Would You Support Nuclear War for "Regime Change"?

I don't comment much on this blog about U.S. policy other than some that concerns science. I'm going to make a small detour into territory that I usually prefer not to tread. The reason is two-fold. As you can tell by reading this blog, I've been spending quite a bit of time recently over at Dean's World. Dean has an excellent blog that really sets you thinking. In this particular case, Dean got me considering some issues concerning U.S. foreign policy where he and I definitely diverge a bit. I'll go into that a bit further down in this post. The second (and primary) reason is that after reading this article that was posted today from the current issue of The New Yorker, I felt compelled to comment. The article was offered to me by one of my most knowledgeable friends on matters political - Big Al. He sent it in an email to me entitled, "Scary". After reading it, I replied to him with:

"On the one hand, I know that if they are using "tough diplomacy" they would choose certain credible publications to drop stories like this in to try to shake up Iran and bring them to their knees. On the other hand, Bush and pals are so trigger happy, out of touch, and reluctant to use negotiations in the past that this seems VERY credible. Especially since Bush has exactly 33 months of presidency to do whatever he wants without having to worry about getting re-elected. And he IS a true believer and thinks he's doing god's work. Yeah. We'll nuke 'em. Never thought I'd say that in an off-hand way but REALLY MEAN IT. As you say, "Scary".

Dean and I kind of parted ways during the following discussion from his post entitled, "Shocking The Pessimists". The article should be read, but was basically a well-worded defense of our "successes" in Iraq that aren't very well recorded by the press corps and certainly not reflective of how a lot of people feel about the war in Iraq. In the comments, I said:

"I don't disagree that we won the war, and are winning in our ultimate goals for Iraq. I just don't agree that it is how we should be fighting against terrorism. Due to the disagreement with our friends, allies, semi-allies and people who don't like us all that much, but might otherwise have leant a hand, I think we are pretty much on our own in the battle against terrorism. If we focus on killing terrorists and not trying to set whole countries (and regions) on to the democratic path, we would have better chance in accomplishing what really needs to be done."

Dean questioned me:

"We have an awful lot of friends who are helping us, John, but I have to ask: which friends aren't helping that you would expect WOULD help if we'd left Saddam in power? And do you really think we'd be safer if he were still there? Do you really think our prestige would be higher if he were?"

To which I replied:

"1. It's more of a gut feeling than specific countries. I know I'm on shaky ground here. I think a lot of our friends disagree with what we are continuing to do and it would effect their willingness to help in future conflicts.

2. No. I don't think we would be safer. This is one of the problems of summing up my point in a few sentences. OK, I was ALL FOR TAKING OUT SADDAM. My problem is in fighting a war in which you attempt to take control of another country and install democratic values. Remember the first night of the war when Saddam got a tomahawk missile down his throat? That's the kind of war on terrorism I want. And I'm not just talking about lobbing missiles. I'm talking about a covert war (for the most part) with specific terrorist targets, utilizing among other things, technology, intelligence, Special Forces. And Saddam was a legitimate target of that - to my way of thinking.

3. Depends on how you define prestige. More people admire us, perhaps. More people hate us or, at least, have a higher neg opinion. We are feared somewhat more by "the bad guys", but I also think they believe (correctly) that Bush is somewhat of a different character than whoever will be in charge next time. My bottom line is that I don't believe the war on Islamic terrorism is like any other traditional war we have ever fought in our country's history. Baseball calls for a bat. Tennis calls for a racquet."

In a personal aside to Dean, I added:

"If you are concerned about my feelings towards helping other countries become democratic, I'll only say that had there been no terrorist attack on the US then we WOULDN'T be fighting in Iraq to help them become democratic. Further, you would NEVER get an American consensus for fighting a war if it was presented to the public as a war to help others become democratic. I would certainly be one of those very deeply opposed. The war is against terrorists, specifically Islamic terrorists. They don't come from any one country. No one country is run on the principle of terrorism nor do the majority of any country's people support terrorism. So why make it "about countries"? You are rightly suspicious of "who stands to gain financially from the war on HIV". Don't you have a little of your suspicious nature left for 'who stands to gain financially from a war in Iraq'? "

After reading the recent article in the New Yorker, I saw a new post over at Dean's that was glorifying the day that Saddam's statue was torn down in the streets of Baghdad. Is it just me, or was this the only moment of the war that just about everyone feels good about? Anyway, having read the New Yorker article, I couldn't resist this comment:

"How long until we're tearing down statues of the Ayatollah Khomeini, in Tehran? Take a look at this rather scary and not so shocking article from the New Yorker.

"This kind of ties back with the discussion we were having earlier on your post "Shocking the Pessimists". This part of the article refers to our relationships with our allies -

"The Europeans are rattled, however, by their growing perception that President Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney believe a bombing campaign will be needed, and that their real goal is regime change. “Everyone is on the same page about the Iranian bomb, but the United States wants regime change,” a European diplomatic adviser told me. He added, “The Europeans have a role to play as long as they don’t have to choose between going along with the Russians and the Chinese or going along with Washington on something they don’t want. Their policy is to keep the Americans engaged in something the Europeans can live with. It may be untenable.”

“The Brits think this is a very bad idea,” Flynt Leverett, a former National Security Council staff member who is now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution’s Saban Center, told me, “but they’re really worried we’re going to do it.” The European diplomatic adviser acknowledged that the British Foreign Office was aware of war planning in Washington but that, “short of a smoking gun, it’s going to be very difficult to line up the Europeans on Iran.” He said that the British “are jumpy about the Americans going full bore on the Iranians, with no compromise.” And... Any American bombing attack, [former Bush Ass't Sec. of State]Richard Armitage told me, would have to consider the following questions: “What will happen in the other Islamic countries? What ability does Iran have to reach us and touch us globally—that is, terrorism? Will Syria and Lebanon up the pressure on Israel? What does the attack do to our already diminished international standing? [my emphasis] And what does this mean for Russia, China, and the U.N. Security Council?”

"And I ask... Is this really Bush's idea of a "war on terror"? As you read the article, keep thinking about these words - 'Regime change'."

How about YOU? If the Bush administration had come to you and said, "we really don't know if Iraq possesses WMD's, in fact the best intelligence shows they probably don't, but we want to invade the country, depose Saddam and install democratic reforms. This is how we will fight the war on terrorism". That would have at least been a fairly honest appraisal of our position leading to the invasion. Would you have still supported the war? What if they come to you now and say, "We know Iran is working on nuclear power. We don't have absolute evidence of weapons development, they haven't been actively engaged in known terrorist activities that we are fighting against but they (the Revolutionary Guards) do have some past and present links to terror and we want to unseat them, install democratic reform in our fight against terrorism. And by the way, it may require tactical nuclear weapons" Would you support that war? And this assumes the "fairly honest appraisal" without bringing up the possible underlying issues of our government's desire to secure Middle East oil fields.

Yes, Al... Scary.