A post by my weblog partner at http://www.needlenose.com notes the following (this is just a summary of his post & my comments on it): -- Reagan is credited with a strategy of spending tremendous amounts of money on the U.S. defense, forcing the Soviets to play a game of military-industrial keep-up-with-the-Joneses, which bankrupted their economy. -- Whether that analysis is accurate or not, the September 11th attacks have forced us into a similar bind. GW Bush & the "neoconservatives" in his administration suddenly realized that all sorts of small nations developing nuclear and other weapons were potential terrorist suppliers. -- In line with the longtime neocon dreams of pax Americana we've embarked on a doctrine of retroactive nonproliferation -- removing by force any non-client government capable of developing nukes, chemical weapons, etc. First Iraq, then Iran, North Korea, Pakistan ... and who else? Brazil? South Africa? France?? It's going to be a long list -- and an expensive one. Can we afford to conquer the world?
I thought the world was already ours, and they're just making steps so that it would be that way for a long long time.
Retroactive nonproliferation is somewhat of a misnomer. Iraq, Iran, and North Korea have not yet proliferated. South Africa, Taiwan, Japan, S Korea, Brazil, Argentina et al do not have active nuclear programs. No one, in the administration or elsewhere, has ever talked about going into Pakistan to try and forceably remove their nuclear capability. I just as soon nuke France as invade to get rid of their nuclear program.
This is the point. It also happens to be the question that many people brush off without answering, choosing to jump right back into an inane take on conquering the world. It has become my belief that many people will not believe the dangers posed by rogue states until a nuke detonates in New York or LA. In that case, I hope they are never persuaded.
After big fires that chew up a lot of homes, inevitably the local university will commence a sociological study that ends up showing residents had no idea this could happen, and in fact, could only imagine a disaster on the order of the worst one they had experienced or a close relative had experienced. In other words, lots of denial going on out there. However, once you identify the problem and gin up the will to deal with it, the question becomes, "How does one deal with it?" This is where honest people will have honest differences and the extremes will try to move the argument to their side with emotional language and appeals.
One small problem -- the war in Iraq, and the way we've pursued it, actually increases the chance of an eventual nuclear terrorist attack. Which is my essential problem with the war. First of all, Iraq, has NO nuclear program whatsoever, to the best of anyone's knowledge. Every scrap of "evidence" the U.S. has claimed in that regard has turned out to be bogus. OK, but let's assume that the hypothetical possibility of some invisible underground nuclear program is worth going to war and killing thousands of people. Well, while the Bush administration is doing that, they're perversely encouraging North Korea to follow through on its threats to develop weapons-grade plutonium that it could sell to terrorists. (By the way, the administration's publicly stated position on North Korea having nuclear weapons itself -- believe it or not -- is that they don't care.) Oh, and while no one was paying attention, Iran was speeding up its nuclear program, too. And of course, there's the rather obvious problem that American troops, tanks, and missiles on Arab territory just give radical Islamic terrorists a perfect recruiting tool. Missing the real problem nations + motivating more potential terrorists = a greater chance of a major terrorist attack in the future. And while I'm glad to see Saddam being ousted, I don't think it's worth seeing New York or Washington, D.C. blown up.
A better response might be: such concerns took place when USSR and China proliferated decades ago. Needless to say Commies were more of enemies than the so called "rogue states", and such proliferation was thought to be much more serious in quantity and destruction power than that in current "rogue states". Thank God, the USA didn't take the current course and rush to war against USSR and China in attempt to prevent proliferation, and time proved that such paranoia was in vain. Now if Mr.Bush was the president 40 years ago, we'd probably be typing in Heaven or Hell now, depending on our moral standards. If USSR and China were small and weak countries, maybe the US would choose to wipe them out in the first place, but the moral is, things have its own way to work out and paranoia can lead to needless self destruction. The way to prevent the rogue states is simple. Buy them. Give them money, establish a good relationship with their leaders, make such small countries economically dependant on USA, and at the same time try to facilitate changes in its political atmosphere to sway them in US way. Tell them that they are responsible for stopping terrorism spreading and threat to cut off the biblical cords in the evidance of any such connection. That's easy to be done with 75 billion dollars, instead of getting solders and civilans on both sides killed, making such rogue states hate you more. If they are really "Rogue states" that means they can be bought.
