Jim

Given the level of commitments we have made abroad, I don't see why it is that surprising. We are fighting two wars.

It would be more difficult to dismiss Hanson's points if you actually responded to what he had to say re Pakistan, Iraq & Iran and did not ignore the points regarding the Libya, Syria, Afghanistan & Saudia Arabia. Agree or disagree with Hanson, I think it is far too easy to dismiss his analysis as mere "straining to look through rose colored glasses." This is a serious scholar of history and he gives clear reasons for his conclusions that should not be so lightly dismissed. Hanson, unlike most, can envision what the world might look like without US policy.

It was in the 1986 that Gaddafi's daughter was killed by a USAF bombing raid. From 1986-2003 Gaddafi expended millions, if not billions, in developing a highly advanced WMD program. Immediately after the Iraq war commenced, Libya came clean with its highly advanced WMD program. A few months later, Gaddafi took responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing. Gaddafi's response to his daughter's death was to rejuvenate his WMD program. His response to Bush doctrine as announced within hours of the 9/11 attacks, was to dismantle a WMD program that was far more advanced than US intel had believed. The Bush doctrine was announced within hours of the 9/11 attacks: The US will not distinguish between terrorists and the nations that give them haven. This simple but important policy changes the entire calculus for a country considering giving support to terrorists. Given the forceful response of the US to the death of under 3,000 of its citizens, such countries are left to ponder the response if they allowed a terrorist group to kill a US city. For all of our troubles in Iraq and, to a lesser extent Afghanistan, this policy resulted in the targets of our belief that WMDs were being incubated being quickly put out of power and in some cases killed and made to stand trial. The point was not lost on Gaddafi who might well now have a nuke if the US had not proven this important principle. All of this is independent of the other clear analysis of Hanson in the other six countries. Notwithstanding the simple group think of the MSM, Bush's anti-terror program has been a success. We have not had an attack on US soil although that will surely not hold indefinitely. In all seven of the countries analyzed, the US position has improved. While I do not underestimate the power of the MSM to undermine these successes, the immediate and forceful enunciation of the Bush doctrine was historically significant and necessary. On balance, we are safer for the actions taken.

I'm not sure how you can come to this conclusion if you agree with Hanson's country-by-country analysis.

Victor Hanson asks a question which is startling because it is largely unasked in public debate: Is the U.S. better off with the Middle East as it is now than as it was before 2001? Although this appears in the National Review, I ask all to approach his analysis with an open mind. In particular, I'd be interested in your comments on his country-by-country analysis:

Biden does have his moments although it is a shame so much of the NYTs piece is devoted to attacking Bush. It takes an act of will for me to skip past the bashing to the substance. Regarding substance, I have no idea if his proposal is workable. I have a hard time seeing a confederacy keeping together when the oil income from the different "states" would vary so significantly. It is an idea worth exploring, although I doubt this would be a new idea to policy wonks.

