Nuclear North Korea – so what?
North Korea has just caught up with 1946 American technology – so what? If anything the whole thing seems to be a complete failure in American diplomacy, but then again with Bush running things does that really surprise anyone anymore?
Chairman Kim wants a nuke, he wants one so bad he’s stopped all research investment into his hair transplant program just to put more cash into his nuke program. Chairman Kim believes Bush wants to screw him and having a nuke is the best kind of American contraception money can buy (ask the President of Iran). The Sunshine policy that South Korea was running was having inroads into North Korea, the Sunshine policy effectively was the sort of thing an ex-girlfriend does who has just gotten back with her moody and unstable boyfriend, you know, “We’ll ignore he’s painted the lounge with blood again and sit down to a nice dinner”. It was working until Bush had his infamous ‘Axis of Evil’ brainfart (a brainfart no one in the State department speech writing team had any idea he was going to pop in public). Once Bush targeted North Korea as an Axe of Elvis, Chairman Kim dumped the Sunshine Policy and started his “Fuck you American GI” policy. Things went nuclear (hahahahaha) when at the 6 party Talks, North Korea had been playing along until America (in a move which stunned commentators) decided to punish North Korean co-operation by blocking a finance deal North Korea was trying to obtain. The move went down like a sack of shit and Chairman Kim decided the best defense was a bloody great nuke.
Throughout all of this we must also consider the other motivations America has had by painting North Korea as insane and dangerous. America has spent a trillion bucks on their missile defense system star wars wet dream program. Whenever anyone has asked “Um, why build this monstrosity of a missile defense system star wars wet dream program and couldn’t you spend a Trillion on – oh I don’t know, eradicating cancer or something”, the answer always comes back with “We need a Trillion dollar Missile Defense system star wars wet dream program to defend against NORTH KOREA”. Hmmm, great answer – North Korea has a missile called ‘Typ-o Dong’ which sounds more like a name for a penis than a genuine threat to Western Civilization, and one can’t help but wonder if the Americans have built North Korea up to be a threat to justify all those fat juicy public money Military contracts, and by ignoring North Korea and isolating them, have in fact contributed to making North Korea even more paranoid and dangerous than they were 6 years ago.
Bush is a gimp.
posted by Bomber @ 10:06 am
69 comments
69 Comments:
Why are the Americans complaining about NK's nuke? Big fucken deal! Its the Yanks who got submarines roaming the oceans packed full of nukes. Its the Yanks with thousands of nukes pointed at all parts of this planet. Fuck em.
Not the yanks who are test firing missiles over Japan tough is it?
The yanks test fired ON Japan, not over it.
The yanks done it twice.
In case you hadn't noticed anon, the situation in 1945 was just a little different...
bomber read the kaplan piece on north korea available via public address - david slack I think. good context although I doubt it would change your view.
what is interesting is how you write as though north korea has no responsibility for anything, it is all americas fault. childish really. and as for anon, there are about half a billion people living in free deomcracies thanks to the US. There are millions starving thanks to the Kim regime.
Wow the Sunshine Policy WAS really working a treat, the Clinton "negotiation first, second, third and fourth, then bury head in the sand" option also reaped real benefits. Damn you George Bush..DAMN YOU TO HELL..this is all your fault...if Al Gore was President and the Democrats held both houses North Korea would not have a nuclear weapons programme!
sagenz wrote 'it is all americas fault'- yes, you have summed up this whole site and Bomber's one and only argument.
...
Mike - get some new punchlines, you are becoming as tedious as your namesake
Anon - it was South Korea who was using the sunshine policy, not Clinton, Clinton was using appeasement
sagenz - I read publioc address, and am never impressed - please walk me through the following:
"Axis of Evil" comment by Bush and it's implications towards the Sunshine Policy, remember no one cleared those comments from Bush.
Why, after progress was being made in the 6 party talks, that America responded by stopping a finance deal, a move that infuriated North Korea.
The need to use North Korea as the reason to spend a trillion on the missile defense system star wars wet dream program.
I'm astounded that all you have is 'Bomber is always blaming Amerika and spelling it with a K blah blah' when it is so apparent that Bush has fucked this up.
Bomber I used the word "also" in my post, indicating I'm well aware who was doing what, and that the two policies were separate. You state the Sunshine policy was working, towards what ends exactly? North Korea was working on a nuclear programme when an appeasing government was in the White House, and is still working on one now with Bush's mob in power. A South Korean PR campaign brought on by fear ain't gonna change that fact. North Korea does not trust South Korea, as you know they are still at war "officially" in my opinion the reversal of this sort of reality would be far more tangible and indicative of a real shift in policy if / when it comes about.
As far as I can see there was no discernable change to North Korean policy despite this change of approach. They might have said there was, however as the Iranians have found out you can't just throw a bomb together overnight, so I find myself doubting the sincerity of past "concessions" in exchange for light water reactors etc.
actually it was nrt that had the link. worth a read http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/09/07/kaplan-on-when-n-korea-collapses/
The average weight and height of north Koreans is reportedly falling. think about that. It is the Kim family regime that has destroyed the Korean opportunity. Perfect contrast is south korea. Evil? Certainly
North Korea has exhibited a history of talking, making concessions, taking money and food aid and changing its iota, not at all. Sincerity might have had a bit to do with it. History has revealed the american position was right.
When you read Kaplan you understand that America is a weak player. The axis of evil is simply words. Kim and many through the middle east have said far worse about USA and Israel. Words are just not relevant.
As for the missile shield, despite the problems with Patriot in Gulf War I, it seems to work now.
The trillion spent on missile defence (i have no idea if it is that high) represents americas desire to defend itself. It was a wonderful bluff during the end of the cold war. Give it another few decades and it might well be a reality. In the meantime it is another source of America's technology lead that makes the world a far more stable place than it would otherwise be. And when you jump down my throat over that consider the half billion people brought to democracy. North or South Korea? West or East Germany. China or Taiwan? Kuwait or Iran.
Give USA some credit for its successes and have a think about bigger pictures.
Anon is correct. N Korea did not just start work on this nuclear device following the "Axis of Evil speech". It has been in the pipeline for some time. So the question is, whats changed?
China
I really think the chinese let them conduct the test. Kim went to Beijing a month or so back, he must have got the rubber stamp....
So the question is why?
Well China has a few problems - its banking sector is under pressure, it, in some respects, wants the US to back of on some of the demands currently on the table. So Beijing allows Kim to test a nuke - and then goes to Washington and says "ok, George, we got us a problem - we can solve this problem for you, but here is what we want in return"
The US has a problem - it cant really respond militarily unless it wants to see Seoul wiped out. N korea has been entrenching its positions for 50 years - it really has no options in that respect. China and Diplomacy is the only option, so from Beijings perspective, why not manipulate the situation
Cheers
Scott
grr
above was me this site drives me bonkers :O
...
Hmmm - still not convinced Sagenz - I think you are being very kind to Bush and his role in this - scott I'm fascinated by your ideas of China being involved, more please...
As for Bush - can I get peoples comments on the following BBC news story about Bush giving the North Koreans a green light on those reactors, this is from 2002....
US grants N Korea nuclear funds
The US Government has announced that it will release $95m to North Korea as part of an agreement to replace the Stalinist country's own nuclear programme, which the US suspected was being misused.
Under the 1994 Agreed Framework an international consortium is building two proliferation-proof nuclear reactors and providing fuel oil for North Korea while the reactors are being built.
In releasing the funding, President George W Bush waived the Framework's requirement that North Korea allow inspectors to ensure it has not hidden away any weapons-grade plutonium from the original reactors.
President Bush argued that the decision was "vital to the national security interests of the United States".
Alright so where is this all going?
