The London Sunday Telegraph carries an important article by Christopher Monckton intended to shred the predictions of the recent Stern Review Report on climate change. In reality, the article does much more, showing how bad science is responsible for much of the hysteria surrounding the issue of global warming and the belief that man is responsible for most, if not all of it. According to Monckton's numbers, increased solar activity could conceivably account for all observed warming over the past century. What's more, the UN undersetimates the natural greenhouse effect, overestimates average temperature changes, increases known physical constants, and uses flawed measures of ocean temperatures.
Monckton concludes that warming is likely to range from 0.1 to 1.4 degrees Celsius over the next hundred years, less than the UN's low-end assumption of 1.5 degrees Celsius. Why aren't these conclusions being widely published? This piece indicates specific, fundamental flaws in not only the Stern Report, but in all of the science underlying what is commonly called the "consensus view." If the numbers in his piece are correct (as I suspect they are), a reassessment of the science on global warming should occur. If the numbers are wrong, they should be refuted immediately. Yet it is more than likely that this piece, as well as research that supports the views of skeptics of global warming caused by human activity, will simply be ignored by major universities and government institutions, as well as the likes of the BBC, CNN, the AP, the New York Times, PBS, Reuters, and even media outlets with an interest in things scientific such as the Discovery Channel. This is the same way the established figures in the scientific community treated Intelligent Design, and there were negative consequences as a result.
Now, I don't want to equate global warming skepticisim with Intelligent Design where scientific merit is concerned. As far as I can tell, there is sufficient scientific evidence supporting skepticism about man-made global warming, while there is no scientific evidence whatever supporting Intelligent Design. However, both have gained traction because their claims were simply ignored or dismissed out of hand, as opposed to being challenged or refuted, though this has changed with regard to Intelligent Design, and Intelligent Design is no longer regarded as highly as it was a couple of years ago. If Monckton is wrong, and the data he cites are wrong, prove it. If he's right, and his data are right, make sure future research reflects this. The purpose of science is to determine the state of the natural world, not provide ammunition for a political cause. The Stern Report and the UN's global warming research are examples of science becoming the whore of politics, and the consequences are potentially devastating for both science and society at large.
Sunday, November 05, 2006
Friday, October 27, 2006
The Latin Mass
Stephen Bainbridge succinctly states the case for the return of the Tridentine Mass to common use. I agree completely with his case and have only one thing to add to it. Arguably the biggest substantive objection to the Tridentine Mass has been the fact that most people are not familiar enough with Latin to understand the words being spoken during the Mass. In this day and age I think this objection has been rendered largely irrelevant by the ability to make written translations of the Mass readily available to the congeration. Furthermore, these translations can by juxtaposed with copies of the actual Latin used in the Tridentine Mass. I know this because I have provided for myself a copy of the Rosary in Latin accompanied by an English translation of the prayers, both of which I obtained here.
On the whole, I think the introduction of a vernacular rite was a good thing, but something was lost when the Tridentine Rite was abandoned. The two Rites should exist alongside each other as equals serving different purposes. The resurgence in demand for the practice of the Tridentine Rite is evidence that it possesses something of value that is at best under-emphasized in the Vernacular Rite. The two Rites should exist alongside each other as equals serving different purposes, at least until the Vernacular Rite can be modified to adequately address its shortcomings.
On the whole, I think the introduction of a vernacular rite was a good thing, but something was lost when the Tridentine Rite was abandoned. The two Rites should exist alongside each other as equals serving different purposes. The resurgence in demand for the practice of the Tridentine Rite is evidence that it possesses something of value that is at best under-emphasized in the Vernacular Rite. The two Rites should exist alongside each other as equals serving different purposes, at least until the Vernacular Rite can be modified to adequately address its shortcomings.
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
Vietnam: Rising Capitalist Power
The New York Times has a fascinating profile of Vietnam's current economic climate. Currently, the economy of Vietnam is growing faster than almost any other economy in the world. It's standard of living is rising rapidly, especially for skilled laborers; the stock market is booming; and their tax code will soon be superior to the United States' tax code in some ways. Not bad for a Communist country that was on the verge of starvation fifteen years ago.
