EDIT: Oops. Looks like Mr. Grossman beat me to the punch some time ago. Well, I found another link to a SFGate story. This one has a UN scientist claiming the nuclear documents were too advanced for Iraqis to make use of. And the usual suspects are making their usual denials (love the portrait of Uncle Saddam in the background). Hmmm... looks like Mr. Hussein may squeak by yet again.
Posted by Brad Plumer,
10:23 PM
-
Political action at Dartmouth
The Dartmouth Israel Public Awareness Committee (DIPAC) has been passing around an email petition which they ask students to stand together with Israel in the war on terrorism. They claim to have over 800 'vitural' signatures and intended to place a large ad in the college's daily paper, The Dartmouth (see the text of the email below for the exact wording of the statement).
Keeping my ear to the ground, I have learned that DIPAC applied to COSO (the college's student organization funding group) for funds they could use to place this ad. COSO denied the request on the reasoning that this was not an activity (like the Greens going on buses to the ant-war protests in D.C.), and it would set a bad precedent if COSO funded ads in The Dartmouth that were not for recruiting or promoting a specific event.
>Subject: Over 880 of your classmates have signed... why haven't you? >To: (Recipient list suppressed)
Pledge your support to the following statement: "We, the undersigned, as registered voters of the United States of America, and as members of the Dartmouth College community, stand by Israel in our shared pursuit of democracy, freedom, and peace. We support a strong relationship between the United States and Israel in the battle against terrorism. We advocate security and stability for both Israelis and Palestinians. We pray for peace and freedom for all peoples in the Middle East. "
It is not unilateral support for Israel nor is is meant to be construed as such. We want to support Israel's in its pursuits of values we share: peace freedom and democracy. We want a fair solution for all parties involved.
Please highlight the sentence below and click reply to send if you agree.
I, hereby agree with the above statement and wish to "virtually" sign by submitting an e-mail request and I agree to have my name published with the above statement.
Thanks very much for your time! The statement with the over 1000 signatures we have gathered from faculty, administration and students will be printed in the D early next term and sent on to Congress.
If you are not registered to vote but ARE a US citizen you may still sign just type "non-voter" when you send your e-mail so we do not include your name on the document sent to Congress.
Sincerely, Michele Nudelman '05 DIPAC President
Posted by Timothy,
5:17 PM
-
From the heartland...
Calling him the "newest member of the 'tin-ear wing' of the Republican Party," National Jewish Democratic Council Executive Ira Forman said White's use of the phrase "Jew them down" is "deeply offensive and wholly unacceptable." White has apologized for the remarks, which were made at a fund-raising meeting in Cleveland before last November's election. He said he did not realize at the time that the comments were offensive and blamed his lack of understanding on his rural Ohio upbringing.
Josh Marshall calls this the 'cracker defense.' Marshall also comments on the continuing saga in California I posted on a few weeks ago.
PLUS: Check out this interesting article attacking Al Sharpton, and this post responding, comparing Sharpton and Clinton.
Posted by Timothy,
1:50 AM
-
This is not an Onion Satire, is It?
Posted by Timothy,
1:22 AM
-
Friday, January 17, 2003 Iraq and previous inspections…
Mr. Sarma, I enjoy your posts greatly and find them informative. But I still think you have put far too much stock in the efficacy of both previous inspectors and current intelligence. Let me try to outline my case against both and reason out why we have good reason to believe that Iraq still has plenty of weapons, and still poses a credible threat.
In 1992, the UN ordered Iraq to make a full disclosure of all of its nuclear weapons. Iraq submitted a report declaring that it had destroyed its special warheads, a report continuously contradicted by inspector evidence. Of course, the inspectors didn’t immediately know that the Iraqis were lying, sometimes they uncovered discrepancies only several years later. In every instance, Iraq “updated” its information to reflect the new evidence. Even by 1998, the inspectors could not be sure that they had verified the destruction of its special warheads. You can find extensive documentation of these assertions here.
