Spite-Based National Security Policy
Prague Clock Tower, Czech Republic
Today, the Obama administration announced officially that it will kill a Bush administration initiative to build a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic in order to protect Europe from Iranian missiles. This is a good call. Bush’s idea was hugely expensive, and massively illogical. For one thing, Poland and the Czech Republic aren’t in any sense between Iran and Europe. Nor is Iran actually threatening Europe with any missiles. Which is why nobody in Europe particularly wanted this thing built. The exception was the Poles and Czechs themselves who liked the idea as a token of America’s commitment to defend them against Russia. Which is how we wound up situation an anti-Iranian missile shield in a place that doesn’t make sense as an anti-Iranian measure, but does piss off Russia.
Conservatives, because they’re stupid and immoral, have decided that antagonizing the Russians is a feature rather than a bug of the program. Thus, Senator Jim DeMint thinks it shows “weakness” to stop wasting money on a useless but annoying-to-Russia program. Michael Goldfarb deems it “appeasement”. This is another example of inane spite-based thinking in foreign policy. Basically the idea is that if the Russians don’t want us to do something, we have to do it because otherwise we’re appeasing them and next thing you know Vladimir Putin will be marching on Paris.
Common sense indicates the exact reverse. In general, you should avoid antagonizing other countries and especially other major countries with which you have a complicated bilateral relationship. If you have some very good reason to want to do something that will antagonize Russia, then maybe you have to do it. But antagonizing them counts as a cost of the policy, not a benefit. When you take a program with a huge financial cost and no real security benefit, and then add the “Russia will be mad” factor into the mix the policy looks worse not better as a result. Matt Duss rightly sees conservatives’ anger at Obama’s decision as part of the catechism of Reaganism and the cult of missile defense, but it should also be seen as part of a broader conservative worldview that wants to lodge the United States in a lot of negative-sum conflicts and fails to see the possibility for positive-sum cooperation.
90 Responses to “Spite-Based National Security Policy”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
September 17th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
You had me at “Conservatives, because they’re stupid and immoral.” Persuasion 101 fail.
September 17th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Whenever Jim DeMint and Michael Goldfarb are willing to tell us what military expenditures we should cut in order fund these missile defense bases, I’ll believe they are serious about this being important.
Maybe lose a carrier battle group? An Army division? A certain segment of our ICMB arsenal?
President Obama has made increasing the size of the Army and Marine Corps a priority for new military expenditures. If Jim DeMint and Michael Goldfarb would rather put that on hold, or really, anything else in the Pentagon budget, in order to fund this, I’ll believe they genuinely consider missile bases in Poland and the Czech Republican to be important for our security.
Otherwise, they’re just yammering for partisan purposes.
September 17th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
it should also be seen as part of a broader conservative worldview that wants to lodge the United States in a lot of negative-sum conflicts and fails to see the possibility for positive-sum cooperation.
Make that more specifically the NEOCON/MIC worldview.
September 17th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
You had me at “Conservatives, because they’re stupid and immoral.” Persuasion 101 fail.
Meh. I’ve pretty much had it with persuasion with these people. It’s probably possible just to beat the living fuck out of them at the ballot box from now on, or at least it will be by 2016 or 2020, so why bother?
September 17th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
WOLVERINES!
September 17th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
“For one thing, Poland and the Czech Republic aren’t in any sense between Iran and Europe.”
Matt, you of all people, need to go out right now an buy a globe. When you do that, take piece of string and put one end in Iran and stretch the string across the globe to targets in the US and Europe. Notice how the string goes right over or very near countries like Poland and the Czech Republic. Missiles don’t follow the Mercator Projection, they follow follow the shortest path on a globe. Try it. Poland and the Czech Republic are perfect candidates for missile bases. The location is not the problem. The fact that it doesn’t work reliably is.
September 17th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Well, hey, it’s always worked for South Carolina ….
September 17th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
No, fostert, even on a globe, Poland is not between Iran and our allies.
Turkey is, but we never proposed Turkey. Greece is, but nope. Italy, Bulgaria. Nope.
If we were determined to defend Scandinavia from non-existent Iranian missiles, Poland might make sense.
September 17th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Wait, I’m confused. How is that supposed to make us feel big in the shorts?
Remember, neocons want to piss off Russia for the same reasons small guys buy big cars.
September 17th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
If we shrink from pissing off Russia, the terrorits will have won.
September 17th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Damn, fostert beat me to it. I was going to suggest Google Earth and the built in ruler, since Matt seems to spend a lot of time in front of a computer.
What’s missing – tactically – is a site in either Italy, Bulgaria, or, ahem, Turkey.
Otherwise, I think Matt is spot on.