And who deserves a good chunk of the credit for this? Certainly Vietnam's leaders do (more on them in a bit), but I'm thinking of a particular American president with a not-so-stellar reputation, namely Richard Nixon. His decision to engage China in an attempt move it away from the Soviet Union politically hastened the end of the Cold War and laid the groundwork for China's embrace of something like capitalism. If this had not happened, I don't believe either China or other states in Southeast Asia, such as Vietnam, would have had the wherewithal to look to Western capitalism as a cure for the ills of their economic systems.
On thing omitted from the profile (not surprisingly, as the piece was about Vietnam's economy), is the question of whether the increase of economic liberty in Vietnam has been accompanied by an increase in political liberty. Has Vietnam made progress in granting its citizens rights such as freedom of religion and freedom of speech, or is it following the Chinese model of vibrant economic growth accompanied by large-scale supression of religious and political freedom? WIll Vietnam become a free and open society as it continues to grow economically, or will the Vietnamese state exploit new technologies and expend great energies to keep its people under its thumb?
And who deserves a good chunk of the credit for this? Certainly Vietnam's leaders do (more on them in a bit), but I'm thinking of a particular American president with a not-so-stellar reputation, namely Richard Nixon. His decision to engage China in an attempt move it away from the Soviet Union politically hastened the end of the Cold War and laid the groundwork for China's embrace of something like capitalism. If this had not happened, I don't believe either China or other states in Southeast Asia, such as Vietnam, would have had the wherewithal to look to Western capitalism as a cure for the ills of their economic systems.
On thing omitted from the profile (not surprisingly, as the piece was about Vietnam's economy), is the question of whether the increase of economic liberty in Vietnam has been accompanied by an increase in political liberty. Has Vietnam made progress in granting its citizens rights such as freedom of religion and freedom of speech, or is it following the Chinese model of vibrant economic growth accompanied by large-scale supression of religious and political freedom? WIll Vietnam become a free and open society as it continues to grow economically, or will the Vietnamese state exploit new technologies and expend great energies to keep its people under its thumb?
Where's Adam Gobetti When You Need Him?
Adam Gobetti, your friendly, neighborhood anarchist would be thrilled to learn that the Czech Republic is currently getting along just fine without a government. Indeed, it hasn't had one since June. Granted, it's not as though the entire government has ceased to be, but there is no party or coalition of parties controlling it at the moment, and things seem to be going swimmingly.
One thing I would be interested in knowing is whether or not the executive branch continues to function, collecting and spending tax revenue. If so, the lack of a governing coalition in the Czech Parliament isn't that big a deal, but if the gears of the central government have simply ground to a halt, then this demonstrates the maxim that government which governs least governs best. Indeed, it would show that in a well-ordered society where the rule of law is well established, it is best to leave well-enough alone, even to the point of temporarily doing away with the central government (an unintended consequence in this situation, to be sure). Now, this all changes if there is a threat to domestic order, be it internal or external, but short of that, the central government need not intrude into the lives of its citizens.
One thing I would be interested in knowing is whether or not the executive branch continues to function, collecting and spending tax revenue. If so, the lack of a governing coalition in the Czech Parliament isn't that big a deal, but if the gears of the central government have simply ground to a halt, then this demonstrates the maxim that government which governs least governs best. Indeed, it would show that in a well-ordered society where the rule of law is well established, it is best to leave well-enough alone, even to the point of temporarily doing away with the central government (an unintended consequence in this situation, to be sure). Now, this all changes if there is a threat to domestic order, be it internal or external, but short of that, the central government need not intrude into the lives of its citizens.
Monday, October 23, 2006
Multiculturalists Are in a State of Shock
Apparently Colonialism wasn't all bad. Who'd'a thunk it?
Now that's not to say it was an unadulterated good (What human endeavor is?), but clearly many Western colonizers did something right.
Interestingly enough, the study found that the country that had the greatest positive impact on its colonies was the United States.
Now that's not to say it was an unadulterated good (What human endeavor is?), but clearly many Western colonizers did something right.
Interestingly enough, the study found that the country that had the greatest positive impact on its colonies was the United States.
Saturday, October 21, 2006
Good News
The Supreme Court has upheld, at least temporarily, Arizona's law requiring voters to present photo ID at the polls in order to be able to vote.
Frankly, that anyone would challenge such a law strikes me as absurd on its face. As citizens in a democratic society we have the obligation to participate in our own governance, and the most crucial manner in which we, the people participate in our own governance is through the exercise of the vote. To this end, voting should be as easy as is reasonably possible. However, voting should not be so easy that the vote of those responsible for determining who fills elected positions in our government can be diluted or even undermined by those who have neither the duty to determine how we are to be governed, nor the right to vote. To prevent this happening, it is only common sense to expect that those attempting to vote be able to establish that they are indeed eligible to do so. In order to do this, the state of Arizona has required all eligible voters provide photo ID proving they are who they say they are. I can see no good-faith reason to oppose this on principle.
