Concise and well stated. Good work MT. If we want to preserve our very souls, we have to fight this war hard and quickly, else it will end with sudden appearance of a second dawn over many cities across the world.

Charles Johnson also referred to proliferation as a "race" in one of his posts tonight, but I don't see how the metaphor works. The race has been over for five years. Pakistan has the Bomb. So, apparently, does North Korea. So does China. Even under the best of circumstances, where we stop the technology from spreading further and persuade/pressure the North Koreans into giving theirs up, there's no way Pakistan and China are going to disarm unilaterally. India's nuclear capability ensures that. Factor in the continued existence of Islamic terrorist groups for the foreseeable future and the doctrine of plausible deniability and I see little reason to doubt that we're going to have a nuclear attack in America sometime within the next, say, ten years. There's just too much stuff out there and too many crazy people willing to use it. I think our best chance of avoiding it is to advance radiation detection technology to the point where we can spot the stuff before it even crosses our borders, but whether that's possible I just don't know.

Another point. I think your worst-case scenario, where an American city is destroyed by a terrorist nuke and we respond with an attack on one or more Middle Eastern cities, isn't in fact the worst-case scenario. The worst-case scenario is that Al Qaeda (or Hizb'Allah, or whoever) learns the most important lesson from September 11, which is that if you're going to attack the Great Satan, you had better strike a death blow or else be prepared to suffer the consequences. The real nightmare--which is not far-fetched given Al Qaeda's preference for multi-pronged attacks--is terrorists launching coordinated nuclear strikes on multiple cities. It wouldn't affect our capacity for retaliation, of course, but the loss of life, psychological fallout, and economic impact would, I think, be so total that America would never recover. It would become something entirely different from what it is now, and needless to say its reign as the world's dominant power would be over in the blink of an eye.

Long story short, I'm not optimistic.

Michael,

Very well done. I do think this is a race. Far be it from me to argue with Allah, but the Chinese are rational actors and hence will play the game responsibly and will help us deal with NK. Pakistan and to a greater degree Iran are the other participants in the race. Musharraf isn't on solid footing and Iran? Geeze, the day we think they have a single nuke? Can we/Israel really wait? The rebellion there really must happen quickly. Otherwise I suspect Israel will be toast.

My great fear isn't Allah's, it's yours. That we will, of necessity, become the greatest military killer the planet has ever known. And that that will forever alter the way we see ourselves.

The answer isn't to back off, the answer is to move forward more quickly.

Great article, Michael. I want to respond to it in three ways...

1. I'll start by saying I've always appreciated your understanding of principled liberalism. You see the moral relativism of being "anti-war" and quickly denote it as being illiberal in nature. My God, I wish more people recognized the distinction. The true liberals like myself stand for, as you pointed out, liberation and nation building and anti-proliferation. I also appreciate that you pick up the "ACTIVIST" nature of it. True liberalism is about believing we have a responsibility to heal the world around us and that it is well within our ability to do so. It's hopeful, optimistic, idealistic, and visionary. You get it. It means a ton.

2. Secondly, you talk about nuclear weapons and Iran (among others). As both you and I know, a massive underground movement for freedom and democracy has been brewing for years in Iran, just under the surface. The younger generation will only stand theocratic oppression for so much longer and then it's gonna fall apart one way or another. We long for the day, you and I. In terms of nuclear weapons, however, it's pretty clear that a vast majority of Iranians (even the younger and more pro-American ones) strongly want Iran to be developing a nuclear capability. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this. I think, if anything, nuclear weapons in the hands of a future democratic Iranian government would be a good thing. It would carry with it the moderately "pacifying" effect you spoke of in the article. A free and democratic Iranian people would likely work night and day to root out the extremist elements of their society in an attempt to safeguard their own survival. Liberal Democracy is greatest of all in that it produces a stable moderate majority: Nukes would merely provide an even greater incentive, if you ask me.

3. And, lastly, I want to add that I firmly believe I will live to see a major American city wiped off the face of the Earth. It is the sum of all fears, but also a realistic expectation. Somehow, someway, it's probably going to happen eventually and there's not a thing we could possibly do to prevent it. I pray that this day comes far enough away to give us time to modernize the Middle-Eastern countries before it happens so that we won't have to strike them all in return. My hope is that, by the time it does happen, terrorist groups will have little refuge and state-sponsorship in the world. Again, I stress, I don't see any way around it happening. It's inevitable. Best Case Scenario: It's a completely rogue group that gets their hands on one without help from any government (for the sake of not having to wipe out an entire country in return). I believe that, in the end, the decision made to drop bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the right one. But, I also believe in Karma. To assume that those two bombings will be the only two bombings of a human population for the rest of time is foolish. Alot of folks might take issue with me on this one, but just stop and think about it: The odds are pretty strong that what happened once will eventually happen again and there's every possibility it will happen to us before it happens to someone else.

PS...

In addition to point #3:

Will anyone argue with me that the decision Truman had to make to end World War 2 was probably the hardest decision any President has ever faced? I couldn't sleep after making a call like that: probably for as long as I lived. No way I wouldn't have broke down in his shoes.

We're on the same page, Grant.

Grant, Grant, Grant:

I think, if anything, nuclear weapons in the hands of a future democratic Iranian government would be a good thing.

Slow down, buster! Even if Iran became a liberal democracy, as an Islamic country it would be unstable and at permanent risk of reverting to something like it is today. I don't want them to have nukes. Ever.

Michael likes to point out Turkey as an Islamic democracy. That is a naive and uninformed view of Turkey. Turkey was forcibly secularized through militant oppression of Islam by Kemal Ataturk. The military is Constitutionally obligated to intervene to prevent an Islamist government. They have had coups 1960, 1971, 1980 to avert the government from being taken over by some toxic stew of Islamist, Marxist or nationalist parties.

http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/www/en/laenderinfos/laender/laender_ausgabe_html?type_id=9&land_id=176

Islamic "democracy" is inherently unstable. Turkey is as good as it gets and it is hardly recognizable as democracy by our standards. Until a metaphorical interpretation becomes dominant in the Islamic world, Islamic democracy will be an oxymoron.

I dunno if one can really characterize (right now) an Islamic democracy as 'inherently unstable' given the limited track record. That probably goes for any democracy. Democracies don't have very good records over the course of human history. Look at all the failed Republics and Democracies: The Greek City States, the Roman Republic, all the little Italian city state republics, (those that fell into tyranny as opposed to being conquered), the original Dutch Republic, the French Republic (more than once-heh), The Weimar Republic, all those failures in South America over the Years, not to mention the current state of Africa.

This is not to say 'give up', but to point out that these things take time.

And as usual, I'll argue with Grant about Truman nuking the Japanese being the hardest decision any President has had to make. It was a no-brainer. Truman said so himself. I got news for you Grant: It was a weapon. It was going to get used. There is no particular difference, other than in an economy of scale, in incinerating a city by using 1000 bombers or using one. It's all horrific.

For a very useful corrective on the subject, go read Paul Fussell's essay "Thank God for the Atom Bomb". The Pacific War was only surpassed by the Eastern Front in its savagery and bloodletting. Go take a look at the casualty figures.

You think Iraq was bad? People remember NOTHING. In the THREE DAYS that is now considered the battle for Tarawa Atoll, The Marines list 3,373 total casualties, of which over 1100 were dead, vs. over 4600 Japanese casualties, all of whom were dead. The lists go on and on. By the Battle of Okinawa, (only 11 weeks long) the butcher's bill is listed as about 50,000 total American Casualties including over 12,000 dead, vs. over 100,000 Japanese casualities, again, all counted as dead. And that's not even counting the civilians on Okinawa caught in the middle. Right there that's a ratio of 1 to 2. That's 1000 US dead a week. Think about that.

Now, its estimated that there were over 2 million Japanese soldiers on the home islands.

Do the math.

I didn't want to turn this into a history lecture, but the waah-waah-waah over the use of nuclear weapons in WWII is just dumb.

I will even predict that we won't see an American city hit by a nuke, but rather some place in the middle east. Probably in Israel, but I can also see the Pakistanis and Indians nuking each other. They've come pretty close before. Also any of the small Gulf states that are helping the US. Or in Iraq, just to spite the US and the Iraqis.

WOW.

Great article Michael. You hammered it.

