opposition also guaranteed a lack of U.N. sanction for the mission; any military action would have to be a NATO operation of debatable international legitimacy. Hillary didn't care. As she later explained to Talk magazine, while on a trip in North Africa she phoned her husband in Washington and pleaded with him to unleash the military. "I urged him to bomb," she said. "You cannot let this go on at the end of a century that has seen the major holocaust of our time. What do we have NATO for if not to defend our way of life?"

Amid all this recent "red-phone" talk, the Clinton campaign has shown precious little interest in resurrecting these episodes. I guess that noting's Hillary past views on the use of force--and in the case of Kosovo, her possibly decisive support for bombing--is outweighed by the awkwardness in the post-Iraq era of talking about such matters

--Michael Crowley

Posted: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 12:13 PM with 52 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

marcellusw101 said:

Caption contest!

"So, you've come to see me about a fay-vuh. What is this fay-vuh you ask of me?"

March 11, 2008 1:02 PM

marcellusw101 said:

By the way, doesn't the fact that Bill waited at least two years before taking Hillary's advice to bomb demonstrate her lack of foreign policy influence?

March 11, 2008 1:05 PM

CharlesFosterKane said:

Obama needs to unleash his hawkish side, too -- remember the "bomb Pakistan" "gaffe" that caused McCain to attack from the left? More of that, please. And well, you're at it, take a stab at highlighting your community organizer history and go for some of Hillary's economically anxious voters.

March 11, 2008 1:07 PM

AKossnar said:

I think her involvement in foreign policy as first lady is well documented, though not the same as being president.  It is, however, scant as it may be, a hell of a lot more than Obama has to offer.  This is one instance in which Clinton is allowing herself to be drawn into an argument that Obama can't win.  Just point out that any level of experience beats his utter lack thereof.  If he argues that what she has isn't enough, what does that say about what he has?  Of course he's trying to point out that she's claiming experience that she doesn't deserve credit for...but no matter what he says, she'll still have more experience, and therefore deserve more credit, than he does.

March 11, 2008 1:07 PM

Rhubarbs said:

So Hillary is always in favor of bombing, except when Osama bin Laden might be the target in Pakistan.

Which is to say, as long as the American national interest is not at stake, Hillary is in favor of using military force. But if the American national interest is at stake, she calls those who favor using force "naive."

Not that Republicans would ever make this admittedly oversimplified but based-on-her-stated-positions case to voters or anything.

March 11, 2008 1:21 PM

Rhubarbs said:

AK, I understand what you're saying, but her White House foreign policy "experience" wasn't sufficient to persuade her either to read the intelligence reports on Iraq before voting for war or, apparently, to read the text of the war resolution itself before voting on it.

Has she demonstrated in any way during her time in the Senate that her "experience" has helped her make better judgments or conduct herself in a better way than someone without that "experience"? Can anyone point to anything Hillary has done since becoming a senator where a reasonable person would say, "Wow, someone without Hillary's experience could never have done that"? Just one example? If not, then her "experience" is only so much false resume padding.

March 11, 2008 1:29 PM

Wandreycer1 said:

"Alright class, everyone sit *down* before I send someone to detention."

If badgering your husband counts as foreign policy experience, count me in for Sec of State (bada bim).

March 11, 2008 1:37 PM

blackton said:

But didn't she take credit for it afterwards? After we had won? Let me just say, if it had gone wrong we would be hearing nothing about any advice she had given. If, in fact, she had said it just that way. Listen, I said the same thing back then myself and would have told Bill if I had the chance myself, but that doesn't mean I should be President, or that I would have had to shoulder any of the blame if things had gone wrong. That is the Presidents job, not the First Ladies.

So AKossner, since I advocated to my friends that we should do something about Bosmia and Kosovo, do I have Foreign policy experience too?

Nobody is qualified to be the President except the President because nobody but the President can make those kinds of decisions. Is Obama a very intelligent man? Would he be willing to take advice from people who have greater expertise and knowledge about other parts of the world? Has he shown that he is incapable of making good judgments?