Hi there. I"m going to try to narrow the debate back down. I had misunderstood the point you were making about American Indian reservations. I had thought you were making some argument applicable to the Middle East situation based on the fact that America still have Indian reservations. As I mentioned, this is a result of the historical dealings in America and no Indian I know would wish away the land they own as Indian nations. The current existence of Indian reservations in America really does have nothing to do with this debate. In the same fashion, the unvarying way that more advanced cultures trashed less advanced cultures throughout history is irrelevant. THe question of the day is Iran. Let me reemphasize the point made by Bernard Lewis in answering the question "what went wrong." Fundamentally, middle eastern problems are the fault of those who live in those countries. It is so tempting to blame everything on the United States but seems condescending to those who live in the countries with problems. Oh, I hardly think so. I think that report had nothing more to do with the fact that there was a military plan and that there is no reason to take any option off the table as we try to encourage Iran to not invest so much of its political and economic capital in nuclearizing. I never said I didn't empathize with my own ancestors. I think my grandmother's decision to refuse to let her family be counted by the US government was entirely rational. However, I don't see how US indian reservations have anything to do with the current discussion. The brutal fact is that this world was not going to exist indefinitely controlled by a collection of hunter/gatherers. Those cultures were doomed and this fact has nothing to do with current issues. This is apples and oranges. Iraq put itself in a different category because it invaded a country and lost. When people ask why we didn't go against Iran or N. Korea, I just shake my head wondering if we really have such short term memories that we are incapable of remembering the history of the Iraq/US tensions over just the last 15 years. What on earth are you talking about? The US did everything it could to limit collateral damage. YOu condemn economic incentives against Iraq. What options did this leave except for simply agreeing that Iraq did not have to honor its ceasefire commitments? Do you even allow for the possibility that Libya simply abandoning its WMD program has something to do with the US going to war, in part, over the WMD issue in Iraq? After all, it was in March of 2003, about the same time the war in Iraq began, that Libya approached the United States to voluntarily disclose that it had chemical, biological and an advanced nuclear program which had nuclear material and centrifuges. This was the first time Libya acknowledged the program and, as it turned out, Libya’s nuclear program was much further advanced that the United States intelligence had believed. That was part of the case. It was also argued that Iraq had flouted 12 years of UN resolutions and all of this was against the backdrop of Saddam's irrational self destructive tendencies (e.g. invading Kuwait, attempting to assassinate Bush Sr., and refusing to come clean as he had agreed to do). Contemplate the irrationality of the attempt to assassinate Bush Sr. by Saddam in 1993. Did Saddam not consider what the US response would be had the attempt succeeded? How could have possibly determined that this action, particularly if successful, was in his self-interest? With this man at the helm, Iraq showed its instability and danger far more concretely - with actions, not just rhetoric - than has Iran. My more basic point point is why the moral indignation about the war if you admit that we did the Iraqi's a favor? You speak of the collateral damage we have done and say "what goes around, comes around" when, bottom line, we destroyed a repressive regime and gave an entire people a chance at freedom. As I said, my question is whether it was wise to gamble US prestige on this particular war; however, I do not see a moral issue here given the good that was done, the constant drumbeat of negativity in the MSM notwithstanding. I have no idea how easy it is to just buy or steal a nuke. One real worry is whether Iran has the ability right now to turn over a dirty bomb to terrorists. If you are going to impute bad motives to a US President and a British PM, shouldn't you have a plausible theory as to what they would have to gain? It seems completely irrational that these savvy politicians would manufacture WMD evidence. Far more likely, they were believing what they were told by the intel community. Further, we still do not know what happend to the WMDs Saddam once had and, in any event, if we had refused to control Saddam, there is no doubt he would have acquired WMDs at some point in the future. Heh, agreed.

