« A Time Saver | Main | Executive Pay »
Never?
Odd assertion from Michael Rubin:
The statement went on to argue that a strike on Iran's dispersed nuclear facilities would not only fail to eliminate the program, but might spark a nationalist reaction and cause the Iranian leadership to unleash terrorist proxies against U.S. interests in the Middle East and Israel.Terrorist blackmail usually isn't the sort of thing you want to give in to. If some guy were to take ten hostages and demand $10,000 in exchange for their release, one wants to say that while a human life is worth more than $1,000 paying off the blackmailer would only invite future blackmail and make things worse in the long term. On the other hand, if some guy were to plant several nuclear devices downtown in New York, Washington, Los Angeles, Chicago, Paris, London, Tokyo, Frankfurt, Seoul, Milan, Madrid, Brussels, Moscow, and Shanghai and say that unless we gave him $100,000,000,000 it seems to me that we'd better fork over the hundred billion. Sure, it'll set a bad precedent, but the lack of bad precedents isn't going to do us much good once everyone is dead. These things need to be kept in perspective.Such concerns are valid, but terrorist blackmail should never determine foreign policy.
More to the point, the dynamic Rubin is discussing here isn't "blackmail," it's deterrence. We would have loved to strike at Soviet nuclear facilities but we didn't because -- guess what? -- the Russians would have fought back. That wasn't an ideal situation, but we really had no choice. Screaming "no blackmail!" and letting the bombs fly would have been pretty stupid. The fact that your opponent is going to fight back is always a very important consideration when contemplating whether or not to go to war, it's not giving in to blackmail. If people weren't going to fight back, I could start rattling off a whole huge dream list of airstrikes. But people fight back. It's important. Something worth thinking about.
December 11, 2004 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345160fd69e200d834574b3969e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Never?:
» A Question for Matthew Yglesias from Foreign Dispatches
Matthew Yglesias seems rather concerned about the possibility of Iranian retaliation should America attack its nuclear facilities, but putting aside whether or not there really is all that much Iran can do to America that it isn't already doing, one [Read More]
Tracked on Dec 11, 2004 7:05:21 AM
Comments
Matt Damon!
Posted by: Matt Damon | Dec 11, 2004 12:36:07 AM
The failure of the Bush strategy is that it's put us in a position in which dealing directly with Iran is incredibly dangerous. We may be able to stop Iran's nuclear ambitions with strategic air strikes, but they can make our day-to-day life in Iraq REALLY PAINFUL via low-tech, clandestine support of the insurgency.
Posted by: ScrewyRabbit | Dec 11, 2004 12:39:48 AM
Down with America
Posted by: Kevin Sites | Dec 11, 2004 12:43:35 AM
Not to mention the dubious morality of basically consigning a whole bunch more Iraqis to their deaths for incomplete ends.
Posted by: praktike | Dec 11, 2004 12:47:11 AM
So, Matt, why don't you just rattle off your dream list? We'd all like to know where the DLC will strike next, in an ideal world.
Posted by: Dick Durata | Dec 11, 2004 1:24:08 AM
!! Better dead than...better dead than....umm, what happens if we don't bomb Iran?
My info from my unnamed strategically-placed sources is that a military action is going to happen. Georgie reached into his gut and pulled out a plum, what a good boy is he.
Done deal.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Dec 11, 2004 1:46:04 AM
Um. Huh? You seem to have skipped right over the really wierd thing about Rubin's position: terrorist blackmail is when Iran says Iran is going to unleash terrorist proxies if we do X, not when the State Department says they might. I think that guy might punch me if I piss on his leg. It's blackmail!
Posted by: some guy | Dec 11, 2004 2:06:10 AM
Terrorism, if practiced by states, is a form of warfare. So from the point of view of the calculation of national interest, one weighs the threat of state-sponsored terrorism just as one weighs the threat of conventional military assault. One, of course, never wants to have to give into terrorist threats just as one never wants to have to give into conventional threats. But if the cost of giving in is outweighed by the cost of abiding the attack, one has to give in. It's the same whether we are talking about terrorism or old-fashioned gunboat diplomacy.