Bill had the same level of FP that Obama does, and there is every indication that Obama fits the Bill mold exactly.

March 11, 2008 1:39 PM

EricWitte said:

I'm not so sure you're right about Hillary and Bosnia.  I recall that it was Hillary who foisted the book "Balkan Ghosts" onto Bill Clinton when he was pushing for the "lift and strike" plan (to lift the arms embargo against Bosnia and use air strikes against Bosnian Serb forces).   "Balkan Ghosts" was a well-written, factually challenged and analytically desolate book by Robert Kaplan (a travel writer who poses as a foreign policy expert) arguing that Bosnia was a tangle of "ancient ethnic hatreds".  After Bill read this, that was the end for "lift and strike".  He sent Warren Christopher to Europe to ask nicely if anyone would be interested in that policy, rather than really trying to persuade anyone.  Bob Dole and others on the Hill were livid.  Anyway, I don't buy Hillary's recollection of getting Bosnia right, and I don't think you should trust her book as a source on this.

March 11, 2008 1:40 PM

virginiacentrist said:

Mike -

If you were even half of the reporter that you claim you are, you'd reach out to Clinton's key foreign policy advisors and ask them to react to these controversies. I don't have Sinbad's number off hand, but I'm sure you can find it with some sleuthing.

Key Questions:

What does Sinbad think about fuel subsidies to North Korea in exchange for cooperation on the nuclear issue? Will the carrot work?

Where does Sinbad think we should concentrate our first withdrawal or troops in Iraq, and where should we leave our forces the longest?

tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/.../sinbad-speaks.php

March 11, 2008 1:41 PM

AaronBBrown said:

Experience?  I don't need no stinking experience.  I can just make shit up and the mainstream press will spin it as if it were common knowledge, that we were all aware of but had just somehow forgotten.  Hell CNN still doesn't know how to count pledged delegates or superdelegates.  If you believe the crap they been pushing since super Tuesday, Clinton will overtake any moment now.

Obama Memo: "No Support For Claim That Clinton Has Passed `Commander-In-Chief Test'"

tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/.../obama_camp_no_support_for_clai.php

[The Clinton campaign’s argument is nothing more than mere assertion, dramatized in a scary television commercial with a telephone ringing in the middle of the night. There is no support for or substance in the claim that Senator Clinton has passed “the Commander-in-Chief test.” That claim – as the TV ad – consists of nothing more than making the assertion, repeating it frequently to the voters and hoping that they will believe it.]

March 11, 2008 2:15 PM

teplukhin2you said:

A not very enlightened remark on a fellow Sister Suffragette, Wandrey. I'm surprised.

March 11, 2008 2:17 PM

virginiacentrist said:

Oh my god I spoke too soon:

sinbad goes on the record to mock Hillary!!!

blog.washingtonpost.com/.../sinbad_unloads_on_hillary_clin.html

March 11, 2008 2:30 PM

tomeg said:

Crowley:

"Amid all this recent "red-phone" talk, the Clinton campaign has shown precious little interest in resurrecting these episodes. I guess that noting's Hillary past views on the use of force--and in the case of Kosovo, her possibly decisive support for bombing--is outweighed by the awkwardness in the post-Iraq era of talking about such matters."

I am still unclear about Hillary's views that led to her vote in favor of authorization. Even though I disagreed  with her at the time (to put it mildly), I think voters would appreciate her candor in telling them (at least I would). There were moments in the debates when I could feel her exasperation with the issue, how she has to tiptoe around the subject of her Senate vote. I would be relieved if she could just blurt out "I did it and I'm glad!"

March 11, 2008 2:44 PM

lymon1 said:

So if they had found a proto-WMD program in Iraq, Bush would be vindicated, the war would be a success, and Obama would be worthless, even if the state of Iraq was the same?

