Fred Iklé, a Nixon-era arms control veteran and mentor to the current generation of nuclear “hawks”, has an apocalyptic vision of the future.
However, as a contrarian who confounds his neo-conservative admirers, he is also highly critical of the Bush administration’s handling of threats to the US, and calls the “global war on terror” a serious mistake.
What he calls the “sad message” of his latest work is that the accelerating advance of technology far outpaces the zig-zag development of social and political frameworks that act as controls and brakes.
“We are spreading the dark side of technology,” he tells the FT, describing the “curse of dual use” where, in biotechnology and development of superhuman intelligence in particular, scientists may inadvertently be sowing the seeds of future destruction to be wrought by anarchists or revolutionary groups.
Despite his hawkish reputation, Mr Iklé is tough on the White House, calling GWOT – the “global war on terror” – a distraction and a rallying cry that unites enemies of the US, not divides them. As for Tony Blair, the UK prime minister, his speeches warning of a generational GWOT are “defeatist and anodyne”.
“Pulling out of Iraq will lead to feelings of guilt, with some justification. In some ways we have made things worse than under Saddam Hussein,” he concludes.
Of course, the question of guilt resides with those who supported the invasion of Iraq, the lies and deceit used to manipulate justification for that invasion — and those whose votes kept the Crusaders in office.
Hindsight is soo 20/20.
However, an astute person of history and not a neo con agenda following whore (think Bushie) would have realized over throwing Saddam is a bad idea. Daddy Bush knew that.
It seems more now then ever, Osama bin Laden got away live at the battle of Torah Bora, more because Bush didn’t want to end the war on terror there, then Osama cleverly escaping.
Actually, the idea of a “Global War on Terror” is a great one crafted by Bush and the GOP. Consider the benefits:
* It’s an arbitrary problem statement so they can claim arbitrary results.
* Great for the military – unbounded increases to military budgets
* Great for the GOP – can always turn the fear dial when in election time
* A gift to conservatives – take away civil rights (it’s to combat terrorism)
* Declare war on country X because country X is a terrorist (or could be)
What is there not to like – if your a republican?
Hindsight is 20/20 but we do expect our leaders to be wise and have plenty of foresight.
So here we are in IRAQ and still dependent on foreign oil, what the hell.
Who is looking out for American (the little guy) interest? I want to know what are our politician doing for this country, BESIDES KILLING IT and sending it’s people over seas to die?
Q1.) Had we continued our energy conservation effort under Carter would we have needed to invade IRAQ the first time?
Q2.) Having not invading IRAQ the first time would there be a 2nd time?
Q3.) Will the next congress do anything to wean us off or lessen our oil need?
Q4.) Will the democrats raise C A F E standards?
Q5.) Will the democrats increase alternative energy usage, using tax incentives to help implement real energy research into the market?
Q6.) Are Americans honest enough with themselves to understand what liberating Kuwait cost the USA? (see below events)
Q7.) Is treating the below event(s) separately the right thing, or are they really connected? (this is not a conspiracy theory either, just poor presidential planning)
E1.)-Tim Mcveigh and the Murrah Building
E2.)-New York Twin Towers
E3.)-Another Vietnam like war in IRAQ
E4)-USA uncertain future political standing in the World
http://www.energybulletin.net/9657.html
http://tinyurl.com/yk72dt
I agree, we are like kids playing with Gatling guns. Technology keeps handing the warriors more fun things to kill more and more people with while the rulers (politicos with serious yank, and their patrons) are clueless, thinking weaponry is merely an agenda pushing tool.
All the billions of battle dead down through history are as nothing compared to the death dealing potential of the toy like weapons available to even the lesser powers scattered about the planet; whatever species, cats, dog, roaches, etc, that survive Humanities demise will hopefully get it right.
The Republican from Nebraska said it best, this weekend:
“We have misunderstood, misread, misplanned and mismanaged our honorable intentions in Iraq with an arrogant self-delusion reminiscent of Vietnam,” said Hagel, a combat veteran of that war. “Honorable intentions are not policies and plans.”