Will a military responce is not on the table, because South Korea and Japan would be hit in responce as as a consquence, the US cant risk it. N Korea has about 10,000 artilary pieces pointed at S Korea - they could try air strikes, but the N Koreans have far more weaponry than Hezbollah, and air strikes did little to deter them.
If their army moved into S Korea, the US could do little until, at the very least, N Korea had overrun Seoul. The US being bogged down in Iraq and Afghnaistan doesnt help things either.
So the US can do shit all about this, in a unilateral military context.
So we move to China. The emerging superpower. Yes they have made the expected diplomatic noises, but thats all surface stuff. Underneath, I think they are smiling.
In early September Kim went to Beijing. I dont think they discussed the weather.
What does China want?
1) To expose US weakness vis a vis their ability to impose thier will on the world. N Korea pulling the finger at the US does show the limitations of US power, and if the Chinese seem to have more influence in the region than what the US does then their power increases
2) China has its own problems. Banks insolvent, loan issues etc etc - problems that the US arent helping at the moment. If N Korea acts - as it has done with its test, the first place the US rushes is Beijing. Beijing can be very helpful - but often in politics, helpfulness comes at a price. If China can get the US to back off, to get some of the reforms being pushed through by Senator Schumer for instance canned, then N Korea can be used as a pawn by China in their complex relationship with the US.
This is very complicated game, far more than what it appears on the surface, with many actors with competing agendas.
Scott
Interesting analysis scott.
I don’t know enough about China to comment but they are a major world power.
However I believe China already has a lot more (economic) power than you give them. They’d hardly need N Korea to help them achieve their goals.
You are right, it is a complicated situation, but hardly a game. Proliferation of nukes is incredibly serious. I think the anti-US sentiment comes from the knowledge that the US government is the chief aggressor on the world stage.
I suppose the point is that if they were really interested in peace, they would not be antagonising; Iran and N Korea, both of whom have offered some form of dialogue regarding nuclear power. They would also more genuinely work towards nuclear disarmament, starting with themselves as a show of good faith.
Contrary to Bush’s ignorance, Islam does not hate the US freedom. Most people love the US freedom, except a few radical extremists, but they exist in all countries and all religions. Thing is te US policy is increasing the number of extremists. That has to change.
sagenz, the US government is not entirely empty of good. They have done some good things (exporting democracy etc..). But this has to been seen in context. The US supports democracy if the elected are compatible with US interests. The US supports dictators if the dictator is compatible with US interests.
This double standard is not going unnoticed and is radicalising people.
bomber - thats called appeasement. It did not work. Bush is not stupid. he learned the lesson. You are arguing the opposite in your post to this comment. First he should play nice and pay up, now you are saying why did he pay up???
Scott - your military analysis is sound. China is not weak. It is getting relatively stronger every day as it is owed more money by america and its growth rate outstrips the rest of the world.
as for its banks being insolvent, in net terms the USA owes china an enormous amount of money, so your logic does not really stack up at a macro level. certainly there are problems at a micro level, as with every developing country.
I would agree that china is making the running. It is using a great opportunity to exert power and make the US realise its limitations in the region. Imagine your average nationalist Japanese or South Korean politician right now. America's rhetoric is aimed at reassuring them rather than point scoring with the North Koreans. An East Asia nuclear arms race? It does not bear thinking about/
Bomber,
The Sunshine policy was bought in by former SOUTH KOREAN presdient Kim Dae Jung. One of the finance deals North Korea was trying to push was access to bank accounts that were closed in Macau due to money laundering.
Sage,
I think the only good party of this action has been to bring the rest of North Asia on to the same page in terms of dealing with North Korea. The South in China have cut the North way too much slack and are now reaping the benefits of it.
Karlos
"but hardly a game"
I meant in the context of "game theory" as opposed to something children do
Will reply to more later
Scott
...
I really wonder how much of a threat this really is though? The latest opinions suggest that the detonation was a cock up, which follows their missile test cock up…
PARIS, France (AP) -- Was North Korea's nuclear device a partial dud?
That is one of several theories that Western experts say might explain the apparent low explosive force of the communist nation's first declared nuclear test.
Other suppositions are that North Korea deliberately chose a small device to save its limited stocks of bomb-making plutonium or that it somehow muffled the shockwaves from the underground blast to make it appear smaller than it was.
Even if North Korea got helpful pointers from nuclear-capable Pakistan, as many experts suspect, the technology of efficiently splitting atoms to make a controlled explosion is still tricky for novices to master. For North Korean scientists, working largely in isolation, that could be especially true.
"The devil is in the details," said French nuclear proliferation expert Bruno Tertrais. "It's like cooking. The fact that you have the recipe does not make you a chef."
One explanation could that the device -- if nuclear -- fizzled rather than truly banged, with the plutonium only partially detonating, he said. Or, the device's timing may have been slightly off, creating a weaker chain reaction with less explosive force than planned.
But because of the intense secrecy that shrouds North Korea, it may never be known exactly how large an explosion it was hoping for and, therefore, whether the test was successful, as it claimed.
"I think they got a partial result," said Philip Coyle, a U.S. former assistant secretary of defense and now a senior adviser to the Center for Defense Information, a think tank in Washington, D.C.
Lol...point for this consumer, buy 'made in China' not 'made in North Korea' ;)
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2006/01/28/2003290999
Another case of 'less bang' for your buck...
I would erge people interested in the Chinese economy to read the piece at
http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/read_article.php?id=267900&selected=Stratfor+Weekly
Put simply, there is evidence that Chinas growth, and the sustainability of it, may not be as solid as is believed
Bomber
YOu are correct. I have read reports suggesting that the intended yield of the detonation was 4 KT and the most they got was 1 KT.
So N Korea did achieve a nuclear explosion. They got fission. But remember there is a huge difference between being able to achieve a nuclear explosion with a device, underground, and not limited in size and being able to convert this into a weapon that is small enough to be deployed.
If their target is the west coast then they would also need to develop some ICBMs, and the ability to mount a nuclear weapon on it - which can withstand the g forces etc of travel. Put simply, North Korea isnt even close
- their short range missles arent very good, let alone long range.
So there are three stages
1) Achieve a nuclear explosion.
2) Use this technology to create a deployable weapon
3) Develop the delivery device.
North Korea has achieved (with limited sucess) the first stage only.
Scott
peter0462,
You're a good little fascist aren't you?
if in doubt, take him out
smd,
Isn't stratfor the same community that confirmed the existence of Iraq's (non-existent) weapons of mass destruction?
I haven't read the article you linked to, but I'd treat items from the US intelligence community with caution.
"smd,
Isn't stratfor the same community that confirmed the existence of Iraq's (non-existent) weapons of mass destruction?
I haven't read the article you linked to, but I'd treat items from the US intelligence community with caution. "
Could well be, but I still listen to what they have to say - but i think its more important to argue ideas than sources
Peter:
how do you take them out, seriously? I think they would if they could...
S.
btw - Stratfor predicted a test about 2 months ago....
Fair point about ideas vs sources, but sources are fairly crucial when it comes to information.
I hate the idea of more nukes on earth, but the reality is, many nations have them and want more of them. The US and Russia have the largest arsenals. It is their responsibility to ensure that their weapons do not antagonise others in the world. It is their responsibility to ensure that those feeling threatened by their weapons are set at ease. If that involves giving up your nukes, then goddamit let go!!
Idealism, I know.
Alot of people condem nations when they 'join the club', but that is the message that is being sent to the world "get nukes as fast as you can". No one talks about disarmament. No one talks about the nuclear states taking steps to reverse the proliferation. We don't see the nuclear states acting in the interests of peace. Rather, we see them acting like bullies to weaker nations, forcing them to scramble to build a bomb to deter aggression.
All this results in further tension and aggression.
"how do you take them out, seriously? I think they would if they could..."
Are you suggesting another war? More aggression? More bombs? surely not.