March 11, 2008 2:52 PM

AaronBBrown said:

Sinbad Unloads on Hillary Clinton

blog.washingtonpost.com/.../sinbad_unloads_on_hillary_clin.html

[In an interview with the Sleuth Monday, he said the "scariest" part of the trip was wondering where he'd eat next. "I think the only 'red-phone' moment was: 'Do we eat here or at the next place.'"

Clinton, during a late December campaign appearance in Iowa, described a hair-raising corkscrew landing in war-torn Bosnia, a trip she took with her then-teenage daughter, Chelsea. "They said there might be sniper fire," Clinton said.

Threat of bullets? Sinbad doesn't remember that, either.

"I never felt that I was in a dangerous position. I never felt being in a sense of peril, or 'Oh, God, I hope I'm going to be OK when I get out of this helicopter or when I get out of his tank.'"

In her Iowa stump speech, Clinton also said, "We used to say in the White House that if a place is too dangerous, too small or too poor, send the First Lady."

Say what? As Sinbad put it: "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"]

March 11, 2008 3:02 PM

BHLnyc said:

With all due respect to Stephen Glass, Hillary is the real fabulist.

March 11, 2008 3:21 PM

ChanRobt said:

So, AKossnar, "...her involvement in foreign policy as first lady is well documented, though not the same as being president.  It is, however, scant as it may be, a hell of a lot more than Obama has to offer."

In other words, neither Democratic candidate for president has any credible foreign policy experience.  And, America ought to vote for a Democract why?

Every four years the Democratic Party shows itself to be both foolish and irresponsible in the candidates it puts forward.  

The most credible one was Gore.  Which is pretty scary in itself given his phony, self-enriching Global Warming campaign.

March 11, 2008 3:34 PM

ChanRobt said:

Akossnar, you write, "...This is one instance in which Clinton is allowing herself to be drawn into an argument that Obama can't win."

Well, he seems to be winning it, among Democrats anyway, with simple jujitsu.  Hillary says, "I have more experience."  Obama responds, "Your 'experience' led you to make the wrong decision on Iraq.  I, on the other hand, employed my intelligence and good judgement to make the right call on Iraq."

Now, I happen to think his call was 100% wrong.  But, if you're one of the many Democrats trying to stop the world and get off, you agree with him.  So, where does Hillary's experience, whether she made it up or not, get her?

March 11, 2008 3:39 PM

wildboy said:

Um, isn't Hillary basically the only source for the assertions that she wanted to aggressively intervene in the Balkans?  And isn't it rather politically expedient for her to take credit for two interventions that went pretty well for the US?  Until I see something on the record from Bill confirming their night-time conversations on this issue, call me skeptical.

March 11, 2008 4:12 PM

butchie b said:

Interesting point, Lymon.  One I've made a few times hereabouts and get routinely pilloried (not Hillaried) for:  Regardless of whether we had found or not found WMDs, we would still be where we are in Iraq - same deaths, same insurgency, same whining Dems wanting to cut and run.  As you note, the state of Iraq would be the same.

What that may say about Mr. Obama's future, I leave to you Dems.

BTW, glad to see BHO take her on over her "experience."  To paraphrase Bob Kerrey, she's a superb liar.  But a liar nonetheless.

March 11, 2008 4:26 PM

gregstolhand said:

lymon you assert that...

"So if they had found a proto-WMD program in Iraq, Bush would be vindicated, the war would be a success, and Obama would be worthless, even if the state of Iraq was the same?"

I happen to think this is closer to what would have happened had WMD's be found.  The war would still be the same but the context would have been dramatically different.  If WMD's had been found our actions would be seen as a justifiable defense of our national security and after a poor execution of the war.  This is much different than the multiple reasons given for the current mess.  If there were WMD's the cut and run attacks by conservatives on Democrats would be orders of magnitude greater and BHO's speech would be seen as a sign of weakness not of correct judgment.

Without the evidence the whole premise collapses to going to war over either poor intelligence or trying to enforce UN violations when the rest of the world disagrees and the current 100 year war we may be looking at.