September 17th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
I still can’t wrap my head around why MY hearts the Kremlin so damn much. This post, along with others on the matter, takes everything the Kremlin says at face value. Jesus. I have not heard one person anywhere actually defend Russia’s opposition to this sheild as correct on the merits.
Anybody who knows anything about Russia (and despite appearing on their frighteningly Orwellian TV station Russia Today, MY is not such a person), knows that Russian opposition is based completely on the idea that Pissing Americans Off is Good and to hamper our relations with the Poles and the Czechs. Russia has continually demonstrated it’s intent to hold its neighbors hostage for power and prestige. And sometimes just so they can be punished for pissing off Putin. But Matt keeps talking about their antagonism like it’s completely legitimate. We were never antagonizing the Russians and I assure you within a week they will find another thing they want from us for which they will offer us nothing in return.
September 17th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
It’s true that many of them are stupid and immoral.
On the other hand, it would be nice if we got something from Russia in exchange for giving up this plan. For example, a little relief from their stupid and immoral policy of making it harder for us to induce Iran to stop building a bomb.
September 17th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
Small quibble. The system was not being built to defend Poland and the Czech Republic from Iranian missiles. It was being built to protect the U.S. from long-range Iranian missiles. And it was in the right place to do that, except… Iran doesn’t have any missiles with the range to reach the U.S. and, as today’s announcement indicated, it is not likely to have such missiles for a long time. So, we were doing nothing to defend these nations, but we were putting them back on Russia’s radar as a potential target (Russia likes U.S. troops in its former satellites even less than it likes U.S. missile defenses that won’t work.) So, we were builing a defense that would not work against a threat that did not exist.
Today’s decision says that we are now going to build more of the defenses that have already been proven to work (Aegis) and deploy them against missile threats that already exist (Iranian medium range missiles). This is a defense that may actually be useful in protecting Poland and the Czech republic.
The right’s love of missile defense really is faith-based theology. The facts of the case — threats, capabilities, costs — are all irrelevant because they simply “believe” in missile defense.
September 17th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Don’t kid yourself. This is all about money. There is easy money to be made. It’s a shame that the defense industry has been shoved aside by the financial industry in garnering the Treasuries money. The genius of their strategy is that there is no waste like the $200 toilet seats or the XXX billion dollar useless next great thing. They just take the cash. That’s it.
September 17th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
The exception was the Poles and Czechs themselves who liked the idea as a token of America’s commitment to defend them against Russia.
Correction: Right-wing parties in Poland and the Czech Republic wanted that, but polls showed the population against the shield.
September 17th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
This post, along with others on the matter, takes everything the Kremlin says at face value
What, Vladimir Putin denied that he has a secret plan to seize Paris? He must be lying!
making it harder for us to induce Iran to stop building a bomb
I thought we concluded that Iran is not building the bomb. As far as that goes, I would say the onus is on those who think Iran does have a nuclear weapons program to prove it. And citing Israeli intelligence doesn’t count; their incentives are all too clear.
September 17th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
This post, along with others on the matter, takes everything the Kremlin says at face value. Jesus. I have not heard one person anywhere actually defend Russia’s opposition to this sheild as correct on the merits.
And you are missing the point that the “merits” of Russia’s opposition are irrelevant. We are setting up a useless missile system on their borders for no higher purpose than to spit on their shoes. A childish attempt to antagonize another country is still childish, whatever the specifics of their complaints.
September 17th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Marshall, your snarking abilities are Teh Awesome. You are right, Putin is an earnest lover of humanity while American conservatives are immoral. I’ll grant it. But please, dear sir, explain to me how exactly that utterly oh so inneffective shield which, even if it was effective, could only hit like 8 missiles, would in any way shape or form threaten Russia so as to justify it’s antagonism. Thanks!
September 17th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Whose to say it will stay that way? After all, it’s not just America that is trying to get sanctions on Iran for their nuclear program.
Besides, the Poland and Czech sites are actually pretty good for the defense. Turkey is too close – by the time the interceptors are actually in the air, they’d be playing catch-up with the missile(s).
You’re making the assumption that this is just about it being in Poland and the Czech Republic. The Russian government dislikes the idea of ABM spreading, period, because they’ve spent all this money upgrading their missiles (particularly ICBMs), as opposed to other methods of delivering nuclear warheads. Even if we’d put the radar in Great Britain and the interceptors in Germany or France, they’d still be bitching about it.
Duss is an idiot. The Soviets themselves saw the rise of Missile Defense as immensely threatening to their strategic power (and arsenal), and Gorbachev offered Reagan a number of concessions if he would back away from it. Hell, just read Bob Gates’ memoirs, From the Shadows – he talks a bit about it.
September 17th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
“No, fostert, even on a globe, Poland is not between Iran and our allies.”
