COLLECTIVE MADNESS


“Soft despotism is a term coined by Alexis de Tocqueville describing the state into which a country overrun by "a network of small complicated rules" might degrade. Soft despotism is different from despotism (also called 'hard despotism') in the sense that it is not obvious to the people."

Monday, September 25, 2006

We Have Faced Worse, Far Worse


I have often argued that if we could win the Cold War against the Soviet Union, we could do the same with the far smaller power, Iran. I had not thought about comparing the current dilemma with Iran to the analogy of the US and China. Fortunately, Fareed Zakaria of The Washington Post has. Here are two examples. Read the entire article and relax:

"If you think Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said some crazy things, none comes close to this: "If the worst came to worst and half of mankind died, the other half would remain while imperialism would be razed to the ground. . ." That was Mao Zedong in 1957. If you find the idea of an Iranian nuclear program unsettling, put yourself in the shoes of policymakers in 1964, the year that China tested a nuclear bomb."...
..."In 1964, many people argued for a preemptive strike against China. Wiser heads prevailed. But even President John F. Kennedy had worried that from the moment China went nuclear "it would dominate South East Asia." In fact, far from dominating it, China's bomb scared Southeast Asia into a closer association with the United States. Today, Chinese influence in the region is great and growing -- but that's because of its economic heft, not its nukes. Iran is ruled by a failed regime that cannot modernize the country and is instead seeking a cheap path to influence. It didn't work for the communists in Russia or China and, if we keep our cool, it won't work for the mullahs in Tehran."

14 comments:

  1. In fact, those comments by Mao, and others like it, scared the Soviets (Khruschev in particular) shitless and played a part in their refusal to supply the PRC the bomb, and the subsequent Sino-Soviet split. The Soviets later tried to convince us to join them in preempting the Chinese, but we said hell no.

    That said, I don't get these arguments. That because we beat A, we'll beat B. By definition it is apples and oranges. We got lucky that Mao never used them, and the Chinese got lucky we didn't use them in Korea, so what? What's that have to do with Iran?

    Furthermore, the problem is not just Iran, it is the subsequent nuclear powers. Enough so, that you'll be unable to even know for sure where specific nuclear weapons originally came from. Plausible deniability becomes easier on a factor of multiples.

    Of course, nuclear proliferation is a problem no matter where it occurs, but the Muslim Middle East is especially dangerous, for obvious reasons.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Iran gets nuclear weapons, so Egypt and Saudi Arabia seriously consider it. We've now got Pakistan problems all around.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "The Soviets later tried to convince us to join them in preempting the Chinese, but we said hell no."

    After some checking, it seems these trial balloons were somewhat mutual.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Cutler,
    You might be more convincing if you simply describe the moral and intellectual meltdown in your classmates!
    2164th will go Nukular just reading about it.
    Back in '67 we didn't really have to worry about half the male population gittin subtractadictomies for the privilege of puttin on a He-Job and gittin beat on by some Greasy A-rab.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "57"
    Like Tereazzza H. Kerry.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The US was severely provoked during the Cold War. Korean Flight 007, with a member of The US Congress aboard, was shot down by the Soviets. North Korea captured the Pueblo. The Soviets at varying times attacked Hungary, East Germany, Poland, Czechosolvakia as well as attempting to put nuclear missiles in Cuba. There were many opportunities for the US to get pulled into war, but the combination of a very strong and capable military, diplomacy, diplomacy and more diplomacy, ground the Soviets to a halt and then decline.

    No one can predict the outcome of any war. Iraq was going to be a walk in the park. Israel was going to wrap up Hezbollah in days. Viet Nam was going to require a battalion or two of US advisors. Bombing North Viet Nam was going to bring them to their knees. The bombing campaign on Serbia helped establish the second Muslim country in Europe, Kosovo. Reading the WaPo article, you have to come up with the conclusion that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not crazy, but very calculating. He presides over a regime that has a wobbly hold over Iran. A military attack on Iran would only strengthen their hold, but patient deterrance and time may tempt the Iranians themselves to have another look at modernism. There are many times in life where the best decision is the least worst.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Furthermore, the problem is not just Iran, it is the subsequent nuclear powers. Enough so, that you'll be unable to even know for sure where specific nuclear weapons originally came from. Plausible deniability becomes easier on a factor of multiples.