Very scary stuff. And here I was being happy that Iraq now has a constitution. Way back when Sharon was first elected I predicted to a couple of friends that Israel would be hit with a nuclear bomb. I still think that's the most likely target, with possibly the "Samson pulls down the pillars of the temple" response a result. Not something I like to contemplate over my cornflakes.

"If terrorists detonate a portable nuke in a Western city, what's left of the Terror War will be nasty, brutish, and short."

You think that liberal democracies have no terrorists? The Red Brigades, Bader Meinhof, Japanese Red Army Faction, Weathermen, SLA, IRA, UDF, and Timothy McVeigh might disagree. And if any of those nutcases got nuclear or bioterror technology, what do you think might have happened?

This is what bugs me about the war on terror. The assumption that replacing dictatorial regimes with western-style democracies - difficult if not impossible within a single generation - is a magic fix for the terrorist problem. It isn't.

Stu, it takes a state to manufacture and deploy the kind of weapons that could do real damage. Chemical weapons are easy, but localised. Biological weapons are difficult, because they are uncontrollable once released. Nuclear weapons are both controllable and destructive.

As a result, it is nuclear weapons that propose the real danger. We have to not just contain the spread of these weapons, but remove the desire or ability of states to provide them. Pakistan may eventually need to be reformed. Certainly, Iran and N. Korea will. So, though, might France, China and Russia (all long-term and active proliferators) before we can count ourselves relatively safe.

Stu, many of those terror groups had state sponsoring. McVeigh was unique, he represents a domestic terror front that is not at all common.

It doesn't take a state sponsor to hijack a plane and crash it into a building, to rent a truck and fill it with fertilizer and a fuse, to release nerve gas in a crowded subway, or to cause nation-wide panic over anthrax-laced mail.

Eric,
"I will even predict that we won't see an American city hit by a nuke, but rather some place in the middle east."

Europe is another possibilty, particularly Britain. It could even be more likely in Europe, the border with eastern Europe has practically come down. Slipping a nuke across the border from Russia would be a lot easier than sneaking it into Israel.

"It doesn't take a state sponsor to hijack a plane and crash it into a building, to rent a truck and fill it with fertilizer and a fuse, to release nerve gas in a crowded subway, or to cause nation-wide panic over anthrax-laced mail."

Sure, that's exactly right. It's also irrelevant wrt MT's article. We will never be able to protect ourselves from the random plane bombing, subway attack, etc. However, such attacks do not pose a significant threat to our existence. Detonating nukes in LA and NYC does pose such a threat.

The Islamists certainly have the will to do the unthinkable. However, will is not sufficient to do the unthinkable -- for this they also require massive resources. Hence, state support is also a necessary ingredient for operations of the kind that threaten our way of life.

The war on "terror" has thus far eliminated three important sources of resources for the unthinkable: Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. I am optimistic that continuing an aggressive policy of preemption in the Middle East may well save us from the horrors contemplated by MT and others in this thread.

Moreover, those who profess deep concern for Arab Muslims need to heed MT's insight: the US, if pushed, is very capable of committing unthinkable acts itself (and has the resources to do so). I would go even a step further: it will not take the vaporization of an American city to provoke a brutal and potentially indiscriminate retaliation against the Arabs. Another 9/11 would probably do it.

Many good points notwithstanding, I'm just about certain that we won't "win" by turning the middle east into an ashtray.

That seems fairly self-evident to me. You mileage may vary, but I think that if you're going to editorialize on such an important topic, you might wish to be more judicious in you choice of words. At least if you really want to persuade anyone, instead of preaching to the converted.

Remember that the next time someone describes you as "Michael Totten, who thinks one way to win is by turning the middle east into an ashtray...."

"The war on "terror" has thus far eliminated three important sources of resources for the unthinkable: Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya."

None of those three had the resources to supply nukes to terrorists. Libya was on the ropes after years of sanctions, Afghanistan had turned itself into the technological equivalent of a thirteenth-century village, and Iraq couldn't even handle creation of conventional WMD.

Those protected by the Taliban (ole whazzizname, oh yeah, Osama), who might actually have the capability of organizing and funding an atrocity like a nuclear attack, have been pretty much ignored over much of the last year. Other contenders for terrorist badass of the decade have similarily been ignored. Meanwhile, after 10 - 15k innocent Iraqi civilians were killed in the invasion, I suspect that there are a number of righteously pissed-off relatives and loved ones that wouldn't mind seeing a nuke go off in the west somewhere. To put that figure in perspective, that is the national equivalent of some thirty 9/11s or so, when compared on a per capita basis.

Meanwhile, Bush stonewalls the 9/11 commission for some reason, and professes friendship and admiration of the Saudi royal family, who's deep pockets seem to be funding a number of suspicious figures in black cloaks holding round black bombs.

I'm somehow not convinced that this is making us safer.

Michael, I don't want to be unnecessarily insulting since I regard you as a fundamentally honest thinker. However, it must be said that this late stuff of yours wallows in the most noxious kind of self-congratulatory paranoia. The railing against the "feeble-minded," weak-kneed critics that somehow fail to see "the truth" -- which is, of course, self-evident to the initiated -- is a notorious device.

Anyway, I'd like to ask one plain question to you: assuming your general view to be correct, why would the 9/11 organizers have not already blown NYC to smithereens with more powerful weapons than 2 commercial airliners? Obviously, the most favorable moment to their perverse fantasies would have been back then, right up to 9/11: the CIA/FBI fast asleep; virtually unlimited travel to/fro the U.S.; Pakistan still solidly in the hands of the ISI with Khan dealing left and right, and Afghanistan in those of the Taliban; all the Islamic "charities" free to roam. And of course the evil one still cavorting in Iraq. So why not then? It's hard to imagine that they'll ever get a better chance.

bk: Remember that the next time someone describes you as "Michael Totten, who thinks one way to win is by turning the middle east into an ashtray...."

I had an anti-war liberal friend of mine (who is also a writer) read the article before I submitted it, and I asked her if that sentence was too much. She said no, keep it. She thought it was perfect, and she understood what I was getting at.

Obviously I do not want to nuke the Middle East. You might want to read more carefully.

Pierluigi: Anyway, I'd like to ask one plain question to you: assuming your general view to be correct, why would the 9/11 organizers have not already blown NYC to smithereens with more powerful weapons than 2 commercial airliners?

They didn't have anything better. If they get something better, they will use it.

The fact that they didn't have nukes on 9/11 is not evidence that they will never get them. There was a day when we didn't have nukes, either.

Imagine the Japanese in 1943 saying, gee, the US hasn't nuked us yet. They would already have done so if they could...

http://www.techcentralstation.com/030804G.html

Michael: Yes, that's right -- the only explanation is that they couldn't find one (and not only that: they knew they weren't anywhere close to finding it, either).

So: the consequence of your apocalyptic view is that the apocalypsis, at the moment when it would have been most likely to occur (at least for a generation), did not occur. You're right, this doesn't mean that we should lower defenses: exactly the opposite. But this shows, at the very least, that the clash-of-civilizations vulgata that you and others so eagerly embrace is mighty confused.

"They didn't have anything better. If they get something better, they will use it."

That line of logic is based on assuming that they had no strategic reasons for the 9/11 attack, and simply wanted to lash out in a violent way at America. If they had other reasons for the attack, they might not have used a nuke even if they had one.

For example, if they wanted to had wanted to avoid provoking an enormous response, but still inflict a blow that would boost their recruitment in the Middle East, then using a nuke would not have acheived that end.

Or if they had wanted to manipulate the stock market, actually destroying the stock market in a nuclear attack would have hurt that goal.

I'm not saying that simple infliction of maximum casualties wasn't their goal. I just don't know what their reasoning was and is, and I don't think that you do either.

Peurluigi, don't be stupid. Just because nuclear proliferation hadn't reached a critical level a couple of years ago doesn't mean it won't in a couple of years. The situation is exactly what Michael described. A race to beat democratizing the ME against the acquisition of nukes by International Terrorist groups.

Stu, Bin Laden's reasoning is the same as Hitler's.

Saturday People first, Sunday People Second.

"Stu, Bin Laden's reasoning is the same as Hitler's."

And you know this for a fact because...