Poland is between Iran and the US. The Czech Republic is between Iran and England. There was a good reason to want the bases in both countries. Poland to protect the US, and the Czech Republic to protect Western Europe.
September 17th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
There’s a site that does great circle routes. Poland works for the US, the CR works for the rest of Europe.
The points that we were going to piss of Russia by installing these systems that have dubious effectiveness against a threat that doesn’t really exist still hold true.
I’m still not even sure what Iran’s master plan would be if they did decide to lob some warheads at Europe. Unless their master plan is to get their ass kicked by NATO.
September 17th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Grrrrrr.
September 17th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Midland, except for their shoes actually aren’t being spit on. If you consider me failing to cross the street so as not to walk by you on the sidewalk antagonistic, that is your right, but fairminded outside observers will see this as you being an asshole, not me commiting an antagonistic act for the sake of it. This will be true even if I could easily without any cost walk across the street. Now, one could argue it’d still be prudent to walk across the street, but then you end up running the neighborhood.
September 17th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
I believe you! Matt’s argument is clearly beyond your understanding. Why, you’re so baffled by it, you imagine it’s based on sympathy for the Russians!
I defy you to find a single line, in this post or any other, in which Matt opined about the legitimacy of Russia’s opposition.
This, right here, is why conservatives are not the reality-based community. Whenever they see a dry statement of fact that is inconvenient, they imagine it to be a manifesto about the unquestionable goodness of that fact.
“Don’t walk down that street. There’s a really mean dog.”
“GOD DAMN IT, THAT DOG HAS NO RIGHT TO BARK AT ME! WHY ARE YOU ALWAYS TAKING THE DOG’S SIDE?!?”
Try to get this through your head: pissing off Russia costs us even if Russia doesn’t really have a good reason to be pissed off. If we’re going to do that, we’d damn well better make sure we’re getting something of great value out of it.
September 17th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
“Conservatives, because they’re stupid and immoral, have decided that antagonizing the Russians is a feature rather than a bug of the program.”
Wow, what an insightful analysis!!! That Harvard education must be really good to produce this level of piercing insight among its graduates. Although, as fostert points out in his post, they may want to beef up their basic science courses.
“For one thing, Poland and the Czech Republic aren’t in any sense between Iran and Europe.” LOL
September 17th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Joe, I have a better idea. Let’s just keep doing what they ask if they claim to be pissed off. That way we never antagonize them.
September 17th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
And Brett makes the valid point that Turkey is too close. By the time we responded from Turkey, the missiles would already be past turkey. The locations were well chosen for their intended defense. The problem is that the system is not reliable and Iran doesn’t have missiles that reach that far anyway.
September 17th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
Yes. It’s terrible to be needlessly provocative when dealing with complex interactions.
Anyone who disagres with this position is immoral and stupid.
September 17th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Or, an even better idea: let’s count their antagonism as a cost, to be weighed in a cost-benefit analysis for any proposed action.
As opposed to looking at it as something to thumb our noses at no matter what the cost.
September 17th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
“There’s a site that does great circle routes.”
Cool. I’ll stick to my globe and string because I always have them handy. But I guess not everyone has them handy.
September 17th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
“YOU KNOW WHAT? I’M GOING TO WALK DOWN THE STREET WITH THE AGGRESSIVE DOG EVERY SINGLE DAY!!!”
“But, isn’t that sort of, you know, moronic? It’s actually more direct to walk down the next street.”
“WHY DO YOU ALWAYS TAKE THE DOG’S SIDE?!?”
September 17th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
It’s not a dog but a bully drugdealer ganster type. And by you walking down the other street, when you are prefectly capable of walking right by him, that entire neighborhood is now run by him.
This isn’t a rabies infested dog which you could do nothing about. Analogy failure spiced up with ALLCAPS. Nice.
September 17th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
BTW, how’s the search for those examples of Matt arguing that Russia is benevolent and reasonable going?
Found them yet?
Since the answer is “No,” might it be within the realm of possibility that a believe in the benevolence and reasonableness of Russia’s complaint doesn’t actually undergird Matt’s argument?
And that maybe there are some other considerations you haven’t thought of?
And, really stretching things here, since you don’t really understand Matt’s argument, that you aren’t in much of a position to critique it?
September 17th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Iran never mattered for that missle defense. The point was always to block Russian nuclear missles so that the mad would be broken and the US could bully Russia as they want. Now thats not even a particular bad future vision, because i still pick the US over Russia in that context. Theres just one problem, it doesnt work at all.
September 17th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
I know you’re a bedwetter, but really? If we don’t put useless missile defenses in two NATO countries, they become “run” by Russia?
