And now: Syria

[Occhidiangela]

With his individual nuclear stance, an action that had the effect of further destabalizing the Bipolar situation in the early era of MAD. He added variables to a deadly problem, when the MAD-related SALT and ABM treaties that followed in due course, and that worked only under a bipolar model, were steps toward stabalizing that dangerous condition.

What he did was irresponsible, but so is a lot of politics.

Edit: Had it phrased as though MAD was a treaty. It was not, it was a condition.

[Occhidiangela]

I added a few things to the other reply, none of which really help the 'Huh' factor.

The US Ambassador's underlying assumption in his remarks, and hence the linkage to antiterrorism, are related to Mr Cameron's piece. That is the problem, the mixing the two issues contextually as people make various pronouncements, particularly as the rhetoric has been all over the map since September 11th. I thought I had pointed out where Mr Cameron had a point or two worth noting on that score.

To some people, the war on terror is mor than an American problem, it is a global problem, and it and the operation in Iraq are one and the same. To others they are not. "An idea that does not have universal currency" was I think the phrase I used.

Too bad he resorted to that, some of what he was saying actually had merit, in re:

The Ambassador's stab at the equivalence of security threats is part of an idea that has less than universal currency: His underlying assumption once again implies that an antiterrorism campaign is the same as the older problelm of article V protection under the NATO alliance.

Canada does not, at present, see it that way, and may never see it that way.

Canada will do as Canada thinks best, of course, and so Canada should always.

Not sure where the confusion is. Yes, three coffees this morning, you know me too well. :)

[Occhidiangela]

... between the military plans and the politico-wet-dream plans.  It's their job, after all.  But these plans were not the military's. This is a political plan for Cold War Style dominance over the middle east hatched by hawkish politicos.

That might be their job too, but I'd prefer they remain unemployed. Or at least lurking in the shadows, rather than calling the shots in the global arena.

Is that anything like the wet dreams of folks trying to repeal the Second Ammendment here? Like the wet dream of re-creating America as a welfare state? Like the wet dream of some Mexicans for repealing the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo? Like the wet dream of Lech Walensa in freeing Poland? Like the wet dream of using US Peacekeepers, then throwing them away to the mercies of the ICC when someone has a political axe to grind? Like the wet dream of unifying the Korean Peninsula and ending 50 years of ceasefire without Armistice? Like the wet dream of Ronald Reagan for reducing the tax burden? Like the wet dream of universal health care in the US? Like the wet dream of the Civil Rights Activists in our country in the 1950's that got the Civil Rights act passed under Pres Eisenhower, and eventually built the momentum to create a different legal climate in subsequent Civil Rights work?

Jesus, Jester, this 'wet dreaming' is all part of the political process. It is not just the left wing who come up with ideas: everyone does. And everyone tries to get their ideas to be put into force, with varying degrees of success.

More to the point, the continual urging of many in the Center and Right, to President Clinton's deaf ears, to do something about Iraq and UN Sanctions, was hardly the sole idea of Wolfowitz and friends. That was an open criticism of the Clinton administration for years, in a variety of fora. Not all of them agreed with Monsieur Wolfowitz.

[Chaerophon]

Occhi, no offense, but you seem to be granting Canada a great deal more 'independance' and 'sovereignty', particularly regarding national defence, than is warranted regarding the nature of our relationship with the United States.

He ignores the relationship of the past 100 years, and NATO. In short, his assertion that the US is, or has in his lifetime been a security threat to Canada is pure bullsh**.

Canada will do as Canada thinks best, of course, and so Canada should always.