Of course, there are nefarious reasons for opposing such a measure. Allowing people to vote without proper identification opens the door to massive voter fraud. Illegal immigrants can vote. People can vote multiple times. Those not registered to vote are able to vote.
Who has derived the most benefit from this? Those who are opposed to the measure, namely Democrats. They oppose this measure because it undermines their electoral prospects, and it's a shame. Instead of moderating their positions to better appeal to the public (without sacrifricing their principles, of course), the Democrats have tried to win elections by hook or by crook, all the while maintaining many of the far-left positions that have caused them to lose so much power has turned one the great American political parties into a joke. Given the current political climate, there is no reason the Republicans should have the slightest hope of holding either house of Congress. Yet, the Republicans are likely to hold the Senate and still have an outside shot at holding the House of Representatives. The war in Iraq is not going well (largely because we have done little to nothing to address Iranian and Syrian influence in Iraq), and the economy is perceived as being in much worse shape than it is. Republicans have been rocked with scandal after scandal, including two Representatives pleading guilty to charges of bribery. Then there's the Mark Foley mess, the issue of border security and runaway federal spending.
The Democrats should take back both houses of Congress with majorities that should take ten years for Republicans to whittle away, but the Republicans have a chance to retain control of the House and Senate. That this is the case is a testament to just how devoid of a coherent philosophy the Democrats are.
Frankly, that anyone would challenge such a law strikes me as absurd on its face. As citizens in a democratic society we have the obligation to participate in our own governance, and the most crucial manner in which we, the people participate in our own governance is through the exercise of the vote. To this end, voting should be as easy as is reasonably possible. However, voting should not be so easy that the vote of those responsible for determining who fills elected positions in our government can be diluted or even undermined by those who have neither the duty to determine how we are to be governed, nor the right to vote. To prevent this happening, it is only common sense to expect that those attempting to vote be able to establish that they are indeed eligible to do so. In order to do this, the state of Arizona has required all eligible voters provide photo ID proving they are who they say they are. I can see no good-faith reason to oppose this on principle.
Of course, there are nefarious reasons for opposing such a measure. Allowing people to vote without proper identification opens the door to massive voter fraud. Illegal immigrants can vote. People can vote multiple times. Those not registered to vote are able to vote.
Who has derived the most benefit from this? Those who are opposed to the measure, namely Democrats. They oppose this measure because it undermines their electoral prospects, and it's a shame. Instead of moderating their positions to better appeal to the public (without sacrifricing their principles, of course), the Democrats have tried to win elections by hook or by crook, all the while maintaining many of the far-left positions that have caused them to lose so much power has turned one the great American political parties into a joke. Given the current political climate, there is no reason the Republicans should have the slightest hope of holding either house of Congress. Yet, the Republicans are likely to hold the Senate and still have an outside shot at holding the House of Representatives. The war in Iraq is not going well (largely because we have done little to nothing to address Iranian and Syrian influence in Iraq), and the economy is perceived as being in much worse shape than it is. Republicans have been rocked with scandal after scandal, including two Representatives pleading guilty to charges of bribery. Then there's the Mark Foley mess, the issue of border security and runaway federal spending.
The Democrats should take back both houses of Congress with majorities that should take ten years for Republicans to whittle away, but the Republicans have a chance to retain control of the House and Senate. That this is the case is a testament to just how devoid of a coherent philosophy the Democrats are.
Monday, October 09, 2006
North Korean Test
North Korea has reportedly tested a nuclear weapon. For my part, I'm skeptical. According to both the French and the South Koreans, the explosion was the equivalent of 550 tons of TNT*, and there has been no radiation detected at the site of the explosion as yet.
North Korea has claimed to have nuclear weapons since 2002, but there has never been any hard evidence to support this claim. It has also seen a significant portion of its income dry up as the United States has taken measures to disrupt its distribution of counterfeit American dollars. It seems possible that North Korea staged a phony nuclear test either to extort economic aid from the United States, South Korea, China, Japan, and Russia, or to advertize their nuclear wares to the Iranians. It is also possible that the "test" is motivated more by domestic politics than international politics. Either way, North Korea gains as much by a fake test everyone else believes is legitimate as by an actual nuclear test, especially after its failed missile test on 4 July.
