Funk

I’ve been in a sort of funk for the last ten days or so. I’ve had a bad cold or the flu. As a rule I’m rarely ill (other than the things that trouble me all of the time) so my taking a couple of days off to recover is an indication. For a while I was running an actual fever. When you consider that my normal body temperature is more than a degree below 98.6° going above 98.6 is something of an occasion.

I’m also discouraged about the general state of the world. We seem to hurtling towards war with Iran without any prospects of accomplishing anything by such a war other than getting a lot of people killed. I know that people will point to the threat that a nuclear-armed Iran will present. They should convince the U. S. intelligence agencies which still hold the position that Iran isn’t developing nuclear weapons.

My own view is that the Iranians are, in fact, developing nuclear weapons, we didn’t take the actions necessary to prevent them from doing so when it might have done some good, and there’s very little we can do to prevent their developing them now. Now is the time to develop a good policy for dealing with a nuclear Iran rather than more saber-rattling over a nuclear Iran being unacceptable.

I wish that the Obama Administration were crafting a strategy for a long-term commitment to Afghanistan rather than continuing to delude itself (or us or both) that victory there is within their grasp.

I think our foreign policy, generally, is a mess, neither pragmatic nor idealistic. Just incoherent.

I find the budget that the president has submitted equally incoherent. Many seem to agree, the most extreme characterization that of a Democratic congressman: “a nervous breakdown on paper”. Some think it’s political theater; a few poor souls think it’s brilliant political theater. The Wall Street Journal editors think it’s “doubling down on class warfare”. The Washington Post editors, apparently, think it’s a serious policy proposal.

If it’s serious, it’s a serious acknowledgement that the economy won’t right itself for the foreseeable future. More on that later.

I think the economy is a house of cards being built by drunks. It’s not a question of whether it will get knocked down but when and by what. There’s almost no end to the prospective candidates.

I don’t know whether to laugh or cry at contest for the Republican presidential nomination. IMO the final outcome will be that a weakened and decreasingly coherent Mitt Romney will be narrowly defeated by President Obama whose campaign, running against the Congress, ensures Republican majorities in both houses.

Like I say. I’m in a funk.

49 comments… add one
  • michael reynolds Link

    You’ve been quite productive for a man in a funk.

    I have no real opinion on the budget. I have to assume it’s theater since there is zero chance of reaching any sort of compromise with a Republican Congress whose only goal is defeating the president.

    I don’t think the Obama administration imagines victory is within reach in Afghanistan. I think we’re preparing to exit, stage right, and hoping not to be chased out the door.

    On Iran, I was thinking the same thing on the drive to drop the kids off, listening to various news programs. It’s all smelling a bit 1914 to me, complete with hotheaded allies, interconnected security agreements and long-held grudges. (For God’s sake, no royal visits to Sarajevo.)

    I don’t think Mr. Obama is looking for an overt war. I think, rather, that the sanctions are meant to combine with the low-intensity warfare already under way (Stuxnet, assassinations,) to create an irresistible pressure on the Mullahs. I hope it succeeds because I’d still prefer a non-nuclear Iran to a nuclear one, if we can do it without precipitating a war.

  • I think, rather, that the sanctions are meant to combine with the low-intensity warfare already under way (Stuxnet, assassinations,)

    I haven’t posted my thoughts on the sand thrown in the gears of the Iranian nuclear development program at least in part because I haven’t figured out a hook.

    IMO we’re almost uninvolved in whatever covert activity is going on there. I don’t believe that we have enough human intelligence in Iran to do anything. That has been always been true; I see no reason to believe it has changed recently.

    Maybe it’s the Israelis. I strongly suspect that the Israelis would like to get credit for Stuxnet and the assassinations whether they’re their work or not. If I had to give odds here’s who I think the likely culprits are:

    1. Dissident Iranian factors.
    2. Russians
    3. Israelis
    4. Us

    The human intelligence requirements and the epidemiology of the Stuxnet attack lead me to rank the Russians before the Israelis (not to mention the fact or it). Don’t think the Russians are the Iranians’ allies. They have more at risk from a nuclear-armed Iran than we do.

  • IMO whether you consider the budget as theater or as a sincere statement of priorities it’s pathetic. More likely a compromise between theater and a sincere statement of priorities, succeeding at neither.

  • Brett Link

    @Dave Schuler

    I’ve had a bad cold or the flu. As a rule I’m rarely ill (other than the things that trouble me all of the time) so my taking a couple of days off to recover is an indication. For a while I was running an actual fever. When you consider that my normal body temperature is more than a degree below 98.6° going above 98.6 is something of an occasion.

    I feel for you. Yesterday, I had an injured, painful foot, a painful bite from dental fillings, and a periodic stomach ailment that flared up.

    Now is the time to develop a good policy for dealing with a nuclear Iran rather than more saber-rattling over a nuclear Iran being unacceptable.

    It’s mostly just a risk to Israel. Partially because they’re paranoid about the Iranians (which is unjustified in my opinion), and partially because it might cause a lot of nuclear proliferation among the Arab countries in response. That would wipe out Israel’s conventional military superiority in terms of effectiveness.

    I wish that the Obama Administration were crafting a strategy for a long-term commitment to Afghanistan rather than continuing to delude itself (or us or both) that victory there is within their grasp.