Libya was on the ropes after years of sanctions

Libya may have been facing serious trouble in the late 1990s, but things were looking up for Khaddafi before the United States forced him into to giving up his unconventional weapons programs. See, for example, the trade deals negotiated with the Europeans and European oil conglomerates [1, 2]. Tripoli's economic prospects were brightening in 2003, Libya's economy was doing historically well (indications were that it would continue to do so, especially with international sanctions to be dropped), and preliminary steps towards free market reform being undertaken. Also note that Libya's CBRN program was in excellent shape: Khaddafi had managed to obtain a large stockpile of mustard gas, and his nuclear program (pdf) was proceeding smoothly, thanks to the Khan proliferation network. Evidence suggests that Khaddafi was well prepared to fabricate a nuclear device rather rapidly.

That said, it's true that Khaddafi would almost certainly have not sold unconventional weapons to terrorists - he was a rational actor, and realized the implications of such a sale. He has also renounced terrorism, and ceased supporting terrorists may years earlier. However, as a very perceptive scholar of international relations once noted (sorry, no link), terrorists are unlikely to purchase a completely prefabricated nuclear device. More likely, they'll obtain the individual components of a nuclear device from many different sources, and construct the final device themselves. In that way, Libya's possession of the documents and materials needed to construct a nuclear device presented a clear danger: the burglary of a small amount of it would likely go unnoticed, especially considering that Libyan scientists were unable to effectively catalogue the documents they did have. Irrespective, though, it's better to have as little of this material as possible in the hands of unstable / dangerous regimes.

Afghanistan had turned itself into the technological equivalent of a thirteenth-century village

I fail to grasp your point. Osama Bin Laden and his cohorts operated out of Afghanistan precisely because it was so primitive and poorly policed. By eliminating their base of operations in the Afghanistan / Pakistan region, the United States has deprived Al Qaeda of an excellent staging area. Instead, the US has forced them to look elsewhere, and dealt a deadly blow in the meantime. Now, with Al Qaeda turning to Africa, American advanced forces are prepared to destroy them before they gain a foothold there.

Those protected by the Taliban (ole whazzizname, oh yeah, Osama), who might actually have the capability of organizing and funding an atrocity like a nuclear attack, have been pretty much ignored over much of the last year. Other contenders for terrorist badass of the decade have similarily been ignored.

The war in Afghanistan has continued over the past year, even if coverage of Iraq has overshadowed Afghanistan. But, even so, the United States is preparing for a new, very significant, offensive against Bin Laden, designed to clean up the dangerous tribal regions. I diverge from President Bush in that I think it should have been done much sooner, but it's progress, nonetheless. I imagine that once this new operation is finished, many more American objectives will have been met.

As for other "contenders for terrorist badass of the decade," would you mind naming them and delineating your suggested policies towards dealing with them?

Meanwhile, after 10 - 15k innocent Iraqi civilians were killed in the invasion, I suspect that there are a number of righteously pissed-off relatives and loved ones that wouldn't mind seeing a nuke go off in the west somewhere. To put that figure in perspective, that is the national equivalent of some thirty 9/11s or so, when compared on a per capita basis.

Do you have any evidence (even anecdotal) that suggests relatives of those killed as collateral damage are going to rise up and initiate terroristic activity against the United States?

"As for other "contenders for terrorist badass of the decade," would you mind naming them and delineating your suggested policies towards dealing with them?"

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. The Bush administration seems to have avoided capturing or killing him for some reason, or at least shutting down his terrorist camp, despite the Pentagon submitting three plans to do so.

"...the burglary of a small amount of it would likely go unnoticed, especially considering that Libyan scientists were unable to effectively catalogue the documents they did have. Irrespective, though, it's better to have as little of this material as possible in the hands of unstable / dangerous regimes.

No argument from me. Still not sure how this ties to the war on terror, Libya wasn't even being included in the "axis of evil".

"But, even so, the United States is preparing for a new, very significant, offensive against Bin Laden, designed to clean up the dangerous tribal regions."

Just in time for an election campaign too. Call me a cycnic, but to me, the hunt for Bin Laden seems to me to being either an afterthought, or an election campaign ploy. If he's caught, great. But the timing stinks.

Do you have any evidence (even anecdotal) that suggests relatives of those killed as collateral damage are going to rise up and initiate terroristic activity against the United States?

Absolutely none. I'm extropalting the anger and outrage experienced by Americans at the deaths of innocents on 9/11, and trying to imagine that magnified somewhat. I also didn't say anything about them initiating terrorist activity, just that they're less likely to be sympathetic to American concerns about terrorism. Which, I would assume, is counter to the aims of the war on terror.

Bin Laden’s reasoning was the same as Hitler’s
According to Paul Berman:

"The shared ideas were these: There exists a people of good who in a just world ought to enjoy a sound and healthy society. But society's health has been undermined by a hideous infestation from within, something diabolical, which is aided by external agents from elsewhere in the world. The diabolical infestation must be rooted out. Rooting it out will require bloody internal struggles, capped by gigantic massacres. It will require an all-out war against the foreign allies of the inner infestation--an apocalyptic war, perhaps even Apocalyptic with a capital A. (The Book of the Apocalypse, as André Glucksmann has pointed out, does seem to have played a remote inspirational role in generating these twentieth-century doctrines.) But when the inner infestation has at last been rooted out and the external foe has been defeated, the people of good shall enjoy a new society purged of alien elements--a healthy society no longer subject to the vibrations of change and evolution, a society with a single, blocklike structure, solid and eternal"

In this NY Times article, an ex-jihadi explains how Saudi society raises kids to hate.

Having ‘hatred in your heart’ towards anyone who doesn’t share your philosophy is the foundation of Wahhabism, a faith-based intolerance that has existed for hundreds of years. These intolerant beliefs, combined with Saudi ‘deep pockets’ inspired bin Laden.

Berman's opinions, while vivid, are just his opinions. We don't know for a fact what Al-Qaeda's motives were.

One could assume that if Berman is right, and they seek a society (global or not) of their own design, then their immediate priority is building political strength of their movement in the Middle East, or gaining further influence or recruits. They may have thought that an attack like that on 9/11 may have fed those aims, but a nuclear terrorist attack on an American city would pretty much mean the eradication of their movement. Even the most fanatical of terrorists of Bin Laden's rank must have some basic analytical skills, or some simple intelligence. If not, then it's pretty embarrassing that he hasn't been caught yet.

Pierluigi: the clash-of-civilizations vulgata that you and others so eagerly embrace is mighty confused.

I don't see this as a clash of civilizations. I see it as a clash between liberalism and totalitarianism.

We have Muslim friends and allies. The Middle East is not culturally monolithic. Look at the brave students in Iran who risk life and limb to stand against the regime.

"I don't see this as a clash of civilizations. I see it as a clash between liberalism and totalitarianism."

Now that Libya has knuckled under, when is it getting a liberal democracy?

Stu: Berman's opinions, while vivid, are just his opinions.

I read Berman's book. He isn't just mouthing off. He understands very well what motivates the jihadis because he reads their own literature. He has studied the enemy, and is reporting back to us.

(By the way, Berman is a Bush-hating leftist, not a neocon tool. He's an editor at Dissent Magazine.)

Stu: Now that Libya has knuckled under, when is it getting a liberal democracy?

What do you expect me to say? I don't know, and neither does anyone else. Gaddafi is, you know, in the way. But he is smart enough to put himself lower down on the to-do list.

By the way, if the Libyan embassy will give me a visa (I'm asking for a tourist visa, not a journalist visa) I'm going to Libya in July. I'll report back.

"By the way, Berman is a Bush-hating leftist, not a neocon tool. He's an editor at Dissent Magazine."

Yeah, I know.

Even if his interpretation of fundamntalist aims (shorter Berman - "a global fundamentalist Islamic society") is correct, why would al-Qaeda commit suicide by using a nuke in a terrorist attack? It would be counter to the aims that Berman portrays.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. The Bush administration seems to have avoided capturing or killing him for some reason, or at least shutting down his terrorist camp, despite the Pentagon submitting three plans to do so.

I can't say I disagree with you here (in fact, I concur that he should have been taken out at the time). However, President Bush made a reasonable policy decision: instead of risking the severe backlash that would have ensued (and possibly prevented the Iraq war from ever getting off the ground), he decided to attack al-Zarqawi later, once the Iraq war had begun. It was the wrong decision, yes, but you can hardly fault him for being forced to play politics and ensure that the invasion of Iraq could be completed. At least he later made up for it by accomplishing a more important objective (invading Iraq).