I make this point not to argue that Mr. Hussein has a storied past of lying and deceit (common knowledge by now), but to suggest that his deceit succeeded, and often took years to uncover. Mr. Sarma, you deny that Iraq could hide anything from inspectors, and yet he managed to achieve just that over a lengthy period. The evidence seems rather compelling. Let's just take a gander at what the inspectors had to say.
In their October 1998 report to the UN Security Council, the inspectors reported that all of Iraq’s special operational warheads were destroyed [see Section III, 25(a)]. Well, that’s interesting, because it seems like only yesterday that Blix and co. found special operational warheads! Now two things could account for this find. Either Iraq was successfully able to hide warheads from the previous inspection crew, or they have been smuggling chemical warheads into Iraq over the past four years, even with all that stalwart monitoring going on. Well, you choose, either the inspections didn’t work or the sanctions don’t work. In my opinion, it seems likely that the inspectors failed to verify that these newly-discovered missiles were destroyed, which means that even when the inspectors felt certain of their success, they were still prone to error.
Anyways, if you have the time, look through the rest of that October 1998 report. The report seems a lot less confident than Ritter and Butler apparently are. Here are some greatest hits:
“The Commission’s view is that Iraq was certainly able to produce VX, and probably produced it in quantity. However, the achieved level of verification of precisely how much VX was produced by Iraq is not satisfactory” [Section III, 29(b)].
“The development of the drop-tank for dissemination of BW [biological weapon] agents appears to have been pursued with the utmost vigour by Iraq. The team of international experts assessed that the account in the FFCD of the drop tank project could not be verified” [Section III, 34(a)].
“Growth Media. The material balance in this area as declared by Iraq is full of uncertainties. The acquisition of media by Iraq cannot be verified. The figures presented in the FFCD for media consumed in the production of BW agents have little or no supporting evidence. The international expert team assessed that the material balance for the growth media could not be verified” [Section III, 34(c)].
With all due respect to Ritter and Butler, if this is their idea of 95% disarmament, I’d sooner send in the Ringling brothers. Here was the stunning conclusion of the report:
“It is suggested that three central facts emerge from this report on the Commission’s work with Iraq during the last six months: the disarmament phase of the Security Council’s requirements is possibly near its end in the missile and chemical weapons areas but not in the biological weapons area” [Section VI, 67]
In other words, they were reasonably confident about chemical and missile weapons (even though they turned out to be wrong about missile weapons!), and had no clue on the biological weapons front. This was after six years of extensive inspections. Now, sure, you can blame Spertzel for all of this (though I still have a hard time understanding why the anti-war President Clinton would endorse monkey business going on during inspections). But the fact remains, Iraq most likely still has the ability to produce certain WMD, and they have not accounted for the destruction of these weapons in their latest report. Given Iraq’s past habits of faking destruction reports, why should we believe them now? We have every reason in the world to think that Mr. Hussein is lying, and that he get away with it (at least for a short while).
Oh, and as an added note, here’s a summary of an interview that Policy Watch conducted with Scott Ritter in 1998. My favorite quote: “Several thousand bombs and seven hundred tons of chemical agent that were listed as expended may well still be in Iraq's possession.” Seems like at one time Ritter thought Iraq had weapons. Tell me again why we should believe his current insistence that Iraq poses no threat? What new information has he gleaned between leaving Iraq in 1998 and today?
Now, you have also argued that Iraq lacks the capability to hide weapons from US, etc. intelligence. You consider “fear-mongering” the suggestion that Mr. Hussein might hide his weapons program from us. I think you have a far greater faith in US, etc. intelligence than I do. Let’s go through your assertions…
1. Creation and testing of both chemical and nuclear weapons is detectable via satellite.
Well, maybe, but here’s an item of interest: back in November, when the whole world was watching Afghanistan, Pakistan was easily able to smuggle weapons into Iraq, evading satellite detection (see the bottom of the article). So I suppose a few things can escape satellites. But you were talking about nukes n' stuff. Well, here's another item: Pakistan was berated recently for supplying North Korea with technology to conceal their nuclear weapons program from American satellite surveillance (again, see bottom of article). So apparently, the technology exists, and the concealment is possible.
2. Chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons often leave traces in labs after they are moved, which makes it hard for Iraq to simply "move stuff around".
The UCLA School of Public Health put out a recent report stating that inspectors in Iraq were looking for mobile weapons labs which can elude even sophisticated surveillance (this info is echoed all over the web). Now, I’m no expert on the production of weapons, and you seem to be sure that mobile labs can’t possibly exist. Explain why you are right and everyone else is wrong.
3. Chemical and biological weapons produced more than 5 years ago would have degraded and become useless.
Again, what are you basing this on? If you have some secret credentials that I don’t know about, please, share them, but otherwise I’ll refer to the above 1998 report by UN inspectors which claims:
A dozen mustard-filled shells were recovered at a former CW storage facility in the period 1997-1998. The chemical sampling of these munitions in April 1998 revealed that the mustard was still of the highest quality. After 7 years, the purity of mustard ranged between 94 and 97% [Section III, 29(a)].
Chemical weapons, apparently, do not degrade as quickly as you would have us believe.
I guess the time calls for a summary…The evidence and documents above seem to indicate a large gap in inspector efficacy, and you still have not produced convincing evidence that sanctions and embargoes can prevent Iraq from developing a weapons program. Despite all the strict measures previous, Blix and co. have discovered that Iraq has imported missile engines and smuggled in conventional weapons. The circus appears to go on without end, and however much diminished, Iraq continues to putter about, violating UN resolutions and arming itself.
Posted by Brad Plumer,
4:03 PM
-
RE: More on Iraq...
As Brad Plumer points out, Mr. Kallmann has posted a criticism of my last posting on the Dartmouth observer. Mr Kallmann's posting is entitled "A problem with percentages", and is here: http://dartobserver.blogspot.com(Sunday, January 12, 2003) Anyway, let me address some of the issues Kallmann brings up.
He argues that UNSCOM claims of 90-95% disarmament are conjectures based only on the weapons that they know exist, and not on the weapons/production plant that could possibly be hidden away somewhere. Admittedly, it is difficult to argue with an opinion whose very premise is non-evidence. I ask him though, is there any country for which this type of argument could not be used to justify invading? What about all those undocumented nuclear weapons up in Canada and Greenland that no one can conclusive prove do not exist? Once we let ourselves degenerate to the "absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence" style reasoning of the administration, then there can simply be no limits on US military action. The very fact that the government has resorted to these irrational tactics is testimony to the weakness of their case for military action.
Furthermore, Mr. Kallmann incorrectly suggests that the dissident UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter was alone on UNSCOM in claiming that Iraq was "90-95%" disarmed when the inspectors left in 1998: "In fact, Ritter is more of an exception than the norm among the previous inspectors," Kallmann says. Not true. The UNSCOM chief also corraborated Ritter's assessment at the time: "If Iraq disarmament were a five-lap race, we would be three quarters of the way around the fifth and final lap." UNSCOM Chief Richard Butler, July 1998. This statement actually suggests that Iraq was 95% disarmed, which is more than even Ritter had said at the time.
Mr. Kallmann also introduces the congressional testimonies of former weapons inspectors Dr. Kay, and Dr. Spertzel, who claim that Iraq could never be disarmed through weapons inspection. In considering these congressional testimonies, it's important to note that by 1998 the US had succeeded in infiltrating UNSCOM with a large number of spies dedicated more to planning coups and echoing whatever the US government happened to be saying at the time. These aren't mere allegations. This was reported as fact by the New York Times, The Boston Globe, The Washington Post, and USA Today in 1998 (see the fair.com link from my previous posting). This in mind, it is not too surprising to hear these same US UNSCOM recruits testifying in Washington's defense.
However, judging from the way Ritter describes Spertzel's actions on the weapons inspections team, it appears that Spertzel was intentionally subverting the UN inspections regime in order to make it look ineffective to the international community. According to Ritter, Spertzel repeatedly refused to perform inspections for biological agents in key areas, so that the US government could still continue to say certain areas hadn't been inspected. http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/twr147e.htmAs far as I can tell, Spertzel has not denied this allegation. In my opinion, Spertzel's refusal to even inspect the areas that the US government was claiming held Iraqi weapons of mass destruction greatly damages his credibility as a neutral source on this matter.