    I think they’re just giving up. Plans are in motion to pull out lots of troops by mid-next year, and the U.S. budget allocation for Afghanistan’s army and police was drastically cut.

    It’s about time, too. Al-Qaeda is badly weakened, and we’ve got our symbolic victory with Bin Laden’s death. Revenge satiated, we can now focus on lower-profile police and intelligence work to stop terrorist attacks.

  • Maxwell James Link

    Contemplating politics for too long is a recipe for despair, and despair is useless, politically or otherwise. I recommend some more food blogging. Feel better.

  • steve Link

    I think the only way we resolve the budget issue is adoption of a parliamentary form of government, or a blowout election. Or, I believe that if Mitt is elected, the GOP will do away with the filibuster. I think we are at a point where gridlock is not good for us. It would be one of the few positives, IMO, of having the GOP win across the board. Enough to offset a certain war with Iran rather than a possible one? Shrug.

    Steve

  • I think the choices are between a Republican Congress and an Obama White House at loggerheads or a Republican win across the board.

  • Andy Link

    Every Presidential budget submission is theater to some extent – no Congress simply passes such a budget without significant revision. It’s importance in that it projects the President’s priorities and on that score I do think it’s incoherent. It looks like it was put together by several isolated committees tasked with targeting specific demographics and by that metric is seems to be a great success. Just looking at defense, the proposal is inconsistent with the President’s own stated national security strategy. I’m not sure what happened there.

    Personally, I’m not worried about Iran. It’s pretty obvious this President wants to avoid a war there, even one that Israel tries to drag us into. It’s pretty obvious the American people don’t want a war there and I doubt Congress would authorize one even if the President asked, which he won’t. Of course, events could push us into war – say Israel strikes Iran and then the Iranians begin attacking the US and/or our allies in the Gulf. I don’t think the Iranians are that stupid, but you never know. In that case, it’s game on, but I think absent that the chance that the US is going to attack Iran anytime soon is pretty low. There are a lot of idiots out there making stupid, ahistorical comparisons with the “run-up” to the war in Iraq as if the two situations were at all comparable. They aren’t.

    The bigger worry is Syria. Here is a country where war is a serious possibility if the “responsibility-to-protect” (R2P) faction gets their way. In my judgment, a war in Syria could have much worse consequences than a war in Iran because a war in Syria would quickly become a regime-change operation. Very few seem to be considering these consequences in the rush to “do something” about a regime that is murdering its own citizens.

    Anyway, I’ve been in a funk for a few years now Dave, so welcome to the club.

  • michael reynolds Link

    Re: Syria, where the hell are the Turks in this? Or the Jordanians? They both have capable militaries and share borders with Syria. Libya was a different matter — NATO was the closest competent power. That’s not the case in Syria. Whether or not there’s a responsibility to protect, it doesn’t mean it has to be a western action. At very least if Turkey took the lead they could round up some NATO help but keep a Muslim face on it.

  • Andy Link

    Turkey is obviously very concerned, but they don’t want to invade a neighbor to stop/avenge Syrians killing Syrians. This isn’t a problem with any easy solutions and Turkey will have to deal with the consequences, so they are being cautious.

  • I’ve been mulling over a post on the “responsibility to protect” and what it means for Syria (for OTB, presumably). I’ve got a great title but not much else at this point.

    WRT Syria and Turkey I think the Turks wish the whole thing would just go away. They have very little to gain and a heckuva lot to lose if things go really pear-shaped in Syria.

    IMO Turkish influence is just about at its zenith right now. The Turks are Muslims but they aren’t Arabs and with the long memories in the Middle East the Ottoman isn’t forgotten. Also it doesn’t much matter to the Turks where a Kurdish homeland is carved out. A base in Syria is as bad as one in Iraq. Either way it causes trouble for Turkey.

  • I would be very surprised if the President withdrew from Afghanistan completely by the end of his term. Imagine the following scenario:

    1. U. S. withdraws troops
    2. Funding for Afghanistan dries up.
    3. Another attack against the U. S. launched from Afghanistan

    I think the President is much more likely to commit his successor to withdrawing troops than he is to withdraw them himself. Cut back to 2008 levels? Sure. Withdraw completely? Very doubtful, IMO.

  • PD Shaw Link

    I’m in a funk too sometimes. I’d say the best funk is:

    James Brown
    Sly and the Family Stone
    The Meters
    The Red Hot Chilli Peppers
    Fishbone

  • michael reynolds Link

    Don’t forget Ike Turner.

  • TastyBits Link

    RE: Iran, Syria, Russia

    Americans and Europeans tend to ascribe a Western mindset to most countries and people. Iran, Syria, and Russia do not play by western rules. Russia (especially under Putin) has no fears of a nuclear Iran. Russia may prefer a non-nuclear Iran, but Russia would not hesitate to crush Iran. If Iran were stupid enough to contemplate threatening Russia, they would be wise to ask Georgia how Russia will respond.

    Furthermore, anything that Iran does to increase oil prices benefits Russia. Iranian oil will be replaced with higher priced Russian oil. Russia will also make money by selling weapons to Syria and Iran among others.