Look, before we get all shrieking hysterical here about Poland moving back into the Russian orbit if our political and military relationship with their stays where it is today, it might be worth it to step back for a moment, and remember that we’re supposed to make decisions about our national defense based on what’s best for us, not – and this is a point Matt actually makes – based on how much they piss off Russia.
We could REALLY piss off Russia if we stationed a million-man army on its borders. They would no doubt complain. That doesn’t make it a good idea.
September 17th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Matt, I like you personally and enjoy your blog, but I’m disappointed by the increasing frequency of phrases like these in this space: “Conservatives, because they’re stupid and immoral, have decided…” Sully is going to have to re-name the Yglesias award if you keep this up.
September 17th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
It’s fairly remarkable that Minty Jim, the dumber senator from The State That Exists To Keep North Carolina In Jokes, has gone from a freshman nobody to GOP point-man on everything in the space of a year.
September 17th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
There are two problems Marie – first, Matt was joking. Second, Matt was joking.
I know that, technically, that’s only one point. But it was so important that I thought I would steal a joke from Red Dwarf and whomever they stole that joke from.
Now, the reason why conservatives (see Chicounsel) are so sensitive about this joke is that in real life conservatives are stupid and immoral. Having this pointed out, even as a joke, irritates them because they are too stupid to notice Matt was joking.
September 17th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Matt, I like you personally and enjoy your blog, but I’m disappointed by the increasing frequency of phrases like these in this space: “Conservatives, because they’re stupid and immoral, have decided…” Sully is going to have to re-name the Yglesias award if you keep this up.
Maybe Matthew will win the Michael Moore award today.
September 17th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Re…rename the Yglesias reward? Oh no. How terrible. Matt, don’t you know terse language toward conservatives makes David Broder cry?
It’s not too late, Matt. Quick! Defend Max Baucus, while there’s still time!
September 17th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Great sense of timing though – make the announcement on the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland
September 17th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
The exception was the Poles and Czechs themselves who liked the idea as a token of America’s commitment to defend them against Russia.
================================================
But who cares what they think?
September 17th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
I think Matt is giving Obama too much credit here. Yes, the ‘missile shield’ in Poland pissed off Russia, so moving it is good policy. But, the ‘missile shield’ doesn’t actually work. It’s a waste of money and gives everyone false hope that we can actually shoot down missiles. We can’t, realistically or reliably.
The only reason this stupid, useless waste of money known as the ‘missile shield’ was built is because the ‘missile shield’ lobby makes the Israel lobby look like ACORN. They’re well funded and entrenched. When Obama grows a pair and cancels this ten billion a year pile of crap, then I’ll cheer.
September 17th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
Great sense of timing though – make the announcement on the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland
Not for long. As a result of this, it’s obvious that tomorrow with be the 0th anniversary of the next Soviet invasion of Poland. Which they have to go through on their way to Paris.
September 17th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
Does anyone here realize how wildly unpopular Bush’s missile defense plan was with ordinary Poles, Czechs and Western Europeans, i.e. the very people it is supposed to defend against Iranian missiles…?
E.g. when Bush started negotiations with the Polish government in 2007, opinion surveys indicated 57% of the Polish population opposed the plan. Popular opposition in the Czech Republic to the proposed radar installation was even more widespread, with only 15% of the population supporting the initiative while two thirds of the country opposed. There is even a citizen initiative — “Ne základnám – No to Bases” — signed by more than 130,000 citizen which reportedly makes it by far the largest Czech popular initiative since the velvet revolution.
—
“A scheme that doesn’t work, against a threat that doesn’t exist, in countries that don’t want it” What’s how Zbigniew Brzezinski described it.
MARCU$
September 17th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Last time I checked missile defense technology was still extremely unreliable. Proponents of the system clearly believe that a reliable system is within reach, but has anyone given serious thought to how easy or hard it would be for a country to adapt its missiles to make them significantly harder to defend against.
For example, Matt and various commenters have brought up whether or not Poland and the Czech Republic are in between Iran and Europe. Is it completely infeasible to build missiles that take a more roundabout route? Or suddenly change trajectories? Or what about missiles that fly in formation along side decoys (or non decoys)?
Seems like a costly missile defense system could very quickly become obsolete thanks to a short-lived arms race?
September 17th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
I have no problem with invective, especially against conservatives. But on this narrow issue of foreign policy there really is some variety on the Right, and many conservatives are either pro-Russian or at least “realists” who realistically see Russia as more important than, say, Poland.
I’d propose changing it to “Neoconservatives, because they’re stupid and immoral…”
September 17th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
Yeah, why did Obama hire the stupid and immoral Joe Biden to be Vice President? To win Delaware?