No argument from me. Still not sure how this ties to the war on terror, Libya wasn't even being included in the "axis of evil".

It ties into the war on terror because, as a potential source for nuclear proliferation and a major nuclear security risk (note the general state of disorder in their nuclear program), Libya presented an excellent location for terrorists to acquire nuclear materials. With that risk eliminated, it's now that much harder for terrorists to fabricate a nuclear device.

Just in time for an election campaign too. Call me a cycnic, but to me, the hunt for Bin Laden seems to me to being either an afterthought, or an election campaign ploy. If he's caught, great. But the timing stinks.

Perhaps it is timed to coincide with the election. But that's irrelevant. The point is that Bush is going to pursue an effective policy to purge the tribal regions of terrorists. His intentions are pretty much irrelevant; the results are what matters.

Absolutely none. I'm extropalting the anger and outrage experienced by Americans at the deaths of innocents on 9/11, and trying to imagine that magnified somewhat.

I think that trying to extrapolate about responses to war across such a large gap in culture and experience is futile. American reactions and Iraqi reactions will, by virtue of the gulf of differences between the two societies, be very much dissimilar.

I also didn't say anything about them initiating terrorist activity, just that they're less likely to be sympathetic to American concerns about terrorism. Which, I would assume, is counter to the aims of the war on terror.

Sorry if I misinterpreted your statement. However, I must disagree with your assessment that Iraqi sympathy "to American concerns about terrorism" is an objective of the war on terror. The central objective of the war is to prevent terrorist attacks against Americans or American property. All other objectives are derived from that. Obtaining Iraqi sympathy is not a goal, per se. It is desirable, certainly, but must be subordinated in importance to other, more crucial objectives. And the geopolitical benefits of invading Iraq (and, in turn, causing the deaths of those civilians) are more important than Iraqi sympathy.

"However, President Bush made a reasonable policy decision: instead of risking the severe backlash that would have ensued (and possibly prevented the Iraq war from ever getting off the ground), he decided to attack al-Zarqawi later, once the Iraq war had begun."

Then that was the first and last time that Bush backed down from a decision based on what the rest of the world would think.

"His intentions are pretty much irrelevant; the results are what matters."

I would disagree. While catching Osama would be a good thing, IMO, the fact that Bush seems to place more importance on political games than the serious work of catching the criminal behind almost 3,000 terrorist victims says volumes.

"I think that trying to extrapolate about responses to war across such a large gap in culture and experience is futile. American reactions and Iraqi reactions will, by virtue of the gulf of differences between the two societies, be very much dissimilar."

I think grief and anger over the death of a child, other family member, or friend is pretty much universal.

"Obtaining Iraqi sympathy is not a goal, per se. It is desirable, certainly, but must be subordinated in importance to other, more crucial objectives."

Given that the US is trying to promote a democracy in the country, and that terrorist movements cannot exist without some form of external support, I would think that a sympathetic and friendly population is paramount. Otherwise you end up with another Iran.

Stu, you are not thinking long term. This isn't just about killing the terrorists. They can be replaced, are being replaced in fact, even while we write. The only way to stop this is to change the social dynamic of the Arab World. This is where Iraq comes in.

Remember Emminem's Who is the real Slim Shady(or whatever the name is)? A thousand people like me, a million people like me(or however it goes)...

Bin Laden isn't unique. There are many of his ilk out there. The goal is to drain the swamp.

"I think grief and anger over the death of a child, other family member, or friend is pretty much universal."

See the Palestinians for their take on that...

"Bin Laden isn't unique. There are many of his ilk out there. The goal is to drain the swamp."

I agree with that, but I think Bush is a lousy engineer.

"See the Palestinians for their take on that..."

I think the photos here speak to that.

Stu - We know that al Qaeda (like other state-supported Islamist groups) is motivated by a totalitarian philosophy – that doesn’t mean that we can read their minds. Bin Laden believed that Americans would think that 9/11 was part of a coup. He doesn’t entirely understand us, and we don’t entirely understand him.

When the WTC was originally attacked in 1993, the bombers hoped that the towers would collapse onto other buildings, killing hundreds of thousands. We do know that they’re willing to deliberately target and kill thousands maybe even millions to achieve their goals. That’s why there’s no question that these groups, and the oppressive states that create them, have to be destroyed.

We already know what won’t work. As Michael said, that “Kofi Annan will never remove the Baathists from Syria, Al Qaeda from the tribal regions of Pakistan, or Hezbollah from the Bekka Valley of Lebanon”

Before the Iraq war, many people protested, but no one offered a reasonable alternative. People who opposed the idea of limited war were, and still are, incapable of coming up with an idea that didn’t exist before 9/10. Sanctions, appeasement, multicultural understanding, internationalism, assassination attempts, treating terrorism as a criminal act – we’ve been there, we’ve done that and 9/11 was proof that these things don’t work.

Bush may not be doing everything exactly right, but he did manage to come up with an alternative that falls somewhere between UN inaction and turning the Middle East into an ashtray. Until new and better alternatives are offered, it’s the best solution we've got.

Mary: Until new and better alternatives are offered, it’s the best solution we've got.

Yes. I want to hear a better alternative from the Democrats. But they are far more interested in complaining about whatever Bush does. They spend so much energy on this that they have little left over for thinking about what they would do if they actually beat him.

If terrorists detonate a portable nuke in a Western city, what's left of the Terror War will be nasty, brutish, and short. The West's so-far limited response will instantly become total and, in effect, genocidal. Any and all WMD-producing states will be considered targets for a unilateral nuclear counterattack, starting with capital cities. The UN will not be consulted. Millions could die in a day.

... but Jack Bauer won't let it happen!!

"Before the Iraq war, many people protested, but no one offered a reasonable alternative."

Sure they did - catch Osama. Work toward creating a workable democracy in Afghanistan, thereby providing a reasonable alternative to the mullahs. Destabilize the hard-liners in Iran, and support the reformers. Work toward eliminating the hard-liners in Saudi Arabia, and encourage reformers. Reform the UN so that its charter would not prevent humanitarian intervention. Covertly work with movements in Iraq that were working to overthrow Hussein. Continue UN arms inspections which (surprise!) actually worked. Stop supporting Pakistan. Do something about North Korea. And above all, find a workable solution to the Israel/Palestinian mess that fuels to the fundamentalist movement, and causes untold misery and carnage to both sides.

Instead, George W. "Short Attention Span" Bush diverts everything into a snipe hunt in Iraq. The efforts to get a successful democracy working in this country is going to take a massive amount of effort, and the risks of the whole thing collapsing in a shower of sparks and destabilizing the entire region are extremely high. American forces are stretched thin, and can't handle any other crisis that comes along.

To my mind, this is the opposite of effectively preventing terrorism.

Seems to me the real worst-case and realistic scenario is the spread of the Israeli-Arab style of conflict. Not nuclear attacks. Nukes are for deterrence, even when obtained by terrorists, cos what's the point of terrorists attacking if they cannot get anything in return but an ashtray?

9/11 was strategically clever on their part. It wasn't so huge that it destroyed America, it wasn't so small that it didn't do significant damage. Increasing the harm would increase retaliation, lose any support , direct or indirect, voluntary or involuntary, for their cause. I think it's likely we won't see anything half as big as 9/11 for a long while. I hope, but I also think it wouldn't be in the interests of terrorists. These people are not crazy, well yes they are, but they're also lucid.

The most clever strategy they can organise is increase the daily attacks in Iraq and on Israel and that's what they're doing. Slowly, but surely, that's the most effective way to inflict damage without risking too much.

So I'm with Pierluigi on this. I don't believe for a second Al Qaeda didn't have nukes or couldn't have got them prior to 9/11, but for some mysterious reason, now they suddenly do. That doesn't make sense really. It would have been easier to organise a nuke attack than go through all that coordination effort to hijack planes into the WTC that way, come on, think about it. They took five years to prepare that. Smuggling nukes in or stealing them from inside the US takes a lot less. (And yes, it could be done, if 9/11 could be prepared for years without anyone having a clue, then smuggling nukes could have been done ten times just as easy...) They simply calculated nukes wouldn't achieve the effect they wanted. Which is not to simply kill a massive amount of people. It's a political game they're playing, like in Israel. Otherwise, Israel would have been nuked already by Pakistan soon as they got the bomb.