How about returning to negociations? Kim has stated several times that he is willing to return to talks. As has Ahmadinejad.
"Are you suggesting another war? More aggression? More bombs? surely not."
No I am not. But my reasons for not suggesting war are not moral, but rather logistical. I was asking the question of Peter, who advocated a military responce - which I think are limited for the reasons I have mentioned before - namely 1) the overcommittment of US troops currently 2) the size of N Koreas army and 3) the closeness of Seoul.
S
Easiest way to conduct an invasion would surely be to let China deal with it, and hopefully they have the will to do so. If, as has been widely reported the bulk of NK forces are deployed along the southern border, an invasion from the Chinese border to the North would probably be more effective than anything in the south...
North Korea has effectively been a client state of China since its formation, with the US tied up elsewhere, with luck China can provide the solution.
Oh for sure, but a military option doesnt serve China's interest, so I really dont see that option being on the table.
True...at the moment, it will be interesting to see how things pan out over the next little while. Btw it would seem that China needn't necessarily invade, they could probably accomplish destabilisation and/or regime change simply by sealing the northern border if they really wanted to. How to control things from there is probably more pressing than simply rushing in at the moment.
Yeah but do China want regime change? To quote yesterdays Power Interest News Report
"China's interest in maintaining the status quo on the Korean peninsula falls on the concern that a collapse of the government in Pyongyang would have serious negative ramifications for China. While Kim Jong-il's regime is undesirable, it is a state of affairs that China has come to accept and rely on. A collapse of Kim's government would unleash a series of variables for China.
For one, the fall of Pyongyang could result in South Korea usurping the North. The United States maintains a military presence in the South, and the unification of the two countries on South Korea's terms could result in the extension of U.S. influence up to the Yalu River on China's southern border. For China, this development would remove the North Korean "buffer zone" that exists between itself and the U.S.-friendly South Korea.
Secondly, a collapse of Kim's regime could unleash a wave of refugees into China, which would tax Beijing's resources. In addition to the refugees, Beijing would have to participate in alleviating the major humanitarian and economic disaster that would come with the fall of Kim's government. China would need to spend economic resources rebuilding North Korea -- a necessary initiative in order to secure its influence in the new state. It can also be assumed that this collapse would result in a reduction of China-South Korea trade since Seoul would reallocate its spending to concentrate more heavily on North Korean development initiatives"
Scott
Peter,
I agree with most of your points. I certainly don’t want N Korea to be in a position to threaten 1 billion people. Yes, they are a rogue state by some definitions, but the US and Israel are rogue states b some definitions too.
My position is that nuclear proliferation can be reversed, but it takes the so-called ‘non-rogue’ states to ensure that happens. Starting with themselves. I’m not saying they should endanger themselves, but rater act in the interest of the greater good.
“No I do not WANT a war - but sometimes action needs to be taken to preserve the greater good.”
I don’t agree with this. Bombs beget bombs. War begets war.
By all means I understand self-defence.
Does anyone else wonder why, with all their sophistication, the US military cannot take-out a single man? ie. without wide scale bombing and destruction?
For those interested, check out this interview with Paul Buchanan.
http://95bfm.com/assets/sm/32172/3/PaulBuchanan.mp3
Better yet, check out the opinion piece in Scoop dated October 12, 2006. The one-eyed troll may bitch and moan but objective readers may see some merit to the piece.
For the benefit of the troll and other lazy arses: link at www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL610/SOO163.htm
Here is the disinformation contained in Mr Buchanan’s article.
“Iran and North Korea’s pursuit of nuclear weapons “
“confirmed in the minds of the North Koreans and Iranians the urgency of acquiring a nuclear deterrent.”
“North Korea might share its nuclear weapons technology with others, it should be recalled that although a weapons supplier to other states (including Iran”
“North Korea has enough foreign allies,...... Iran is one of them,”
“efforts to curb nuclear proliferation in North Korea (and most likely Iran)”
How does this “intelligence expert” explain these statements in the light of:
No Proof Found of Iran Arms Program
Uranium Traced to Pakistani Equipment
By Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, August 23, 2005; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/22/AR2005082201447.html
Expounding on Iran's strategy on nuclear weapons, the Leader stressed that the Islamic Republic is not seeking to produce, stockpile or use nuclear weapons.
http://www.khamenei.ir/EN/News/detail.jsp?id=20041105A
No Evidence Of Iran Nuclear Weapons Program Says Russian Spy Chief
Moscow (AFP) Dec 19, 2005
Russia's Foreign Intelligence Service is unaware of any attempt by Iran to develop nuclear weapons, the head of the service was quoted by the Interfax news agency as saying Monday.
http://www.spacewar.com/news/iran-05zzzzzzzs.html
TEHRAN, Iran — President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has ordered authorities to open the doors of Iran's nuclear facilities to foreign tourists in order to prove that the country's disputed nuclear program has been peaceful, state-run television reported on Wednesday.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,217700,00.html
....Not to mention the Fatwah against the development and use of nukes declared by Khamenei and the IAEC’s statements denying any such programme.
Given Israel’s and the Neo-con’s determination to attack Iran, there is only one conclusion that can be drawn from Buchanan’s continued beating of this drum.
Good to see Scott back on the boards with his faith in Stratfor undiminished despite Friedman’s
“U.S. government is not giving these people (weapons inspectors) intelligence because if we did, the Iraqis would have the opportunity to move their weapons of mass destruction, and we want to take them out in the first day of combat,"
..and other such prescient remarks.
Sad to see the contamination of the BBC.
http://www.jkcook.net/Articles2/0286.htm#Top
Intersting that Buchanan sings the praises of Dr. Albert Wohlstetter.
Dr. Albert Wohlstetter's name has been linked with those of a number of neoconservatives affiliated with the Bush administration and the Department of Defense, the University of Chicago, as well as appearing to share other common threads with Paul Dundes Wolfowitz, Richard N. Perle, Donald Rumsfeld, Ahmed Chalabi, William Kristol, and Irving Kristol .
• According to the article Neo-Conservative Ascendancy in the George W. Bush Administration (http://www.philosophynotes.com/neocon_ascendancy5.html), Joan Wohlstetter introduced her classmate Richard N. Perle to her father, Albert Wohlstetter. Wohlstetter, in turn, "helped Perle and Paul Dundes Wolfowitz get their start in Washington. ... According to Perle, he and Wolfowitz were introduced to each other by Wolfstetter when he thought they could work together in 1969 on the debate taking shape in the Senate over the ballistic missile defense." (Note: Article cites "Alfred Wohlstetter".)
• In 1972, Wolfowitz attained his doctoral degree from the University of Chicago, where "he is cared for by professor Albert Wohlstetter, [who, later during] the Gulf War [has] still another large role will play."[1] (http://tools.search.yahoo.com/language/translation/translatedPage.php?tt=url&text=http%3a//mitglied.lycos.de/LotharKrist6/leader/usa/11b_wolfowitz.htm&lp=de_en)/original German (http://mitglied.lycos.de/LotharKrist6/leader/usa/11b_wolfowitz.htm) (Note: Article cites "Alfred Wohlstetter".)
• Jim Lobe writes in his March 9, 2003 article Family ties connect US right, Zionists (http://www.dawn.com/2003/03/09/int11.htm) that "Another key Irving Kristol disciple has been Richard Perle, the influential and ultra-hawkish chairman of Donald Rumsfeld's Defense Policy Board, whose main office is at American Enterprise Institute (AEI), where the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) and William Kristol are also based. His [Perle's] spouse is the daughter [Joan] of his teacher at the University of Chicago, another neo-con hero and strategic thinker who also favoured invading Iraq, the late Albert Wohlstetter, for whom the AEI conference centre is named. Wohlstetter also taught Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz." (Note: Article cites "Alfred Wohlstetter". Moreover, this article incorrectly identifies Richard Perle's spouse as Wohlstetter's daughter, Joan. The New York Times made similar error, which it corrected (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E0DE143BF931A15755C0A9659C8B63).)