March 11, 2008 4:56 PM

AlanSP said:

AKossnar,

There are two ways you can present the experience argument.  The first is to say that experience should count towards one's qualifications to be president, so to the extent that Clinton has more experience than Obama, she is to that degree more qualified (note that the size of the difference matters here).  This seems to be the argument that you're making and I think it's a legitimate one.

The other was to frame the experience argument is to say that there is some threshold level of experience that is a prerequisite for being Commander in Chief.  This is the argument that Hillary's campaign has been repeatedly making.  The problem with this is that given the fairly small difference in their actual experience, it is silly and transparently self-serving for the Clinton campaign to suggest that the threshold happens to lie somewhere between Clinton's small amount of experience and Obama's even smaller amount of experience.  If some sort of threshold does exist, they are probably on the same side of it.  Either both are qualified or neither is.  Personally, I think the idea of some experience line that you have to cross to be president is the wrong way to look at it.

March 11, 2008 5:07 PM

lymon1 said:

thanks butch.  greg, I agree with all but the end because you could argue that Saddam himself provided evidence by doing things like restricting access to his scientists (not letting them and their families travel abroad for questioning) -- is being risk-adverse that much less justifiiable under such circumstances?  Maybe it is -- the point I was trying to make is that the war was and is a lot more complex than the candidates and reporters make it sound today -- support for the war/opposition to the war in 2003 isn't trivial, but I don't find it the ultimate barometer of "judgment" that many Dems and Republicans feel it is.  And there are lots of "3 AM" scenarios that could be presented to the candidates that they should answer and not be allowed to duck with a "I won't speak of hypotheticals" response -- indeed, we want a President who has "game planned" those scenarios before the phone call comes.  But the media seems more interested in analyzing the effectiveness of the ad than the substance of what the ad raises.  

March 11, 2008 5:29 PM

ironyroad said:

butchie b writes:  "One [point] I've made a few times hereabouts and get routinely pilloried (not Hillaried) for:  Regardless of whether we had found or not found WMDs, we would still be where we are in Iraq - same deaths, same insurgency, same whining Dems wanting to cut and run."

For some things, one is rightly pilloried.  No matter where on stands on the issue of the war and its many ramifications, it would most definitely not be the same situation here, whatever about in Iraq, if there had been WMD.

It would not be the same here because the war would have produced its posited justification -- which would have satisfied a lot of people both in the U.S. and abroad.  It would have led to a different election campaign in 2004, and potentially even to a very different election in 2006, depending on whether the WMD justification would have outweighed the grotesque disasters of the occuation and its aftermath (most of which would have presumably happened anyway).

The upshot of your comment is of course that it didn't matter whether there were any WMDs in Iraq or not, as if *reasons* to commit U.S. military power to an uncertain mission are just some fluff you dream up for the dumbass joe public.

March 11, 2008 5:37 PM

tomeg said:

lymon,

I won't speak for butchie, but I think his point was simply that we're there today and nothing that happened 5-6 years one way or other can change that.

Congress voted to authorize W. to invade Iraq was 1) Because they were told that intelligence had verified that S. had WMDs at the time and was ready, or near ready to use them- presentation of a key portion of that "evidence" convinced Congress to vote to authorize 2) the time had passed the point the U.N. (hah...the U.N., guarantor of peace, revered by conservatives around the world) had given Saddam to comply.

Only #2 was true. Perhaps there was sufficient justification lacking #1, perhaps not, but it was both that convinced Congress to authorize.

Bush probably would have invaded even if Congress had not given its o.k. in advance, so you're right the point is probably moot. But it might have changed the course of the occupation. A lot of things would be different today if Congress hadn't been hoodwinked. We just might not be where we are today. Possible?  

March 11, 2008 6:14 PM

tomeg said:

G-d, I hope Powell and tep don't read this thread.

March 11, 2008 6:19 PM

blackton said:

"The upshot of your comment is of course that it didn't matter whether there were any WMDs in Iraq or not, as if *reasons* to commit U.S. military power to an uncertain mission are just some fluff you dream up for the dumbass joe public."

