Comments Posted By andy
Displaying 21 To 30 Of 258 Comments
RELUCTANTLY - COMMENTS OPEN AGAIN
Michael,
We shall see what Obama will do if, as seems likely, he wins. I don't think anyone can predict with any certainty what kind of cabinet Obama will have (a problem in itself), nor that he'll somehow be more moderate than he is now. What evidence is there he'll govern as a moderate, especially with Dem control of both houses?
Comment Posted By Andy On 26.10.2008 @ 16:03
Rick,
As a compromise, why not require registration or use an off-site service like typekey or disqus? ISTM that would make moderating much more friendly for you.
Comment Posted By Andy On 26.10.2008 @ 16:00
MY CHOICE FOR PRESIDENT - FOR NOW
Here's a sure-thing for secdef or maybe State.
Obviously more defense oriented. Maybe national security advisor.
ed.
Comment Posted By Andy On 31.07.2008 @ 15:01
THE MAN WHO WOULD BE <em>FUHRER</em>
People should not count McCain out yet. As Rick notes, despite all the advantages Obama now enjoys, his poll lead is minimal.
This race will be won or lost in the debates, IMO. If McCain can't nail Obama's waffling to the wall and/or if he gaffs, then it will be all over. But not yet. Experience should tell you not to sell McCain short.
Comment Posted By Andy On 24.07.2008 @ 23:18
Another great post Rick.
Comment Posted By Andy On 16.06.2008 @ 12:04
Rick,
A couple disagreements on Israel and Iran (while agreeing with the majority of your post, particularly your frustration):
First of all, I think the primary reason Israel has not yet attacked Iran's nuclear facilities is that it doesn't have the military capability to do the kind of damage that would seriously put their program back. Unlike the Syrian reactor and Osirak attacks, an attack on Iran requires striking multiple targets, some in hardened facilities, at great distance. For all of Israel's military prowess, Iran is a long way away and Israel doesn't have a lot of capability to project air power far from its borders. They have too few tanking aircraft, for example, and they would be forced to refuel over the territory of some other nation - not an easy enterprise. The Iranians are also more tactically capable than Syria.
Secondly, any attack on Iran would have to be greenlighted by the US. We have aircraft and air defense equipment all over Iraq, Kuwait and up and down the Gulf. Israel will require coordination with the US to keep us from accidentally shooting them down before or after an attack. If our radars, for example, see a bunch of aircraft heading out of Iran at high speed and they are not "squawking" the right IFF codes, they're probably gonna get shot down.
So I think if Israel had the capability to strike Iran, they would already have done so. Had the discovery of Iran's program and facilities come sooner than 2003, Israel might have had a chance to exploit Iraqi airspace for an attack, but as it stands we essentially control the airspace all the way from the Turkish border down to the UAE. That Israel keeps trying to get us to attack is indicative of the real tactical difficulties for them to carry out a strike that would seriously degrade Iranian capabilities. And as I've said before, you can't bomb knowledge and like it or not Iran understands enough centrifuge technology that it will be able reconstitute their capability even if Natanz is destroyed.
Since the 1973 war, Israeli strategic doctrine has been based on the premise that Israel cannot affect its enemy's intentions, only their capabilities. This doctrine has informed every military operation since that time and explains why Israel will preempt (as in the case of the Syrian reactor). Preemption with Iran is no longer an option and the reality of Iran's nascent nuclear capability is going to force Israel to change its 35 year-old strategic doctrine and US policy will have to change as well. I can't say what the change will be or how it will affect things, but the next President will likely lay the groundwork for a new mid-east strategic environment.
Comment Posted By Andy On 30.05.2008 @ 13:29
52 SECONDS OF VIDEO OF OBAMA'S PLAN FOR UNILATERAL DISARMAMENT
To be fair not all the ideas are bad. I think the RRW, or reliable replacement warhead is not needed and is simply a bone to keep DOE jobs at the nuclear labs - nuclear welfare, if you will. A global ban on fissile material would be nice, but that would require a renegotiation of the NPT which simply ain't gonna happen because the nuclear weapon's states would have to provide some quid pro quo in return.