    Iran and Syria are on the way to being Russian client states, and they will be used against the West generally and America specifically. Iran with nuclear weapons will be able to support Hezbollah, Hamas, and other terrorist groups. The Sunni terrorist groups are presently angry with Iranian support for Syria because of the Sunni slaughter, but they will get over it if Israel is under attack.

    Contrary to Western opinion, Syria has been quite constrained in their internal conflict. Daddy Assad would have ended the nonsense months ago (see Hama). This indicates Baby Assad’s weakness, but with Russian backing, he will probably be stepping up his game. In many parts of the world, death tolls under 10,000 are nothing special. It takes 10’s or 100’s of thousand dead before anybody begins to take notice. Starvation is the “weapon of mass destruction” used to quell troublemakers.

    Jordan will not move against Syria. They are bordered by Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon, all Iranian satellite states. Jordan is also bordered by Israel and Saudi Arabia. While Jordan and Saudi Arabia rely on Israel’s military to keep Iran, Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon at bay, it would not be wise to acknowledge this publicly. Furthermore, a nuclear Iran and Russian support lessen Israel’s military ability.

    It is possible for Israel to attack Iran, but I think it is close to zero. An attack against Iran would leave Israel open to a two front war. Post-Mubarak Egypt is on one side, and a Hezbollah controlled Lebanon with Syrian and Iranian backing is on another side. (NOTE: Syria and Iranian have Russian support.) Jordan may not engage Israel directly, but their border will be used in some way.

    As to an airstrike, I would give that a low chance of occurring. Unless something has changed, Israel planes cannot make a round-trip to Iran without refueling. Since they will be flying over hostile airspace, in-air refueling is unlikely, and any planes will be lost. They may be able to carry larger wing tanks, but this will lower the armaments capacity. I do not think this is an option, but I could be wrong. The pilots would need to probably ditch in the Gulf, and Israel submarines would pick them up.

    Underground facilities are not impervious to attack. Destroying the openings will interrupt activity until it can be cleared. The above ground support infrastructure can also be destroyed. Israel could also decide to use a tactical nuclear bomb. Israel is more likely to keep up its computer virus and dead scientist campaign. They may also expand their campaign into additional countries targeting Iranians.

    Turkey is unlikely to move against Syria. Turkey is moving toward an Islamic state, and they may decide to re-create the Ottoman Empire. Presently they are straddling the West and Middle East geographically and politically. If they enter Syria, it is more likely to obtain a buffer state between them and Iran through Iraq. Turkey is concerned about the Iraqi Kurds joining the Turkish Kurds, but as a non-Western state, they will deal with the Kurds using non-Western methods.

    There will be a large scale war in the next 5 to 10 years, and Iran will be at the center. Doing nothing will bring it about faster, but doing something will only bring it about later. I do not see any way to avoid a large scale war with a nuclear armed Iran. Actually, the way to lessen this would be US military bases in Iraq and Afghanistan. Most of the world understands strength, and strength brings peace. Weakness always results in unpleasantness.

    A full discussion should include Afghanistan, Pakistan, Gulf states, Somalia, Northern African states, India, and China. The collapse of Europe and the expanse of Russia should be included, and South America will also play a larger part in future events. European Muslims are in for a rough ride. Instead of a “Jewish problem”, it may be a “Muslim problem” this time, but if I were a European Jew, I would still be worried.

    “For the Snark was a Boojum, you see.”

  • Ben Wolf Link

    “Turkey is unlikely to move against Syria. Turkey is moving toward an Islamic state, and they may decide to re-create the Ottoman Empire. Presently they are straddling the West and Middle East geographically and politically. If they enter Syria, it is more likely to obtain a buffer state between them and Iran through Iraq. Turkey is concerned about the Iraqi Kurds joining the Turkish Kurds, but as a non-Western state, they will deal with the Kurds using non-Western methods.

    There will be a large scale war in the next 5 to 10 years, and Iran will be at the center. Doing nothing will bring it about faster, but doing something will only bring it about later. I do not see any way to avoid a large scale war with a nuclear armed Iran. Actually, the way to lessen this would be US military bases in Iraq and Afghanistan. Most of the world understands strength, and strength brings peace. Weakness always results in unpleasantness.”

    Now I’m reminded why I can’t take you seriously. You’ve thrown out a laundry list of dogma, paranoia and right-wing fantasy to rival Limbaugh’s ghost writers. From the above I judge you know almost nothing about Turkey, its culture or its politics which do not come from a politician, a popular entertainer, a polemicist or a blog. Nor do you have historical perspective if you accept the rather simple-minded axiom that strength = peace.

    Snark and Boojum need to challenge their preconceptions.

  • Icepick Link

    If Iran were stupid enough to contemplate threatening Russia, they would be wise to ask Georgia how Russia will respond.

    Georgia
    Area: ~27,000 sq mi
    Population: ~4,469,000

    Iran
    Area: ~636,000 sq mi
    Population: ~76,000,000

    Iran is more than an order of magnitude larger than Georgia, not to mention that Georgia shares a border with Russia, where Iran does not.

  • Icepick Link

    Compare to

    Georgia (US State)
    Area: ~59,000 sq mi
    Population: ~9,800,000

    Or, Georgia ( the nation) is approximately the population of Kentucky crammed into a state a little bigger than West Virginia, whereas Iran is approximately the populations of California, Texas and Florida crammed into a state the size of Alaska minus West Virginia. Comparing the two in terms of military or diplomatic targetting is ludicrous.