In short, the most likely scenario at this point is that North Korea buried a few hundred tons of TNT, set it off and claimed it had conducted a nuclear test (and that the radiation had been perfectly contained). Until I see any hard evidence to the contrary (e.g. radiation being emitted from the test site), I see no reason to belive North Korea has conducted an actual nuclear test.
*Russia claims the explosion was equivalent to 5,000-15,000 tons of TNT, which would make it similar in size to the Hiroshima bomb. If this is correct, I'd be more inclined to believe that North Korea did indeed carry out a nuclear test.
Update: Apparently I'm not the only skeptic.
North Korea has claimed to have nuclear weapons since 2002, but there has never been any hard evidence to support this claim. It has also seen a significant portion of its income dry up as the United States has taken measures to disrupt its distribution of counterfeit American dollars. It seems possible that North Korea staged a phony nuclear test either to extort economic aid from the United States, South Korea, China, Japan, and Russia, or to advertize their nuclear wares to the Iranians. It is also possible that the "test" is motivated more by domestic politics than international politics. Either way, North Korea gains as much by a fake test everyone else believes is legitimate as by an actual nuclear test, especially after its failed missile test on 4 July.
In short, the most likely scenario at this point is that North Korea buried a few hundred tons of TNT, set it off and claimed it had conducted a nuclear test (and that the radiation had been perfectly contained). Until I see any hard evidence to the contrary (e.g. radiation being emitted from the test site), I see no reason to belive North Korea has conducted an actual nuclear test.
*Russia claims the explosion was equivalent to 5,000-15,000 tons of TNT, which would make it similar in size to the Hiroshima bomb. If this is correct, I'd be more inclined to believe that North Korea did indeed carry out a nuclear test.
Update: Apparently I'm not the only skeptic.
Monday, September 25, 2006
Christianity and Evolution
Michael Shermer has published a brief article in Scientific American claiming that Christianity and evolution are reconcilable. The first two points need expansion, and the third one more readily explains Cain and Abel than original sin. Instead, he should have discussed how evolutionary theory can explain original sin if the desire to be like God (the Author of Life) can be linked with the desire to reproduce (to enter into the act of creation).
Points four, five and six are solid.
Ultimately, it's a good start to a case that quite desperately needs to be made. The case for evolution (though not for a purely Darwinian version of it) is overwhelming, and the evidence in its favor only grows with the passage of time. In order for Christianity to be able to maintain its claims on the truth, it must find a way to reconcile itself with evolution, not by compromising its fundamental tenets, but by establishing a framework of thought that allows both to coexist without contradicting each other.
Points four, five and six are solid.
Ultimately, it's a good start to a case that quite desperately needs to be made. The case for evolution (though not for a purely Darwinian version of it) is overwhelming, and the evidence in its favor only grows with the passage of time. In order for Christianity to be able to maintain its claims on the truth, it must find a way to reconcile itself with evolution, not by compromising its fundamental tenets, but by establishing a framework of thought that allows both to coexist without contradicting each other.
Terrorist Threat Worse
A new National Intelligence Estimate has reportedly found that the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq has worsened the threat of terrorism. Even though the report was completed in April, there is no reason to assume that things are any different now. There is also no reason to assume the report is fundamentally flawed, in spite of the recent track record of American intelligence agencies.
However, it would be wrong to draw the conclusion that pulling American troops out of Iraq would lessen the terrorist threat. The terrorist threat has worsened because the invasion of Iraq gave radical Muslims the opportunity to fight the Great Satan. The fact that they have not yet been defeated gives them hope of victory, and the more attacks al Qaeda in Iraq and the Shiite death squads can pull off without bringing down the full wrath of the Americans, the greater the prospect of an American defeat looms, thus encouraging Muslims in the Middle East and beyond to side with the various insurgent groups. Pulling out of Iraq would be seen as a victory for groups like al Qaeda in Iraq and would further increase the threat of terrorism because the entire Muslim world will have seen that it can defeat America on the field of battle. The only way to reduce the terrorist threat is to win. The Iraqi insurgency must be crushed. So must al Qaeda in Iraq and the Mehdi Army of Muqtada al-Sadr. Ultimately, this will mean dealing with Syria and Iran, possibly, though not necessarily militarily. It is only by defeating Muslim terrorist groups and their state sponsors and enablers that the threat of terrorism can be elminated.