Lastly, there are some basic facts about weapons of mass destruction that can be used to counter the sort of fear-mongering we're hearing: 1) Creation and testing of both chemical and nuclear weapons is detectable via satellite. 2) Chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons often leave traces in labs after they are moved, which makes it hard for Iraq to simply "move stuff around". 3) Chemical and biological weapons produced more than 5 years ago would have degraded and become useless. 4) Scientists have to work in these facilities, and they have to have decent equipment which all needs to get through the strict sanctions regime. All of this can be traced. So weapons inspections aren't so useless as some would make them seem. After all, according to most sources inspections have done much more disarm Iraq then bombing has.
Besides, even if we do eliminate Saddam Hussein, who is to say that the weapons of mass destruction we envision him having will end up in our hands? If they're really so well hidden, it seems likely they would just end up on the black market. The future of Iraq after war is the least predictable scenario, and perhaps also the most ominous.
Posted by Justin Sarma,
12:43 AM
-
Thursday, January 16, 2003 What happens to you if you grow up with John Rawls as your father?
You become anti-big government free-market economist, of course. No kidding (but read my comments below):
What happens when your father is not only a liberal, but one of the most prominent liberal political philosophers in the country? Ask Alec Rawls, a Ph.D. candidate in economics at Stanford and son of the famous Harvard professor John Rawls. Although the elder Rawls is very circumspect on day-to-day political issues, his magnum opus The Theory of Justice provides a philosophic justification for the welfare state, and modern liberals have adopted him enthusiastically. Alec, on the other hand, is a free-market maven who excoriates the welfare state as both unconstitutional and insane. Alec downplays the political differences between himself and his dad, insisting their conceptions of moral philosophy are at the core quite similar. He concludes, however, that his father’s “principles of justice” err in their emphasis on equalizing the human condition. “Most of those who consider themselves my father’s followers embrace equality as an ultimate end or value in itself. That is the source of the politics of resentment that characterizes the illiberal Left.”
“I think my parents had a naïve optimism in the 1960s, and thought that just by going after the problems of poverty they would be competently resolved,” notes the younger Rawls. “I don’t think my father was aware—as we are all aware now—of what goes wrong when we give government too much power.” Alec, who has worked as a carpenter to pay for both his undergraduate and graduate education, holds a more pessimistic view of government. “I love carpentry, but the government does idiotic things with building codes and licenses. Licenses are a government-sponsored monopoly, and building codes do not let people do what they want to do with their own property,” Rawls complains. “We need to use markets and individual choice over regulations, laws, and socialism.” From The American Enterprise. (via Julian Sanchez, a one-time parliamentary debater, I believe.)
Before I hear the conservatives snicker, it really isn't fair to judge parents by how their kids rebel against them, is it? (sixties radicals had parents much unlike themselves as well!) And we shouldn't discard out of hand Alec Rawls' claim about his philosophy being close to his father's. After all, Friedrich Hayek, Thatcherite hero, praised Rawls' Theory of Justice (For reasons that are debated and not entirely clear to me-- but one example is that most people don't remember how far Hayek went in endorsing the welfare state in his book The Constitution of Liberty). Rawls (who died recently) would endorse at least something like the welfare state, but he left it up for grabs in The Theory of Justice of how the difference principle would actually be fulfilled (ie. he didn't say we had to abolish free-markets and do something like move to socialism). On the other hand, the younger Rawls is very different from his father: he writes for the Stanford Review and seems to use strident and direct rhetoric when expressing his political views. Check out these opinion columns from rawls.org. Someone ought to interview this guy. I never thought I would hear John Rawls' son say stuff like this:
Where animal rights activists go wrong is in their identification of use with harm. It is the old Marxist-socialist-communist canard that markets are bad because they "exploit." We all need to be exploited. We need to have markets value what we have to offer, and take it from us, or we can't live. The same goes for animals. By having flesh and hide to offer, they earn life till maturity. The alternative is not life until they die of old age. It is no life.