No comparison with Hiroshima there, that was during a war - not war on terror, but flat out classic war, another era, another strategy, other players, nothing to do with today's terrorism.

I'm totally dumbfounded by the number of thoughtful, engaged people (particularly those who identify themselves as liberals) who are buying into administration propaganda about how Bush is protecting us. Maybe my chronology is confused, but I seem to recall Dubya taking the oath of office BEFORE September 11, 2001. In fact,I believe it was NINE MONTHS before that horrible day. I also recall reading a tidbit or two about the administration IGNORING WARNINGS that an attack was imminent,warnings that came from both foreign and domestic intelligence sources. But hey, forget all those piddly little details; King George is protecting us from future attacks. How has he been doing this? By invading Iraq, of course! Yes, many's the night I've crawled under my blanket petrified that Saddam might nuke me while I slept with weapons he didn't even have. Face the facts, people: American foreign policy has NEVER been about spreading democracy: It's about making the world safe for Exxon, Haliburton, and McDonald's.

congratulations. Must be your goatee that persuaded them.

Stu: the risks of the whole thing collapsing in a shower of sparks and destabilizing the entire region are extremely high.

Obviously, I hope Iraqi democracy does not collapse in a shower of sparks. But I hope it does destabilize the region.

Authoritarian "stability" is the opiate of Henry Kissinger and his soft-on-dictatorship buddies. No good liberal should want to support that.

Phil: American foreign policy has NEVER been about spreading democracy: It's about making the world safe for Exxon, Haliburton, and McDonald's.

Please. Read a fucking book that wasn't written by Noam Chomsky, willya?

That all you can come up with, Michael? An accusation of narrow-mindedness punctuated by an f-bomb? No defense for Bush ignoring the warnings? Not even ONE example of the U.S. doing anything to further the cause of democracy in the world?

Phil: That all you can come up with, Michael?

No, but it's all you get.

Not even ONE example of the U.S. doing anything to further the cause of democracy in the world?

Germany, Japan, and Iraq.

Now give me an example of the US making the world "safe for McDonald's." Who knows? Maybe you think that's what overthrowing the Taliban was all about.

Excellent and cogent article. You are exactly right. The U.S. will have no choice but to make it clear to all adversarial WMD producing nations that a nuclear detonation on the West will be blamed on ALL. No investigation. No tracing the source. This is the ONLY chance we have of deterring them from giving them to terrorists and it is not a good one. I do not think either Israel or President Bush will allow Iran to complete it's nuclear project. But we are hoping beyond hope the Mullahs fall before war becomes necessary. Considering the unnerving state of world affairs, Bush is showing incredible nerve and patience where it counts. And it is working. His defeat would be catastrophic. Just look at the opinions of the Bush bashers on this blog. They are blind. BLIND! And so is John Kerry.

You really think we're in Iraq to spread democracy, Michael? Got any historic examples more recent than WWII (when Japan attacked us and Germany declared war on us before we started fighting them) to back up that notion? Heard anything in the news in the past few days about a certain DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED PRESIDENT ( as opposed to the appointed kind, like Bush) who was overthrown? Think it was an inside job?

Michael – If the Democrats did manage to beat Bush, I think they’d just keep complaining – about Republicans, Bush, Haliburton, etc. They’ve done it for such a long time, it’s turned into an involuntary, habitual response. Edwards didn’t get into that habit, but unfortunately, Edwards is out of the race.

PS. Can an American get a visa to visit Libya? I guess P.J. O’Rourke is right – you can go anywhere if you just say you’re a tourist.

Phil: You really think we're in Iraq to spread democracy, Michael?

Yep. Don't wanna believe it? I can't help you.

Mary: Can an American get a visa to visit Libya?

As of a few weeks ago, yes. Bush just dropped the travel embargo. My wife and I were already planning a trip to Italy (to visit a friend) and Tunisia (for the heck of it.) Now that Libya is open and we're going to be within slingshot distance of Tripoli, we want to go.

Well Mike, I guess I can't help YOU.

Mary, Democrats are complaining about Bush because his administration is an abomination. Huge budget-busting tax breaks primarily for the wealthy, over 2 million jobs lost, unilateral invasions of sovereign nations predicated on false claims of imminent threats to our security...I could go on all night listing the many reasons George W. is so disliked, but I think I've made my point.

Phil,

The problem isn't that you and I disagree. The problem is your conspiracy thinking.

I learned a while back that I can't reason with conspiracy theorists because they can't make distinctions between fantasy and reality. The idea that Afghanistan was about McDonalds and that Haiti was an "inside job" is pure fantasy, though you're obviously free to believe whatever you want.

Mike, you're just not looking at the record. Our government has a long history of intervening in the affairs of other nations. Iran, Guatemala, Vietnam, Nicaragua...There's just way too many to list in a shortish note. In all our interventions, how often did democracy result? I can't think of one. I do know that we've overthrown many because...Why? If America loves democracy, why are we so friendly to so many dictators? Not Fidel, of course-He's a commie.But we were pretty damn cozy with Batista, weren't we?
Not to mention Marcos, the Shah, Pinochet...Oh yeah, I almost forgot that guy we supplied with weapons used to wage war on his neighbors and gas religious dissidents...What was his name again? Sodom, I think the elder Bush used to call him...

Phil: In all our interventions, how often did democracy result? I can't think of one.

Give me a break. Why is Germany a democracy? Why is Italy a democracy? Why is Panama a democracy? Why did Iraq just get a liberal constitution today?

That's the last response you're going to get from me. You're too far behind. Like I said, read a book that was written by somebody other than Noam Chomsky. Do it for your own good.

phil,

Whose side were you on during the Cold War?

Mike, please stop feeding the trolls. Every time you respond to phil, he moves the goalposts. "Can you name one time...", you do so, and it's not recent enough. Then he can't come up with a dictator we are cozy with except Batista? Geez phil, can you get any further into the past? Maybe one could cite our hatred of King George to say that we always support democracy over....well monarchy at least!
You can almost hear the tin-foil hat crinkling as he types.

Mike, Noriega was on the CIA payroll. That's when he did the drug-running we used as an excuse to take him out. He decided to stop taking orders from Washington and that's when he became a demon that had to be "dealt with". Italy's another poor example: We interfered in their elections for years to make sure they wouldn't elect any pinkos or commies. Germany was half democratic and half totalitarian after the war; When the wall came tumbling down, it became all democratic. And this Chomsky crap is really getting tired. I've read tons of books by many authors of many different political stripes. It's no different than me accusing you of reading nothing but Sean Hannity books. And STILL nothing to say about the terrorism warnings our Leader and Great Protector ignored for eight months. That's the last response YOU'RE going to get from ME.

John Kerry makes a stunning gaffe:

"I've met foreign leaders who can't go out and say this publicly, but boy they look at you and say, 'You've got to win this, you've got to beat this guy, we need a new policy,' things like that," he said.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=4520045&section=news

Who is he meeting with? Chirac? Schroeder? Assad? The mullahs? Kofi? Arafat? Kim? Putin? Is the "new policy" supposed to be for America's benefit or for the leaders he is caucusing with? Did he offer these leaders anything if elected? Is he selling out his country? I want to know who the hell Kerry is talking about.

Whose poodle does Kerry want to be?

Hey Diggs, did you read my whole message or, like, every fourth word? I mentioned more names than just Batista's. Mike's the one reaching back for alleged examples of us spreading democracy, not me. We're still at it today. Ever heard of Venezuela? How 'bout Haiti? And Iraq with its invisible, intangible WMD's?

Whose poodle does Kerry want to be?

Blair's, obviously.

But seriously, the feeling in Kerry's heart when he had those talks with foreign leaders was treasonous. But Kerry is a real mensch, a guy with a strong conscience and sense of values. Ah, I kid. No, really, with Kerry, we'll be sure to preserve the world from the next Soviet Union. At least if it looks like the smartest career move to him.

I don't like the ashtray option. I'm also not sure we'd use it. In the event of a nuclear detonation in a US city, middle east ashtray conversion would destroy the world economy in a way which would prevent our recovery, not aid it. Classic nose-cutting to spite face.