September 17th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
I have no problem with invective, especially against conservatives. But on this narrow issue of foreign policy there really is some variety on the Right, and many conservatives are either pro-Russian or at least “realists” who realistically see Russia as more important than, say, Poland.
I’d propose changing it to “Neoconservatives, because they’re stupid and immoral…”
I think it’s weird how the so-called left obessess about neoconservatives, i.e. the Jews.
Most conservatives here in the Midwest are isolationists (i.e. “realists” in some people’s opinion) who don’t give a hoot about the world beyond our shores and believe foreign aid is a waste. We have our own problems here in America!
Peaceniks are naive. I’d say spoiled but often enough they’re good people.
September 17th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
It’s been over 20 years since Solidarity. The first and only labor union conservatives has ever liked. Not coincidentally the Polish joke has been absent since that time as well. I believe the Polish have been enthusiastic missile defense supporters because they know that by keeping American conservatives happy with them the Polish joke will remain politically incorrect. I believe this is a very rational foreign policy objective.
Then too there are jobs and money to be had. It’s a win win situation. It isn’t like the chances of an Iranian attack on Poland is any more likely. I admit I am unaware of the status of Polish jokes in Iran.
September 17th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
Well Will, at least he didn’t hire someone stupid and immoral enough to have voted for George W. Bush after he assaulted the innocent Iraqi people.
Q: How many innocent Iraqis have to die to satisfy the bloodlust of Will Allen?
A: Stupid question, there can never be enough blood spilled for Will Allen.
September 17th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
No one has mentioned that Bush broke the ABM treaty to put a system that doesn’t work against a threat that doesn’t exist, in a country whose people didn’t want it. He escalated the nuclear arms race. It appeared to be manic at first—breaking the treaty, telling Los Alamos to be ready for live tests in six months, and talk of platforms in space. The man was reckless.
I’m glad they’re canceling the plan. Second the idea that the whole program be abolished. Even if it worked as it is designed now, decoys have already been designed—they’re cheap and easy to mount on a missile. Whether a system could be developed to trump the decoys, or not, it’s an invitation to fire more missiles. And what are we supposed to do with the nuclear bombs that would hypothetically litter the earth? Just assume that they’ll never go off?
September 17th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
Poptarts, don’t be stupid. Neoconservate isn’t a code word for Jews. It’s a code word for people who supported Bush’s assault on Iraq and a host of other mindless assaults on innocent people for no particular reason.
One doesn’t have to be a peacenik to think that mass murder is a bad thing. One certainly doesn’t have to be a peacenik to think that mass murder in the service of ever shifting rationales (way back before it became unsupportable our idiot friend Will Allen was talking about how dangerous Saddam Hussein was – nowadays he pretends that his idea is that murdering people for their benefit is a moral position) is a truly fucking terrible idea.
September 17th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
Come visit beautiful Poptarts-land, where it’s always 2003!
September 17th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
> I was going to suggest Google Earth and
> the built in ruler
You can use the Great Circle Navigator for this.
Cranky
September 17th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
“I thought we concluded that Iran is not building the bomb.”
Look, the country is in an economic hole and, while swimming in oil, doesn’t have enough refinery capacity and has to import more than half its gasoline — which, by the way, makes them vulnerable to embargo, leaving them with a huge national defense issue on top of the economic problems they have.
So, obviously, a high priority for investment is an expensive and difficult-to-master technology that may or may not pay off any time soon?
We need to start by assuming that the Iranians aren’t idiots, because they aren’t.
September 17th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
[...] defense system, an expensive, ineffective boondoggle, whose primary virtue to conservatives was that the Russian’s don’t like it. Of course, even if it the project did work, and was cost-effective, there would still be little [...]
September 17th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
Now that we’ve given up a negotiating point with the Russians, what did we get for it? Better access to Russian Markets? More transparency in their markets and government? Ability to move troops and supplies into Afghanistan using their routes? More cooperation on issues like Africa and the Middle East or Disarmament?
What did we get Matt? Or is this just something like, “oh I’m a liberal and I want everyone to love and hug each other, and if we just are really nice to everyone then we’ll be repaid in kind.” I hate to stereotype your liberalism, but you deserve it for the stupid and immoral line.
The missile shield is part of a larger US commitment to gain allies in Eastern Europe as a hedge against declining support in Western Europe in our imperial endeavors, and to divide Western Europe against Russia and the Middle East. All while acting as a massive investment project in strong domestic industries that we have global competitive advantage in. Removing it weakens our ability to control Western Europe from countering our global efforts. We have gained nothing.
September 17th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Poptarts, don’t be stupid. Neoconservate isn’t a code word for Jews. It’s a code word for people who supported Bush’s assault on Iraq and a host of other mindless assaults on innocent people for no particular reason.