As to me, I agree it didn't matter whether there were any WMD's. Saddam was a cancer in the Middle east, a cancer that would have been generational. I have said repeatedly that we won the war when we dug him out of his hole, we should have turned him over to the Iraqi Government (and not our pro consel Bremer, which was another huge blunder) and left post haste.

We won the war, Bush lost the peace because he never understood the peace was the concern of the Iraqis themselves. And be honest, nobody would have cared except for a few lefties if the Shia routed the Sunnis with Iranian weapons and they were relegated to the west of Iraq, and nobody would have cared about daily bombings either if no Americans were getting blown up. So lymon is essentially ass backwards. If we had left the war would be viewed as a success, Bush would have been vindicated, and a lot of what Obama is running on wouldn't be there. But so what? Counterfactual history is simply an amusing intellectual exercise and certainly nothing to base any serious arguments on.

March 11, 2008 6:25 PM

tomeg said:

blackton,

I believed at the time we invaded and I still believe that Cheney et al. intended that we should never leave under any circumstances. As we move beyond the end of Bush's tenure, we will hear more about this from the neocons own mouths, and pens.

March 11, 2008 6:40 PM

blackton said:

tomeg, good point. I honestly never believed the Bush administration could be as utterly incompetent with the greatest military machine in the history of the world. The US and western Europe won in Serbia without ever setting foot in that country. Granted I know that would have been impossible in Iraq but our out was in so much earlier. Perhaps I should rephrase my statement, I would normally support removing Saddam, not with this cast of characters.

March 11, 2008 6:58 PM

ChanRobt said:

Guys, we got sidetracked on the very good and very interesting subject of what if on WMDs.

But, we haven't much discussed the more salient point.  This is a case of the two surviving Democratic candidates being lacking and lacking and lacking more.

Neither of them is really qualified.  One of them is charming and eloquent.  The Democratic Party does not produce credible presidential candidates anymore.  The people you have who are credible, fall to the dolts:  Dean & Kerry.  Or, not dolts not nearly what we expect from a president:  Hillary & Barack.  

When will the Democrats truly recover from 1968?

March 11, 2008 8:51 PM

lymon1 said:

tomeg (with appologies to ChanRobt for staying off-point!), interestingly if you read the congressional war authorization, it's not that much about WMD's -- an outer space alien would think the war was about human rights, international law, and an assasination attempt on Bush I as much as WMD's.  Of course, WMD's were the focal point for the debate, but to be cynical, I think many in Congress, particularly Dems, were looking for an excuse to vote for authorization.  

ChanRobt: honestly, I think Kerry would have been a better president than his campaign indicated -- everything I heard about him said he was thoughtful and very intelligent in private.  He had as good a grip on the implications of emerging technologies as anyone.  But I hear you -- I really wanted Bill Richardson to run a better race than he did.  Biden ran a better race than I expected but dropped out before I could cast a protest vote for him.  I wasn't as taken with Dodd as others.  

March 11, 2008 9:43 PM

ironyroad said:

Honestly -- the Democratic line-up this time around was so superior to the Republicans that it was almost embarrassing.  "Let's ban thought!" could have summed up the conservative positions that came over at those debates.

March 11, 2008 10:46 PM

glacialspeed said:

Just for, er, the record, you don't go "on record" by putting something in your memoir after the fact about a thought you supposedly had years ago.  

March 11, 2008 11:50 PM

butchie b said:

Irony, you make my point.  Had we found WMDs, W would have cruised to victory.  But we'd STILL have nearly 4,000 dead, trillions spent, etc.  Yes, the domestic politics would have changed, but nothing on the ground in Iraq would have.

Blackie makes an interesting point about we should have left immediately after victory.  Maybe so, but that's not what we do - note our presence in Germany, Japan and Korea, unto this day and beyond.

March 12, 2008 3:07 PM

blackton said:

butchie, I have no problem with our staying but if we planned to stay, we should have at least planned for it. In fact, Bush didn't plan to stay, his own projections had our troop levels down very quickly, but he also wanted to control events there, any moron should realize you can't do both.