African-Americans have a serious problem with guns. They don't have enough of them. Despite being victimized by crime at several times the rate of whites, only 30% of black adults own guns, compared to 43% of whites.
Thus the question, especially at the state level, is whether abortions should be funded by taxpayer dollars. The pro-choice answer here is the Republican one: "no." Many people believe abortion is wrong. Such people should not be forced to pay for other people's abortions.
P.S Because I study political theory, so I can't resist one last bad joke: how can we think that reasonable people will come to agreement on the principles of justice if even the Rawls' family couldn't?
Posted by Timothy,
11:21 PM
-
Killing Two Birds With One Stone....The Democrat's Karl Rove?
Democratic strategist Donna Brazile has apparently been hard at work trying to thwart Al Sharpton's presidential bid. A month or two ago, I read how she was considering trying to recruit 'favorite son' (presumably Black) candidates in states where there were large African-American populations, presumably in order to draw votes away from Sharpton, and also to supposedly increase Blacks' delegate power at the national convention. That was an interesting idea, but it seems unworkable and hasn't really gone anywhere. So Sharpton remains a problem in the view of the party hierarchy (Brazile is African-American, for those of you who haven't seen her on CNN-- I'd like to see a white democratic strategist try to get away with this!)
One other problem that the Democrats have faced is winning back a Senate seat in Illinois. But former Senator Carol Moseley-Braun has been making murmers about entering the race, likely resulting in a bloody primary.
From ABC's The Note (I include this because it is hard to link to):
According to one Democratic source who reached us RIGHT on deadline this morning (so more reporting needs to be done), former Senator Carol Moseley Braun talked by phone last night to DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe, who seems to have been on his cell phone at Café Milano in Georgetown, where he ran into some of America's Leading Political Reporters. In any event, per this one Golden Source, Moseley Braun told McAuliffe that she was planning to soon announce that she is NOT running for the Illinois US Senate seat, but that she just might want one of those presidential candidate slots at the upcoming DNC meeting in DC. If all of this is true, we wonder 1) what Al Sharpton thinks of this?; 2) what Donna Brazile thinks of this?; and 3) what Donna Brazile has to do with this? And we'll be making those calls shortly, after we finish this Note.
UPDATE: The favorite son idea might not be dead as I thought. Congressman Jim Clyburn from South Carolina is thinking about running, and one elected official who supports Kerry has said if Clyburn ran he would have to endorse Clyburn. Do any of you guys have general impressions of Sharpton's run and its effects on the race and the Democratic Party?
President Bush today urged limits on medical malpractice suits--presumably tossing in his support for H.R. 4600 which I believe still awaits Senate consideration. So what's the deal here? How often do frivolous malpractice suits really occur? Do they really drive insurance costs up? Will anyone be hurt by a limit on litigation, besides perhaps trial lawyers?
Public Citizen has a different view of the matter than President Bush, critiquing the so-called "insurance crisis" in Pennsylvania. Insurance costs are rising because insurance companies are hiking costs, costs which have risen almost everywhere. Arguably insurance companies are trying to recoup their vast September 11th losses. Moreover, only 4.7% of doctors are responsible for over 50% of malpractice lawsuits, with the bulk of lawsuits involving repeat offenders. So we should not assume that these lawsuits are frivolous. Finally, the Congressional Budget Office has determined that limiting liability would have a negligible effect on health care costs. H.R. 4600 stands to achieve little, if anything, of practical value.
In other words, Mr. Bush has taken a fierce stand on a minor issue, drawing attention away from more serious health care concerns. Blah.
Mr. Pollock points out: "If you compare the "Getting involved in your child’s school - A parent's resource" with the "African-American version" listed below it. You will see that the publication seems to imply that African-American parents need a simplified explanation of how to be involved with their child's school."
Hmmm? You don't like the affirmative action publication? But why? My dear Mr. Pollock, we all know that, for whatever reason, black people simply aren't as capable as white people and require a helping hand. It's true, just ask any University of Michigan dean...