• "Jewish and from a family of teachers, Wolfowitz is for his part a brilliant product of East Coast universities. He has studied with two of the most eminent professors of the 1960s. Allan Bloom, the discipline of the German-Jewish philosopher, Leo Strauss, and Albert Wohlstetter, professor of mathematics and a specialist in military strategy. These two names would end up counting. The neoconservatives have placed themselves under the tutelary shadow of the strategist and the philosopher." [2] (http://www.counterpunch.org/frachon06022003.html)
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Albert_Wohlstetter
Mmmmmmmmm. Didn't Buchanan get a degree from Chicago?
Lets see.
Brewer does his disguised post thing and cherry picks some more Buchanan quotes (this time really egregiously given that the full link is posted for all to see). Then he lets loose with a twice-removed guilt by assocaition anti-semetic rant: Buchanan is a bad guy because he apparently was a student of Wholstetter's, and Wohlstetter is bad guy because he is A JEW, because his daughter married Richard Perle (admittedly a poor choice in spouse), who is A JEW, and because he helped his graduate students Perle and Wolfowitz (another JEW) get jobs in the policy sector in the late 1960s (25-30 years before their neo-con ambitions took hold).Wohlstetter and Strauus (another JEW) were professors of Perle and Wolfowitz, so they are obviously bad as well.
Has Brewer read any of Wohlstetter's work (or Strauss, for that matter)? Of course not. In fact, does this cretin read anything OTHER than on-line opinions that substantiate his crudely anti-semetic views? Can you really blame Wohlstetter for what Perle and Wolfowitz did decades afterwards? Then try to make Buchanan guilty by his purported association with Wohlststetter? Incidentally, Wohlstetter was gravely ill and died well in advance of the most recent Iraq fiasco, so blaming him for Iraq 2 is a bit off.
BTW Brewer, if you could let us know the years and military units in which you (claim to have) served, and what you have published other than that pathetic blog of yours (since you claim to be a publisher), then we might believe that you are something more credible than a pathological liar with a bitterly twisted and miserable worlview, one in which you hijack threads just to attack people far more more accomplished than you can ever dream to be.
Looks like another bit of blowback.
Care to explain Buchanan's lies regarding Iran's Nukes Dr Gnadmasher?
I think the point of the anonymous post above is that Wohlstetter is considered to be the Granddaddy of the Neo-Con philosophy. I do not think the significance of this will be missed by most readers.
Required reading:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15295.htm
Not for the attention deficient:
http://philosophynotes.com/politics/neocon_ascendancy.htm
Well for a start this thread is supposed to be about North Korea -
but this forum can sometimes be more about placating children than anything else.
So buchanan writes an essay based largely in a realpolitik analysis of the logic of nuclear weapons. He makes some points that I have made (China is a winner), and argues in a far more articulate way than is often seen.
But then brewer comes along, ignoring the thread, ignoring the context and takes the line about Iran way out of context, and starts up his anti-US/Israel dialogue again.
Maybe he struggles with the N Korea issue - the regime tested a nuclear weapon, be we will ignore that and instead blame uncle sam.
I post a friedman article on the problems with the chinese economy -attack the source, not the logic.
Wow! Haven’t we been busy while I have been sailing.
I see my friends have been carrying the flag rather nicely. Many thanks.
I see Buchanan’s pedigree is emerging.
Scott. I agree that this thread has been somewhat hijacked. I would suggest however that Dr Gnadmasher issued something of a challenge phrased in his usual insulting language so I view the replies as legitimate under the circumstances. I note that the good Doctor doesn’t reply to any of the issues raised except to level a charge of anti-semitism. This is a well known tactic endorsed by Israel. See:
http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/10786
Personally I deplore racism of all kinds. Particularly that practised by the Right-wing Zionists who are my prime target.
Dr Gnadmasher. Given the aggressive, threatening nature of your posts I will refrain from revealing details of a personal nature. My current reading includes The Bombing of Dresden (Addison/Craig), Tocqueville (Jardin) and an Elmore Leonard for fun. I am recommending Future Tense by Gwynne Dyer to all who are interested in making sense of the Neo-Con agenda. Thank you for your interest. Incidentally, my Editor tells me I may legitimately describe myself as an Award-winning published Author but I do not as a rule. Nether do I pose for publicity pictures with my wares backhandedly displayed like a market vendor of dirty postcards.
I await your defense of State-sponsored atrocity and disinformation re Iran’s fictitious Nuclear Weapons programme.
Scott.
Gnadmasher brought up the subject. As his article relies on his mentor, Wohlstetter’s “Nuclear Logic” I think it pertinent that we look into it. Here is one opinion:
“His strategic policies were madder than MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction), which he found too juvenile in concept. Instead, he supported flexibility—the preemptive strike, high-precision weaponry with precision targeting, and "nimble" military units. This is precisely the thinking behind Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's revamping of the U.S. military, which was designed by longtime Pentagon consultant Andrew Marshall, another Wohlstetterite.
He has no understanding of physical economy or of development, just crude cost-benefit analyses. His view of human beings in all this is that of a grade-B cowboy film—good guys versus bad guys, where everything possible must be done to keep control in the hands of his good guys: the financial oligarchy.
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2006/3312neocons_v_nuclear.html
Now. Korea.
A sideshow. The crude device exploded, lacking a delivery system poses little threat. The time-line to actual threat seems to me to exceed the projected life of the current regime. I believe China has their client on a tight leash. Personally I am sanguine about the U.N. response and cheered that the U.S. seems to be returning to a more sane, multi-lateral approach.
What does concern me is the concerted efforts by the Neo-Cons to link the affair to Iran and talk up a non-existent threat. This appears to be a deliberate repeat of the Iraq WMD straw man designed to bring sanctions against a sovereign state in a softening up prelude to direct interference. In my view, this is counter-productive and a classic illustration of the insanity of applying the same actions and expecting a different result.
Good to see you back. I hope your recent absence was not the result of illness. Do you want to pick up the debate about “Shadows”? Up to you.
Why then does the Iranian Shahab 3 missle seem remarkably similar to the North Korean nodong 1 missle. Indeed there is evidence that they both have been working together, which is what I think Dr Buchanan was referring to in his comments?
I am in agreeance with you, as I have mentioned before, that the exploding of a primative nuclear device does not, in and of itself, significant an immediate threat. It does, however, speak for intention.
Scott
Why then does the Iranian Shahab 3 missile seem remarkably similar to the North Korean nodong 1 missle?
Not surprising given their pedigree.
Both are direct descendents of Soviet technology.
Any comments on State-sponsored atrocity and disinformation re Iran’s fictitious Nuclear Weapons programme?
Just a couple of quotes I'd like some expansion on:
Brewerstroupe
Personally I deplore racism of all kinds. Particularly that practised by the Right-wing Zionists who are my prime target.
I presume they are you prime target because you see this as the worst case of racism anywhere in the world then...interesting view, care to expand? What have the "Zionists" got that any number of violent African gropus don't have?!
The troll
Expounding on Iran's strategy on nuclear weapons, the Leader stressed that the Islamic Republic is not seeking to produce, stockpile or use nuclear weapons
and the memorable:
Not to mention the Fatwah against the development and use of nukes declared by Khamenei and the IAEC’s statements denying any such programme.
Now I admire your trusting nature...but seeing that Iran kept its nuclear programme hidden for years, and weapons grade material (in small quantities) has been found in and around Iranian installations (apparently from the original source) and Iran has made it its business to wipe Israel off the map, do you not think maybe a little bit of caution should be exercised when taking them at their word. If the Iranians were able to conceal one programme for years on end is it so totally out of the question that they might be willing and able to do it again.