March 12, 2008 3:56 PM

ironyroad said:

butchie -- that wasn't your point.  You included "whining Democrats wanting to cut and run."  Without endorsing your terminology I'd like to point that that your siren-like Dems would be here in the U.S. -- remember, they are Americans too -- and not in Iraq.  Therefore the situation on the ground MIGHT be similiar in Iraq, but would NOT be here at home.

But my wider point was that statements to the effect that the factual truth of the WMD threat was irrelevant is tantamout to saying that nobody ever needs actual communicable reasons to go to war -- they just sort of do it (outside of a preemptive strike to neutralize a current threat of attack, of course).

I'd also make the point that the UNSC Resolution 1441, which the administration spend so much time aquiriing the almost unanimous support for, reserved for the Security Council the right to take armed measures in the case of Iraqi non-compliance with full ABC disarmament, and didn't hand that privilege over to the U.S.

Oh yes, looks like Admiral Fallon is the latest "whiner" to fall to the administration's increasingly deranged bunker mentality.

March 12, 2008 4:57 PM

ironyroad said:

Sorry, knuckle-rapping time:

"statements . . . ARE tantamount to . . ."

"which the administration spenT . . . "

I wish there was a proper text review option on the TNR site.  It's worse than it was a year or so ago, much less poster-friendly.

March 12, 2008 5:14 PM

ChanRobt said:

OK, guys.  Now that everybody here seems to agree that finding WMDs would have changed everything in terms of domestic politics and maybe even world opinion, how about this.

What if we find out for sure that Iran has WMD.  It's looking like that's just a matter of time.  Iran is a pretty rabid regime.  They have threatened to destroy Israel, and us, too.

Unlike Iraq, they have never in recent times invaded a neighbor.  But, they keep saying that as soon as they have the means to bring Israel and the US down, they're going to do it.

So, do we invade them when either they declare they have WMDs or the evidence is irrefutable?

March 13, 2008 2:48 AM

teplukhin2you said:

Who ordered the lasagna?

Oh, sorry, wrong table. Never mind.

March 13, 2008 2:38 PM

ironyroad said:

I have an even better question.  Who's going to do the invading, if you really mean invasion on the Iraq model, Chan?  With approximately 70% of the Army and Marine Corps either in Iraq (or Afghanistan), within a year of having been there, or preparing to deploy there within the next 12-15 months, there's not a lot of available capacity even allowing for post-surge drawdown.

March 13, 2008 2:46 PM

butchie b said:

We won't and shouldn't invade Iran, even with a full on force.  I know this because I can read a map.  We may, however, bomb their nuke facilities - I think that's a bad idea, but we could do it.  Better to practice containment plus - if Iran cooks one off, they die, and if someone else does, and we can't figure out where it came from, Iran dies anyway.  Concentrates the mind, no?

And irony, Fallon is an honorable man, but no flag officer can disagree publicly with the (any) administration in power and expect to keep his job.  That's not how the game is played.

March 13, 2008 4:33 PM

ChanRobt said:

butchie's got your answer, irony.  The Clinton strategy against the Serbs.  We've still got B-2 that aren't worn out or over-deployed.  Not to mention lots of robot planes (UAVs).  And bunker busting missiles.  etc.

Meanwhile, butchie, you brought up what I've been calling the NEO-MAD strategy.  That is, you let these guys know, that if we get hit by a nuke, even if we're not sure it's them, we'll just assume it is and hit them with a much larger barage of same.

Then it makes policing the freelancers their problem as well as ours.

March 13, 2008 8:12 PM

ironyroad said:

Chan/butchie, robot planes and B-2s aren't an "invasion."  You used the term, so I assumed you were being precise.  But ok, an air war without ground troops is certainly possible.  However there are some major issues to consider:

First, the problem with targets:

1.  The lack of a guarantee of hitting the nuclear facilities in such a way as to destroy their capability without mass destruction of civilian plant and lives.