[/sarcasm]
Posted by Brad Plumer,
3:52 PM
-
Wednesday, January 15, 2003 Teachers = Racists?
While on the topic of race and education, I thought I would share this link to the New Jersey Education Association's (NJEA) website. The NJEA is our state's version of the National Education Association (NEA).
If you compare the "Getting involved in your child’s school - A parent's resource" with the "African-American version" listed below it. You will see that the publication seems to imply that African-American parents need a simplified explanation of how to be involved with their child's school. Even more offensive is the fact that the whole publication seems to have been written with the help of the Black Ministers Council, a NJ civil rights group.
Thoughts?
Posted by Dan,
4:52 PM
-
When Republicans Come Around
An analysis of an article, fresh from the AP, via the New York Times [link]:
Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York unveils education plan requiring "top to bottom reform" with a 'standardized city-wide curriculum,' because "When entire schools are failing, accountability cannot stop with students and teachers. The problem is systemic. When we look to those responsible for this disgraceful state of affairs we need go no further than our own mirrors. We are all responsible, and we are all part of the solution." The rationale: "The decision to establish a standard curriculum is part of an effort to strengthen academic performance. Last year, only 46 percent of the city's fourth grade students met the state standard in reading, while 52 percent met the math standard. A standard curriculum is seen as one way of improving results, since students and teachers often move from school to school. In addition, a standard curriculum is generally highly structured and less prone to the varying educational philosophies that have generated at least 75 different mathematics curriculums and 35 literacy programs throughout the city." Seem to me a good argument for strong centralization of education policy. So why is this Republican (admittedly, he's a northern Republican) advocating it? Isn't education supposed to be devolved to the most-local possible unit? It is good for the kids at the poorer performing schools that a Republican finally realized that instead of devolving schools so that each miserly locality could engage in a race to the bottom, perhaps demanding equally high levels of performance across the board is the way to go.
Posted by Jonathan,
11:42 AM
-
Tuesday, January 14, 2003 Rush and Race
I swear I did not set out looking for this, but while reading atrios (one of the blogs that was instrumental in pushing the Trent Lott story) I came across some comments on how Clarence Thomas was only planning on promoting his upcoming book on outlets like Fox News and the Rush Limbaugh show (and maybe Barbara Walters). I followed some of the links back a few steps and I came upon some stuff on Rush Limbaugh's history on race. These are excerpts from Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), a liberal media watchgroup whose interpretations I don't always agree with, but who I have found to get the facts right (ie. this isn't just some looney-sounding left-wing site like some of the ones that use FAIR's information, but a respected liberal group. You can judge in this case whether they are "over-sensative.")
-As a young broadcaster in the 1970s, Limbaugh once told a black caller: "Take that bone out of your nose and call me back." A decade ago, after becoming nationally syndicated, he mused on the air: "Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?" -In 1992, on his now-defunct TV show, Limbaugh expressed his ire when Spike Lee urged that black schoolchildren get off from school to see his film Malcolm X: "Spike, if you're going to do that, let's complete the education experience. You should tell them that they should loot the theater, and then blow it up on their way out." -In a similar vein, here is Limbaugh's mocking take on the NAACP, a group with a ninety-year commitment to nonviolence: "The NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies." -Such quotes and antics -- many compiled by Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) for our 1995 book -- offer a whiff of Limbaugh's racial sensibility. So does his claim that racism in America "is fueled primarily by the rantings and ravings" of people like Jesse Jackson. Or his ugly reference two years ago to the father of Madonna's first child, a Latino, as "a gang-member type guy" -- an individual with no gang background. -Once, in response to a caller arguing that black people need to be heard, Limbaugh responded: "They are 12 percent of the population. Who the hell cares?"