The Cold War provided an excellent opportunity for the United States to demonstrate just how far our 'sovereignty' reached. At that time, we actually possessed a military worth speaking of, demonstrable through our navy, standing army, and the development of such projects as the 'Avro Arrow' and other such state-of-the-art military technologies. The fact that we scrapped that plan, and, with the arrival of Lester Pearson, began a project of diminishing our armed forces, focussing instead almost exclusively upon "Peace Keeping", has little to do with a 'national agenda' and very much to do with the fact that, regardless of our own desires, America will control the continent in terms of defense. Diefenbaker refuses to arm nuclear warheads in Canada? The American machine rolls over him like yesterday's news. Media scorn him to an unprecedented extent (despite initial Canadian support for the plan), Kennedy publicly denounces him, and the FBI funds a part of the opposition's campaign. Pearson had previously been against such measures, but with his election, which boasted American support, he suddenly changed policy, and allowed the Americans free reign on our turf. I wonder why? It's not because he agreed with arming Canada for the conflict, he had passionately spoke against it just a couple of years earlier. Kennedy was happy, all of a sudden we were "friends" again, and we were "free" to do as we saw fit. Were the Russians going to attack us? Doubtful. Would the effects of shooting down a nuclear missile fall on our side of the border? Yup. Furthermore, does arming nuclear weapons in our country make us primary contributors in a war in which we would have been no better than secondary targets, if targets at all? Uh huh.

If this isn't a security threat, it certainly isn't an act of "friendship" either, nor does it permit us the sort of "sovereignty" to which we are supposedly entitled. Thus, we disassemble our military and let the Americans take control of continental defense. Sure, we've got lots of money to spend elsewhere, but to my mind, this event speaks volumes as to how "friendly" we really are, and just how secure Canadian interests are when faced with American opposition.

[Occhidiangela]

Confusing security and politics is a common error. If you choose not to understand what the stakes were in the Cold War, I can't help you. There would be no second inning if the button got pushed. Just a first inning. And you do recall that . . . Canada is a NATO member who has guaranteed Article V protections in the case of attack on any member of the Alliance, just as US guarantees for Canada, et al, held. It was, and remains, a two way street. Or do you conveniently forget that?

Diefenbaker refuses to arm nuclear warheads in Canada? The American machine rolls over him like yesterday's news. Media scorn him to an unprecedented extent (despite initial Canadian support for the plan), Kennedy publicly denounces him, and the FBI funds a part of the opposition's campaign. Pearson had previously been against such measures, but with his election, which boasted American support, he suddenly changed policy, and allowed the Americans free reign on our turf.

It is obvious to me that in Canada itself there was more than one opinion on the subject, so of course you choose to blame Kenedy for pursuing, as is normal in international politics, what he saw as the big picture position that enhances continental security? OK, feel free.

You call that a threat to your security? Not hardly. More like a different approach to the same security. Big difference. I will not belabor what it takes to make collective security work, besides there not being a lot of leaks in the dyke.

I would suggest that 'pie in the sky' assumptions as to where Soviet nukes were aimed are a bit off. You can choose to believe that Ottowa was never targeted in the Cold War.

We have similar discussions, where policy and security intersect, all the time here in the US. Policy includes trade trade policy. Try, for example, the Japanese company Toshiba selling precision jigs in 1985 to USSR that, when used to make submarine propeller blades, rendered about 50% of the US, Canadian, British and general NATO anti-submarine warfare technology into scrap. For that matter, it made some of their own stuff obsolete.

Security problem? Yes.

[Jester]

The idea that the US should play a dominant role in the middle east, walking across Arabs and whomever else gets in the way in order to secure a globally dominant position is NOT the same category of idea as Lech Walesa freeing Poland. Rather the opposite, I would say.

This is not dissimilar to the Bolsheviks' crazy ideas of utopian vistas dreamt up in western Europe. Dreams of power and glory. Not ideas for a better future. Yes, they're "ideas". Yes, that's politics. No, that doesn't excuse it.

This is not the (reasonable) urging of people wanting to contain the legitimate threat of Saddam Hussein. This policy of an "increased role" (euphemisms abound) had been articulated by those advocating it, under no more justification than a good old fashioned power grab, before Saddam Hussein ever laid a finger on Kuwait.

Jester

[Occhidiangela]

That President Bush, the elder, rejected such a policy as inconsistent with US long term aims, and even demured from rolling to Baghdad, when he had the chance, the capability, and the force in hand, for long term regional political reasons.