  • Ken Hoop Link

    The only sane and ethical U.S. Middle East nuke policy would have been for the US to force Israel to declare then dismantle its own, and thus create a nuke-free Mideast.

    But of course since the Zionists own Congress, that couldn’t be accomplished. So reap the whirlwind.

  • Icepick Link

    Excuse me, my figurin’ is off. Iran is comparable in population to the states California, New York and Florida put together. Throwing in Texas adds an extra six million or so people.

  • TastyBits Link

    @Ben Wolf

    Now I’m reminded why I can’t take you seriously. …

    So be it. Since I am a guest, I try to be as polite as possible.


    … You’ve thrown out a laundry list of dogma, paranoia and right-wing fantasy to rival Limbaugh’s ghost writers. …

    I have no idea of what Limbaugh or his ghost writers put out. I got tired of Limbaugh a long time ago, and I guess that would include his ghost writers.

    A serious retort would include specific instances “dogma, paranoia and right-wing fantasy”, but why put forth a well thought argument when a few incoherent sentences will suffice? Is this not one of the charges against Limbaugh and his ghost writers?


    … From the above I judge you know almost nothing about Turkey, its culture or its politics which do not come from a politician, a popular entertainer, a polemicist or a blog. …

    I will try to make sense of this sentence. I assume you mean that my knowledge “comes from a politician, a popular entertainer, a polemicist or a blog.” Please provide examples.

    I do have a working knowledge of “… Turkey, its culture or its politics …”, but I have not done an extensive study of Turkish history. Again, a few examples would be helpful.

    Turkey WILL NOT move against Syria except to include Syria in its sphere of influence. Turkey is not nor has it ever been European. Europe has never accepted Turkey as an equal, and Turkey knows it. Turkey provides a buffer to Europe from the Middle East and the Soviet Union. Co-opting Turkey has an added benefit to Europe of keeping down the Ottoman Empire.

    Turkey has not forgotten the Ottoman Empire and its place in world. Turkey is also aware of their status in relation to Europe – “red-headed stepchild”. With Europe collapsing, Turkey will have less attachment to Europe, and the chaos in the Middle East allows someone to fill the power vacuum. I am not well versed in Turkish culture and politics to predict what they will do, but I doubt they are going to be acting against their self interest.


    … Nor do you have historical perspective if you accept the rather simple-minded axiom that strength = peace.

    I know that my historical perspective is far broader and deeper than most people, ans I suspect you would be included in that group.

    If you were to actually read what I wrote, you would comprehend that I did not equate strength & peace. Strength facilitates peace. Weakness does not. I would like to have examples of peace through weakness. In a safe and luxurious society, it is easy to have no idea of how the world works, but if you hit the streets, you may be educated.


    Snark and Boojum need to challenge their preconceptions.

    It appears that you have never gone Hunting a Snark. A Boojum is a type of Snark, and although common Snarks do no manner of harm, you need to beware of the day, if your Snark be a Boojum. I have never heard of a Snark having a preconception, but you may serve it with greens, and it’s handy for striking a light.

    “For the Snark was a Boojum, you see.”

  • TastyBits Link

    @Icepick

    The context was a Russia being worried about a nuclear Iran. If an Iranian nuclear bomb were to explode in Russia, Russia would retaliate with nukes, and I doubt that there would be any debate.

    The point with Georgia is that Russia acts in its interests, and they do not act according to world opinion. I do not think Russia intends to take large scale military actions, but the Russian Bear is on the move.

    Russia and China continually do things that are deemed to be against their best interest. At some point it should become clear that they have a different idea of their best interest. Russia, China, and others make rational decisions for their countries.

    “For the Snark was a Boojum, you see.”

  • michael reynolds Link

    I would like to have examples of peace through weakness.

    Luxembourg. Costa Rica. Canada. Norway. None of them a serious power, none of them with a recent history of war. Yeah, it’s facile and silly, and so is the assumption that strength facilitates peace. Was the Roman Empire ever at peace? How about the Mongols? The Huns? The Prussians? France under Napoleon?

    We’re the most powerful nation on earth and we’ve been continuously at war, to one degree or another, since Pearl Harbor. A strong Japan was constantly at war, a militarily weaker Japan has been at peace since Nagasaki.

    Obviously we have apples and we have oranges. Different eras, different definitions of strength, different dangers. Which is why slogans don’t usually hold up too well to scrutiny.

  • Icepick Link

    If an Iranian nuclear bomb were to explode in Russia, Russia would retaliate with nukes, and I doubt that there would be any debate.

    And if an Iranian nuclear bomb went off in the USA we wouldn’t retaliate? What’s your point? Why mention Georgia in that context? Did the Georgians nuke Sevastapol when I wasn’t paying attention?

    As for the Russian Bear being on the move – it is not at all clear that Russian isn’t in at least as much trouble as Europe. Society has become very corrupt and stratified, the leadership seems to have lost touch, Russia has its own demographic troubles, etc., etc.