And some very interesting commentary on Rush Limbaugh and race (full post here:
Conservatives always sputter when you bring this stuff [about Rush Limbaugh] up. It's not naked racism, they say. Perhaps not, if you live in a cocoon. But out in the real world, those of us who have spent any time around bona fide racists (and I'm not just talking about neo-Nazis, but the working-class and white-collar racists we all know about) know exactly how this kind of talk is perceived. It is an unofficial -- but high-profile -- endorsement of their own private views. Most of the examples MWO cites fall into this category. As does one of the more egregious instances I witnessed (there are no links, BTW, because no one archives Limbaugh's material, which is one of the main ways Limbaugh insulates himself from being called to account for his words). It came on Limbaugh's thankfully short-lived TV program. Limbaugh promised to show his audience footage of everyday life among welfare recipients. He then ran video of the antics of a variety of great apes -- mostly orangutans, gorillas and apes -- hanging about zoos. The audience, of course, applauded and laughed. Limbaugh is important, by the way, not merely because he now is one of the primary drivers of the conservative agenda. He also has played a significant role in the transmission of ideas and agendas from the extremist right into the mainstream over the past 10 years.
Posted by Timothy,
9:00 PM
-
re: Nothing Can Stop the Polish Air Force
That was quite a while ago. Since then, the Polish AF has decided to purchase 44 F-16s from Lockheed Martin with the money. Good move all around. A key NATO ally gets a MAJOR upgrade to their Air Force. I think they were originally considering buying the French Mirage 2000. They'll be better off with F-16s. In fact, they might have one of the most advanced air forces in Europe now (currently they have nothing, I believe).
From the US perspective, F-16s will be useless once the JSF/F-35 comes out. So they turn a tidy profit (5% interest over 15 years) selling off obsolete aircraft to an ally. Let's not forget that this also decreases NATO's dependency on the American military, giving Europe more autonomy in defence matters.
So I dunno. Those are the facts. You can still question the decision (though you'd have to think about the costs of NOT selling the fighters), but it's not a matter of sheer lunacy.
Posted by Brad Plumer,
3:01 PM
-
Nothing Can Stop the Polish Air Force So I just saw we're lending the Poles $3.8 billion to buy fighter jets. 1) Why do the Poles need fighter jets? 2) Why do the Poles need fighter jets more than we need to stem poverty, disease, shore up terrible education at home, let alone abroad, prepare our first responders, create an independent accounting board, or any other of the hundreds of things we could do with $3.8 billion?
Mr. Sarma, I am neither advocating war nor justifying those who seek it. But it will take more than sarcasm and Bush-bashing to convince me that Iraq has no WMD. I think Andrew Kallmann on the Observer nicely responds to your points about the effectiveness of the previous inspectors and the impossibility of smuggling anything into Iraq. I should add that the failure of the current inspections says more to me about the impotence of US intelligence than the innocence of Mr. Hussein. Ah well, I suppose neither of us can be sure until the inspectors find anything. It would seem, however, that Mr. Blix agrees with me: Iraq is guilty until proven innocent.
You made a lot of other good points, I will try to reply later...
Posted by Brad Plumer,
11:21 AM
-
Monday, January 13, 2003 War vs. Russian Nukes "Yet the US is only spending $1 billion a year to buy up Russian loose nukes, while they're preparing to spend loads more on a potential war in Iraq. Do you have any suggestions why that might be?"
It makes sense if the administration sincerely believes that the weapons produced by Iraq will be either more plentiful or more readily accessible to enemies willing to use them than Russian nukes, then it makes sense to concentrate on Iraq. Just estimate lives lost under any particular course of action, convert to cash (in US$, 1 life = approx. $10,000,000) and discount to present value, and you're all set.
Posted by Nic,
7:04 PM
-
Gephardt takes a stand against the confederate flag
Presidential wannabee Richard Gephardt says that the confederate flag is a divisive symbol that should not be part of any official government display. Here's a part of the article (via atrios):
In a statement released Saturday, Gephardt said the flag that flies at a Confederate Soldier Monument on South Carolina's Statehouse grounds "is a hurtful, divisive symbol and in my view has no place flying anywhere, in any state in this country." Gephardt, who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004, said he was releasing the statement to clarify comments in an article published Saturday in The (Columbia) State newspaper. "I want to be crystal clear to the people of South Carolina where I stand on this issue," Gephardt said. "I think South Carolina should remove the Confederate flag from any official display anywhere in the state."