Your initial point was that “the Middle East and Persia are not America, and its inhabitants are not American Indians, ready to be confined to reservation camps.” In this post you seem to say that there is a relationship between America’s treatment of the native Americans and current foreign policy and you make the point that “even today you still have reservations.” First, you completely misunderstand Americas current treatment of native Americans. I have native American ancestry and am fully integrated into American culture. If my great-great grandmother had not hidden from the Dawes commission census takers I would have a roll number as a Creek Indian. In college, I dearly wished that she had not hidden as there would have been quite a few benefits coming my way. More to the point, no native American is “even today” forced to live on a reservation. By treaty they have established legal rights and some degree of separateness which they value and exploit to a degree with Casinos and smoke shops. With all sincere respect to you, it is not fair to equate current policy to the manner in which this continent was settled by Europeans. The simple truth is that in every instance where civilizations clashed war erupted. The winner was typically the culture with better technology, which was open to dissent and discussion in the conduct of the war and which carried germs cultivated from denser urban centers. There is nothing uniquely American about the Western dominance of the Americas. You really can't compare the Palestinian situation to American indian reservations? Good! I go into a low boil when I hear someone say, "the war was about oil." Of course Saddam invaded Kuwait for oil and of course we came to Kuwait's defense for that reason. This isn't just about whether we have $3 or $5 gas. Economic power is military power and we must have access to strategic resources. I don't think the motivations were a mystery: Saddam invaded a strategically important US ally. No, I have many times said that the difference here was that this ally was strategically important. A president or prime minister doesn't have the luxury of ignoring the simple fact that we have a carbon based economy. We take more heat because we are a superpower. Say what you will, but Bush is almost idealistic in his defense of democracy. It may have us wishing for the old days but I'm not so sure. What is the practical problem? Our ally was attacked. We responded with a war you support. After having expended American blood and resources, instead of deposing Saddam, we agreed to a ceasefire with some critically important terms pertaining to WMDs. Over a twelve year period we continued to insist on compliance in a very open and public manner. Even as we built up to enforce the terms, Saddam did not come clean. We then did what we said we were going to do. On legal, moral and public policy grounds, this seems like the only course of action. If we are going to put American and British boots on the ground as we did in Gulf War I and then settle the conflict, we have to insist on compliance. The resolution of President Bush and PM Blair in Iraq and Afghanistan has already caused Libya to derail a nuclear program which was more advanced than was once thought. Instead of being on the outside wondering if Saddam had WMDS or whether he would reconstitute that program, we have taken him out. In the process, we gave an entire country an opportunity for liberty. We've led them to this water. Whether they drink is up to them. I simply do not see how foreign countries can condemn the US or Britain for removing Saddam. The only reasonable criticisms of this policy are from a US perspective, primarily that we showed again the limits of US power. That is my deepest concern about the endeavor. Israel has not to my knowledge threatened to wipe any country off the face of the planet. Israel acts forcibly to defend itself and the territory it rightly or wrongly has obtained but it does not use its religion to whip up jihad. It is the mixture of extremist religious rhetoric with the capability to destroy an entire western city that has many nervous. You said that the US was hyping the Iranian risk. I doubt the New Scientist author is familiar with what the president knows. This hardly inspires confidence. The plain fact is that we cannot be too sure. Libya's nuclear program was much more advanced than we had thought. Intel is giveth and it taketh away. What do you see as his motives? I don't, yet, consider Iran my enemy. They just scare the hell out of me. I agree that it is a wise idea to know the world in which we are engaged and I appreciate your site. I would refer you to the writings of Bernard Lewis. You can see here where Prof. Lewis predicted in 1979 that "the shah's overthrow by Muslim clerics would lead not to social improvement and democracy but to theocracy, intolerance and clerically controlled mayhem." Here is the conclusion of a review in the NYTs by a Yale History professor of Lewis' book, "What Went Wrong?:"

I did no such thing. Seriously, the ethnic makeup of Mexicans is complex. However, I'm not aware what tribes from the southwest we relocated to Mexico. Can you elaborate? We certainly do not have treaties with them that establish legal rights and territories in this country.

Pangloss, I couldn't agree more. I heard on NPR the other day that we have just a few thousand slots for unskilled legal visas. The vast majority of legal immigrants are skilled workers or relatives of those already here legally. It seems pretty simple to me that we should come to grips with the number of workers that we need in this country and then grant that number legal visas. We should then impose large penalties against employers who hire illegals since this is a national security issue. I wouldn't make illegals felons as the last thing we want to do is pay to lock them up. However, I would fingerprint them and check that fingerprint record against future applications for legal immigration. If we were offering 10 million or so legal slots and someone is caught skipping this lawful process, there should be no problem in forever banning that person from future legal status. The point you mention about pandering to the group's potential votes is very well taken. I blame Bush here too.

I have to say that these marchs are counterproductive for illegal immigrants. They do not help their case by acting as if they have the same moral standing as African Americans who were brought here in chains.

Very well said, Pangloss.

I'm not sure if you believe Iran's statements that they have no intention to develop nuclear weapons. These statements to me have no weight. No one has made such a claim. Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and all that followed had nothing to do with Palestinian/Israeli tensions. Iraq was (and Iran now is) trying to assert power over the region's oil resources. Exactly. Iraq's invasion of the weaker Kuwait was bullying/extortion. Democracies do sometimes defend allies and then insist on the enforcement of the resulting cease fire. The prevailing circumstances being the development by Iran of a peaceful nuclear program? Yes, Iraq's invasion of Kuwait will have long term impacts. We agree. How do you know that what the President is saying isn't exactly what he is being told by the intel community? I've already posted that I think most of us in the public lack essential information to assess what the US ought to do. I hope the president gets good advice and takes it one step at a time.

Therefore, US policy should proceed from what premise?