To assert that viewing the USSR as an enemy was 'paranoia' is absolutely ridiculous. One of the main stated goals (stated by the USSR itself) was to export marxist revolution and bring down the West. Ever heard of the 'Iron Curtain,' the Berlin Wall? You know, where they SHOT men, women, and children trying to escape to the West. To see every claim of threat as 'paranoia' is not just oversimplification but complete delusion. As far as intervention in the USSR or the PRC before they proliferated, we will never know. But in the absence of nuclear weapons on their part, I don't think I would be dead (since by definitions such an intervention would have happened BEFORE the threat of global thermonuclear war had emerged). And even IF you were correct, this 'paranoia' didn't lead to 'self destruction,' did it? In fact, there is no longer a USSR, and the PRC has shifted radically toward the West in comparison. I'm afraid your conclusions are definitively incorrect. Interesting. Saddam has billions at his disposal. How exactly do you propose 'buying' him off? Kim Jr. is getting fat off imported luxuries while his people starve. How do you propose 'buying' him off? In both places, moves to open their economy and culture to the West are seen as serious threats to the regimes. WHY would they allow this? They simply wouldn't. While such a policy of 'constructive engagement' might work with dispersed leadership, like in the PRC, it DOES NOT work with a despot who has complete control and wants for nothing material. Their goals are not materially based, but rather are driven by their delusions of grandeur. They are what is called 'malignant narcissists,' and engagement only furthers their delusions that their opposition is weak willed. As to those who say this action increases the chance of NY getting nuked, I think you are basing that on some misconceptions. Each new state that proliferates greatly increases the risk of nuclear terrorism. The propensity of a terrorist organization simply increases with each new available source of material. And each new proliferator does NOT have the same safeguards, nor stability that the current nuclear club has. The less countries that have the bomb directly affects the probability of nuclear terrorism. Next you should realize that states that have a single ruler, one person in complete control, are much more likely to irrationally use nuclear weapons, either on us or someone else. Certainly we hear the tired old dog trotted out that the US is the only country to use them, but in the post Cold War world, ie now, nuclear weapons are exponentially more likely to be used by a rogue state with a leader like Saddam or Kim Jr. There is no credible argument that the US would FIRST STRIKE someone now. The domestic population would not support a leader that would do such a thing. In addition, a democratization of the Middle East severely REDUCES the risk of future terrorism in relation to the US. Removal of Saddam and subsequent Iraq for Iraqis will prove conclusively to the Islamic world that the US IS NOT trying to colonize the Middle East. This should reduce the misperceptions of American intentions within the Muslim world. Also, such a democratization can also spread to other regimes currently considered 'US puppets,' bringing those governments more legitimacy in the eyes of their people, and reducing the anti-americanism arising for this perception of 'American puppet governments.' Also, the removal of Saddam removes the necessity of US troops in Saudi Arabia. Which is....yes, c'mon, you can get it....THE MAIN reason Al Queda initially focused their operations on the US. Undeniable advantage to REDUCE terrorism with this operation. Finally, again I say 'can we afford to let rogue states proliferate?' I think not. The impact of such proliferation is simply too great to risk for some short term advantage. Sticking our heads in the sand and hoping that a world with MORE nuclear bombs in MORE despots hands would be a SAFER world is simply ludicrous.