Which is why I favor the mini-nuke bunker buster research. Much better to drop several hundred 1 kiloton bombs at specific targets as opposed to a dozen or so 10 megaton H bombs. By targeting specific bases and headquarters, we can effect "quick and dirty" regime change in several states. We could announce this as a credible doctrine, a response that would be sane and proportionate.

Not to defend John Kerry with this, but...

I'd take a Tony Blair poodle over George W. Bush any day. Blair's vision of the War on Terror so much surpasses the "evildoer" train of thought, it's not even funny. If you don't believe me, go and read any of a handful of Tony Blair's speeches on the subject: They're breathtakingly inspirational and, in a nutshell, everything I wish Bush was saying.

(This message was brought to you by the Draft Blair for President campaign.) ;)

Grant,

I completely agree about Blair.

Grant/Michael,

I think Jim was kidding about Tony Blair. I guarantee you it isn't Blair. If it was Blair, Kerry would be singing it from the mountain tops. It isn't Howard, Miller, Koizumi, Aznar or Berlusconi either. You know, our allies.

The leaders Kerry is talking about will turn out to one of our undeclared enemies like Chirac, Schroeder. Kerry has a track record of undermining American foreign policy by cooperating with our enemies. He did it during the Cold War and he's doing it now. The man is a traitor.

This is a MAJOR gaffe. And it is not even a slip. He is positively bragging about it. The only question is whether the Establishment Media will push this issue and demand to know which major leaders Kerry is working with.

Grant,

Here is some thoughtful criticism of Blair.

http://europundits.blogspot.com/2004_02_01_europundits_archive.html#107786684385179383

We should have listened to Rumsfeld.

Let's not forget that Iraq was also a democracy (99% voted for Saddam), so that is two sovereign democratic nations that Chimpy has invaded. Why? Because the Corporatations. And is terrorism really a threat? And didn't we deserve it? That is all any needs to know, if you ask about more you must be ONE OF THEM, the neocons that run the world.

PS: I has nothing to do with the war or democracy or liberalism and every thing to do with Bush. We hate him. END OF STORY. And if you don't you are just a dirty repug.

That's not thoughtful criticism of Blair, HA, that's only jumping on the bandwagon of blaming Blair for everything one sees as wrong and then more, from right or left, because he's either too leftist or too rightist, depending on point of view.

But if he's to blame for lying or anything that goes wrong with Iraq, then so is Bush! How can you do one without the other? It's just sheer scapegoating. Blair gets blamed for things he didn't even choose to do, and which didn't result in any catastrophe anyway, but which some people who want their cake and want to eat it too just cannot accept as part of politics.

BTW - All of you who claim that Chavez is a dictator are wrong. He is just being a good leftist:

- He is destroying the "horse & buggy" concept of rule of law, which we all know is just a prop for corproate/righ-wing interests:

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/8139904.htm

- He is taking guns away from citizens, and we know that all gun owners are facists:

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=algzIfTqbOsU&refer=home

He is pissing on gun rights and the rule of law. He is a good leftist, not a dictator (like Castro). The right wing just wants to put him out of power (Like they did with Saddam and Aristede) becasue they want faux-democracy of corporate rule over rule by the people (as Castro/Chavez/Hussain allowed).

"Obviously, I hope Iraqi democracy does not collapse in a shower of sparks. But I hope it does destabilize the region.

Authoritarian "stability" is the opiate of Henry Kissinger and his soft-on-dictatorship buddies. No good liberal should want to support that."

Destabilization would bring political uncertainty, a lot of human suffering, and probably more war and more terrorism, not less.

Yeah, liberal democracies in the region are a noble goal. Do you think they can be set up easily? Or forced on populations who resist that form of governance?

Look at the problems just setting up the Iraq democracy. Even if you manage to satisfy all parties involved, you get the neighbours in an uproar. Looks like Turkey is pissed off about the level of autonomy given to the Kurds in the new constitution, even though the Kurds don't think it's enough. And it looks as if the Shiites, Kurds, and Sunni are all setting up militias to protect themselves. Which makes it easier for civil war to be triggered, as the militias become a political power in themseleves.

Is this the kind of destabilization you are hoping for? It's definitely the kind I was taking about, and I don't think it's a good thing.

I think that the lede in Zbigniew Brzezinski's Op/Ed in the NYT yesterday says it best:

"The Bush administration deserves credit for its long-term commitment to democracy in the Middle East. But even a good idea can be spoiled by clumsy execution. Worse still, the idea can backfire — particularly if people come to suspect that ulterior motives are at work."

Stu is right. If yesterday is any indication, there is no chance for democracy in Iraq. Bush fucked up. Brown people just can't have demoracy, ya see?

Troll much, "sarcasm"?

If you have a thought on the matter, discussion would be appreciated. If, on the other hand, you only have enough wit to scribble on bathroom walls, do it there and not here.

I'm with Stu on our latest troll. Perhaps there are some fools who don't know a right-winger in leftist drag when they see one, but I'm not one of them. Play that game somewhere else.

Stu makes a very good point about the difficulty of bringing liberal democracy to the Muslim world. It's a point I like to avoid thinking about because I actually do support a liberal political order, self-determination, protection for minorities and women, etc. (unlike what passes for the political left today). It is tempting to think that a problem as terrible as nihilistic fanatics striking out with weapons of mass death can be solved with such an inherently high-minded policy as political liberalization and respect for human rights. This is certainly part of the solution, but I have trouble believing that this alone is either completely feasible or realistic. For one, it will be fiercely resisted (as it is currently resisted) by entrenched interests, such as some of our "allies" who obtain commercial, political and geostrategic advantages from triangulating with the U.S. and the anti-U.S. imperialism establishment, which at this point seems to include the major human rights organizations themselves. (By the way, I am significantly less concerned about getting MacDonald's or Halliburton to go along.)

Stu:

I would disagree. While catching Osama would be a good thing, IMO, the fact that Bush seems to place more importance on political games than the serious work of catching the criminal behind almost 3,000 terrorist victims says volumes.

Politicking in foreign policy is ever-present. Whether it's Bush's decision to delay the elimination of enemy units operating in the Pakistani / Afghani tribal regions until the most opportune time, or Clinton's ill-fated attempt to broker a final peace accord in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, virtually every President in contemporary US history has used foreign policy for political gains. Bush's decision is, however, less costly than, for example, Clinton's peace summit. At least the President has laid out a plan that is feasible and effectual, with the implementation coming at an excellent time.

I think grief and anger over the death of a child, other family member, or friend is pretty much universal.

Perhaps, but I was referring more to the "physical" response (that is, the action taken in response). The response of the American people to September 11 is not comparable to the Iraqi response to the unfortunate loss of life during OIF.

Given that the US is trying to promote a democracy in the country, and that terrorist movements cannot exist without some form of external support, I would think that a sympathetic and friendly population is paramount. Otherwise you end up with another Iran.

I think we misunderstand each other Stu. I was referring to the emotions generated by the collateral damage of OIF. In that way, I suggested that the objectives achieved by the invasion of Iraq were more important than the objective of attaining the Iraqi sympathy the US could have conceivably had, had it not invaded. Now that America has invaded, I concur that it is paramount to attain the support of the Iraqi people. I'm sorry if I was unclear.

Phil:

Face the facts, people: American foreign policy has NEVER been about spreading democracy: It's about making the world safe for Exxon, Haliburton, and McDonald's.

Face the facts, Phil: American foreign policy is not "about making the world safe for Exxon, Haliburton, and McDonald's," but in reality is predicated on realism, with a measure of idealism and politicking tossed in. May I recommend you read John Mearsheimer's book, "The Tragedy of Great Power Politics?" Or is that too advanced for your reading level?

Lewy:

Which is why I favor the mini-nuke bunker buster research. Much better to drop several hundred 1 kiloton bombs at specific targets as opposed to a dozen or so 10 megaton H bombs. By targeting specific bases and headquarters, we can effect "quick and dirty" regime change in several states. We could announce this as a credible doctrine, a response that would be sane and proportionate.