    Maybe a President who has a pair will come up with a "doctrine" that says if we get hit by a nuke and no one steps up to admit it, everyone on the US shitlist (aka the "Axis of Evil") better have level 10,000 sunblock.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I know we have faced far worse. We opened Euro-Disney and it almost went belly up.
    Coca Cola tried New Coke on us like the CIA tried LSD in the '50's.
    The Yugo infestation of the 80's.
    Rap music. We all hoped it was a passing phase and we'd return to do-wop. Well Baby Got Back.
    The Great Corvair scare where unseen vortex's would flip the car right over.
    The Flying Nun..'nuff said there.
    Yes it is a perilous world.

    ReplyDelete
  9. We were saved from havin women and children see the Flag Burn in Chavez Ravine in the Year of Our BiCentenial when the Heroic Rick Monday Snatched the Lighter Fluid Soaked Flag from the Field just as Too Hirsuit Bell-Bottomed Scumbags were applying the Match.
    Tommy Lasorda Woulda Killed em, and he'd be spinnin in his grave even tho he ain't dead yet.

    ReplyDelete
  10. re: Corvair Scare II
    Two Boys Saved the day after buyin my four-door hardtop 'vair, when pullin the grade outta the Canyon, the rat's nests in the Cowlin begun to Blazin:
    Them Boys got out and applied the urine to the conflagration and saved the day.
    (and saved me a re-fund of the Purchase Price of that 'Vair.)
    Hell, I mighta ought hadta sell the Farmall if that 'Vair had gone up in smoke and takin out the holler as well as them boys investement.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Yes, Rufus, it was High-Test, Bud-Laced Urine according to reeports.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "I have often argued that if we could win the Cold War against the Soviet Union, we could do the same with the far smaller power, Iran"
    ---
    Whyis that Boy allways Arguin?

    ReplyDelete
  13. ^Regarding the above.

    Iran is already on record saying that it will proliferate nukes to whoever has the money and wants them. So not only do we have a problem with states reacting to them, we've got a problem with them saying they'll work to do it themselves.

    Now, I am not saying that we should attack Iran, given the particular political circumstances (though I WOULD personally, if I were dictator of the world and didn't have to worry about American or International politics), but I am saying exactly what you said: even if we're picking the least of two evils, they're both shitty.

    Perhaps that isn't very optimistic, and is a pretty depressing song, but if I see it shitty, I call it shitty - now where you want to go with that, up to you.

    Now, I've seen arguments that the Iranian leadership is relatively sane, Stratfor's in particular. In fact I've actually said it myself. I'm on record saying the exact thing you've said, Iran can be deterred and isn't even our major enemy in the Muslim world. At the same time, let's reel this back a little bit - was Khomeini sane? This is the guy that prolongued the Iran-Iraq War long after Iran had little chance of conquering Iraq - merely for the sake of Hussein's head. Iran only stopped after its armies frankly collapsed in 1988 and he no longer had a chance. This is the founder of the state that Ahmadinejad rules. Just because he's probably sane, does not mean another Khomeini isn't going to come along in that system.

    However, what I am in fact more afraid of, is the proliferation pattern that I see coming after Iran. For the reasons above - Pakistan syndrome (we're stuck with awful for fear of horrible), loose nukes, and nuclear plausible deniability.

    Sorry if I seem aggressive 2164, I'm just glad I've got someone/place to bounce ideas. I'd love to be found wrong, but I'm only pessimistic because that's how I see it and generally deplore optimism for the sake of optimism.

    To quote Heinlein:

    "The secret of correct prediction is to shun wishful thinking and think coldly. Shun pessimistic thinking, too. Treat the world the way a research scientist treats a problem - examine the data, try to organize, try to predict coldly and logically. Not what you want to have happen - but what can happen and what is most likely to happen - and then, and only then, what you yourself can do about it, to make things easier or better or safer for you and your kids."

    ReplyDelete
  14. "Cutler,
    You might be more convincing if you simply describe the moral and intellectual meltdown in your classmates!
    2164th will go Nukular just reading about it.
    Back in '67 we didn't really have to worry about half the male population gittin subtractadictomies for the privilege of puttin on a He-Job and gittin beat on by some Greasy A-rab."


    Oh, believe me Doug - now that I'm back I'll provide you with plenty of stories. Not all bad, though, just consider me your mole among tomorrow's supposed leadership.

    ReplyDelete