Comments Posted By Dave Schuler
Displaying 21 To 30 Of 37 Comments
Sounds like we're basically in agreement, Rick. Israel is a somewhat more complex case than Kristol and others are making it out.
On the one hand, its a liberal democracy fighting for its survival against authoritarian thugs hiding behind religion as well as being our best contact in the region. In that role it's to some degree our fight. We have an interest.
But, on the other hand, it's a state that's fighting for an ethnic and cultural identity and that is emphatically not our fight.
With the aid we've given it over the years Israel is more than able to hold up its own end against its immediate neighbors (Lebanon, Syria, the Palestinian territory). It doesn't need our help against its near foes.
That's why I've argued for an explicit policy of negative reciprocity on our part in this conflict. If Iran holds itself out of the fray, we should as well.
There have been reports that Iran is already actively involved. I have no way of knowing whether this is true. It's all the more reason to have an explicit policy of negative reciprocity.
Comment Posted By Dave Schuler On 15.07.2006 @ 21:20
I'm glad to see we're on the same page on this, Rick. I posted in a similar vein this morning.
Comment Posted By Dave Schuler On 22.06.2006 @ 09:47
IRAN: EVERYBODY PLEASE RELAX AND TAKE A DEEP BREATH
I think that we should take care to keep sight of the fact that the real source of tensions is the Iranian regime. Their nuclear development program is 20 years or more old. I see no reason to believe that they've had done anything differently regardless of who the U. S. president was.
I posted in a similar vein this morning, Rick, albeit with a little more kindness towards the Left Blogosphere. I wonder if they can't get their minds around the notion that just because events redound to the supposed benefit of the Administration they might not have been fomented solely for that purpose.
Comment Posted By Dave Schuler On 13.04.2006 @ 14:01
WHY COOLER HEADS MUST PREVAIL ON IRAN
Thanks, Rick. I think we're more in agreement than disagreement.
Freedom Fighter:
There's no real evidence that the Soviet Union ever had suitcase nukes. We just don't know. I think that it's a reasonable inference that if any were in the hands of terrorists they'd already have used them. At any rate Iran will not have the ability to produce such a thing for the foreseeable future.
As to attacking Irans ports and oil infrastructure we won't do it preemptively so there's no use fantasizing about it. What we'd do if actually attacked is another story altogether.
However, you're right about the cash flow angle. That's why I've suggested blockade. We have the resources to do it and they're available and, even with their new weaponry (which may not be that new), Iran doesn't have the resources to do much about it.
If we had the will we certainly have the ability to neutralize Iran's oil production: I'm pretty confident that our special forces could keep Iran's pipelines non-functional (much as terrorists have damaged Iraq's). Two can play at that game.
Comment Posted By Dave Schuler On 5.04.2006 @ 14:23
As you know, Rick, I've written about this situation frequently and, as you must also know, I don't favor either invading or bombing Iran for reasons that you've outlined. However, I disagree that the SSI alternatives are realistic.
I've posted frequently on deterrence. Right now the vital psychological component of deterrence is completely absent. Lots of people in the U. S. think we are bluffing. What do the Iranians think?
One of the reasons we don't want the Iranians to have nuclear weapons is that we don't want the Saudis or Egyptians to have them. Should we allow ourselves to be put into the position where we're defending heinous regimes hammer and tongs to keep the nuclear weapons they have out of the hands of terrorists if the government should fall? Doing so would completely undermine the activities of the last five years (if that hasn't happened already). If this is the only alternative, we'd be better off wiping Iran off the map (and, as I said, I oppose military solutions).
Regional military alliance? Every regime in the region is either tottering, irrelevant, or are more worried about us than the Iranians. The only regional power of consequence whose participation would be an asset is Russia and I believe that the most we can expect from them is taking a wait and see posture. And it might be impossible to get that from them.
Work with dissident groups. Great idea if you've got a Wayback Machine on you. At this point the realistic estimate for an Iranian bomb is about five years. Does anyone really think the hypothetical dissidents can go from invisibility to overthrowing the regime in five years?
I think the real realistic alternatives are either
1) to accept that Iran will get the bomb, other Middle Eastern countries will too, and that one of them will put a bomb in the hands of terrorists. We need to take our borders and other entry points much more seriously and be prepared for a world with significantly more expensive oil.Or 2) Start preparing the American people for the necessity of a very bloody conflict with Iran.
In the past I've suggested blockade and that's probably an option, too. But the likelihood is pretty good that blockade would escalate into a full-blown shooting war rapidly.
Comment Posted By Dave Schuler On 5.04.2006 @ 13:15
IT'S TIME: MEDALS OF HONOR FOR THE PASSENGERS OF FLIGHT #93
The revisions to the rules for awarding the Medal of Honor in 1918 banned group or unit awards of the MOH (which were a commonplace during the Civil War since it was our military's only medal of valor). It's possible that specific individuals on Flight 93 could qualify but there's no way to award the MOH to everybody on the flight without an ex post facto law.
A better solution IMO would be striking a special medal for the purpose.
Comment Posted By Dave Schuler On 4.04.2006 @ 21:38
As you know, Rick, I don't think we have an immigration problem legal or illegal. I think we have a problem controlling our southern border that contemporary exigencies require us to resolve for the first time in the history of the Republic. We can do this the easy way (with the cooperation of the United Mexican States) or the hard way (without it).
With the cooperation of Mexico we can prevent those who would do us harm from entering the country or bringing in arms or bacteriological weapons (or whatever) by that route. Without it many more Mexican citizens will be harmed in the process.
But control it we must even it means that the Mexican economy will collapse (and that's what I think it means). The moral of the story is not that we shouldn't control our borders but that the Mexican economy needs to depend on something other than remittances.
Comment Posted By Dave Schuler On 28.03.2006 @ 14:05
IMPEACHMENT BANDWAGON STARTS TO ROLL
Once policy differences become grounds for impeachment I don't see much way that any future president (and there are probably 90 politicians who see themselves as such in the U. S. Senate) will serve until the end of his or her term.
Mistakes—yes. Incompetence—maybe. High crimes and misdemeanors? Poppycock. Without a helluva lot more evidence than anybody seems to have this is just a difference of opinion and the forum for working those out is the voting booth not the floor of the Senate in impeachment proceedings.
Comment Posted By Dave Schuler On 27.02.2006 @ 16:47
A DEAD WRONG HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF 9/11
Ellis's problem isn't lack of enough time to allow a historian to gain perspective. It's innumeracy. The attack on September 11, 2001 has cost the United States economy two TRILLION dollars over a five year period. Our economy is growing but it's not growing fast enough to absorb repeated attacks of that scale. How would we deal with the impact of an attack an order of magnitude larger? And what, short of a mobilization that approximates war, can prevent the re-occurrence of such an attack in the near term?
And, then, there's also a lack of perception of the total scope of the attack from a world perspective. The attack destroyed (or revealed to have been destroyed) a post-Westphalian world order that had been in place for nearly 400 years. We're still struggling to get our minds around that idea.
Comment Posted By Dave Schuler On 1.02.2006 @ 18:58
THE COUNCIL HAS SPOKEN: THE PENITENT'S EDITION
Prostration won't be necessary, Rick. You could kiss my ring if you'd like. ;-)
Comment Posted By Dave Schuler On 15.11.2005 @ 17:23