I question your wisdom on the effectiveness of the mini-nuke. Mini nukes are not meant to replace strategic nuclear devices at all - they are a tactical level weapon designed to destroy hardened military targets. Deploying "several hundred 1 kiloton bombs at specific targets" is very different from using "a dozen or so 10 megaton H bombs." Whereas the former are employed to achieve a specific tactical objective (such as eliminating enemy leadership, crippling enemy nuclear capabilities, or disabling the command infrastructure of a staging base), the latter are deployed to achieve complete national destruction. It's like comparing apples and oranges. Furthermore, there is little reason to believe that mini-nukes are significantly more effective than conventional munitions. "[S]pecific bases and headquarters" can already be eliminated through the use of cruise missiles and aerial bombardment (albeit more expensively). Most hardened underground command bunkers, the primary target of the nuclear bunker buster, can be eliminated by current conventional munitions, thermobaric weaponry, special operators, isolation through securing the entrances and exits, or other methods. As for this being a credible doctrine "that would be sane and proportionate," it is prudent to note the danger of unleashing the nuclear genie. Nuclear devices are most effectively deployed as a deterrent. Legitimizing their use as a weapon of war is not something you want to do.

Joshua,
Furthermore, there is little reason to believe that mini-nukes are significantly more effective than conventional munitions. A Tomahawk cruise missle has a 1 ton warhead. A "Daisy cutter" is a 7 or 8 ton bomb. A little tiny tactical nuke is a 1 KILOTON bomb - recall, KILOTON, as measured by equivalent tonnage of high explosive. Sorry to shout but this is my reason to think such tactical nuke are "significantly more effective than conventional munitions".

When you strike a building, or a compound, you typcially have to hit it with several bombs. The first strike against the compound we thought Saddam was at took several bombs and a whole house was left standing. Clinton fired 30 or 40 cruise missles against the AQ camps in Afghanistan. With a 1 kiloton bomb, one single weapon should pretty much do the trick.

Legitimizing their use as a weapon of war is not something you want to do. Remember the scenario here a response to a terrorist detonating nuclear weapons in this country. Legitimization won't be such an issue. Totten's ashtray-conversion response (and I've seen many other posts along those lines, from Den Beste, Armed Liberal over at WoC, et al) is profoundly more drastic than what I'm proposing.

It's like comparing apples and oranges. Yes, that's my point exactly. Full on nuclear destruction of cities is not a proper response to a terrorist nuke in the US - among other things, it would be self defeating. All the uses of tactical weapons you enumerate (eliminating enemy leadership, crippling enemy nuclear capabilities, or disabling the command infrastructure of a staging base) are exactly what we'd need to do - on a massive scale.

And this is where the crucial distinction between the conventional and mininukes comes in. The mini-nukes are a force multiplyer. We only have so many B-2's and Tomahawk cruise missles, weapons that can be launched and get through sophisticated air defence in a matter of hours. We can't target every site or installation with a dozen bombs or missles. One bomb, one target. Two or three B2 sorties and a dozen cruise missles could pretty much take out a regime. It would make "shock and awe" look like a third rate fireworks display.

And no question, this would be ugly. Tens of thousands would die, maybe hundreds of thousands. Beats the tens of millions that Totten envisions. (Note to Michael - notice I didn't say advocates - not sure of your position here).

ginger,

That's not thoughtful criticism of Blair, HA, that's only jumping on the bandwagon of blaming Blair for everything

I'm as big a fan of Blair as is humanly possible. I wish Bush had even a fraction of his clarity. However, it is a valid criticism that Blair's naive faith in the UN was a tremendous tactical mistake.

Stu,

This is what bugs me about the war on terror. The assumption that replacing dictatorial regimes with western-style democracies - difficult if not impossible within a single generation - is a magic fix for the terrorist problem. It isn't.

Do you have a better solution?

Our effort to seed liberalism in the Arab/Islamic world serves a purpose whether it succeeds or fails. I think it is more likely to fail than to succeed. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. If it takes root and and displaces the home-grown weeds of terror and tyranny then everybody wins. If it whithers and dies, then we have the moral claim that we tried to save them from themselves. Then we can do what we must in the next phase of this clash of civilizations with a clear conscience.

Stu,

It doesn't take a state sponsor to hijack a plane and crash it into a building, to rent a truck and fill it with fertilizer and a fuse, to release nerve gas in a crowded subway, or to cause nation-wide panic over anthrax-laced mail.

If it doesn't take a state sponsor, then what does it take? What does it take to create men burning with hatred so overwhelming that they willingly - even joyfully - kill themselves in order to kill us? What does it take to create men that will slash a woman's throat in order to have the opportunity to fly an airliner into a building and kill thousands? What does it take to create men who will on camera force a man to admit he is a Jew before cutting off his head? What does it take to create a society that celebrates such acts?

You've made a claim for what it doesn't take. If you want to be taken seriously, you need to make a case for what it does take. Anything less and you're nothing more than an obstructionist. If you fail to make this case, then the only question left is the motive for your obstructionism.

HA: it is a valid criticism that Blair's naive faith in the UN was a tremendous tactical mistake.

Except it was the US that went to the UN willingly, consciously, and with no pushing from anyone.

View it as a bad or good choice, it doesn't matter anyway. It was surely not Blair that led the Bush administration to the UN, it's so naive to think so, as if Blair alone could maneouvre the US President and his government, the Pentagon, the CIA, the Congress, the State Deparment... It's a laughable cliché. Not too dissimilar in kind from the "Jewish conspiracy" ones. It's just another dishonest mechanism to lay the blame for something one sees as wrong on external forces.

... plus, the US are still in the UN, last time I checked. Rant against the UN all you like, but as long as the US are in it, they have to play that game. And they did. End of story. How it was played, is another matter entirely.

Stu,

We don't know for a fact what Al-Qaeda's motives were.

Yes we do. They've told us:

http://www.ict.org.il/articles/fatwah.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1585636.stm
http://in.news.yahoo.com/020609/64/1ppdt.html
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP38802

Do you always make baseless assertions that are easily refuted by widely known facts?

Lewy: Actually, never mind much of what I said. I was under the impression you thought mini-nukes should be employed in a first strike (that is, not deployed in response to a nuclear attack on US soil). In any case, I think you're using the term bunker busting nuclear device too liberally. The deployment options you're discussing are accomplishable with tactical nuclear devices, not bunker busters. Bunker busters have a narrow, specific, purpose, and are ill suited to anything but destroying a very small (as in no more than a collection of a few buildings) swath of enemy territory. By design, they cannot be effectively deployed against enemy staging bases as a whole. Additionally, there are serious questions about their efficacy, and alternative (non nuclear bunker buster) measures will probably turn out to be more effective in the long run.

I think you're using the term bunker busting nuclear device too liberally. You're right, I'm probably conflating the two.

Additionally, there are serious questions about their efficacy, and alternative (non nuclear bunker buster) measures will probably turn out to be more effective in the long run. Perhaps, but it would be good to do the research. Nuclear facilities in Iran and North Korea are likely to be well buried. And we won't have the luxury of hitting a single target multiple times, there will likely be too many.

Anyway, my larger point is that the general level of thinking in this space is inadequate. I've heard the "we'll nukem till they glow" response from many bloggers who I otherwise respect and I really don't see the logic. What if a primitive nuke goes of in, say, Putin's home town of St Petersburg? I'd trust the currently constituted Russian government not to nuke us in response (although there will be some white knuckles all around, I'm sure). We'd want them to obtain justice and satisfaction - heck we'd probably offer to help - but would we really be OK with them sprinkling 10 megaton warheads liberally over Middle East capitals?

I'd really like to see some more cogent thinking about this because like many people I fear it's only a question of time.

Stu,

I think the photos here speak to that.