You will probably find that since this group of opinion holders is not, as you wish to characterize it, some 'lurking in the shadows' cabal, but rather a pretty well advertised 'think tank' (hell, they set up a web site in 1997) that such ideas will get plenty of public scrutiny: which condition is good. Folks in Washington who matter have known 'who stands where' for a loooooooong time.

For the same reason that Barry Goldwater failed to get elected in 1964, extremists could expect to lose in any future election: too extreme don't cut it.

Every president has had his council of advisers. Ball, the Bundy brothers, Schlesinger McNamara were some of Kennedy's idea men. Kissinger was one of Nixon's prime advisers. Carter had Zbignew Brzinski and his mom. (I probably screwed the spelling on that.) Clinton had Paneta and others, and I suspect his wife had massive amounts of influence, being bright and driven and in the right place.

Inside the beltway, all of these people are well known, as are their view points. You may think that they are a secretive cabal because you are an outsider, as am I to a certain extent.

Our government has always had, and been approached by, myriads of interest groups, all of whom are trying to influence policy. Some are more successful than others. The folks on The Hill know who they are, they have to in order to provide 'the advice and consent' element of their task.

If you spent as many years reading the Washington Post as I did, rather than whatever your favorite Canadian newspaper is, you might have seen the agendas of any number of 'power brokers,' like Clark Clifford, the sort of folks folks, Un Elected, who have the ear of the resident of the White House.

That has been part of our system since long before the internet was invented. Hell, since long before I was born. :)

In short, it aint news to anyone who understands the system.

[Mavfin]

And to most of us who live here, especially those of us out here in "Middle America" (I live not two miles from the Mississippi River) it's all political crap. I read this think tank's stuff, and it's mild compared to some other think tank stuff I've read. There's already talk about bringing large numbers of troops home from Iraq. I don't think Syria's on the target list, unless they do something REALLY stupid and put themselves on it in a big way. (Things like air attacks on US troops, or ground attacks, or whatever. Like I said, really stupid things to do)

[Nicodemus Phaulkon]

That President Bush, the elder, rejected such a policy as inconsistent with US long term aims, and even demured from rolling to Baghdad, when he had the chance, the capability, and the force in hand, for long term regional political reasons.

Actually, that would have been Colin Powell's suggestion as the Chair Joint Chiefs at the time, neh? Powell didn't want to pursue what he felt was a "massacre" for the lasting political and societal damage it could cause. Good call? Still up for debate.

I find it interesting that Bush 41 would reject Wolfowitz's doctrine and effectively sweep it under the rug to avoid any political backlash from such a WHACKO foreign policy doctrine...

...and Bush 43 embraced it like a lost child. Mostly, because Bush 43 WAS a lost child after 9/11. Mr. Frat-boy can hardly string a coherent sentence under pressure, much less make reputable decisions. Nothing like turning towards his Defense Secretary and getting told "what to do".

For the same reason that Barry Goldwater failed to get elected in 1964, extremists could expect to lose in any future election: too extreme don't cut it.

Let's hear it for Democracy! You get to vote for the idiot that'll turn over his decisions to someone you've never heard of before, much less place in power. Extremist? Why run for election when your powerbrokers can just PUT you there, de facto.

As for them being "public", Occhi... it took alot of years to get their support together after the "censoring" that originally followed Wolfowitz's private release. 8 years, in fact. An "idea who's time has come", they would say.

Our government has always had, and been approached by, myriads of interest groups, all of whom are trying to influence policy. Some are more successful than others. The folks on The Hill know who they are, they have to in order to provide 'the advice and consent' element of their task.

The Vice-President, Defense Secretary and Deputy Defense Secretary constitute a "interest group"?

Sorry, Occhi... I'm still worried as hell.

*tips helm*

[Occhidiangela]

Or shut the f*** up.

If you dont know what I am talking about, then you and Grumpy can go drink tea together, or beer.

We were, at one point, having an intelligent conversation here.

You want to go back to that, or shall this all roll into the infantile zone? I am not interested in going there with you.

"Tips Chapeau"

Your call.