However, it would be wrong to draw the conclusion that pulling American troops out of Iraq would lessen the terrorist threat. The terrorist threat has worsened because the invasion of Iraq gave radical Muslims the opportunity to fight the Great Satan. The fact that they have not yet been defeated gives them hope of victory, and the more attacks al Qaeda in Iraq and the Shiite death squads can pull off without bringing down the full wrath of the Americans, the greater the prospect of an American defeat looms, thus encouraging Muslims in the Middle East and beyond to side with the various insurgent groups. Pulling out of Iraq would be seen as a victory for groups like al Qaeda in Iraq and would further increase the threat of terrorism because the entire Muslim world will have seen that it can defeat America on the field of battle. The only way to reduce the terrorist threat is to win. The Iraqi insurgency must be crushed. So must al Qaeda in Iraq and the Mehdi Army of Muqtada al-Sadr. Ultimately, this will mean dealing with Syria and Iran, possibly, though not necessarily militarily. It is only by defeating Muslim terrorist groups and their state sponsors and enablers that the threat of terrorism can be elminated.
Sunday, September 24, 2006
Iran War in October?
That's what former Senate Majority Leader Gary Hart is arguing (and that it will go horribly wrong). Well that's what he's asserting, anyway. Now, Hart may be right or he may be wrong, but he offers no evidence to support his claims. It seems that we must accept what Hart says based on nothing more than his authority as an observer of things political and his sneers at those who might disagree with him.
Again, I don't know whether or not Hart is right, but it seems to me that in order to be taken seriously, Hart should actually provide some facts to back up his assertion. As it is, though, it is a matter of relative simplicity to answer Hart's assertions.
First, Hart says "It should come as no surprise if the Bush Administration undertakes a preemptive war against Iran sometime before the November election." Well, I guess that depends on what you consider a war. If you define war broadly enough to include things like the intervention in Kosovo (something Hart apparently does, given how he describes the action to be undertaken), then the claim almost becomes plausible. However, the exclusive use of air power in a military campaign has been proven to be highly ineffective, most recently by Israel's early attempts to dislodge Hezbollah from Southern Lebanon. Any attempt to bring about regime change by military means would almost certainly require some sort of ground involvement, be it special forces cooperation with dissident groups, a large scale invasion, or some sort of combination of the two in order to be successful. We certainly haven't seen anything like a large scale military build-up along Iran's border with either Iraq or Afghanistan, indicating no major U.S.-led invasion, and public support for Iranian dissident groups has been sporadic at best. This doesn't prove that the U.S. is not moving to help undermine from within the Iranian regime, but some sort of sustained display of public support for democratic movements inside Iran, as well as exposing human rights abuses being committed by the Iranian regime, would certainly be very helpful in building support within Iran for American military action against the Mullahs.
Another factor which I think makes military action unlikely is the amount of trust President Bush places in Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. He trusts her more than any of his other cabinet officials, and the fact that he has her running the State Department indicates that he wants to solve the crisis diplomatically if at all possible because the diplomatic approach leaves the situation in the hands of his most trusted deputy.
Hart goes on to say
What exactly does Hart consider to be normal times? What does he consider to be "our national character", and how does he know the current administration is not "much concerned with our national character"? Hart never says. Thus, these two paragraphs are merely rhetorical cheap shots which do not belong in a serious analysis.
Hart goes on to spell out how the attacks will unfold, apparently based on questionable reporting that unmanned drones and commando teams are inside Iran collecting and refining intelligence on targets. This may or may not be happening, but even if it is, it in no way follows that military action is imminent, and even if it is, it in no way follows that this will be the nature of the military operations.
Hart then goes on to offer a summary of what the president will offer as a defense of his decision to attack Iran. Here he actually lays out a list of facts explaining why he has taken this particular course of action with only a relatively minor cheap shot with his sanctions are for sissies statement. That is, until he asserts without any evidence whatever that the real reason for attacking Iran is that "we need the oil."* This canard has been around since at least the Vietnam War, when it was argued that the United States was involved there to control Vietnam's mineral resources.
