Bloodless Coup

what, it's not like they're harboring terrorists or anything. um, oh, wait . . .

Oh great - the White House is continuing its efforts to keep Congress in the dark on huge, very basic national security concerns. From Tuesday's Washington Post: "What is baffling is that this information -- which was surely information that our own intelligence agencies had -- was kept from Congress," said Sokolski, now director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center. Sokolosi is a BIG and respected name on these issues. Is anyone else reminded of 2002 - when the White House made a big announcement about the scope of the North Koreans proliferating, literally days after Congress voted on the Iraq resolution. This enforced secrecy about not too specific, but hugely important matters - keeping vital information from the people's representatives in DC - vexes me. It's no way to run a democratic government.

you keep thinking this is a democracy. silly wabbit.

Man, this administration seems kinda screwed up.

I'm always happier when there is an adversarial relationship between the Executive and Congress. It seems to result in more, well, democracy, then this chummy happifest that's been going on for years.

Why does this surprise you? Do you remember the 1998 nuclear tests in India and Pakistan?

We are painfully aware of the increasing nuclear arsenal. US doesn't do anything because Pakistan is a political ally in the war on "Terrorism". How do you fight terrorism with an ally who hosts terrorist camps and organizations?

Politics is truly screwed up.

Surprised that Pakistan is upping the arsenal (gamer joke here) or that it's not something deemed important enough for foreign policy attention? Frankly, I'm surprised by neither, although I continue to be astounded by the approach we have been taking to the whole Pakistan package.

it's the same old story we've heard a half-dozen times before: prop up an odious country for near-term tactical reasons, then, once they've gotten all they can out of us, they start antagoizing us (that is, not playing the lapdog when it stops suiting them), and then we have a new upstart regime to depose. twenty years ago it was iraq and afghanistan; in twenty more years, it'll be pakistan and maybe saudi arabia. the difference is, now one of those regimes we're humoring is becoming a full-fledged nuclear power with the potential to kill millions in a matter of minutes.

Actually I think this is somewhat rational thinking that is dictated by the rules of the American electoral system. Pakistan's nukes are (probably) a long term problem, while fighting terrorism is a (mostly) short term problem. Bush (and those advising him) don't really care about long-term problems (they won't be in power), but do about short term ones (if another 9/11 event happens, then Bush will be blamed). Thus, making friends with Pakistan in order to fight terrorism (and, honestly, terrorism really means "stuff blowing up in American", and really isn't a global fight) while ignoring AQ Khan and everything else makes logical sense.

It's all in the incentive structure.

The problem here is that Musharraf and Pakistan are not Noriega and Panama. That approach "worked" against the insurgents in Central America under Reagan, but we effectively could burn the relationship when it ceased to be useful. The Pakistan thing is neither useful (to the naked eye), nor burnable (without serious consequences).

Baltar is right of course - there are BIG structural problems with democracy when it comes to foreign policy, especially in the nuclear age. The incentive structure to mess with the system in dangerous ways for short-term gain is not something we should be proud of.

Though of course it's not only in foreign policy where this is a problem - look at health care, or, if you dare (I don't think I can at the moment), economic policy.

And of course Moon is right too - back in the days of President Reagan Saddam Hussein was our great pal (we didn't even mind much when he sent a missile into one of our destroyers) and the Islamic fighter in Afghanistan were the front line in the fight for freedom, and of course Israel was aiding Islamic opponents of the PLO. Today, we view these actors just a tad differently (hmmm - support for classical realism?).

Which is why things like the non-proliferation treaty are so important - if today's dangerously unstable "ally" could be tomorrow's nuclear-armed failed state, well maybe it's best to pursue policies that prioritize them at least not being a nuclear-armed failed state.

But that would entail diplomacy. And this administration doesn't do that (unless it's to aid India's nuclear program, and push that escalatory spiral forward).

cough. cough.

yes yes yes - you have a perceptive mind too Binky ;)

"Though of course it's not only in foreign policy where this is a problem - look at health care, or, if you dare (I don't think I can at the moment), economic policy."

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the first modern MBA-trained President.

An MBA can't run the national economy (in terms of the long-term in paticular)? I'm shocked. Just shocked.

Not.

The MBA isn't the problem, guys. There are plenty of MBAs who understand systems and long-range planning. This guy just isn't one of them.

Yeah, I'll agree with jacflash: just like a law degree doesn't immediately provide the recipient assholedome, neither does an MBA provide immediate idiocy. We just got a spectacularly good example of one.

Does anyone know Cheney's educational background?

He has an MA in poli sci from the U of WY.

Of course he does.

He had to stay and get an MA to preserve his deferment, or so the story goes.

Actually, the public in Pakistan is increasingly upsurged with Anti-Americanism. This is something that the US and other western nations should be worried about. Musharraf will not be in power for very long.

Bush wants to help improve the civilian portion on India's nuclear power. And, you simply can not compare India to countries like North Korea and Iran.