[Occhidiangela]

Nico:

1. You grossly misunderstand the relationships between George Bush, the elder, and his cabinet. Baker and Cheney were hardly in the position that Powell and Rumsfeld have in the current situation. Powell worked for Cheney, as CJCS. The President was very much the leader. President Bush's experience and depth in international affairs (remember, he was the first post WW II ambassador to Big China) exceeded that of most of his cabinet. Brent Scowcroft, the National security advisor, was a far different talent than Ms Rice. Powell hardly 'made the call' on Iraq, indeed, he was initially against that war as well. (FWIW, I hear that Ms Rice is quite the hawk relative to Secretary Powell, who also served as national security advisor a while back, to President Reagan.) His advice was, however, listened to.

2. Presidents Clinton and Bush, the younger, are the first two Baby Boomer presidents this country has experienced. WJ Clinton got picked over Al Gore, a perrenial candidate for his party's nomination and Washington insider, since he was seen as more electable due to VP Gore's known status on The Hill. I see Pres Bush, current, as having been cut from the same cloth: he was chosen by his party as both more electable, and less unpredictable, over the man I thought would be a better choice, Senator McCain. In 1996, VP Cheney was a very strong candidate for the Republicans, but for reasons of health, he had taken himself out of the running. It is no surprise that he was on the ticket, as his rep on The Hill was solid in his party. The political process continues.

3. Look a bit deeper, and look at who President Bush listens to. There is a lady in Texas who was his best advisor, who has since backed away from the limelight, and who he still calls on for advice. (Forget her name, just read about her again in this weekend's paper. It was a bit of a blow to him when she 'retired' from his White House group.) His chief of staff has his ear, and no one elected him either. There are others who he consults with, thought I am not as up to the minute on that stuff since I no longer live in the DC area.

4. Your concern in re who our President listens to is shared by a great number of Americans, in the left, center and even some on the right. We have not heard the last from Secretary Powell, and I again suggest to you that your jumping to conclusions is premature. Secretary Powell has already had two senior State Department officials resign, folks with years of experience, over this action in Iraq. (One was named Brown, a man who I got to hear speak recently on a CSpan program on peaceful dissent. Very interesting perspective.) I am waiting to see how the next six months shape up to see how that dynamic plays out. We may see him either force the issue, or resign. I hope it is the former, not the latter. He does not seem to exploit his political capital as readily as some others. However, I suspect that to him, resignation would only leave a gap for someone less moderate to fill, a situation that I doubt he could stomach.

5. Next year's election may resolve a hell of a lot. Even before this action in Iraq, the 2004 election was shaping up to be one hell of a dog fight, and not only for the White House. Both the Senate and the House are very much up for grabs depending on how loudly the voices of the moderates are heard. That uncertainty will drive policy in the next year.

6. The calculated use of power as a deterrent or as a latent entity, is only useful if the power is credible. If nothing else, and for better or worse, America has once again reminded folks that the big stick is something they would rather not deal with. Happily, most nations don't have to. What remains to be seen is if anyone remembers the 'talk softly' admonition of TR.

7. Check out the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. There is an article on their web page about American 'nation building' projects in some dozen or more cases since about 1900. The completely unanswered question is whether or not anyone in office will try something different. Pres Clinton had poor success, though Bosnia is shaping up a bit with time. From Woodrow Wilson to WJ Clinton, our historical track record on 'sustained success' in nation building is not blue ribbon. This goes back to my concern once I thought that war would happen with Iraq: how do you impose democracy on anyone? It has not really worked anywhere yet, sustainably, other than Japan.

8. Lines on the map: how sacred are they? Yugoslavia showed us all that the Versailles era lines on the map are NOT sacred. Iraq's lines are a byproduct of that process, and of course the Balfour agreements. I have heard a lot of talk about 'the territorial integrity of Iraq' being preserved, but to be frank with you, I think Jester called this one correctly: Saddam was as much a Tito as he was a Stalin. He held it all together by force of will and ruthless efficiency. Therefore, is the vision of a pluralist Iraq with a parliamentary government even possible?