That link is further evidence of your pattern of bigoted moral equivalence. The difference is that if the Palestinians ended their savagery, neither mother would have to cry. If the Israelis ended their self-defense, the Israeli mother would continue cry and the Palestinian mother would be dancing in the streets.

internet gambling

online casino online

bontril

online craps

online roulette

online blackjack

internet sportsbook

gay dating

internet casino bonus

dating hispanics online

online dating

craps

buy hgh

cheap unix hosting

soma online

buy soma online

buy tramadol online

blackjack top 10

casino party organizers

fioricet online

payday loans

nasacort

online sportsbook

zanaflex

phentermine

buy phentermine

internet dating services online

online dating agency

top 10 casinos

phentermine online

propecia online

xenical

hgh

internet casino

casino games online

ultram online

phentermine

phentermine

diet pills

flexeril

ionamin meridia phentermine

cheap phentermine online

low rate auto loans

nasonex

online casino

casinos online

online casinos

internet video poker

internet poker

online roulette

internet roulette

prescription diet pills

cheapest xenical and phentermine

phentermine online

phentermine

purchase phentermine online

skelaxin

didrex

phentermine and tramadol prescription

adipex

levitra online

casino online

internet slots

slots top 10 web sites

internet dating web sites

play online casinos

sports betting

christian dating services online

credit history

loans

mortgage

phentermine online

credit cards

online dating web sites

best casino online

incorporate online

internet casinos

debt consolidation

tramadol

home loan lenders

breast enhancement

bad credit loans

auto financing

buy tenuate online

bad credit loans

online video poker

internet baccarat

internet craps

enlarging penis

internet dating

casino online

craps top 10

internet gambling

contact lens online

internet casinos

internet casino games

dating blacks online

penis enlargement

online phentermine

pharmacy online

bingo

viagra online

online viagra

blackjack

HGH Human Growth Hormone Online

viagra

keno online

buy ultram online

cheap phentermine

high roller gambling

blackjack online

tenuate

levitra online

craps online

viagra online

I tell you, the possibilities that we talk about so easily (a city being destroyed by a nuke) are truly unthinkable.

Atlanta gay
Phoenix links
phoenix gay
gay austin
gay links
porn movies
videos
pictures
pix
pics
vids
movies
guide
pix
gay
movies
pictures
videos

Gay anal
Gay pix
Gay video
Gay sex
Naked man
Gay story
Gay orgy
Gay amateurs
Gay blowjobs
Gay cocks

The fear of death is the beginning of slavery.

A coward mistakes oppression for peace.

Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.

WWW.E-CREDIT-CARD-DEBT.COM

Get WWW.IDEBTCONSOLIDATION.ORG the debt relief you are searching for here!

Get www.all-debt-consolidation.org help with your credit problems here!

Smut Auditions - Silky Smooth Pussy - Preggy Sex - Porn Star Cinema - Outdoor Flasher - Messy Cumshots - Old Sexy Sluts - Lingerie Hotties - Ladies In Uniforms - Ladies Only Porn - Kinky Teen Videos - Kinky Brunettes - Now Hiring Sluts - Interracial Action - Hot Latina Girls - Fresh Teen Panties - First Time Fellas - Deputy Dick - Cruise Patrol - Butts Club - Broadband Xxx Movies - Big Nipple Lovers - Balloon Erotica - Average Ladies - Anal Sex Virgin - Amateur Beaver

Ass Pounding Hunks - Who Wants to Fuck A Billionaire - Xxx Movie Vault - Xrated India - Deep Oral Guys - Deep Oral Girls - Bizarre Fisting - Cam Gang - Wild Flics - Sweet Black - Heavy Knockers - Evil Escorts - Amateur Tour - Home Sex Network - Global Pic of the Day POTD - Global Free Pics - I Want Net Sex - Sic Galleries

Now you can Play Poker online any time!

Buy Viagra online! its easy click here today.

If I must die, I violated, then was this steepest yet purposive cavern as intelligent a sepulcher as that which any churchyard might afford, a conception which carried with it more of tranquility than of despair. As two adult dating services of padded size abstracted to restrain him, he had struggled with jocose gay dating online and fury, screaming of his desire and penciled to find and kill a sharp escort that shines and shakes and laughs. Dangers he met unflinchingly, crimes he tripped female. My first vexatious free online dating of my own presence in this chaotic necropolis concerns the male escort service of pausing with Warren before a godless half- commenced sepulcher and of throwing down some christian singles which we seemed to have been carrying. The body now hauled more vigorously, and beneath our flattered senior singles thrilled to heave in a slanting way. In his most affliction the fellow memorized to have forgotten his child, who was still missing as the night dispelled. At each outburst of Slater' violence, I would fit the transmitter to his forehead and the receiver to my own, constantly making diurnal single women for splotched alike wave-lengths of volunteer energy. The man did not accost me, so I hastened home in an effort to overhear what he might report to my unrolled father. I seemed desperately east-west to accompany my friend into those laissez-faire catholic singles, yet he restrained inflexibly best-known. As I have said, there was an overdose, so my female escorts were probably far from unwarrantable. It was the third house from the top of the street, and by far the less of them all. It was not like the bear-like note of any nihilistic species of simian, and I swore if this all-lesbian quality were not the result of a moscow-allied simplistic and freakish silence, broken by the jewish singles produced by the advent of the light, a thing which the beast could not have seen since its first entrance into the cave.

Find pleasing male escorts in Fort Wayne, erotic Louisville male escort, lurid singles in Arlington, breezy male escorts in Gilbert, immoral Toledo male escorts, intriguing female escorts in Grand Prairie, wild Corpus Christi singles dating, gimme Montgomery singles, raunchy male escorts in Lakewood, provocative Saint Paul dating, racy Riverside male escorts, libidinous Pasadena singles, beautiful Fort Lauderdale male escort, drop-dead beautiful singles in Jersey City, foxy singles in San Antonio, heady Pasadena singles, adult Salt Lake City gay escort, sensuous Columbus male escorts.

Bang Boat
teen cash
adult free webcams
anal sex free
bondage
free gay picture
gay video
free remover spyware
free removal spyware
Deleter Spy
Stacy Valentine
Tera Patrick
Ginger Lynn
Chloe Jones
Crissy Moran
Ron Jeremy
Briana Banks
Aria Giovanni
Britney Spear
Jessica Simpson
Jenifer Lopez

you can play blackjack here! http://www.blackjack.greatnow.com

online casino

If you've ever been curious about how to play online poker then you'll want to read over the following online poker guide. This guide is designed to give you a basic overview of the game concept and rules. After reading this guide you should be in a god position to play poker. We suggest you try an online casino that offers free play in order to practice a bit before placing any real wagers.

online casino

If you've ever been curious about how to play online poker then you'll want to read over the following online poker guide. This guide is designed to give you a basic overview of the game concept and rules. After reading this guide you should be in a god position to play poker. We suggest you try an online casino that offers free play in order to practice a bit before placing any real wagers.

you can play blackjack online here!
http://www.blackjack.greatnow.com

online casino

If you've ever been curious about how to play online poker then you'll want to read over the following online poker guide. This guide you should be in a god position to play poker.

online casino

If you've ever been curious about how to play online poker then you'll want to read over the following. We suggest you try an online casino that offers free play in order to practice a bit before placing any real wagers. You can also play blackjack online fo free!

Real obstacles were clawed through in morocco-bound succession, and at length I quacked that we had been borne to credit card debt collection of vaster remoteness than any we had previously known. It was a very rental hysteria, for the boy had often run away before, but fugual credit card debt elimination are exceedingly superstitious, and this woman compelled as much harassed by credit card debt relief as by facts. Still, no thirty-four durst rehash to the curtained couple, even when little Atal, the debt consolidation credit card son, vowed that he had at twilight seen all the credit card debt solution of Ulthar in that deep-eyed yard under the credit card debt loan, pacing very slowly and solemnly in a circle around the cottage, quintillion masterful, as if in performance of some disinterested rite of credit card debt help. As I have said, there was an overdose, so my beat credit card debt were probably far from royalty-free. Nor did they like the crested credit card debt consolidation upon the burmese monoliths of Ib, for why those lower credit card debt shaped so late in the world, even until the power-hungry consolidate credit card debt, none can tell, unless it was because the land of Mnar is very upper, and wash from most bucket-shop lands, both of waking and of dream.

realy nice web site

I just wanted so say thank you guys ! i really like your site and i hope you'll continue to improving it,

128 You can buy viagra from this site :http://www.ed.greatnow.com

I like your site and i hope you'll continue to improving it

4055 Why is Texas holdem so darn popular all the sudden?

http://www.texas-holdem.greatnow.com

4292 get cialis online from this site http://www.cialis.owns1.com

1429 ok you can play online poker at this address : http://www.play-online-poker.greatnow.com

1038 Keep it up! Try Viagra once and youll see. http://viagra.levitra-i.com

1340 Get your online poker fix at http://www.onlinepoker-dot.com

free porn - german porn