On the other hand, terrorism is an illegal form of warfare under current international law. If we had a government that cared more about such things, and that had worked following 9/11 to strengthen international institutions rather than weakening them, then two of the arrows in our quiver now would be the threat of organizing international military action or other sanctions against the offending country to preserve the peace, and the threat of apprehending the leaders of the offending country and dragging them before an international criminal court for war crimes. We would also have an ability to use collective military force to prevent a nation from developing the nuclear weapons in the first place. There is little chance of that now, given our current low standing in the international community - we're in no position to bring a case and expect it to be heard - and the weakened powers of those international institutions.
We could have used the global post-9/11 enthusiasm to fight terrorism as a precious window of opportunity to reform and strengthen international institutions, and then position ourselves in the front of the newly-strengthened international community as its chief citizen and moral leader. There was tremendous global demand for such a move. Instead, we stupidly squandered the chance and have severely damaged our reputation - perhaps irreperably.
As it happens, we now stand as a rogue nation before the world, one that has lost much of the standing it once possessed, and one that consequently has severely impaired its ability to organize international efforts through even the crippled international institutions we have left in our bloody wake.
Posted by: Dan Kervick | Dec 11, 2004 2:16:35 AM
Great point, Dan. The rest of the world doesn't look at terrorism as an object of war, they see it as a war tactic. They also see current American foreign policy as a terror strategy in its own right, one with considerably greater power than any other player in the game -- something to be feared. Our rogue nation status is secured, to our greater detriment.
Posted by: ScrewyRabbit | Dec 11, 2004 2:45:23 AM
The election results turned me into a Republican...
Posted by: abb1 | Dec 11, 2004 6:33:53 AM
The analogy to Russia fails because Russia would have used nuclear weapons and conventional forces to attack us if we had bombed them. Since we have them too, it's a-okay to be deterred. But since Iran would presumably use asymmetrical war tactics agains us (aka, terrorism) then we can't hold off, because those techniques are EVIL, and we would be GIVING IN. At least, that's how it seems the thinking goes.
That's the problem with us framing this as a war on 'terrorism', which is a tactic and strategy, as opposed to a war on a specific group. (And it is related the same stupidity that leads the 101st Fightin' Keyboarders to complain that the Iraqi resistance won't stand and fight toe-to-toe with the American forces.)
Posted by: moonbiter | Dec 11, 2004 6:40:20 AM
The primary problem with giving into blackmail of any kind is that once you've give in, there's nothing to stop the blackmailer from doing it again. The US dealt with this kind of thing once before about 1800 when Barbary pirates were taking hostages and destroying US merchant ships, and the US Navy was the response with the slogan: "Millions for defense, not one cent for tribute!"
The fact that the nature of the weapon has changed from gunpowder to nuclear fission is irrelevant. Once force enters the picture, negotiations are, at best, useless. I could see and support a situation whereby we paid the $100 billion as a tactic to making Iran reveal where the weapons were, but only if that was followed with driving Iran from the face of the planet once we were sure that the Iranian weapons had been found and disarmed.
I don't care whether Islamic radicals would get upset or whether our attack might inspire nationalistic feelings. I'm sure German radio played Deutschland Uber Alles with a subequent swelling of pride in the citizenry when the US declared war.
Posted by: orpheus_sail | Dec 11, 2004 9:32:52 AM
"about 1800 when Barbary pirates were taking hostages and destroying US merchant ships, and the US Navy was the response with the slogan: 'Millions for defense, not one cent for tribute!'"
Wrong!
The slogan "Millions for defense, not one cent for tribute" actually was supposedly the US Ambassador's response in 1797 to a bribe demand from the French revolutionary government. The result was a short, undeclared naval war with France. (The Ambassador, Charles Pinckney, more likely actually said, "No, no, not a sixpence!" but that ddn't make for as good a slogan).
Posted by: rea | Dec 11, 2004 9:45:09 AM
Deterrence is clearly what has stopped us from doing something about North Korea. And that is the very reason North Korea sought and Iran seeks nuclear weapons in the first place.
Posted by: Todd Pearson | Dec 11, 2004 10:22:10 AM
If some guy were to take ten hostages and demand $10,000 in exchange for their release, one wants to say that while a human life is worth more than $1,000 paying off the blackmailer would only invite future blackmail and make things worse in the long term.
Only a state would refuse to pay 1,000 dollars for a human life. If it were your kid or someone you loved, you'd pay it in a heartbeat and then take precautions to protect your loved ones from kidnappers.
Statist logic says you let the people die as a "deterrent."
Sick.
It's ironic that the same people who repeat this immoral Bushian nonsense about letting kidnapped people die are probably the same ones who think the government protects them. Unless you happen to get kidnapped, of course.