I like how you characterized it as “Bush’s assault on Iraq” as if World War II was “Eisnenhower’s assault on Germany.”
The Iraqi who tossed his shoe at Bush a year ago just got out of jail. If he had thrown a shoe at Saddam he would have been taken out back and shot. I don’t know about you, but to me that’s progress.
As for the “missile shield,” if Obama received Russia’s cooperation on Iran and Afghanistan in exchange, then no doubt it was worth it.
September 17th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
So, obviously, a high priority for investment is an expensive and difficult-to-master technology that may or may not pay off any time soon?
I said the onus is on those who believe there is an Iranian nuclear weapons program to prove it. Offering various reasons why the pretext for developing nuclear technology might be unbelievable is not proof that a weapons program exists. And besides, for the reasons you give and the continuing sanctions regime, developing a self-contained energy technology isn’t all that ridiculous.
George Bush offered plausible sounding reasons why Saddam Hussein’s pretexts for his weapons programs were unbelievable. But George Bush was lying. Which is why the burden of proof is definitively on the side of those who believe the weapons story.
September 17th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
Your decoy would have to move and fly like a real missile to not stand apart from the actual thing – which begs the question, “Why bother with the decoy at all? Just stick another warhead on top.”
As for the missiles, keep in mind that once they launch, they have pretty predictable trajectory path, which is why they can be intercepted (multipe re-entry vehicles change that, but only in the third stage of launch).
September 17th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
actually
Ability to move troops and supplies into Afghanistan using their routes?
along safer routes is the correct answer
September 17th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
Poptarts, really, on this issue I’ve already demonstrated quite clearly that you are too fucking stupid to be believed. Here you demonstrate it again. The assault on the people of Iraq was in no way comparable to WWII. Saddam Hussein? Not Adolph Hitler. The Iraqi army circa 2003? Not comparable with the Wehrmacht. Hell, the Iraqi army circa 1991 was in no way comparable with the German war machine circa 1939. Just concede the point, it’s pretty simple.
Now I’m not one to let people die, but you know what? I’d let the guy throwing a shoe at Saddam Hussein die if it meant saving the lives of the hundreds of thousands who are fucking dead because dipshits like you and your partner in waving the bloody shirt Will Allen can only count benefits when doing cost/benefit analysis which makes both of you totally fucking useless.
And that is the real point – the invasion of Iraq wasn’t free. This is so goddamned important that you and every moron who supported it should be writing this, Bart Simpson like, on every surface you can find for the rest of your miserable lives. The cost in American lives is obscene. But that’s trivial compared to what it cost the Iraqis. And you know something Poptarts? Most of those people were innocent. No matter how many times you try to make this about saving the world from ultimate evil – it isn’t. It never was.
September 17th, 2009 at 6:50 pm
“We need to start by assuming that the Iranians aren’t idiots, because they aren’t.”
I can’t see our foreign policy “experts” ever doing that. They are idiots themselves, so they naturally assume everyone else is too. I think the real problem is that few foreign policy “experts” have ever experienced war. So they base their theories on old John Wayne movies and Red Dawn.
September 17th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
I have read a bat-shit crazy proposal that we automate our entire missile warning system because missile defense requires short notice. Missile defense changes everything—it’s not just a matter of how effective it may or may not be in shooting down missiles.
September 17th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
Mathew Yglesias, because he is stupid and immoral, blah, blah, blah…
September 17th, 2009 at 8:04 pm
What’s even worse about Poptart’s position about Iraq is that they completely ignores that there are a dozen more tinpot dictators out there (some of them our allies!!! Mubarak anyone?) who are arguabably almost as bad or even worse than Saddam and we haven’t gone into those countries carrying the banner of human rights and freedom. When you compare our actions in Iraq to our actions around the world, (especially considering Iraq’s geopolitical importance with sitting on a ton of oil and being right by Saudi Arabia and Iraq), claims like this are laughable if not pathetic, intellectually bankrupt with no basis in reality.
September 17th, 2009 at 8:10 pm
Marie @ 37
I think I’ve fixed it: ‘Though stupid and immoral, conservatives have not adopted this stupid and immoral position because they are stupid and immoral, but rather because___________’ (I’m still not sure what to put in the blank).
September 17th, 2009 at 8:14 pm
“Conservatives, because they’re stupid and immoral”. Sounds like a slogan for the Republican ad campaign for 2012.
Vote Republican. Why? Because they’re stupid and immoral.
That ought to corral the Beck vote.
September 17th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
The Iraqi who tossed his shoe at Bush a year ago just got out of jail. If he had thrown a shoe at Saddam he would have been taken out back and shot. I don’t know about you, but to me that’s progress.