Meh its our stupid cultural desires that f ed up the war.
After Bush and his cronies gave up on W.M.Ds they got America to fall in love with “Freeing the Iraqi people and beinging them democracy.”
Yeah except they never asked for our help nor do they embrace Democracy.
“Official state religion is Islam”
Opps better make that a theocracy.
Sad the real conservatives for the most part allowed the neo-cons to hijack the party in exchange for power. Every last one of them should be ashamed.
#3….the first gulf war wasn’t for oil. It was to free a captive nation. One that we had treaty obligations to. We did what we went there to do and then left. We established a no fly zone, and it pretty much worked. What let the cat out of the bag was the unbelievable greed of Western European countries and businessmen, as well as so called nutrual United Nations leaders. They sold their souls for the almighty dollar, and in their own way paved the road to Bush 2 and what we have today. It’s very easy and apparently quite fun for people with 20/20 hindsight to blame what happened on Bush, but it’s not entirely his making……our **friends** in France, Germany, Russia and Saudi Arabia are just as much to blame for whats going on now as Bush.
All of these so called friends were selling technology and goods to Saddam in exchange for hard cash and oil vouchers…..by making the embargo of those goods a sham they gave Bush an opening that allowed him to honestly say the embargo was failing and to act accordingly.
War is very rarely caused by the simple things that get the blame, they usually are caused by people and countries playing what they think are subtle games of duplicity.
I’d say the majority of the citizens in both Iraq and Afghanistan are thankful for America’s initial involvement. The unfortunate part of the story is that the 15% of the population, who commit horrendous acts of violence, get more press than the 85% who do not.
#2 – A toned down, more rational/realistic explanation could be said about Abraham Lincoln’s presidency as he infringed on many civil liberties, but in the end I’m comfortable saying that the ends justified the means.
#3 – To the “war for oil” argument, would it not have been more cost effective to engage in the Oil for Food Program, or even expand upon it? Iraqi oil production will continue to be down for the next couple years, while it could have gone up if America did not invade.
#6 – The Iraqis have a system of government where the political representatives invest, in a competitive environment, to make the populous better off in return for another term in office. They can choose to make bad laws or goods laws, in the end the people decide whether or not they made the right decision. This erroneous idea of Islamic Law bringing about a theocracy is quite wrong, take the time to read the Iraqi Constitution and you will get an idea of what I’m talking about. The human culture found in the middle east is changing, and Iraq has a system of government that can address these changes more effectively than others. Download the latest C-SPAN Q&A podcast as it is an interview with Turki al Faisal who discusses this exact idea.
#7 I don’t need the history lesson.
I agree our (not) so subtle games of duplicity lead us into the 1st gulf war and others.
As for the first Gulf War not being for oil, instead “responding to our treaty obligations”, really please who are you kidding.
To be fair, I was initially under the same delusion while an under-grad during the first Gulf War. I can recall “No blood for oil” gold spray painted on the walk way to Alexander Library. It really caused me to think and rethink things. At the time I thought the Gulf War noble, as you put it “responding to our treaty obligations”.
Previously before college I served 6yrs in the Navy, and spent a 7 month cruise patrolling the Persian Gulf. I even reasoned for myself, back then, the real reason was to prevent Saddam Hussein from using the oil money to purchase nukes. That was my argument I used to support the 1st Gulf War with others and myself. I knew then the great examples of US “subtle games of duplicity”, supporting the Shah of Iran and having supported Saddam in the IRAQ/IRAN War. But I believed it was for a greater US good. I was so delusional then.
[edited: pls use tinyurl] link 1 and link 2
However, my mind began to change as I studied how the US supported various dictators around the world, Somoza and Pinochet in particular and the resulting conflicts that support caused. Remember Iran Contra?