9. Syria. You need to remember that Congress authorized use of force on Iraq. See point number 5. There will be quite a few who feel 'once bitten twice shy' on both sides of the aisle. I seriously doubt that it will do so for Syria in the short term, for reasons that have as much to do with avoiding the high expense of further overseas action, with the upcoming election, as they do with the advice of any number of folks on using 'other means' to work with Syria constructively. Again, Hassad is NOT Saddam.

10. The faliures in policy as regards Iraq have lasted 12 years. Starting with Pres Bush, continued by President Clinton and his Tomahawks, and finally with the more recent UN impasse and futility of 'all other means' that led to the decision to resort to arms. The failure has been a failure of every power worth the name, a failure of the international commuinty collectively, which includes the US.

Note: Without the catalyst of the WTC to evoke a visceral response among the American populace, I do not believe that this action would have earned sufficient support. It was not the linkage to Al Qaeda that seemed to matter to many folks. It was, to some, a matter of realizing that no matter what we did, 'they still won't like us.' Given that premise, why simply stand there and 'take it?' That popular sentiment would be what Meade called Jacksonian in character (after Andrew Jackson). Put another way, and to paraphrase Admiral Yamamoto, someone awakened the sleeping giant. It was not America, per se, it was rather that someone woke a lot of America from their 'live and let live' reverie, and they did not like what they saw, so in true Wilsonian tradition, they set about to change it! In an odd parallel, Japan awoke the American giant, and paid a price, but so did Germany and Italy.

11. Syria joined us in 1991 in that GUlf War coalition. (For Hassad senior's own reasons.) I wonder if Hassad junior, and his senior advisors, can somehow work that thread into his upcoming meeting with Secretary Powell.

I find your assumptions simplistic, as I said earlier in this thread. While I cannot pretend to be able to calm all of your concerns, some of which I share, I also feel that there is quite a bit of time available to work some things out. While you may worry about Syria, I consider Syria nearly irrelevant to any cncern but the Israel situation, which is a long term project, and always has been.

My concern is how we, the US, work to improve our relations with Iran. With 70,000,000 people and a motherlode of potential, they are the most significant nation in the Persian Gulf region. That is the bridge that needs serious rebuilding.

[Nicodemus Phaulkon]

Sorry, Occhi... didn't mean to step on whatever toe I happened to step on. CERTAINLY didn't mean to imply any tone other than frustration at the situation... and certainly nothing towards yourself. :unsure:

You were discussing lobbying groups and the efforts they exert towards the President... I was replying to that. I felt that my comments were dead on the topic at hand. Now, if you'd care to indicate to me where I "strayed", I'd be happy to both hear and reflect on your comments. If you're too caffienated to make that effort... then I'd request you calm down.

Let's see...

My comment on Powell's influence to Bush 41 was a fact. So I'll assume that this wasn't the sore issue.

My comment re: Bush 43's inability to make decisions? Hm. This might be it. Perhaps bringing that sidelong into the topic wasn't appropo. I stand by my assessment, but it might not have been the best thing to allude to for this conversation. If so; sorry.

My comment re: Goldwater? Well... I wasn't commenting on Goldwater at all. I was merely using your quote to reinforce the point that people who never run for election get ALOT of punch in Washington. I'd categorize both Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz as people that you'd never seen on a ballot... but are calling the shots. My opinion, certainly... but shared by many.

My comment about Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz being an "interest group"? Yeah, I can see you taking exception to that. My meaning was that these fellows are WAY up in the Administrative Food chain. I associate the term "interest group" with something like the NRA. They have their needed situation, want to see it addressed. Can you honestly say that a power-group like the PNAC is a interest group?

Anyway... for whatever reason I illicited that reply, I apologize for any misinterpretation... but it was YOUR reading of the tone. Surely I don't need to remind someone of your Forum Mileage of the dangers of perceived "tone".

*tips helm, anyway*

[Occhidiangela]

You raised a few good points. It was the other issue that set me off.

Sorry about that.