Posted by: tex | Dec 11, 2004 11:13:00 AM
The primary problem with giving into blackmail of any kind is that once you've give in, there's nothing to stop the blackmailer from doing it again.
Right. Like, if a guy has a pistol stuck in your face and wants your wallet, you should let him shoot you, because if you give in and hand over your wallet, he'll just rob someone else next.
Posted by: tex | Dec 11, 2004 11:19:30 AM
Tex, you really caught the idea here. For sure if anyone sticks a gun in my face and demands my wallet, I will securely clamp my hand on my back pocket, say a few prayers, and tell him to shoot me.
Out of curiousity, is there an international law, similar to the Geneva Conventions, that prohibits a nation from developing nuclear weapons? I don't think so. So, why are we discussing attacking a country to keep them from doing so?
Posted by: Vaughn Hopkins | Dec 11, 2004 11:36:37 AM
orpheus_sail: Would you have nuked the Soviet Union, then? If not, then what's the difference?
Posted by: Walt Pohl | Dec 11, 2004 11:42:23 AM
Bob: Without getting into too much detail, what kind of sources do you have? What sorts of things have they been right about before?
Posted by: Walt Pohl | Dec 11, 2004 12:35:12 PM
So, why are we discussing attacking a country to keep them from doing so?
Well, it's kind of like blackmail, but it's American blackmail, which is OK. Because it's done with only the best intentions, you know.
Posted by: tex | Dec 11, 2004 12:35:33 PM
We've declared "war on terrorism" which is stateless, so in reality we're at war with terrorists. We can whine all we want that terrorists don't observe international laws on warfare, but realistically there's a way they wage war on us and that's what we have to deal with.
In any war, we evaluate the likelihood of succeeding with any offensive move - that includes the response of the enemy. It makes sense that in this war, we would do the same. If an offensive action has a high likelihood of generating terror attacks on the civilian population in the US, it's reasonable to decide that it's not the preferred path. It's only when we have no other options that we take the path that requires large numbers of our citizens - military or civilian - to die.
Posted by: Kathy | Dec 11, 2004 12:44:22 PM
"Bob: Without getting into too much detail, what kind of sources do you have? What sorts of things have they been right about before?"
"oldman" at BOP News (and his own blog) is one: an anonymous dude who claims to have been in the intelligence community; his posts are archived and recommended;reading him has established creds for me.
It also has to do with the motivations for attacking Iran, which have little to with nukes, and have more to do with keeping the dollar as reserve currency, solving military manpower problems via a engineered crisis, keeping Iraq in enough chaos that we are not kicked out.
Note:Opec deciding to keep the price over $40, to the surprise of experts. One explanation is needed maintenance.....another that I have heard from several sources is that OPEC expects oil exports to cease next year...why could that possibly happen? :)
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Dec 11, 2004 12:53:15 PM
Vaughn Hopkins: As I understand it, there
is a Non-Proliferation Treaty to which
most countries are signatories; the
non-nuclear signatories give verifiable
promises not to develop nuclear weapons,
in return the nuclear countries offer
access to peaceful nuclear technology
(reactors for power generation), and a
vague promise to pursue nuclear
disarmament (a promise which we have
arguably been breaking these last few
years, with no new arms-reduction
moves, and talk of developing new
"more usable" bunker-buster nukes).
I believe Iran must be a signatory to
have got their nuclear power program
going.
It takes particular gall for the US to
demand strict compliance with the NPT
from other countries in the Middle East
while continuing to provide massive
financial and military assistance to
Israel, which is known to have
hundreds (perhaps 300 ?) nuclear
weapons in its stockpile.
Posted by: Richard Cownie | Dec 11, 2004 1:57:05 PM
In other news, Osama bin Laden has received a fatwa okaying nuclear attack on American cities.
Posted by: Walt Pohl | Dec 11, 2004 2:28:36 PM
It's odd that the term "blackmail" gets used in this connection at all, since in literal usage it's always a threat to reveal some information that the blackmailed party would rather remained concealed. It's obviously being deployed simply as a metaphor for any kind of threat used to compel a country to behave as the "blackmailer" wants. Or rather, not just any such threat, since the US uses such threats routinely in its relations with other countries. Only bad countries are "blackmailers."
Posted by: SqueakyRat | Dec 11, 2004 3:19:46 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