2.  The lack of a guarantee of hitting the relevant facilities -- this depends on the accuracy of intelligence, which hasn't been gilt-edged of late.

Then, even if accuracy is guaranteed, the political problems generated by an attack:

3.  The potential for turning a broadly anti-regime population with nothing much against the U.S. at the moment into a population fired up by nationalist (not Islamist) resentment.  It bears thinking about that the idea of an Iranian bomb is supported in a general way by many Iranians who hate the regime.

4.  Iran isn't Serbia -- it's not the rump state of a disintegrating federal state that essentially eaten itself up after starting three ethnic wars in a volatile region, but has been around for thousands of years, neither is it likely to collapse like Iraq.

5.  The even deeper alienation of the U.S. from the rest of the world if it looks like Iran is years away from having a weapon and may not have proceeded to development anyhow.

And then, finally, the broader strategic problem:

6.  The lack of a rationale that can explain, without getting all hot and defensive, why Pakistan, Russia, and India (all neighbors) can have a nuclear capability but Iran isn't allowed to (this sends a message to a lot of countries -- get moving with that nuke thing, because if you don't, the U.S. will walk all over you -- get a bomb or two, and you get treated with circumspection if not respect.

7.  Finally, the lack of any global political leadership that could move the world in general beyond the desire to get a nuclear capability so as to face down your nuclear armed neighbors or get treated with respect by the superpowers.

Nevertheless, there are useful things that can be done.  An aggressive containment is certainly an option, but it should go along with trying to sort of the deeper problems in a mature way, and not the kiddy-corner posturing of the Bush administration.  One can engage with the Iranians, and also while doing so say that if the Iranians wish to have nuclear weapons, they will find themselves being held responsible for any use of an nuclear device (even a low level dirty bomb) by a non-state actor that might possibly have obtained it from them.  Deterrence can work but you've got to give people a way out -- offer them an alternative to mutual hostility.

I didn't mention Fallon, but I just presume there's a jihad on against the Irish (despite the fact that the president recently declared March to be Irish Heritage month).  It's Power, now Fallon -- who knows, maybe Mullen will be the next harp to go!

March 13, 2008 10:22 PM

ChanRobt said:

irony, to make this discussion fair, you're right.  I was asking about an actual invasion.

But, to skip over that issue for now, I don't think Iran is Suicide Nation.  But, I do think that the current regime, if they think that it could not be traced to them, would provide suicide squads with suitcase nukes if such weapons were in their grasp.

Therefore, if we have not the stomach or the ability to invade a nuclear Iran in its infancy, then a NEO-MAD doctrine is necessary.

Iran must understand that if we (the U.S. or Western allies) were ever nuked, and there was the least ambiguity about the source, we would assume Iran was the source and respond accordingly.

Stopping the distribution of nukes to independent bad actors must be made the responsibility even of our enemies.  And that's the only way I can think to do it.

Maybe you have more imagination.

March 14, 2008 9:54 AM

ChanRobt said:

irony, I don't know how you can lump Russia with Pakistan and India in regard to nukes.

Russia doesn't have just "a nuke or two".

India has never threatened to destroy the U.S. or an ally of ours.  Nor has Pakistan.

March 14, 2008 9:58 AM

ChanRobt said:

irony, I see that at the end of your post, you, too reference the strategy I've been calling NEO MADD.

I wrote several letters to NYT and WSJ back in '02-'03 on this.  And have posted some discussion here on it over the last few years.

But, I've yet to see any discussion of the concept in the MSM.  Have you?

No doubt, the idea has to have been examined seriously in DOD and think tanks since 9-11, and probably long before.  

And, in fact, I would very much expect that Iran has privately been told that something like NEO MAD would be our policy towards them in the event of any nuke, and maybe even serious biological attack on us.

Even without a standing or stated policy, if a cataclysmic attack was launched against any U.S. or European city, I think retribution against Iran would be the likely response, unless it were clear someone else had been behind it.