    And you over-estimate Russia’s influence on Iran and Syria. Russia needs all the hard currency it can muster (even with its impressive natural resources) and arms sales are always a good way to make a ruble. (Rubles for Rubble – sounds like a good sales pitch, or even a tag-line for a video game. Za Rodinu! – Rubles for Rubble!) Thwarting American influence while competing with the Chinese for more of their own is an added benefit. But there is no sign that either the Iranians or the Syrians are becoming vassal states of the Russians. Middle Eastern states just don’t make good vassal states, the Cold War taught us that. For one thing, they’re too interested in their own interests.

  • Icepick Link

    Luxenburg isn’t such a great example, given that the only reason they haven’t been invaded in recent decades is because we’ve been baby-sitting the Germans and French. We’re the only people that could reasonably invade Canada, and why would we want to? We’ve already got all the freakin’ snowbanks we need. Norway is a better argument. We are baby-sitting the Germans and French, but the Swedes and Danes seem to have calmed down all on their own.

    But frankly I’ve got no good reason why we haven’t invaded Costa Rica. Now THAT is the kind of country we SHOULD invade.

  • Icepick Link

    Other good places to invade: Cancun (just Cancun, forget the rest of Mexico), French Polynesian, Key West, the resorts of Cuba, Rio during Carnival (admittedly, we might lose that one, but its worth the risk!), Monaco ….

  • TastyBits Link

    @Icepick


    And if an Iranian nuclear bomb went off in the USA we wouldn’t retaliate? …

    I do not think that the US or Russia will ever have a nuclear explosion from an Iranian bomb. This includes any terrorist groups.

    I doubt we would we would retaliate with nukes, and I would give it a 50-50 chance. This may sound like utter nonsense, but in 2004, my prediction that terrorists would be granted Constitutional rights was deemed insanity. There would be some retaliation, but it would be military targets using conventional weapons. I would be stunned if we were to send in any troops. NOTE: This is applicable to a Republican or a Democratic President.

    Other than closing the Strait of Hormuz, I do not think Iran can do anything to cause the US to engage it militarily. Closing the Strait would allow the US to use this as an excuse to target many “strategic sites.” NOTE: This is applicable to a Republican or a Democratic President.


    … Why mention Georgia in that context? …

    In my opinion, the Russians would use nukes, and they would include civilian and military targets. The response would be overwhelming. There would be no national debate, and the “International Community’s” opinion would have no influence. In the case of Georgia, the Russians did not go to the UN, and they did not consult the “International Community”. The point is that the Russians (and most non-Western countries) have a vastly different world view compared to Europe and the US.


    … Society has become very corrupt and stratified, the leadership seems to have lost touch, Russia has its own demographic troubles, etc., etc.

    Actually it is a return to the norm.

    Czarist Russia was mostly serfs, later peasants, a noble class, and the Czar. The Boyars had little power, and the middle class was small to non-existent. The Czar of Russia owned the land, and the people were his vassals. The Soviet Union was no different from Czarist Russia with the exception of the rulers. Corruption was also rampant in Czarist Russia. I am not fluent in the history of the USSR, but I assume corruption was also a problem.

    Russia has recognized the demographic problem, and they are encouraging childbirths. If they have not developed an incentive program, they will soon.


    And you over-estimate Russia’s influence on Iran and Syria. But there is no sign that either the Iranians or the Syrians are becoming vassal states of the Russians. …

    At present, you are right, but it is growing fast. They will never be vassal states controlled by Russia, but they will be client states working to further Russian goals. As independent states, Iran and Syria have their own goals. They will be Russian “toadies”.

    Putin intends to put the Soviet Union back together. It will be modernized, but it will be good old Russia again. In addition, I suspect that Putin intends for the world to know that Russia is nobody’s bitch. During the Cold War, Russia was a superpower, and Putin has not forgotten.


    … Middle Eastern states just don’t make good vassal states, the Cold War taught us that. For one thing, they’re too interested in their own interests.

    Iran is not an Arab nation. The Persians can be formidable. I am not sure about the Syrians people. I do not think they are Arabian, but they act like an Arab country.

    Interestingly, throughout most of its history Russia has been weak militarily, and for many years, they paid tribute to one group or another. Because of the geography, they have never been conquered, but their weakness has caused unpleasantness.

    “For the Snark was a Boojum, you see.”

  • TastyBits Link

    @michael reynolds


    … Was the Roman Empire ever at peace? How about the Mongols? The Huns? The Prussians? France under Napoleon?

    Within the borders of the Roman and Mongol Empires, there was peace and prosperity. Both had formidable armies, and both were expanding their Empires. At some point the Empires became too big, and they declined and collapsed. The Roman Empire lasted through many successors, but the Mongol Empire fell apart after Genghis’s death.

    Both had a similar philosophy regarding conquered people. Those who surrendered were mostly left alone. Those who resisted were slaughtered and sold into slavery. It was brutal but effective. The conquered people could continue as before as long as the paid their taxes/tribute and did not cause trouble. For many cities and towns, there was an increase in the quality of life.

    From a historical perspective, life for most people was better under the Roman and Mongol Empires. For most of history the 99% have lived under one Overlord or another. Freedom is an anomaly throughout history, but under these Empires, they were free for their time. Genghis Khan was more Progressive than today’s Progressive.

    I believe the the Napoleonic Empire was considered Enlightened, and it was also Progressive. My knowledge of the Huns is limited, and I know almost nothing about the Prussians.