The rest of his piece is equally unconvincing. There is no guarantee military action against the mullahs will lead to a popular uprising against the mullahs, but given the unpopularity of the mullahs and the state of domestic unrest in Iran, there's no guarantee that it won't. Ultimately, the reaction of the Iranian public to U.S. military action against various regime targets- including nuclear facilities- will depend in large part on how the United States frames its actions to the people of Iran. The president's UN speech may have been the start of an attempt to frame the military action as an opportunity for the Iranian people to overthrow their oppressors, but much more needs to be done if such attempts at public diplomacy are to be successful.
There is also no reason to believe "the age of Western military ascendancy is coming to an end." Currently, the United States spends about 4% of its GDP on defense, outspending the next seven largest militaries combined. From 1943-45, the United States spent and average of 37.4% of GNP on defense. If the United States were willing to invest such a large percentage of GDP in the Global War on Terror, the United States could arguably sustain military interventions in not only Iraq and Afghanistan, but also North Korea, Iran, Syria, and Venezuela (not that I'm advocating that in any way). The Western way of war is not being eclipsed. Rather, the West (including the United States) is simply refusing to fight as its capable of fighting.
He also provides no evidence that the goal of "sunny neoconservatives" is to become "neo-imperial Middle Eastern power." And while predictions of increased support for radical Islamic groups are plausible (especially among Left-wing groups in the United States and Europe), it is not guaranteed, especially in the long run. Support for militant Islamic groups is predicated on the possibility of success. If the United States achieves its war aims quickly, it is reasonable to conclude that, after an initial flurry of pre-planned terrorist attacks, support for radical Muslim groups. On the other hand, if things drag out, support for these groups might well increase as the prospect of victory seems to grow.
Is the United States going to attack Iran this October? It's possible, but I don't see it happening.
Would such an attack be the unmitigated disaster foreseen by Gary Hart? Again, it's possible, but there are too many variables to make a definitive prediction with any degree of certainty.
Ultimately, Hart's piece seems designed to paint the Bush administration (and Republicans in general) as power-mad buffoons, not seriously analyze the likelihood and potential consequences of war with Iran.
*Of course, the whole idea that the United States will attack Iran this October is premised on the idea that the real motivation for attacking Iran is domestic political gain. His reasoning? The Democrats might take control of at least one house of Congress in November. Therefore, the United States needs to attack Iran to prevent this happening. The insularity of this is shocking. In this view, Iran is no real threat to the United States, at least no threat talking can't solve. The only possible reason for attacking Iran is to further the president's domestic agenda. Never mind Iran's seizure of the American embassy in 1979, its patronage of Hezbollah, the attack on the Khobar Towers, its nuclear program, not to mention its diplomatic duplicity, only a paranoiac would be concerned enough about Iran to seriously consider military action. Ultimately, Hart's comments reveal more about how he and his ilk view the world. The big struggle is between those enlightened progressives who seek to build a kinder, gentler, more equal society and evil, troglodytic conservatives, capitalists and whatnot seeking to undermine them. Everyone else is just a bit player.
Again, I don't know whether or not Hart is right, but it seems to me that in order to be taken seriously, Hart should actually provide some facts to back up his assertion. As it is, though, it is a matter of relative simplicity to answer Hart's assertions.
First, Hart says "It should come as no surprise if the Bush Administration undertakes a preemptive war against Iran sometime before the November election." Well, I guess that depends on what you consider a war. If you define war broadly enough to include things like the intervention in Kosovo (something Hart apparently does, given how he describes the action to be undertaken), then the claim almost becomes plausible. However, the exclusive use of air power in a military campaign has been proven to be highly ineffective, most recently by Israel's early attempts to dislodge Hezbollah from Southern Lebanon. Any attempt to bring about regime change by military means would almost certainly require some sort of ground involvement, be it special forces cooperation with dissident groups, a large scale invasion, or some sort of combination of the two in order to be successful. We certainly haven't seen anything like a large scale military build-up along Iran's border with either Iraq or Afghanistan, indicating no major U.S.-led invasion, and public support for Iranian dissident groups has been sporadic at best. This doesn't prove that the U.S. is not moving to help undermine from within the Iranian regime, but some sort of sustained display of public support for democratic movements inside Iran, as well as exposing human rights abuses being committed by the Iranian regime, would certainly be very helpful in building support within Iran for American military action against the Mullahs.
Another factor which I think makes military action unlikely is the amount of trust President Bush places in Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. He trusts her more than any of his other cabinet officials, and the fact that he has her running the State Department indicates that he wants to solve the crisis diplomatically if at all possible because the diplomatic approach leaves the situation in the hands of his most trusted deputy.
