Every time, I think I’m going to be used to it, but it still makes me feel so damned angry, and so damned hopeless, and sad, and frustrated, every time.
Are we going to be doing this for the rest of our lives? For the rest of history?
Doesn’t anyone have anything better to do than kill people?
[politics filter]
Interesting article in the NY Times today about the dawning of a second nuclear age, characterized by a much broader (although not as deep) proliferation and the new challenges posed. There’s nothing particularly new or earth-shattering in it, but it does bring up a point which hasn’t been discussed an awful lot, namely the effort the US government is putting in right now towards the design of low- to medium-yield, deep-earth-penetrating nuclear weapons.
It’s interesting because it’s the first design push for a new kind of nuke since the Cold War, and many people are concerned that it could lead to a new arms race, or lower the bar to first use of nuclear weapons, and so on. I’m curious to know what people here are thinking about this issue. I’ve got my own — tentative — opinion, but in the interest of not pre-emptively biasing the conversation, I’ll hide it behind a cut tag
[politics filter]
Report on construction of new intelligence facilities in Iraq. Interesting both for its own utility and for what it implies about America’s long-term plans in the region. Compare and contrast with the continuation (with no end in sight) of low-intensity conflict there – what are we getting ourselves into? Can we maintain a long-term committment in the area?
No doubt we have the physical capability to do so, but there are some questions about the costs, how those might rise over time (Vietnamization, even?) and how dependent we may become on being able to hold that position. If costs rise, political will may wane, and then the gods alone know what may come next.
[politics filter]
Riots in Iran: this is potentially important, whichever way it ends up playing out. Iran has been moving slowly towards a crisis for a while now. If the “good guys” win, that could turn out to be very good for pretty much everyone in the world apart from the Ayatollahs; if they don’t, there’s going to be a bloodbath.
[politics filter]
Well, it looks like at least one major terror strike – another one using aircraft as weapons – was narrowly averted. This report from debka:
May 22 Update: Further to the report below, DEBKAfile’s counter terror sources have more exclusive revelations: The three men detained at Jeddah airport Monday May 19 were not Moroccans but Saudi nationals married to Moroccan women and using false passports. The Saudi government is anxious to remove the stigma of aircraft hijackers attached to Saudis since 9/11 – hence the obfuscation over the detainees’ nationality. Final identification of all the remains found on the sites of the May 12 bombings Riyadh jumps the death toll to 60. Nonetheless, the Saudis refuse to budge from the figure of 34.
May 21: The terrorist mega-attack against which security – like the US, Britain, Australia and other western powers – has been on high alert since Tuesday, May 20, almost happened this week.
On Monday, May 19, Saudi authorities detained three Moroccan al Qaeda suspects at Jeddah international airport just as they were preparing to board a Saudi national airlines plane bound for Sudan. While “Saudi security sources” claimed the next day that the men planned to hijack the Saudi plane and crash it over Jeddah, DEBKAfile’s exclusive counter-terror sources reveal that, under interrogation, the suspected al Qaeda terrorists admitted they had intended flying the captive Saudi airliner over Israel and crashing it over an Israeli city.
That first Saudi announcement claimed the suspects carried knives and their last testaments. The Saudis make it a habit never to mention Israel in the context of al Qaeda’s attacks – even one which they thwarted. Then, Wednesday evening, May 21, Saudi Interior Minister Prince Nayef denied there had been any hijack plot. He said two not three Moroccans had been detained in connection with “previous security cases”.
According to DEBKAfile’s sources, neither Saudi version is correct. The terrorists were not just armed with knives but were loaded with explosives, and there were three of them, not two.
The high alert declared in Israel Tuesday also placed the Israeli Air Force on round–the-clock patrol to guard against hijackers reaching Israeli skies to attack Israeli towns.
I’d say that was a close one – and it may be the only major strike that was in the works, so the angel of death may have passed us over this time. (Knock on wood)
Still, keep your eyes open the next few days – there may still be a nasty surprise or two left in the works.
[politics filter]
For those of you who haven’t checked the news yet, there was an attack by al Qaeda today on Casablanca – five simultaneous bombings, current numbers are 41 dead, many injured. This being the second major attack in a week, there’s good reason to believe that this is the signal for a major escalation, and further attacks are to come.
While their strength is definitely greatest outside the U.S., in a band going across Northern Africa through to Central Asia, the readiness of whatever forces they may have available in this country is unknown. An attack on American soil therefore cannot (and should not) be ruled out. However, the biggest threat right now is to American and/or Jewish interests (n.b. the target list for today’s bombings…) abroad. If you have any family or friends out there, make sure they’re being alert.
You know, this may well turn out to be a dud, or a complete error, but it looks like the Bush administration may have actually come up with a foreign policy initiative for the Middle East that’s a good idea. (Yes, I’ve gotten rather cynical about these things. Does it show?)
If it goes off, OT1H it’s probably a big win for Bush and some of his cronies, but it’s also potentially a win for quite a few other people as well, and it may actually advance peace in the Middle East. And since the cynical advantage part is pretty obvious, it doesn’t make me worry about hidden booby-traps quite as much.
But you know… this sort of policy, of keeping everyone’s hands so far in one another’s pockets that they can’t reach for a gun does sound vaguely like the Clinton doctrine… *grin*
Story here.
A thought that occurred to me during a conversation earlier today.
A popular buzzword lately has been “asymmetric warfare,” describing engagements between combatants with radically different strengths and weaknesses. One classic example is 9/11, but another example that we shouldn’t ignore is the present war in Iraq. In this case, though, it’s asymmetric in the other direction – we chose the manner of engagement to our maximum advantage. The fact that the war has gone as well as it has so far (knock on wood) is really due to the fact that in large part we set it up to play to our strengths.
This brought to mind a point which I don’t think has been discussed enough in relation to wars in general. Asymmetric warfare situations – which appear to now be the norm for war in general, not just terror activities – place an enormous premium on highly aggressive tactics. The basic reason is that the attacker gets to choose the nature of the engagement, and since asymmetric warfare by its nature is about focusing one’s strengths on the enemy’s weaknesses, this gives a much greater premium than it does in more symmetric conflicts.
If this is correct, then tactics and strategy need to be radically changed from the strategies of symmetric conflicts. Defenses need to be more uniform, not presenting any obvious weak points for an enemy to target. The absence of clear lines of engagement makes this even more severe, since the distinction between military and civilian targets has been eroded into invisibility in the past few years. But more importantly, it suggests that the only way to win an asymmetric conflict is by maximally aggressive tactics, continuously searching out enemy capabilities and striking them at their weakest points.
I’m not entirely happy with this thought, because it seems to argue in favor of several policies that I’m rather leery of – “preventive war,” for example. But I’m not certain if there’s any way around this in the context of highly asymmetric threats.
OK, here we go – some extra news bulletins for you. The ground war started late last night.
Yonatan Zunger’s Blog 