I don't think Iran's intent is in question. For that matter, I don't blame any country for wanting nukes. 6000 KMs? Ergh. Reagan's "Star Wars" (yet another neutral MSM label) is starting to sound like a pretty good idea....

I've approached this poll a few times and have finally decided I can't vote because I do not have critical information. The first question is what is the genuine intelligence estimate that the President receives as to the length of time before Iran gets the bomb. The second question is what degree of confidence can be invested in such estimates. Assuming that we have virtually a 100% certainty that Iran can't pull a nuclear rabbit out of the hat, then I would still not be able to answer. I would certainly attempt to rally the international community very much as we did as a prelude to the Iraq war. I would try economic sanctions, diplomacy but all the while I would keep asking my intelligence ad visors to keep me informed as to the absolute minimum time before Iran could get the bomb. Even though few accept what I consider a truism (that the onus was on Saddam to come clean and that we were right to act because he did not), I would still seek to position Iran into a similar position. I would understand that intelligence is inherently risky and I would continue to push my advisors to give me the minimum time it would take Iran to nuclearize. So long as I had time, I would use it. I cannot answer the question re military options because that would depend on the assessment of feasibility fro the military. If they thought a conventional strike would do the job, then there is no reason to even plan a nuclear strike. A tactical nuclear strike would only occur as an absolute last resort and probably would never be used unless a bomb went off somewhere first. The damage to the United States to using nukes first would be too great. OTOH, if Iran got a nuke and if they continued to modernize to where 15 years from now they might have a briefcase nuke (if something like that could be made; if not that, then a car trunk nuke), I'd have to reassess. Another level of uncertainty to us on the outside is the question posed by Pangloss. Notwithstanding the rhetoric, what is the realpolitik of the country? I would rely heavily on advisors here but would not make the mistake readily believing that a dictator appealing to a combination national pride and past humiliations does not mean what he says.

I agree that consequences should follow actions. Some call this vengeance but I call it justice. I'm not sure of your point here. You're not advocating public floggings? I do not see how a man living in a hell hole for the rest of his life can give meaning to the death of his victim. It seems more cruel than death. I don't want Underwood to suffer. I just want him gone. My hypothetical was surmising that in ten years we might have much more humane alternatives than life in prison. I think within 10-15 years we'll be able to eliminate the risk of recidivism without incarceration. I would not take pleasure in killing to protect my family but I also would not feel diminished. Well, besides the fact that killing can be punishment, you aren't seeing my point. I'm replying to the notion that it is not appropriate to have punishment of various forms for revenge/retribution. I think that deep down almost everyone agrees that some punishment is necessary even if the punishment did not deter or rehabilitate. Oh, I think we get reminded often enough that there are killers in society. Fox News, CNN, et al. will make certain we don't forget. I reject the notion that we "make killers with unkindness." Killers are personally responsible for their own actions. They make themselves. I certainly agree that life is precious despite the Underwoods. I do not, however, view life as an absolute value that cannot be sacrificed in appropriate circumstances. Kevin Underwood, quite simply, needs to be no more.

But this is the question I keep posing. Assume that imprisonment doesn't deter a particular type of violent criminal. What if we could "take the murderer away" from society without sending him to prison? In the not too distant future, it may be possible to protect society without punishing at all (e.g. 10 years from now a wearable computer and embedded GPS locator). We could give murderers cosmetic surgery a name change and not even attach stigma to their act. Is there some part of you that would not accept such an easy solution for Kevin Underwood and desires retribution in some form? And if you accept retribution isn't the question of life imprisonment vrs. death merely a matter of taste since both acts are being unnecessarily cruel? Personally, I believe that imposing life in prison to abuse and be abused may be more cruel than death. Focussing on the victim alone I'm not sure how you can ever justify punishing. If you are atheistic, the victim is no more and has no interest either way. If you are Christian, you've got to turn the other cheek and forgive the crime itself. It's not even a question of the severity of the punishment. I can't really say how other religious views impact the question.

To the pain! Seriously, though, the point I keep beating on is that most don't want to torture, many do not want the death penalty (even of the Monty Python, Meaning of Life type), but, I suspect, we'd all want to punish even if the punishment did not fulfill a deterrence or rehabilitation interest. Justice - deterrence - rehabilitation = retribution.