I do, maybe I'm just a cynic. People seem very willing to take them at their word, which for a nation which is doing so much sabre rattling is mildly startling from where I'm sitting.
Brewerstoupe:
Using a Lyndon Larouche conspiracy site to make an argument against anything seriously undermines your credibility. That is the site the SIS used against Zaoui to justify its call that he is a risk to NZ secuirty.
You just added yourself to the laughingstock category
Anonymous.
Ummmm. I'll trade you one Larouche for one Stratfor.
.......but you owe me about six Larouche brain-farts first.
"The Iranian Shahab-3 [alternatively designated Zelzal (Earthquake)] missile is said to be a derivative of the 1,000-1,300 kilometer range North Korean Nodong-1. The Nodong missile was developed by North Korea with Iranian financial assistance. The Shahab-3 missile can have a 500kg-650kg warhead. The range is believed to be 1550km-1620km (based on performance data of the No-dong B). More specifically it is believed that with a warhead mass of 760kg the missile will fly 1560km and with a warhead mass of 1158kg the missile will fly 1350km. Although not verified this data would seem to indicate that they are working on the Shahab-4 with a 2000km+ range and would be a derivative of the Taepo-dong 1.
Iran was slated to received the first shipment of the missiles late in 1993. However the delivery was halted due to American pressure on North Korea. According to some reports, as of 1995 Iran had not received the missiles. However Israeli press reports in 1996 cited an intelligence reports which claimed at least a dozen No-dong missiles have been delivered to Iran from North Korea. But General Peay, USCINCCENT, claimed during a Spring 1996 interview that attempts by Iran to buy Nodongs from North Korea had failed for financial reasons.
However, active Iranian development of this missile continued. It is believed that Iran may have initially purchased up to 10 of these NoDong missiles from North Korea."
Regards
Scott
PS - when was Friedman jailed for Fraud? Or are such convictions limited to your sources?
U.N. Inspectors Dispute Iran Report By House Panel
Paper on Nuclear Aims Called Dishonest
By Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 14, 2006; A17
U.N. inspectors investigating Iran's nuclear program angrily complained to the Bush administration and to a Republican congressman yesterday about a recent House committee report on Iran's capabilities, calling parts of the document "outrageous and dishonest" and offering evidence to refute its central claims.
Officials of the United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency said in a letter that the report contained some "erroneous, misleading and unsubstantiated statements." The letter, signed by a senior director at the agency, was addressed to Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), chairman of the House intelligence committee, which issued the report. A copy was hand-delivered to Gregory L. Schulte, the U.S. ambassador to the IAEA in Vienna.
The IAEA openly clashed with the Bush administration on pre-war assessments of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Relations all but collapsed when the agency revealed that the White House had based some allegations about an Iraqi nuclear program on forged documents.
After no such weapons were found in Iraq, the IAEA came under additional criticism for taking a cautious approach on Iran, which the White House says is trying to build nuclear weapons in secret. At one point, the administration orchestrated a campaign to remove the IAEA's director general, Mohamed ElBaradei. It failed, and he won the Nobel Peace Prize last year.
Yesterday's letter, a copy of which was provided to The Washington Post, was the first time the IAEA has publicly disputed U.S. allegations about its Iran investigation. The agency noted five major errors in the committee's 29-page report, which said Iran's nuclear capabilities are more advanced than either the IAEA or U.S. intelligence has shown.
Among the committee's assertions is that Iran is producing weapons-grade uranium at its facility in the town of Natanz. The IAEA called that "incorrect," noting that weapons-grade uranium is enriched to a level of 90 percent or more. Iran has enriched uranium to 3.5 percent under IAEA monitoring.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/13/AR2006091302052_pf.html
TEHRAN, Iran — President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has ordered authorities to open the doors of Iran's nuclear facilities to foreign tourists in order to prove that the country's disputed nuclear program has been peaceful, state-run television reported on Wednesday.
"After an order by the president... foreign tourists can visit Iran's nuclear facilities," the head of Iran's tourism division, Esfandiar Rahim Mashai, was quoted as saying.
Mashai said Ahmadinejad issued the order to show that Iran's nuclear program has been peaceful, and that it aims to generate fuel, not weapons.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,217700,00.html
No Proof Found of Iran Arms Program
Uranium Traced to Pakistani Equipment
By Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, August 23, 2005; Page A01
Traces of bomb-grade uranium found two years ago in Iran came from contaminated Pakistani equipment and are not evidence of a clandestine nuclear weapons program, a group of U.S. government experts and other international scientists has determined.
"The biggest smoking gun that everyone was waving is now eliminated with these conclusions," said a senior official who discussed the still-confidential findings on the condition of anonymity.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/22/AR2005082201447.html
Kayhan reports that [Pers.] Ahmadinejad said, "Iran is not a threat to any country, and is not in any way a people of intimidation and aggression." He described Iranians as people of peace and civilization. He said that Iran does not even pose a threat to Israel, and wants to deal with the problem there peacefully, through elections:
"Weapons research is in no way part of Iran's program. Even with regard to the Zionist regime, our path to a solution is elections."
Ahmadinejad seems to be explaining what his calls for the Zionist regime to be effaced actually mean. He says he doesn't want violence against Israel, despite its own acts of enmity against Middle Eastern neighbors. I interpret his statement on Saturday to be an endorsement of the one-state solution, in which a government would be elected that all Palestinians and all Israelis would jointly vote for. The result would be a government about half made up of Israeli ministers and half of Palestinian ones. Whatever one wanted to call such an arrangement, it wouldn't exactly be a "Zionist state," which would thus have been dissolved.
The schlock Western pundits, journalists and politicians who keep maintaining that Ahmadinejad threatened "to wipe Israel off the map" when he never said those words will never, ever manage to choke out the words Ahmadinejad spoke on Saturday, much less repeat them as a tag line forever after.
http://www.juancole.com/2006/08/ahmadinejad-we-are-not-threat-to-any.html
Read this, anon two posts above:
http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=4164
and some key parts of the speech:
Our dear Imam ordered that the occupying regime in Al-Qods be wiped off the face of the earth. This was a very wise statement. The issue of Palestine is not one on which we could make a piecemeal compromise… This would mean our defeat. Anyone who would recognize this state [Israel] has put his signature under the defeat of the Islamic world.
If we put it behind us successfully, God willing, it will pave the way for the annihilation of the Zionist regime and it will be a downhill route.
I warn all the leaders in the Islamic world to beware of this conspiracy. If any of them takes a step towards the recognition of this regime [Israel], then he will burn in the fire of the Islamic umma (nation)
Ahmadineh\jad never threatened Israel? Kayhan is full of disingenuous bullshit. This is why Iran cannot be trusted and cannot be allowed to have a nuclear program.
Also don't forget he is a Holocaust denier (he has called the Holocaust a 'myth'):
Ahmadinejad sparked widespread international condemnation in October when he called for Israel to be "wiped off the map."
Last week, he also expressed doubt about the killing by the Nazis of six million Jews during World War II, but Wednesday was the first occasion when he said in public that the Holocaust was a myth.
"They have invented a myth that Jews were massacred and place this above God, religions and the prophets," Ahmadinejad said in a speech to thousands of people in the Iranian city of Zahedan, according to a report on Wednesday from Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting.
"The West has given more significance to the myth of the genocide of the Jews, even more significant than God, religion, and the prophets," he said. "(It) deals very severely with those who deny this myth but does not do anything to those who deny God, religion, and the prophet."
I realise it is cool for some of you on the extreme left to call Ahmadinejad a cool guy, standing up to America, whatever, but don't try to go Orwellian on us, and rewrite history to suit your particular political agenda.