During my time in the Navy I visited Valparaiso, Talcahuano and Punta Arenas Chile while Pinochet was still in power. I found the people to be some of the most gentile and warm I’ve ever seen in any country. Not deserving of the atrocities Pinochet visited on them, with US help.
So my question, do you really think it’s only cold war politics the US cares about when it supported the various state sponsored brutal oppression around the world by supporting these and other Dictators?
Or could there also be an economic interest in all that?
Why do you think they call many South American countries a “Banana Republic”?
Here is a final message from Captain Jeffrey “Toz” Toczylowski, a fallen solider in Iraq. This is not meant as a slap in the face, but instead something to think about.
“Don’t ever think that you are defending me by slamming the Global War on Terrorism or the U.S. goals in that war. As far as I am concerned, we can send guys like me to go after them or we can wait for them to come back to us again. I died doing something I believed in and have no regrets except that I couldn’t do more.”
More food for thought.
http://www.fallenheroesmemorial.com/oef/
To follow up on my last post.
#9 Mine or anyone else “slamming the Global War on Terrorism or the U.S. goals in that war” is nothing more then us exercising our freedom of speech. I guess you would deny us that, because it’s not patriotic (BUSHY LOGIC).
Part of the oath I took when I served was to protect the constitution. #9 What Oath are you up holding; what are you protecting? You sound like one of those cowards who don’t support the draft, instead would rather have other people do your dirty work? What part of freedom of speech don’t you understand? What freedoms have you put yourself in harms way to defend?
It is the soldier, not the reporter,
Who has given us freedom of the press.
It is the soldier, not the poet,
Who has given us the freedom of speech.
It is the soldier, not the campus organizer,
Who has given us the freedom to demonstrate.
It is the soldier, not the lawyer,
Who has given us the right to a fair trial.
It is the soldier,
Who salutes the flag,
Who serves under the flag,
And whose coffin is draped in the flag,
Who allows the protester to burn the flag.
In post #12, meant #10 above, my bad.
#10. “we can send guys like me to go after them or we can wait for them to come back to us again.”
Unfortunately, the logic does not hold. As the citizens of London and Madrid can attest, going after “them” over “there” does not prevent “them” from hitting us over here. And as the recent National Intelligence Estimate attests, the war in Iraq has energized global jihaddism, actually making us less safe
The Captain did not die making his country any safer, which is a damn shame.
Doug, I find it hard to believe that two terrorist attacks constitute the notion that the current policy has failed. During President Clinton’s terms in office he tried a much more multi-lateral approach with limited involvement and yet terrorist attacks still occurred. Obviously cruise missile strikes were not enough. Al-Qa’ida is a rational actor who uses terrorist tactics to shape a foreign government’s policy. In the case of Spain, one could make an argument that the tactic worked, as Spain altered the foreign policy away from direct engagement. In the case of Britain, they continued their foreign policy initiatives not ceding, dare I say appeasing, the terrorists.
In regards to the N.I.E. here is the first line of the estimate, “U.S.-led counterterrorism efforts have seriously damaged the leadership of al-Qa’ida and disrupted its operations.” Specifically with Iraq, here is another quote “Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.” To agree with you Doug, the current situation in Iraq is a “cause celebre” and the U.S. alone cannot win this military fight, as it will take the political/cultural resolve of the entire Middle-Eastern area, along with Western Europe.
Too bad Al Gore didn’t win. I have to ask him how he offsets his carbon emissions with so many plane flights. Later.
As a Canadian, I don’t complain about how Bush handled his first 4 years in office.
If only half of the $$ spent in the Iraq war went to incentives to have the US big 3 car companies to not develop, but put into market immediately fuel efficient cars, electrics & hybrids, hell, even hydrogen fuel cells.
Think about it, a few billion can go a long way into building infrastructure for non-gasoline vehicles in major cities, rather than going to war.
You just need about half the population using non-gasoline solutions, and the US becomes self-sufficient. It’s doable within 5 years, the average lifespan of 50% of the cars out there.