More importantly, however, is that Obama can't make these unilateral spending decisions. Congress gets to decide what to spend on the armed forces and how much and Obama won't have a line-item veto, so his promise to cut billions in defense spending is a pipe dream. He can try to reprioritize the QDR all he wants, but those efforts go off the deep end, the services have their friends in Congress who will be earmarking mofo's if Obama tries to play those games. As a Senator, he knows how the system works, so to me, this is just the same kind of empty promises most politicians make to appease their base - promises they know have zero chance of being met.
Comment Posted By Andy On 22.05.2008 @ 22:09
Good luck with the move and settling into your new place.
Comment Posted By Andy On 9.05.2008 @ 12:47
ISRAEL: IRAN COULD HAVE NUKES BY '09
Rick,
Agree with your comments on my comments. Factions within factions is a good way to describe it. It's unfortunate that many of our leaders do not see these divides and therefore cannot effectively exploit them to weaken the dangerous factions and strengthen those element with whom a deal could be struck. This is the case regardless of party, ITSM.
Comment Posted By Andy On 8.05.2008 @ 14:11
I would only point out that you can't bomb knowledge. Attacking Iran's infrastructure will only delay things and drive the program completely underground as it did with Iraq after the Osirak attack. Iran has already crossed the Rubicon and can build and operate cascades pretty much on its own. We can destroy the facilities they have, but they'll be able to rebuild in secret within a few years.
So IMO, attacking Iran not only carries huge risks, but will fail to achieve the objective.
A better course of action, IMO, is to get Iran to ratify and fully implement the additional protocol to the NPT. This, along with surveillance by US and other intelligence services, will stymie any major bomb-building effort and may deter Iran from "unhalting" it's weaponization work. Of course, Iran will require some kind of bribe to accede to the AP and the viability of such a solution will obviously depend on what Iran wants in return.
Finally Rick, you said, "No one doubts Iran’s desire to possess a nuclear weapon." I'm not sure the issue is that clear. All of Iran's WMD programs were actually a response to Saddam's Iraq and not Israel. Iran knew full well that Iraq was working on a bomb and it saw how close Iraq came in 1991. As long as Saddam was in power, Iran judged, correctly I think, that Iraq would work toward nuclear weapons. After the devastation of the Iran-Iraq war, pursuit of a nuclear capability in response to Iraq seems a completely rational course of action.
Now that Saddam is gone and with it Iran's primary regional threat, Iran may indeed have changed, or may be considering a change, it its nuclear weapons program. Iran's intransigence with the IAEA may therefore be an effort to hide its past weaponization efforts rather than its future intentions. Of course this is only a theory, but I think it's important to consider alternatives and look at things from the Iranian perspective - especially since the strategic environment in the Gulf changed so fundamentally with the fall of Saddam. It might be argued that continuing development of nuclear weapons is a bad course of action for Iran since US policy is that such development will be met with an attack. IOW, developing nuclear weapons will not provide Iran with a deterrent - quite the opposite. A true deterrent will require at least several bombs along with a reliable means of delivery - something that's still many years away (warhead miniaturization and mating to missiles is not as easy as is commonly believed). That's an extraordinary risk for Iran to take since further detection of its program is likely which would invite attack.
Anyway, just something to consider.
As usual, all good points Andy. Your analysis presupposes we are looking at rational actors on the other side - something I think likely but am not sure of 100%. Just today, the mullacracy took Ahmadinejad to task for his obsession with the 12th imam - a good sign that the Rafsanjani/Khatami faction may be gaining the upper hand. But you know Iran - factions within factions all working at cross purposes and trying to discredit each other. There may very well be a nuke faction in Iran that Khamenei is allowing to work. This goes back to your opening sentence; not only can we not bomb knowledge, we can't glean intent with so little information available.
ed.
Comment Posted By Andy On 7.05.2008 @ 18:10