The "Iran Focus" site is associated with the MKO (Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization). It is known for fabricating news. The MKO also happens to be an Iraq-based terrorist organization that attacked the Kurds in '91 on Saddam's behalf. It's even on the State Dept's list of terrorist organizations, even though there have been persistent reports that now the US is using them as an asset in its conflict with Iran.
Try an experiment. Read the statements from the IAEC above then go read Iran Focus on the Iran Nukes. The deliberate inaccuracy becomes evident.
There is no reliable translation of Ahmdinijad's words that contains anything of holocaust-denial, annihilation of Jews. His words are far more reasoned and restrained than Bush's. His remarks are directed at the Zionist regime. He is a "one State Solution" man. The mis-translations emanate from the U.S. propaganda apparatus.
We have learned that those whom the Neo-cons wish to attack are first demonised - Iraq's WMDs, Al Quaeda links.
Amazing that people who believe Muslim's are religious fanatics manipulated by clergy can dismiss a Fatwah from the Supreme religious leader of Iran yet believe a blatantly biased blog.
More astonishing is how westerners swallowed the justification for war in Iraq, found it to be a pack of lies and are now swallowing the exact same bullshit again.
Some questions.
When did Iran last attack anyone?
How did they behave after the U.S. sponsored attack by Saddam?
Who is rewriting history?
Apologies, I have been offline getting Broadband up and running. Signed up to PlaNet- Great provider after a bad experience with xtra.
Anonymous.
“worst case of racism anywhere in the world”
I’m not sure if there is a contest.
The Zionists are the only group who, in recent times, have practiced a consistent policy of ethnic cleansing for more than 60 years against an indigenous race. Many commentators, including Israeli historians have likened the Palestinians plight to that of the American Indian.
http://www.logosjournal.com/pappe.htm
The Zionists insist on the right of return for every person of Jewish extraction no matter where they are born yet deny that right to the indigenous people of Palestine, even those who absent themselves from their homeland for a short period.
www.btselem.org
The Zionists do not just practice racism in their own territory, they forcibly enter their neighbour’s territory, bulldoze Arab homes and Olive groves to make way for Jewish Settlements.
http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/hhh3/israel.html
http://www.catdestroyshomes.org/article.php?list=class&class=3&all=1
They kill women and children.
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200212/12/eng20021212_108320.shtml
I dunno. In my view it’s about as bad as anything I’ve seen in my nearly sixty years. Rwanda might top it , Darfur but as I have said many times, the West supports Israel and I believe in cleaning one’s own house first.
Scott.
I don’t know if Friedman has been charged with fraud. In my view he should be for selling people “intelligence” like:
"RUSSIAN GENERAL CONFIRMS IRAN HAS NUCLEAR WEAPONS!", Stratfor Intelligence, Week of June 4, 2002.
“millions of Americans may possibly be killed in the coming months or years.”
It must be assumed by the United States that the first three of these countries (Korea, Iraq, Iran) are developing WMD and/or delivery systems.
It would therefore follow that it is the intention of the United States to identify and directly attack any Iraqi facilities that might be developing WMD.
Therefore, an invasion of Iraq is not going to happen. Numerous attempts to topple Saddam have all failed. Air attacks are not going to bother him. The United States must now develop a new strategy toward Iraq.
In our view, Saddam is on the verge of checkmating the United States. The old coalition is gone. U.S. forces are spread too thin to be effective.
U.S. government is not giving these people (weapons inspectors) intelligence because if we did, the Iraqis would have the opportunity to move their weapons of mass destruction, and we want to take them out in the first day of combat," Friedman said.
STRATFOR.COM, believes that the Bush administration has decided to POSTPONE INDEFINITELY a military attack on Iraq and Saddam Hussein.
Larouche?
I don’t know. You know I don’t usually use controversial sources. I simply grabbed his statement above as it coincided with my opinion of Wohlstetter.
Wikipedia is interesting however:
“In December of 1988, LaRouche was convicted of conspiracy and mail fraud in regards to the methods used by his organization to solicit in the alleged amount of $294,000 of unrepaid loans. The alleged conspiracy, was a conspiracy to obtain the loans, with no intention to repay. To prepare for the trial, the government first filed, on April 20, 1987, an unprecedented involuntary bankruptcy petition against two LaRouche-controlled publications companies on whose behalf the loans had been solicited, ending all possibility of loan repayment. On October 25, 1989, Judge Martin V.B. Bostetter ruled the government's action was illegal. Bostetter said the government acted in "objective bad faith" and the bankruptcy was obtained by a "constructive fraud on the court." “
.....former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark has helped to try to clear LaRouche's name, arguing that investigators and political opponents had gone overboard in their accusations. Clark wrote in 1995, in a letter to then serving Attorney General Janet Reno: "I bring this matter to you directly, because I believe it involves a broader range of deliberate and systematic misconduct and abuse of power over a longer period of time in an effort to destroy a political movement and leader, than any other federal prosecution in my time or to my knowledge."
I have no firm opinion but it would not be the first time a dissenter has been neutralised by the establishment.
Scott.
To conclude the Missile thing.
I am happy to concede an Iran-Korea connection. Whether or not it exists is of little account. I would expect our leaders to acquire arms from any source if we were threatened in the way that Iran has been threatened by the U.S. According to Cirincione the threat is grossly exaggerated however.
"In short, Iran’s missile capabilities are poor and brittle. A quarter-century of ballistic missile acquisition efforts has not yielded a threat that would justify NMD deployment by the United States. Furthermore, its highly inaccurate missiles pose little threat to U.S. troops stationed in the Middle East, unless equipped with a nuclear warhead, which Iran does not possess."
(Joseph Cirincione is the Director of the Non-Proliferation Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, D.C. He served for nine years on the professional staff of the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Government Operations in the U.S. House of Representatives. His most recent book is Repairing the Regime: Preventing the Spread of Weapons of Mass Destruction, (Routledge).
You point out the failings of Stratfor with the benefit of hindsight. These people are paid to provide "informed guess"/intelligence - its not a physical science, often normative judgements have to be paid - for sure Friedman makes mistakes in predictions, most intelligence "agencies" do, but the proof of his usefulness is, I think, in the popularity of his paid-subscription site. Let me put it this way - corporates would not pay the money if the information is Bullshit.
""RUSSIAN GENERAL CONFIRMS IRAN HAS NUCLEAR WEAPONS!", Stratfor Intelligence, Week of June 4, 2002. "
Did a Russian general say that?
The intel on WMD was wrong - everyone got it wrong. Thats the game though - and yes there are consquences - but the history of western intelligence is often a history of failure - and this is old ground, we have gone over this before.
But the context of this was an article on the chinese economy, and I ask again: have you read it?
Scott
I think you make a very good argument for NOT killing up to 650,000 people based on the "intelligence" of such sources.
Stratfor and the plethora of disinformation institutes set up by people with an agenda are as much a part of the history of intelligence as your local car yard is a part of the history of the Auto industry.
You have a brain Scott. It has at least as much potential as Friedman's.
do you really believe that Stratfor would be a viable commercial entity (and it is) if it was based on disinformation. Its not a government entity - nor was stratfor the reason the iraqi war happened
Scott
Scott.
I sighed when I read your comment. I asked myself if I really had the time or energy to compose an essay on why I discount organizations like Stratfor and whether or not you were genuinely interested. In the event the latter is the case and because I now have broadband to speed the process, here goes.
Firstly let us agree that there is a huge market for this stuff (I find most of the Stratfor stuff on kid blogs and religious sites - I'll accept your word that corporates buy it).
There is also, despite the lack of any verification of it's efficacy, a huge market for clairvoyants, seers and shaman. The technique is the same.
It's a game of language.