Posted by Timothy,
4:01 PM
-
Sunday, January 12, 2003 Re: Guilty especially if not proven guilty?
Yes, Brad, of course you're brainwashed. And as I've personally read the 12000 page Iraqi declaration, I feel that you should really just accept all my opinions as fact, like most people do. Oh well, guess you leave me no choice but to argue with you.
"But you seem to imply that Mr. Hussein has no weapons. That's just silly. He was always guilty until proven innocent. I don't see how it can be otherwise." -Brad
Fancy that, a government without weapons! I'm assuming you mean weapons of mass destruction. It's hard enough to import toothpicks into Iraq, let alone fissile material. 90% of all material for making weapons of mass destruction was eliminated from Iraq during the 90's, according to the weapons inspectors. Even their head, Richard Butler has said the weapons inspections were close to completely disarming Iraq when they were withdrawn under US pressure. Iraq wasn't exactly "compliant" throughout this period, but the US didn't quite play fair either, covertly using the UN weapons inspectors to plant surveillance devices throughout Iraq, sending intelligence back to the US, planning coups... This is one area where US media has rather disingenuously changed its story: http://www.fair.org/activism/unscom-history.html
As you mention, there's a credibility problem with defector testimonies. All of them are set up for a cushy life in the US afterwards if they corroborate the US governmental story, so corruption is certainly not out of the question. I've done some hunting on the internet, and it seems the defector case is based primarily on the testimony of two Iraqi scientist defectors: Khadir Hamza , who defected in 1994, and thus has little to offer regarding recent events, and Adnan Ihsan Saeed who left more recently, and seems to have a pretty credible story. But can we base an entire war solely on the testimony of one man? Or even a few men? A war based on such evidence certainly would not gain much international support, because even our allies want to see weapons inspections continue. According to this article http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/011103A.blair.hold.htm, US/British invasion of Iraq without UN support would cause a major MP walkout on Tony Blair. As one moderate put it "Labour MPs don't trust George Bush and wonder why Tony is so close to him." It seems that the proper course is to use the evidence presented by these defectors to help UN weapons inspectors find more conclusive evidence. The big problem with the Bush Administration is their "principled" opposition to the very idea of proving anything. No wonder Tony Blair's getting so much flack on the home front for falling in line with Bush on the Iraq issue. It's possible a premature war with Iraq could lead to the fall of Tony Blair, and the election of a less US friendly government.
Just to step back from the question a little bit, do you really think the US would be seriously endangered even in the worst case scenario, if Iraq acquired nukes? (I know I'm opening myself wide open for attack here, but just bare with me for a moment) Obviously they wouldn't use them overtly against us, and the possibility of them using them covertly through terrorists means seems far less likely than that of terrorist procuring "loose nukes" from somewhere like Russia. (which is not to say that I *want* to see Saddam the dictator get WMD) Yet the US is only spending $1 billion a year to buy up Russian loose nukes, while they're preparing to spend loads more on a potential war in Iraq. Do you have any suggestions why that might be? My gut tells me it's because they want to have a perpetual war to sell the American public in order to maintain high popularity. To me, the idea that their going to try to bowl over the entire "axis of evil" one by one is far more scary than the thought of Iraq procuring WMD. Bush's apparent vision of endless war would simply be spreading our empire too thin, encouraging terrorism, and militarizing our country to the point where the economy takes a backburner, all for an ill-defined gain in the war on terrorism.
Lastly, just to answer your criticism directly, no where in my posting did I suggest that I thought Saddam was not interested in getting WMD, which he obviously is, along with North Korea, Brazil, and other nations who haven't declared it as openly. But I see weapons inspections, rather than war, as the best way to disarm Iraq. The US also needs to dangle the "carrot" of ending sanctions and normalizing relations, so Iraq has a real incentive to comply. We weren't giving them any incentive to comply in the 90's because our steadfast policy of regime change made them anxious to hold on to any weapons they could as a deterrent against US invasion. Wouldn't any leader in that situation seek WMD?
When Republicans Come Around