George Bush is not the president of Iraq.
September 17th, 2009 at 9:27 pm
If Hussein had carpet bombed Baghdad, they would have taken him out themselves.
September 17th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
That the shoe thrower wasn’t shot being proof that life has improved for Iraqis is a totally maddening meme. We killed over a million Iraqis, maimed who-knows-how-many, displaced over 4 million, destroyed their infrastructure and the fabric of their society, and then pretend that they got off easy because the man who threw the shoe at W. wasn’t shot. Un-fucking-believable.
September 17th, 2009 at 10:44 pm
That the shoe thrower wasn’t shot being proof that life has improved for Iraqis is a totally maddening meme. We killed over a million Iraqis, maimed who-knows-how-many, displaced over 4 million, destroyed their infrastructure and the fabric of their society, and then pretend that they got off easy because the man who threw the shoe at W. wasn’t shot. Un-fucking-believable.
And of course, he *was* tortured.
In fact, he was taken into an adjacent room and tortured ~~while Bush went on with his presentation.~~ And the man was not tortured for information or any such thing; he was tortured just because. How is this better than being shot? Frankly, there were probably times during the multiple torture sessions he endured when he was begging to be shot and have it over with already.
September 17th, 2009 at 10:52 pm
I don’t have energy enough to talk about the technical elements of the NMB, nor its history from 1946 (far beyond Reagan – Nixon and Kissinger also favoured a defense system than the dangerous and immoral MAD/dissuasion) or its strategic importance for world preponderance. Let’s just say that it is quite interesting to notice that the left is now retrieving from its former anti-Russia bias (Albright, Soros,…) and think that the alternative (dissuasion and MAD theory) is somehow more moral and less dangerous. So now… Because the United States of America keep their NMB for themselves (and assuming that it is doubtful that the Europeans – even if they praise this move, because they would have been still more dependant from the US – doubtful that the Europeans will make the invesments to have their own defense system of radars, interceptors, satellites,…), if Iran decides to launch their weapons of mass destruction to Europe, the Europeans will have no choice but to annihilate Iran and the Iranian people. Yglesias will be very happy. The USA had the capacities to intercept the missile, but they kept their system for themselves instead of protecting their allies, only to please Putin, sorry Iranian people. This is so more “not stupid” to apease Russia instead of protecting allies, and so more “moral” to annihilate a civil population instead of intercepting a missile.
September 18th, 2009 at 12:00 am
When you compare our actions in Iraq to our actions around the world, (especially considering Iraq’s geopolitical importance with sitting on a ton of oil and being right by Saudi Arabia and Iraq), claims like this are laughable if not pathetic, intellectually bankrupt with no basis in reality.
And that is a much better explanation of the invasion of Iraq than bringing them ‘peace and freedom.’ Especially when coupled with the fact that the peace and freedom crap came after the ‘OMG he has teh WMD’ failed.
September 18th, 2009 at 2:12 am
“…if Iran decides to launch their weapons of mass destruction to Europe, the Europeans will have no choice but to annihilate Iran and the Iranian people. Yglesias will be very happy. The USA had the capacities to intercept the missile, but they kept their system for themselves instead of protecting their allies, only to please Putin, sorry Iranian people.”
So you’re saying that if Iran launches its weapons that it doesn’t have, it’ll be our fault because we withdrew our system that doesn’t work? I believe this is called the “double negative” theory.
September 18th, 2009 at 2:25 am
[...] And on the left, Matthew Yglesias argues this was a good call: [...]
September 18th, 2009 at 6:44 am
Now that we’ve given up a negotiating point with the Russians, what did we get for it?
Possibily, the privilege of not spending money we don’t have on an expensive toy that doesn’t work?
“Why are you hitting yourself in the head with that hammer?”
“Because to stop would be appeasement!”
September 18th, 2009 at 7:50 am
Given that France, UK, and NATO itself could level Iran in a retaliatory strike, and would need little encouragement to do it, why would anyone imagine that there is any possibility of an Iranian strike in the first place?
September 18th, 2009 at 9:11 am
Only if you postulate that all the potential threats are only coming from rational international actors.
Maybe for the left the only crazy dudes are Israel or the american right, but excuse me, a lot of serious analysts consider that eschatologic-driven islam or the suicidal Juche regime wouldn’t take the fate of its own people into consideration (contrary to Japan after Hiroshima). More : they may well assume that, because of the immorality of the Mutual Assured Destruction doctrine, the West will be reticent to take a “a full retaliatory response”.
If Kim Jong-Il or someone else launchs a missile towards the USA or an ally (and assuming that the USA will defend its allies – which personnaly I doubt from Obama), how do we retaliate ? Maybe there is a case against the development of a NMB program (costs, technical feasability,…), but Yglesias said that it was “immoral”. This is ridiculous. The United States have been searching a defense system since the 40s precisely because the alternative (the MAD theory) was immoral and dangerous.