Consider the following and ask yourself how you would feel if it had indeed come about:
"Stratfor also states that in the wake of the plane crash, “Ahmadinejad’s power base has been severely threatened.” January 12, 2006"
If Ahmadinejad had indeed been toppled, one would have been convinced of Stratfor's perspicacity. It didn't happen but Stratfor's reputation is not damaged.
Now if they had said:
"Ahmadinejad will fall next week" and he didn't - problem. So they rarely say that.
Consider:
"With Hezbollah under attack in Lebanon and Iran unable to send significant reinforcements, there is some possibility that Hezbollah might resort to staging an attack abroad as a way of countering the Israeli assault. "
The key phrase is:
"there is some possibility that Hezbollah might"
The fact that they didn't doesn't hurt. If they had've - wow! Stratfor is prescient.
But what did we learn from the above statement that we did not know before? Precisely nothing. The category of things that "might" happen is infinite.
"Stratfor predicts it (the next likely military action) will involve Al-Qaeda's last truly safe haven, northwest Pakistan(01/2004)
Key word "likely".
Consider:
On the Korea Nuke:, "the test was less than 20 kilotons"
Yep, it was. It was also highly unlikely that it was more than five as it hardly blipped the seismographs. In fact it was one.
If you fire enough darts, some are bound to hit the target. The misses are soon forgotten.
Sometimes the stuff is aimed at a different market. This is from a review of Friedman's book "The Coming War with Japan" (Now there's a catchy title!)
"Using the breakdown of the Soviet-American alliance after World War II as an analogy, when a common enemy no longer united them, Mr. Friedman predicted that Japan and the United States would go to war over dominance of the Pacific Basin. In an interview on “Booknotes” on C-Span, he made it clear that he did not mean economic conflict. He meant a shooting war.
The book was often dismissed at the time as preposterous, a verdict that has held up pretty well. You won’t find it mentioned in the voluminous PR about Stratfor and its “uncanny accuracy.”"
Probably sold well.
Occasionally they drop a clanger - WMDs. This indicates to me how reliant Stratfor is on stuff in the public domain. Insiders knew it was a crock. It was interesting to note the creep to higher ground as the grisly truth came out:
"In short, the Bush administration "did not go into Iraq because of WMD. [However,] they fully believed that there were WMD in Iraq."
Here is a very thoughtful essay on this topic.
Iraq: misreading the vital signs
http://mondediplo.com/2003/04/06collateraldamage.
Most of the think tanks are sponsored. Some will seem to be anti-establishment but push just one aspect of the establishment's agenda. In Stratfor's case, this seems to be the Islamist threat and I personally think if we were able to peer under the bonnet we'd find an Aipac battery. I stress that this is only speculation on my part. They may only be in it for the money.
Naturally, the other side has it's flag wavers too. If we spoke Arabic, we'd probably see many more of them.
No, Stratfor did not cause a war. It is my belief however, that the profusion of organizations like it make war possible by selling it to a gullible public. You will note that the war has now less than 40% support in the U.S. now that the people are better informed.
I hope you won't see this as provocative. It is not meant to be.
It is not my intention to get into a debate about it. If you are not persuaded, that's fine.
I would like to be around in thirty or forty years time when all the documents are declassified and the real story on all this emerges but sadly, I will not. I hope you will give a thought to me when it happens. By that I don't mean I am necessessarily right, just that how different it all will look when the lies and deception are exposed. This has been my experience of history.
Goodnight.
I am genuinely interested.
When I was at graduate school, I spent some time studying the intelligence industry. Indeed a chapter of my thesis was on intelligence gathering.
What I learned was two things - 1) its not a science and 2) You have to take a worst case approach. With regards to the later, they intelligence communities provides assessment to decision makers - they dont make the decisions. I guess they are damned if they do, damned if they dont - if they overreact they lose credibility, if they miss something (and they have missed plenty) they lose credibility.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing - you have showed me a number of instances in which Stratfor got it wrong - Consider
Predicted that the hardline Likudniks would back Sharon given that Labor is attempting to be the senior partner in the coalition.
(November 15, 2005)
Warned against troubles in the European Union and its shaking foundation.
(Decade Forecast 2005-2015)
First intelligence agency to present a long-term forecast on the Chinese economy and predict an imminent overheating, accompanied by an increase in pressure and disruptions of the Chinese economic miracle.
(Decade Forecast 2005-2015)
Predicted Russia’s political shift away from the US and the West and its loss of influence while trying to forge alliances with other powers.
(Annual Forecast 2005)
Predicted that China’s fixed exchange rate policy and growing trade deficits, particularly with the US but also with the European Union, would lead to an economic confrontation between China and its Western trading partners.
(December 2004)
Predicted that a powerful economic recovery would take place
(Annual Forecast 2003)
Predicted that a war with Iraq was inevitable, and alerted readers six hours before bombs fell that the war had begun.
(August 2002)
Warned that the U.S. was not invading Iraq because of WMD and that the issue would come back to haunt Bush administration.
(November 2002)
Announced that the markets would collapse and that a recession was coming.
(February 2000)
Identified the presence of US military personnel in the Republic of Georgia to expand the war on terrorism in oil-rich Central Asia.
(2002)
Predicted the economic and political chaos in Venezuela and continuing instability for President Hugo Chavez.
(2002)
Predicted the downfall of the governments of Wahid in Indonesia and Estrada in the Philippines.
(2001)
Predicted Japan's economic meltdown and subsequent remilitarization.
(2001)
Warned that the Camp David meeting of Palestinian and Israeli leaders would lead to a disastrous explosion.
(August 2000)
I dont want to debate these points individually, but they did get things right. The nature of the business is that threats and warnings are vague - and such are the reports.
I think the difference is that you equate them with certain think tanks in the US - I do not. Yes they come from a US perspective, and yes they are conservative (and I think I am too, at least on security matters), but you know what your getting.
Now can we please debate the issues, or even the arguments put forward by someone like George Friedman, rather than the sources themselves.
Scott
OK.
How 'bout you post up some of Stratfor's current intelligence with regard to the future of Iraq?
Specifically I'd like to know what the administration is going to do about the Iran/Syria solution.
The timing of the U.S. withdrawal.
What does he say about the Kurdish position?
What predictions is Friedman making about the outcome of the mid-terms?
I assume Stratfor must have known about this.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0405.kaplan.html
What did they say?
Here is an article by Friedman dated October 5. I am not a paid subscriber to the site so do not get all of there intelligence on every question - but lets start here
Bush and the Perception of Weakness
By George Friedman
There is good news for the Republican Party: Things can't get much worse. About five weeks from the midterm elections, a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) asserting that the situation in Iraq will deteriorate in 2007 is leaked. On top of that, Bob Woodward's book is released to massive fanfare, chronicling major disagreements within the White House over prosecution of the Iraq war and warnings to U.S. President George W. Bush in the summer of 2003 that a dangerous insurgency was under way and that the president's strategy of removing Baathists from the government and abolishing the Iraqi army was a mistake. These events are bad enough, but when U.S. Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) -- the head of a congressional committee charged with shutting down child molesters using the Internet -- is caught sending e-mails to 16-year-old male pages, the news doesn't get much worse.
All of this is tied up with the elections of course. The NIE document leak was undoubtedly meant to embarrass the president. The problem is that it did, as it revealed the rift between the intelligence community and the White House's view of the world. The Woodward book was clearly intended to be published more than a month before the elections, and it was expected to have embarrassing revelations in it. The problem is that not a whole lot of people quoted in the book are denying that they said or did what was described. When former White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card is quoted as trying to get U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld out of office and the assertion is made that first lady Laura Bush tried as well, and denials are not flying, you know two things: Woodward intended to embarrass Bush just before the election, and he succeeded. For all we know, the leak about Foley asking about a 16-year-old's boxer shorts may have been timed as well. The problem is that the allegations were true, and Foley admitted what he did and resigned.