    I would include the Egyptian Empire, but 3,000 years would take too much to discuss in a blog comment. It is actually good example due to its length. They went through weak and strong Pharaohs. The Empire expanded, contracted, and remained static for years.


    We’re the most powerful nation on earth and we’ve been continuously at war, to one degree or another, since Pearl Harbor. …

    I would argue the opposite. Since the end of WWII, the US was at peace until 09-11-2001, and since then, we have been at peace. We have engaged in military actions (undeclared wars), but the US has been under little threat of being attacked. I would also include the Soviet Union.

    The reason we invaded Iraq instead of Pakistan is nukes. Once Iran gets nukes, they will be too strong to touch. Countries with nukes do not worry about non-nuclear countries, but terrorists are an exception.

    The Japanese perceived America as too weak to sustain a devastating first blow, and therefore, they struck Pearl Harbor. If the Japanese had perceived strength, history would have been different.


    Obviously we have apples and we have oranges. Different eras, different definitions of strength, different dangers. Which is why slogans don’t usually hold up too well to scrutiny.

    Comparing apples and oranges is done all the time, and this is the foundation of most of our knowledge. We compare mice to humans for drug testing. We compare dummies to humans for crash testing. It is really not that difficult, but you do need to study. The point is that the differences do not necessarily make a comparison impossible.

    Different definitions are always a problem, and a proper discussion would require an agreement of the concepts assigned to words. Unfortunately, space is limited. We probably have vastly different definitions of Peace, and I am probably wasting your time.

    I have no need for slogans. I actually try to learn as much as I can about a subject to be able to produce a coherent thought. Sometimes, the truth is unpleasant, but it is still the truth. When I ask for examples, I actually do consider them. I will use your comments to modify my wording for future use, but I doubt it would hold up to your scrutiny.

    The Russian Empire could be an example of peace through weakness, but I am too tired to make the argument.

    “For the Snark was a Boojum, you see.”

  • Ben Wolf Link

    “I would argue the opposite. Since the end of WWII, the US was at peace until 09-11-2001, and since then, we have been at peace.”

    This is why I call you ignorant:

    1947- 1991: Cold War, also known as World War III

    1950-1953: Korean War

    1960-1975: Vietnam War

    1959-1968: Bay of Pigs and repeated American directed terrorist operations against Cuba

    1965: Invasion of Dominican Republic

    1969 – 1973: Bomgind of Cambodia exceeding scale of Alloed bombing campaign against Germany

    1962-1975: Repeated interventions and bombing of Laos

    1979: CIA wages war against legitimate Nicaraguan government

    1983: Grenada

    1986: Bombardment of Libya. -Being big and strong doesn’t seem to deter much, does it?

    1986: CIA intervenes to provide paramilitary support to Hatian dictator “Baby Doc” Duvalier.

    Persian Gulf: 1987-1988

    1989: Panama Invasion

    1990 – 1991 Gulf War

    1995-1997 Bosnian Interventions

    P.S. You have no background in history and it shows glaringly. The above isn’t even a comprehensive list.

  • Maxwell James Link

    I think TastyBits meant to say “Since December 8, 1941…”

    Since clearly under his warped definition of “at peace,” any moment the US is not being directly attacked we are at peace.

  • sam Link

    Maybe we can paraphrase Ronald Reagan here:

    Peace is when some other American is getting shot at; war is when you’re getting shot at.

  • michael reynolds Link

    Tasty:

    Ben has already demolished your version of American history in detail.

    Allow me to help you a bit with earlier history. Your definition of peace now means that wars on the borders are not war? That’s absurd, it doesn’t matter where the war happens.

    In fact, the wars on Rome’s borders were not all offensive, Rome was regularly attacked. The list of Frankish, Gallic, Celtic and Germanic groups that attacked Rome rather than the reverse is endless. Then there are the various iterations of the Persian empires, the Carthaginians and other North African groups, various Egyptians, endless nominally Roman forces, more civil wars and faction fights than can easily be counted. In short, Rome was powerful and almost never at peace.

    And no, neither Rome nor Genghis treated all conquests magnanimously. Examples too numerous to bother listing. And in any event it would be irrelevant to your assertion that peace flows from strength. (As is your odd remark about Napoleon being a progressive. Say what, now?)

    But to return to US history, Japan did not attack Pearl Harbor because they thought we were weak. They attacked in an effort to delay our response. A response that they feared because they knew full well that our Navy was powerful and growing more so every day.

    Much the same could be said for WW1. The Germans, British, French and Russians didn’t go to war because they thought the other side was weak, they went to war because they feared growing strength and militancy on the other side. Arms races and geopolitical maneuvering led to war, each side trying to be stronger than the other.

    Sweden? Not so much war in modern history. They managed to skip both world wars. You think it was their overweening power that did it?

    As Ben points out: you know nothing about history.

  • TastyBits Link

    @Ben Wolf

    If you define peace as a lack of military action by a country (nation, empire, city-state, principality, etc.), peace is a rare condition. This is a simplistic definition, and it displays a stunning lack of historic knowledge. In this case, my argument falls apart, and I concede you are correct.

    My definition of peace would be lack of military action against a country (nation, empire, city-state, principality, etc.). Peace is also a lack of military action between two specific countries. This would match reality more closely. You should be able to use Wikipedia to corroborate this.