September 18th, 2009 at 10:07 am
Fleur, no one will let you become head of state. We don’t need to worry about that level of irrational actor.
Jesus the warmongers are stupid and immoral.
September 18th, 2009 at 10:29 am
That the shoe thrower wasn’t shot being proof that life has improved for Iraqis is a totally maddening meme. We killed over a million Iraqis, maimed who-knows-how-many, displaced over 4 million, destroyed their infrastructure and the fabric of their society, and then pretend that they got off easy because the man who threw the shoe at W. wasn’t shot. Un-fucking-believable.
It’s symbolic of the change in the country you fucking peacenik moron. But go ahead and deny reality, that’s what you do best.
September 18th, 2009 at 11:29 am
What’s even worse about Poptart’s position about Iraq is that they completely ignores that there are a dozen more tinpot dictators out there (some of them our allies!!! Mubarak anyone?)
Another of the many examples where the peacenik left believes Saddam “wasn’t that bad.”
And when I make that point elsewhere, some asshole will inevitably ask me for a quote or a link because they don’t believe it. Such bullshit.
Just as with Bosnia, they didn’t give a fuck about the Muslim victims of the Serbs ethnic cleansing, with Iraq they don’t give a fuck about the victims of Saddam and the Baath party. It’s all about how evil Bush and the neocons are.
September 18th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
“Only if you postulate that all the potential threats are only coming from rational international actors.”
Well, above we’ve got Larry Birnbaum saying that Iran must be developing weapons; they’re not crazy, you know!! So which is it? They’re just sane enough to develop weapons as a deterrent, but just crazy enough to then launch them in a strike that will surely invite reprisals?
“Maybe for the left the only crazy dudes are Israel or the american right, but excuse me, a lot of serious analysts consider that eschatologic-driven islam or the suicidal Juche regime wouldn’t take the fate of its own people into consideration (contrary to Japan after Hiroshima).”
Well, those “serious analysts” are neoconservative analysts, who have wanted to invade Iran for thirty years. Imperial Japan, by the by, was a completely insane, messianic cult-state that actually thought bombing Pearl Harbor would cow us into not entering the war…and they were still deterred by nuclear weapons. But no, Islam is just that much scarier! The thirty-year-old regime doesn’t care about staying in power!!
September 18th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
Another of the many examples where the peacenik left believes Saddam “wasn’t that bad.”
Poptarts, you liar, that’s not even what that quote says. It says, quite rightly, that there are dictators “arguabably almost as bad or even worse” that we haven’t done anything about, some of whom are actually our allies, as Saddam was our ally during the eighties.
Just as with Bosnia, they didn’t give a fuck about the Muslim victims of the Serbs ethnic cleansing, with Iraq they don’t give a fuck about the victims of Saddam and the Baath party.
And you don’t care about the Iraqi victims of the war, who are more numerous than Saddam’s Iraqi victims were. (Incidentally, I think you’ll find that many opponents of the Iraq War supported military action in Bosnia and Kosovo, which were intended to actually prevent genocide, rather than just punish it 15 years late.)
One thing I don’t think you’ve ever mentioned, Poptarts: were you writing your Congressman and saying that we have to break our alliance with Saddam and knock him out of power back in the eighties, when he was actually committing crimes? Or did that just start when Bush started saying we had to invade?
September 18th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
Poptart has it basically right. Iraq is vastly improved in many areas as a result of the US invasion. Long term, Iraq is in a much better state – better governed, better lines of succession, probably an overall better country. Invading Iraq was probably the best thing that ever happened to Iraq, given it’s sad and disturbing history. Liberals should stop whipping America for causing all those Iraqi deaths. Saddam killed far more than that and most of the deaths attributed to America was in fact sectarian violence; IE Iraqis killing other Iraqis.
Unfortunately, the war’s been all bad for America. The loss in life, treasure and international credibility has been high with no noticeable benefit to us. The link between the Iraq occupation and the explosion in oil prices is too strong a corollary to ignore. Had we not invaded Iraq, they’d be worse off but we’d be better off.
September 18th, 2009 at 8:41 pm
Pooptarts gets pissed when you point out that he likes drinking the blood of dead babies.
September 18th, 2009 at 11:42 pm
[...] and the sensors that support them.” “Bush’s idea was hugely expensive, and massively illogical,” Center for American Progress Action Fund fellow Matthew Yglesias writes. “For one [...]
September 22nd, 2009 at 1:33 pm
[...] Play for spite whenever possible, think of the world of international relations as a zero sum game, and treat [...]