These problems might be politically timed, but none of them appears to be based on a lie. The fact is that this confluence of events has created the perception that the Bush White House is disintegrating. Bush long ago lost control of leakers in the intelligence community; he has now started to lose control over former longtime staffers who, having resigned, have turned on him via the Woodward book. Bush appears to be locked into a small circle of advisers (particularly Vice President Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld) and locked into his Iraq strategy, and he generally appears to have suspended decision-making in favor of continuing with decisions already made.
Now, this may not be a fair perception. We are not in the White House and do not know what is going on there. But this is now the perception, and that fact must be entered into the equation. True or not, and fair or not, the president appears to be denying what the intelligence communities are saying and what some of his closest advisers have argued, and it appears that this has been going on for a long time. With the election weeks away, and the Foley scandal adding to the administration's difficulties, there is a reasonable probability that the Republicans will get hammered in the elections, potentially losing both houses of Congress if the current trend continues.
One theory is that Bush doesn't care. He believes in the things he is doing and, whatever happens in the 2006 elections, he will continue to be president for the next two years, with the power of the presidency in his hand. That may be the case, although a hostile Congress with control over the purse strings can force policies on presidents (consider Congress suspending military aid to South Vietnam under Gerald Ford). Congress has substantial power when it chooses to exercise it.
But leaving the question of internal politics aside, the perception that Bush's administration is imploding can have a significant impact on his ability to execute his foreign policy because of how foreign nations will behave. The perception of disarray generates a perception of weakness. The perception of weakness encourages foreign states to take advantage of the situation. Bush has argued that changing his Iraq policy might send the Islamic world a signal of weakness. That might be true, but the perception that Bush is losing control of his administration or of Congress can also signal weakness. If Bush's intent is the reasonable goal of not appearing weak, he obviously must examine the current situation's effects on his ability to reach that goal.
Consider a matter not involving the Islamic world. This week, a crisis blew up in the former Soviet republic of Georgia, which is now closely aligned with the United States. Georgia arrested four Russian military officers, charging them with espionage. The Russians demanded their release and halted the withdrawal of Russian troops from Georgia -- a withdrawal Moscow had promised before the arrests gave it the opportunity to create a fundamental crisis in Russo-Georgian relations.
Normally a crisis of this magnitude involving a U.S. ally like Georgia would rise to the top of the pile of national security issues at the White House, with suitable threats made and action plans drawn up. Furthermore, the Russians would normally have been quite careful about handling such a crisis. There was little evidence of Russian caution; the Russians refrained from turning the situation into a military conflict, but they certainly turned up the heat on Georgia as the crisis evolved on its own. The Kremlin press service said Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin talked about Georgia in a telephone conversation Oct. 2, and that Putin told Bush third parties should be careful about encouraging Georgia.
The Russians frankly do not see the United States as capable of taking meaningful action at this point. That means Moscow can take risks, exert pressure and shift dynamics in ways it might have avoided a year ago out of fear of U.S. reprisals. The Russians know Bush does not have the political base at home, or even the administrative ability, to manage a crisis. Both National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice are obsessed with Iraq and the Washington firestorm. As for Rumsfeld, Woodward quoted the head of U.S. Central Command, Gen. John Abizaid, as saying Rumsfeld lacks credibility. That statement has not been denied. It is bad when a four-star general says that about a secretary of defense. Since the perception of U.S. crisis management is that no one is minding the shop, the Russians tested their strength.
There is, of course, a much more serious matter: Iran. Iran cut its teeth on American domestic politics. After the Iranians seized U.S. Embassy personnel as hostages, they locked the Carter administration into an impossible position, in which its only option was a catastrophic rescue attempt. The Iranians had an enormous impact on the 1980 election, helping to defeat Carter and not releasing the hostages until Ronald Reagan was sworn in as president. They crippled a president once and might like to try it again.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was involved in the hostage-taking and got a close-up view of how to manipulate the United States. Iran already undermined Bush's plans for a stable government in Iraq when it mobilized Shiite forces against the Baghdad government over the summer. Between that and the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict, Iran saw itself in a strong position. Iran then conducted a diplomatic offensive, as a former Iranian president and the current Iranian president both traveled to the United States and tried to make the case that they are more moderate than the Bush administration painted them.
With five weeks until the U.S. congressional midterm elections, the Iranians would love to be able to claim that Bush, having rejected their overtures, was brought down -- or at least crippled -- by Iran. There are rumors swirling about pending major attacks in Iraq by pro-Iranian forces. There are always rumors swirling in Iraq about attacks, but in this particular case, logic would give them credibility. The Iranians might be calculating that if Iranian-sponsored groups could inflict massive casualties on U.S. troops, it would affect the U.S. election enough to get a Democratic Congress in place -- which could cripple Bush's ability to wage war and further weaken the United States' position in the Middle East. This, of course, would increase Iran's standing in the region.
The Iranian perception is that the United States does not have the resources to launch either an invasion or massive airstrikes against Iran. The Bush administration's credibility on weapons of mass destruction (WMD) is too low for that to be regarded as a plausible excuse, and even if strikes were launched to take out WMD, that rationale would not justify an extended, multi-month bombing campaign. Since the Iranians believe the United States lacks the will and ability to try regime change from the air, Tehran is in a position to strike without putting itself at risk.
If the Iranians were to strike hard at the United States in Iraq, and the United States did not respond effectively, then the perception in key countries like Saudi Arabia -- a religious and geopolitical rival of Iran's -- would be that aligning with the United States is a dangerous move because the U.S. ability to protect them is not there, and therefore they need to make other arrangements. Since getting the Saudis' cooperation against al Qaeda was a major achievement for the Bush administration, this would be a major reversal. But if Riyadh perceived the United States as inherently weak, Riyadh would have no choice but to recalculate and relaunch its foreign policy.
Iran and others are feeling encouraged to take risks before the upcoming U.S. election -- either because they see this as a period of maximum American weakness or because they hope to influence the election and further weaken Bush. If they succeed, many U.S. allies will, like the Saudis, have to recalculate their positions relative to the United States and move away. The willingness of people in Iraq and Afghanistan to align with the United States will decline. If the United States is seen as a loser, it will become a loser. Furthermore, the NIE and the Woodward book create the perception that Bush has become isolated in his views and unable to control his own people. He needs to reverse this perception.
It is easy to write that. It is much harder to imagine how he will accomplish it, particularly if there is a major attack in Iraq or elsewhere. Bush's solution has been to refuse to bend. That worked for a while, but that strategy is no longer credible because it is not clear that Bush still has the option of not bending. The disarray in his administration and the real possibility of losing Congress means that merely remaining resolved is not enough. Bush needs to bring perceived order to the perceived chaos in the administration. Between the bad luck of degenerate congressmen and the intentions of the Iranians, he does not have many tools at his disposal. The things he might have done a year ago, like replacing Rumsfeld, are not an option now. It would smell of panic, and he cannot afford to be seen as panicky. Perhaps Bush's only option at this point is to remain self-assured and indifferent to the storm around him.
Whatever the perception in the United States, Bush's enemies overseas are not impressed by his self-assurance, and his allies are getting very worried that, like Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, his political weakness will not allow him to control the U.S. course.
We believe that, in the end, reality governs perception. But we are not convinced that, in this case, the perception and the reality are not one and the same; and we are not convinced that, in the coming weeks, the perception is not in fact more important than the reality. And if the Republicans lose the upcoming elections, the perception that Bush lacks the plans and political power needed for decisive action will become the reality.
For Bush to be able to execute the foreign policy he wants, his party must win the midterm elections. For that to happen, Bush must get control of the political situation quickly. To do that, he must change the perception that his own administration is out of control.
Easy to write. Harder to do.
Post a Comment
<< Home