    With the exception of terrorism, the US has not been attacked since the end of WWII. This is also true for all countries with nuclear capabilities. The Osama bin Laden raid into Pakistan is one counter example, but the US is higher on the nuclear ladder. I would suggest you study this to develop a counter argument.

    The Cold War is another example you could use to develop a counter argument. I would counter with the lack of direct aggression by the primary participants. You could make a convincing argument.

    You should add 1983: Beirut, Lebanon Marine Corp barracks bombing and Tehran, Iran 1979: Iranian hostage crisis. These would enhance your position.

    Stringing together an incomplete laundry list of events is not a cohesive argument. Establishing a conclusion and attempting to support it is not the method of reasoning. A rational argument is built upon premises and logic. In order to assail the argument, you show either to be wrong. Also, providing a list of links is not a reasoned argument. You need to put forth an original thought.

    History did not start with the end of WWII. Personally, I am comfortable discussing history from about 3,000 BC, but that is limited to Egypt and Mesopotamia. But, I am not an expert.

    Finally, I would rather not get into a pissing match. It is tedious and time consuming. There is a Physics Professor somewhere who was/is convinced I know nothing about Physics. Apparently, the onlookers thought otherwise, and he is still a laughingstock. Facts, logic, and reason are powerful tools, but they are worthless when attempting to reason with the irrational. In order to have a rational discussion with you, I would need to make your argument also.

    “For the Snark was a Boojum, you see.”

  • Andy Link

    Don’t really want to get involved in this digression, but I did write up a short essay on Syria at my neglected blog.

  • Dave,

    I know exactly how you feel. I’ve felt this way for quite sometime. It is why I rarely blog anymore. Just can’t get motivated to do it given the way things are going. I find your description of the economy pretty apt, and this isn’t a partisan thing (and I’m not trying to be a hipster douche either, I just look at how our system works now and…yeah a house of cards being built by drunks).

    Luxembourg. Costa Rica. Canada. Norway.

    Right, NATO wasn’t a factor at all (for Luxemborg and Norway, BTW Norway was invaded by Germany in WWII).

    Yeah, it’s facile and silly, and so is the assumption that strength facilitates peace.

    I think being strong is a factor that can facilitate peace or at least reducing the chances of violent confrontation. Is it sufficient? No.

    Being big and strong doesn’t seem to deter much, does it?

    Wow, talk about simple-minded. There is a vast difference between being strong and willing to fight to defend one’s self (both individually and as a nation) and being aggressive. I think if the U.S. maintained strength but was far less aggressive it would be a better world. Problem is politicians do love themselves some war.

    I think the issues of strength and peace and war are a bit more complicated than the discussion here gets too. For example, I mentioned Norway and WWII. At that time Norway’s military was very weak after quite a period of neglect. Still Germany invaded. Why? Because Norway was weak? No. They were invaded because Germany wanted to keep Norway from being a staging base by the French and British. They also wanted to ensure access to iron ore in Sweden.

  • Michael Reynolds Link

    Steve V:

    Dude there’s not much point in accusing me of saying something superficial when that was my own point. Obviously Costa Rica etc…was to make my point that simplistic formulae in history or FR are silly and superficial.

    I use the analogy of a map. On the big map of the world California and Texas are pretty close. As you zoom in they appear ever further apart and you begin to see all the complexity if detail that would make it difficult to, say, walk from one to the other. Broad generalizations about history usually fall apart when the view gets more detailed.

  • TastyBits Link

    I would like to clarify if I have been misunderstood.

    I am not advocating for more US aggression. I think some of the past aggression could be defended, but I would not be the one to do it.

    Strength facilitates aggressive actions, but it does not require aggression. Walk softly, carry a big stick, and be prepared to whack an attacker unmercifully.

    “For the Snark was a Boojum, you see.”

  • TastyBits Link

    @michael reynolds


    Allow me to help you a bit with earlier history. Your definition of peace now means that wars on the borders are not war? That’s absurd, it doesn’t matter where the war happens.

    If I understand correctly, the US has not had peace with the exception of a few years here and there, and this would be true for most of history. Since the aggressors are usually the stronger, I should reformulate my position to: “Strength precludes peace.”

    I should have includes “tends” in all my formulations.

    Generally, weakness is not considered negative when a society is strong. From the safety of a strong nation, weakness is not too bad. The US is strong enough that dismantling its nuclear weapons would not significantly weaken her. Most of the world understands that weakness results in unpleasantness, and this has been true throughout history.

    Americans are part of the 1%, and their world view is vastly different than the other 99%.


    … and faction fights …

    If these are included in non-peaceful times, the list of countries in peaceful times is exceedingly small, and in these cases, I doubt strength or weakness is a factor. I would personally discount most internal strife because it is mostly the top fighting amongst themselves, but it would be unpleasant for the bottom. Of course, the bottom is weaker, and if the get stronger, this could lead to civil war.


    … (As is your odd remark about Napoleon being a progressive. Say what, now?)

    As to Napoleon specifically, I do not know if he was a Progressive. During the Napoleonic Empire, many advancements were made. Laws are one area of progress. I know there were others, but I have limited knowledge of the era. I do think that there was an attempt to advance the 99%, but I could be wrong.