[Nicodemus Phaulkon]

Parallel posting! *looks at the timestamps*

Thanks, Occhi. I didn't quite know how to deal with the venom you were spitting in the previous reply, but THIS I can read quite happily. :)

You've every right to assume my conclusions are simplistic. I work with the information that I have at my disposal, and draw conclusions as best I can. Posting those conclusions on a forum such as this is done, in my opinion, for one reason: "I'd like to know more about this".

THAT, you have answered in Spades. While I look askance at some of your own conclusions, several others have cited instances and details that I either hadn't considered or simply didn't know. All of which is excellent; I have far more insight and balance on the topic now than I did when I posted its opening.

*looks back at the previous post*

That most likely took you the best part of an hour... maybe even longer. For that, I thank you greatly. I know you enjoy debating on this forum... but you'll forgive me the vanity of thinking that your effort there was directed at me, solely. I'd like you to understand that I appreciate the time you put into your presentation and the means by which you make your own points. I always respect the one's willing to sit down and try to "get it across". I hope you can appreciate that I was reading carefully through it and weighing the words and ideas as well.

I find your assumptions simplistic, as I said earlier in this thread.

Quite. But one has to start somewhere. It's the climb towards understanding that means the most, neh? :)

*tips helm*

[Griselda]

Wolfowitz, that is...

Start with one dictator. Ideally, broil over an open fire with high heat. If unable to light a sufficient fire, the dictator may need to be chilled for a number of years, so that he doesn't spoil.

Remember that dictators are often quite tasty in pairs, or even by the dozen! Be sure to stop by our online store to purchase our Black Hawk 5000, a top of the line grill for all of your preemption needs.

Try one today! Impress your friends! :ph34r:

</tongue in cheek>

-Gris

[TaMeOlta]

:P Cool , I want a copy of your "Griselda's cookbook" (signed , of course ;) ) when you release it ! :lol: Can you serve them w/ tater tots ?

EDIT : I could swear I "quoted" you , but it didn't appear ....... :blink:

[Mavfin]

Also, something else I haven't seen anywhere in this thread.....

Afghanistan and Iraq have given the US a core of veteran soldiers/sailors/pilots who have been there and done that. Think about that in terms of security concerns and deterrence. Who really wants to tangle with armed forces who already know what it's all about? Same for the Brits and Aussies. Any comments on that?

[goldfish]

Wow -- invasion of a country, deaths of x number of civilian (depending on who's doing the counting), expenditure of billions, all so our troops can get a little practice time at the guns??

That sounds (1) not particularly plausible to me, and (2) if true, evidence of a particularly evil bent by leadership. Remember the Japanese troops who "practiced" shooting on POWs? Such behavior is not generally looked upon favorably.

(Especially if other venues for practice are available -- and they are, i.e. war games, bomb an island, etc).

[Occhidiangela]

Goldfish:

The flaw in it is that, according to some in the Army, the 1991 War in the Gulf was less difficult than the training they had to do to be prepared. No fooling, this from personal conversations with guys in Armored and Mech units.

The National Training Center at Fort Irwin, and JRTCC at Fort Polk, Louisiana, are incredibly rigorous training ranges that put US forces up against an opponent who is tough, well trained and well equipped. (UH, US troops.) The foe also has air power, which makes it bloody. They use a system called MILES to find out who got hit and got put out of action.

Comparing the high level of "Blue" forces casualties at any training rotation to what actually happened in Iraq, either time, aids in understanding how tough it would be, and how bloody, to go up against a force of equal, or at least comparable, training and professionalism.

The 'practice' needed is already available at the 'practice facilities.' No need to kill anyone to do it, although the egos that get abused and slain during the training exercises are myriad.

'Train the way you are going to fight' seems to pay off, and the only casualties are the usual human error accidents like folks getting run over by HMVV's or helicopters flying into wires.

[goldfish]

That was my point, actually. Mav suggested ( I think) that a benefit of the war is the existence now of "battle-hardened" troops. I was criticizing that view, saying that current practice (wargames) is just fine, and that having a war for practice is a terrible idea. Sorry if that wasn't clear.