I've also thought that if the Chinese ever became our open enemies, that using surrogate Jihadists to attack us, if they could hide the links to themselves, would be a clever stratagem.  I would be surprised if the Pentagon has not gamed a China connection stratagem, too.

March 14, 2008 10:07 AM

butchie b said:

Irony, I don't disagree with anything you said.  Remember, I'm opposed to any invasion/bombing of Iran.  Not because I hold any brief for the Iranians, but because I think they are bound to get nukes, whether we like it or not.  

But we learned long ago how to deal with countries that have them and mean us harm.  We dinosaur Cold Warriors can help out.  Deterrence plus will work, and we still can sanction these bozos - their economy is bad and getting worse.

March 14, 2008 11:36 AM

ironyroad said:

Just to respond to a couple of things -- I've no problem with a robust containment policy but I'm getting kinda tired of everyone raising each other on the stakes in a card game where we're not so well placed as we should be.  What I'm looking for is a way to get out of a dangerous impasse (not just dangerous for us) that also shows the world that we are willing to engage and look for solutions but the Iranians aren't.

In particular, I think we need to understand that there are probably three main forces who are involved with matters nuclear in Iran:  the Revolutionary Guard; the non-RG but more conservative and anti-western parts of the regime; the nationalist technocrats.  The latter are the people without whom etc etc.  The are the cousins of the people who are (a) not Islamists and (b) who built Pakistan's nuclear capability.

My guess is, to the extent that group #3 buys in to the program, it's presumably a mix of motives:  prestige, career, scientific challenge, and a sense of national mission (for some, no doubt, religious too).  There is a great danger of us not understanding that it's not so hard to sell the program to Iranians as a national rather than an Islamist project.  Iran isn't Saudi, they don't have Wahabism, they aren't Arabs, and the sense of a 3,000 year history and being a major player in the development of civilization isn't mutually exclusive of being a citizen of an Islamic Republic.

So I'm not "lumping" in Iran with the other countries, and neither did I say that Russia only had a couple of nukes, which would be silly.  However, in the context of the proliferation problem, how does it get to be ok, for example, that the country that created the taliban who in turn gave room and board to Al Qaeda can apparently have the bomb without any demur from us, while Iran can't?  The answer seems to be that we have a deal with the military and the ruling elite in Pakistan, and so that's all squared away, no problems there  (FWIW, although it's unlikely ever to come to that, elements of Pakistani society and the ruling elite have trumpeted about using nukes against India to regain Kashmir -- I think Peretz has a recent post on this).

Again I emphasize -- treating the Iranians with a modicum of respect would be very good, and Bush lost an enormous chance, when Achmadinnerjacket sent that letter, to reply with a message that would have reached over the heads fo the regime to the Iranian people and showed them that the U.S. respects their history, their sovereignty, and their potential importance as a regional power while refusing to accept the regime's theory of the world.

So we need some sticks and carrots and we need to deploy them correctly, which we haven't been doing.  The big prize for Iran is a strategic relationship with the U.S. and freedom from fear of attack.  However, before Iraq would have been a far better time to go for broke than now.  The Iranian leadership has seen misstep after mishap in Iraq (and has added to them), it's seen the length of our learning curve, it's seen a blustering president who announces that the job is done just before an unending insurgency breaks out that's still going on five years later.  Also, the Iranians have sat back and watched the Europeans fumble because the Europeans can't offer the one thing that makes it worth negotiating -- recognition by the United States.

And finally, we do have some time.  But using it constructively is important and merely upping the military stakes to rattle the Iranians (while rattling everyone else including here at home) won't do it.

March 14, 2008 2:32 PM

mitchflorida said:

This is bad shit for Barack Obama.  We all need to STOP discussing this,  it only helps Hillary Clinton and the GOP. Time to move on.

March 16, 2008 8:39 AM

The Stump said:

Today Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson allowed that Hillary "misspoke" when she claimed to

March 24, 2008 4:28 PM

The Stump said:

Hitch does us a service by bringing the slapstick of Hillary's arrival in Tuzla back to something

April 1, 2008 1:28 PM