You didn't give a 'historical fact' as an answer. And I didn't say anything about apples or oranges. There was quite a lot of conversation about preventing the USSR and the PRC from proliferating. In the end that was not the policy we pursued. That has nothing to do with the current situation, especially when one considers the differences between the USSR/PRC and Iraq/N Korea. However, in the end EVEN IF there was a parallel, your conclusions are WRONG, because HARDLINE policies are what brought about the end of the USSR and the turn of the PRC, not softline policies of 'buying them off.' Again, you are just misanalyzing our response to that situation, the results of our response, and the applicability to this situation. I have enumerated specific reasons why rogue state proliferation NOW is more dangerous in my last post. If you want to respond to those specifically, feel free. Otherwise stop asserting that you are correct while ignoring points countering that conclusion. Uh, how much do you think he can spend? It is ridiculous to assert that you could pay, or WOULD pay, Saddam to open his society, or that there is ANY indication he would do it. It is POSSIBLE that praying to the monkey moon god will stop all war on earth. That doesn't mean I'm actually going to spend my time doing it in the hopes that it works. There has to be some reasonable expectation of success to pursue a particular policy. Just promising to pay Saddam 100 billion dollars with no indication it would work is just silly. And it also set a terrible precedent. Any third world dictator would invade his neighbor if our policy was just to pay these people off to make them behave. Unfortunately the people have no power in Iraq or N Korea. They have no choice. If you believe Kim Jr or Saddam really care about their people you are devoid of any understanding of the current situation. This is silly. The sanctions that have been in place are predicated on the argument that we can use financial incentives/disincentives to affect change within these regimes. These efforts have failed spectacularly. Mainly because these leaders still get all their material needs and wants met, and because they don't give a damn about the needs of their peoples. So your main assumption is simply empirically false. You are delusional. 12 years of sanctions have failed. The dissatisfaction you presume is present in the domestic population is there but they are not strong enough to overthrow the respective regimes. You are just out of it. Other ways than war have been tried for quite awhile in both places, and the results are negligable. Saying 'war' was the first option is simply false. No one within either the proponents nor the opponents of this war claim Saddam has nukes now. So in the absence of any reason to believe that the risk is negligble. Of course, it 'possible,' but its possible an invisible martian is on his way now to eat your brain after reading your silly posts, but the risk of that is small. However, there is MUCH evidence that Saddam has pursued, and will continue to pursue nuclear weapons at the first opportunity. So there is a measurable risk of a proliferating Iraq in the future with this regime. Again you just ignore too much of my post to really make this worth my while, since I end up repeating a lot. Although there is a risk of Saddam using chem/biological weapons now, the impact of that is much less than if he were to acquire nukes, or if he were given free reign to distribute those chem/bio weapons. It is better to take care of it now. But basically I have laid out quite a few reasons there is a propensity to reduce terrorism through this operation. The first and most significant you completely ignore, and that is the removal of US troops from the Islamic holy land (Saudi Arabia). Removal of the most aggregious of our supposed offenses certainly should reduce the anti-americanism. Assuming that the new government in Iraq will be a puppet regime, or perceived that way, is pure speculation on your part, and hence not worth argument. Finally, you ignore the active genocide that Saddam is pursuing on his population. That should make intervention IMPERATIVE and give us a sense of urgency to act quickly. But as the UN felt no sense of urgency in Bosnia or Kosovo or Rwanda, they feel none here.
Panda, I think comparing the Soviet and the Communist China to the present "rogue states" is not fair. The former are not "terrorists." Terrorists are desperate people with very little political and diplomatic power. They perceive themselve to have no future and have no means other than terrorism to change that. In short, terrorists are people who have nothing to lose. The communist Soviet and China, on the other hand, had A LOT to lose. They were not suicide bombers. That is why they didn't use their nuclear weapons. The "rogue states" at presents are governed by terrorists or supporters of terrorists. They have no fear of any consequences of using WMD. In other words, if they possess these weapons, there is a very good chance they will use it. The same cannot be said about the former Soviet and Chinese states. I might be wrong, but I think Iraq is more dangerous than N. Korea because N. Korea is closer to the communist states in the past while Iraq is closer to the terrorists in the present.
I don't believe in the underlying concept of a rogue state. I think one needs to view all nations as rational actors which will do what they need to do for their own survival and self-enrichment. The idea of the rogue state is that it is so bent on our destruction that it is willing to forfeit its own future to see it done. Even if Hussein and Kim Jong Il are crazy (doubtful), stupid (doubtful) or evil (obvious), their countries won't submit to certain annihilation for the opportunity to stamp on our foot.
I would like to nominate this thread for the "Stupidest Thread Title Hall of Shame". Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Aww c'mon. If the thread title were "Was Osama Bin Laden inspired by Bill Clinton", you'd want it framed in gold!
Hardly. The truth is that Ronald Reagan's administration provided funds and training for Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. It's been well documented. Check it out. Can you handle the truth?
Not only can I handle the truth, but I agree with the decisions we made at that time. We were right to help the Afghans expel the Soviets. We gave them the opportunity to form a decent government, but they screwed it up. We were also correct to help Saddam fight the spread of radical fundamentalist Islam from Iran. All we can do is give people the opportunity to improve their lot in life. We have tried to do this many times over the last 100 years, and we have had successes and failures. People like you who use brilliant hindsight to point out our failures, while ignoring the realities of those situations, are not really be truthful. Using your logic, we should have let the Soviets have Afghanistan, which would have led to further Soviet aggression. Also, I guess the Middle East would be a better place if we allowed militant Islam to devour all Arab countries?