Hart goes on to say
Were these more normal times, this would be a stunning possibility, quickly dismissed by thoughtful people as dangerous, unprovoked, and out of keeping with our national character. But we do not live in normal times.
And we do not have a government much concerned with our national character. If anything, our current Administration is out to remake our national character into something it has never been.
What exactly does Hart consider to be normal times? What does he consider to be "our national character", and how does he know the current administration is not "much concerned with our national character"? Hart never says. Thus, these two paragraphs are merely rhetorical cheap shots which do not belong in a serious analysis.
Hart goes on to spell out how the attacks will unfold, apparently based on questionable reporting that unmanned drones and commando teams are inside Iran collecting and refining intelligence on targets. This may or may not be happening, but even if it is, it in no way follows that military action is imminent, and even if it is, it in no way follows that this will be the nature of the military operations.
Hart then goes on to offer a summary of what the president will offer as a defense of his decision to attack Iran. Here he actually lays out a list of facts explaining why he has taken this particular course of action with only a relatively minor cheap shot with his sanctions are for sissies statement. That is, until he asserts without any evidence whatever that the real reason for attacking Iran is that "we need the oil."* This canard has been around since at least the Vietnam War, when it was argued that the United States was involved there to control Vietnam's mineral resources.
The rest of his piece is equally unconvincing. There is no guarantee military action against the mullahs will lead to a popular uprising against the mullahs, but given the unpopularity of the mullahs and the state of domestic unrest in Iran, there's no guarantee that it won't. Ultimately, the reaction of the Iranian public to U.S. military action against various regime targets- including nuclear facilities- will depend in large part on how the United States frames its actions to the people of Iran. The president's UN speech may have been the start of an attempt to frame the military action as an opportunity for the Iranian people to overthrow their oppressors, but much more needs to be done if such attempts at public diplomacy are to be successful.
There is also no reason to believe "the age of Western military ascendancy is coming to an end." Currently, the United States spends about 4% of its GDP on defense, outspending the next seven largest militaries combined. From 1943-45, the United States spent and average of 37.4% of GNP on defense. If the United States were willing to invest such a large percentage of GDP in the Global War on Terror, the United States could arguably sustain military interventions in not only Iraq and Afghanistan, but also North Korea, Iran, Syria, and Venezuela (not that I'm advocating that in any way). The Western way of war is not being eclipsed. Rather, the West (including the United States) is simply refusing to fight as its capable of fighting.
He also provides no evidence that the goal of "sunny neoconservatives" is to become "neo-imperial Middle Eastern power." And while predictions of increased support for radical Islamic groups are plausible (especially among Left-wing groups in the United States and Europe), it is not guaranteed, especially in the long run. Support for militant Islamic groups is predicated on the possibility of success. If the United States achieves its war aims quickly, it is reasonable to conclude that, after an initial flurry of pre-planned terrorist attacks, support for radical Muslim groups. On the other hand, if things drag out, support for these groups might well increase as the prospect of victory seems to grow.
Is the United States going to attack Iran this October? It's possible, but I don't see it happening.
Would such an attack be the unmitigated disaster foreseen by Gary Hart? Again, it's possible, but there are too many variables to make a definitive prediction with any degree of certainty.
Ultimately, Hart's piece seems designed to paint the Bush administration (and Republicans in general) as power-mad buffoons, not seriously analyze the likelihood and potential consequences of war with Iran.
*Of course, the whole idea that the United States will attack Iran this October is premised on the idea that the real motivation for attacking Iran is domestic political gain. His reasoning? The Democrats might take control of at least one house of Congress in November. Therefore, the United States needs to attack Iran to prevent this happening. The insularity of this is shocking. In this view, Iran is no real threat to the United States, at least no threat talking can't solve. The only possible reason for attacking Iran is to further the president's domestic agenda. Never mind Iran's seizure of the American embassy in 1979, its patronage of Hezbollah, the attack on the Khobar Towers, its nuclear program, not to mention its diplomatic duplicity, only a paranoiac would be concerned enough about Iran to seriously consider military action. Ultimately, Hart's comments reveal more about how he and his ilk view the world. The big struggle is between those enlightened progressives who seek to build a kinder, gentler, more equal society and evil, troglodytic conservatives, capitalists and whatnot seeking to undermine them. Everyone else is just a bit player.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)