    @michael reynolds

    I do not know you except through your posts, but it seems as if you need to get out more. If you have not been to the “bad” areas of town, you might want to visit them, and it would be best if it were in a large city. If possible, you may want to visit many cities in the US and abroad. Take a trip to a third world country or two if you have not. In addition to advocating weakness, you may want to enlighten them about your other ideas.

    “For the Snark was a Boojum, you see.”

  • Michael Reynolds Link

    Have I been to the bad areas of town? Hah. No, it’s been private boarding schools, lawn parties and Ivy League honor societies for me.

  • Icepick Link

    I said Middle Eastern, TB, not Arab. The Israelis and Turk are also poor vassal states.

  • Icepick Link

    Sweden? Not so much war in modern history. They managed to skip both world wars. You think it was their overweening power that did it?

    This isn’t a good argument. Sweden, unlike Norway, had no strategic value of its own to merit interest from the Germans. Sweden’s shield was its unimportance, its sword its commitment to not fuck with the Big Boys. Sweden, unlike Finland, did not share a long border with an expansionist minded neighbor. Switch the names Sweden and Norway, or Sweden and Finland, around and you get a different picture of invasion. The best defense is to not be noticable. The best offense is to offer no offence.

  • Icepick Link

    This is also true for all countries with nuclear capabilities.

    The British and French had plenty of problems with their colonial territories despite having The Bomb. The British had to go to war with Argentina not to far back. In the not too distant past the Chinese got into with the Vietnamese. (The Vietnamese held their own, IIRC.) Pakistan and India have besically been involved in low-grade warfare since the British left the sub-continent, with occassional flair-ups into high-grade warfare. Having The Bomb, in and of itself, don’t mean shit. Because of their location, the NorKs are just about as dangerous without a Bomb as they are with one, and pretty much just as untouchable.

  • Icepick Link

    I think if the U.S. maintained strength but was far less aggressive it would be a better world.

    It would be for us, for the rest of the world it would be at best a wash, and for chunks of it things would get worse.* I don’t care about the rest of the world, so I’m all for bringing the boys (and gals) home.

    * I would note that leaving troops in certain, apparently peaceful, portions of the world seems silly, but actually acts as insurance to guarantee the stability we would prefer. Europe (post-SU) is the best example of this.

  • Michael Reynolds Link

    Ice: Clearly you’ve forgotten the Swedish Bikini Team.

  • TastyBits Link

    @Icepick


    … colonial territories …

    I agree, but they did not attack the “homeland”. Their size is an advantage. It is kinda like getting into a fight with a six year old.


    … British … Argentina …

    I would put this into the same category as the US – Grenada action. A way for Thatcher and Reagan to let everybody know they were serious. After Iraq, it seems irrelevant, but it was relevant at the time.


    … Chinese …

    I am not familiar with the specific instance. I would think that in the Korean Conflict they learned that well positioned and manned machine guns beat charging hordes, but maybe not.


    … Pakistan and India …

    I forgot about those two. I expect them to war some time soon, and I predict an exchange of nukes.


    … NorKs …

    I am not convinced they have a working bomb, but I include them because I am in the minority. Their arms dealing is a problem, but otherwise, I would rate them below Venezuela.

    Overseas Bases
    I would like to see them “mothballed” and used as needed. There should be equipment pre-positioned at the bases, but the cost and upkeep would be paid by the protected parties.

    “For the Snark was a Boojum, you see.”

  • Icepick Link

    Ice: Clearly you’ve forgotten the Swedish Bikini Team.

    That would be a reason to invade now, but the Bikini wasn’t invented until 1946, thus no Swedish Bikini Team at that time. Besides, weren’t the Nazis more prone (ahem) to women in leather corsets and jackboots?

    But add Sweden to my list of places we SHOULD invade.

  • Icepick Link

    I would think that in the Korean Conflict they learned that well positioned and manned machine guns beat charging hordes, but maybe not.

    I think you might need to re-read the history of that conflict. There was a lot of maneuver and breakthrough in that war before it bogged down.

  • TastyBits Link

    @Icepick

    I was referring to the Marine Corps fighting withdrawal in the Chosin Reservoir. Close Air Support, artillery, and machine guns allowed them to extract men, equipment, wounded, dead. In addition, they picked up the equipment the Army left behind.

    This was how it was taught to us. You will need to discuss any differences with Senior Drill Instructor SSgt. Danby.

    “For the Snark was a Boojum, you see.”

  • Icepick Link

    You are citing one battle out of a whole war. That would be as idiotic as a Chinese Army officer only quoting from the pamphlet “Primary Conclusions of Battle Experience at Unsan” without paying any mind to the further course of the conflict. Sample:

    …Cut off from the rear, they abandon all their heavy weapons… Their Infantrymen are weak, afraid to die, and have no courage to attack or defend.

    From Fehrenbach:

    In open battle, openly arrived at, an American army might have slaughtered [the Chinese army]. On the fields of Europe, or in the deserts of North Africa, they would have died under the machines and superior firepower of a mechanized host. But now, Lin Piao’s hosts were not going to engage in open battle, openly arrived at, with the West.

    They would fight, in their own way, in their own mountains, and they would inflict upon American arms the most decisive defeat they had suffered in the century.

    Why people forget that pissing into the Yalu river was the precursor to heavy losses and bitter defeat (before the tide turned yet again) I cannot fathom.

Leave a Comment