No one here is comparing India and Iran. But it's ludicrous to engage in a program that facilitates the nuclear program of one of the handful of states not to ratify the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty at the same time we are trying to limit the nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea. I strongly believe we are safer if we uphold the NPT regime - but the deal with India undermines it greatly.

and there's one way in which the comparison holds: both india and north korea exist in a state of perpetual near-war with a neighboring state, and neither has behaved in a way to suggest that, were things to escalate, they would exercise restraint with their nuclear weapons. i'm worried about a dirty bomb in the hands of a few resourceful jihadists, to be sure, but i'm just as worried that north korea or india, or iran in a few years, will decide that a well-planned first strike can lead to a massive victory over an historic foe.

if two guys at a bar are itching to fight, i'd much rather they be armed only with their fists.

i should have added, "or pakistan," which seems to me as likely as any country to do something rash with its nukes.

Given their histories and the nature of their "states" I'd say Pakistan is the most likely out of that set to do that.

Out of all those nations, India has a "No First Strike" policy. We won't draw first blood.

If you were look at countries who were at perpetual near-war situation, US has that with Iran now. So, what's stopping US from doing something rash?

Well, the Soviet Union had a "no first strike" policy, too, or so they said. It's never been to the US's advantage to rule out first use of nuclear weapons. What's stopping the US from "doing something rash" against Iran? Obviously something is, since nothing "rash" has been done yet. What do you think that might be?

I'd say it's a 37% presidential approval rating + most of the US military being bogged down in Iraq.

Oh, I was taking "rash" to mean "first use of nukes". I'd say there's a bit more stopping the US from use of nuclear weapons than poll ratings.

Have you seen India and Pakistan do anything rash? Apart from a scrimage in 1998, during which we both had tons of nuclear weapons, it remained isolated to the border. Both our countries know the implication of a nuclear war.

With Iran, and the middle east, there are several factors keeping the West from attacking them. Oil, and the amount of money that they have invested in the US economy is one of them. Something outrageous needs to happen to spark an instant nuclear war. And that hasn't happened yet. So, nothing rash has taken place.

Well, if "rash" means using nukes, technically nobody has done anything "rash" since 1945. I'm not sure that's a good definition.

I think it's pretty clear that Pakistan/India are much closer to using their nukes than anyone else (with the possible exception of Israel). Pakistan/India are clearly in something between a cold war and a hot war (what's going on in Kashmir isn't as cold as the US/USSR cold war, but is just as clearly not a real "hot" war). Additionally, flight time for rockets between the two states is very short (8 minutes, versus 20 to 25 for ICBMs going from the US to the USSR and vice versa). Thus, deterrence is much more difficult in the Pakistan/India case: each side needs to be closer to a hair trigger, in order to effectively deter the other from launching pre-empitively. Hair triggers are vulnerable to all sorts of problems (false alarms, domestic unrest, coups, etc.). Lastly, parts of the Pakistani military (ISI, mostly) have clear ties (both physical and ideological) to Islamic militants. Given the proximity of the Pakistani military to the country's nuclear program, one of the major worries about nukes in Pakistan isn't that they'll launch them at India, but that they'll either smuggle one out for use in the greater middle east, or they'll proliferate the technology (AQ Khan, anyone?). One of the fundamental tenets of nuclear weapons is: the more states that have them, the greater the chance of one going off. Thus, the logic of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT).

Pakistan's potential for instability is profoundly troubling, but I still think it is most likely that the next nuclear weapon exploded in anger on this planet will have a blue Star of David painted on it.

Tho if I were Ahmadinejad, and if I were as hell-bent on conflagration as he seems to be, I might conduct my first fullscale test aboveground in a semi-remote part of my own country and claim that Israel nuked a secret base. The West (probably) wouldn't buy it, but think about who might, and what they might be incited to do.

thanks, jacflash, you just gave me nightmares for a week. that sounds like a tom clancy plot.

All this gets at why I think settlingKashmir should be a much, much bigger priority than it has been - like a top 3 US foreign policy goals here. It's contributing to too much instability and terrorism, and given the stakes involved as both states develop more and more nukes ...

For whatever it's worth, I can't imagine India launching a 1st strike under any circumstances. And the reason that I see Pakistan as much more threatening than most of the other "bad" states is the state instability issue. There are too many fissures in it, and too many people allied with really, really bad guys for us to let this proceed without any action on our part.

I don't see Israel using a nuke. I mean they didn't use them in the 1973 War when they were attacked. I suppose it's possible that they'd use a small sub-based one as part of a 1st strike on Iran if they get really nervous - but that would likely be suicidal, and most of their foreign policy elite is too savvy to do that.

Israel will use a nuke when it feels cornered. That's why they have 'em. Question is, will the current march of events put them into that position? I think it's at least possible, especially if the US starts moving assets out of the region.

Moon: we aim to please. :-)

Well Israel was closer to being cornerned in 1973 than it has been at any time since. Of course Dan Halutz and company might have a different sort of trigger finger than Golda Meir's administration had.

Tom Clancy notwithstanding, do we actually know whether Israel was close to using nukes in '73, and if so how close?

It's generally accepted that Israel didn't have nukes in 1973, or at least that they were so "new" (read: untested/experimental/undeliverable) that only an impending catastrophic defeat would have made Israel consider using them.

Armand, I agree about Kashmir being an important issue. This has been festering for over 50 years, and I think it has gone on long enough. As an Indian, I feel that India should push harder for a conclusion.

Joy, do you want to define "push harder" more explictly? What do you mean? Politicly? Militarily? Diplomaticly?

What sort of solution would be acceptable to both sides?

The only form of conflict solving that is acceptable to me is diplomacy, which is unfortunately at a stalemate now. War should be the absolute last resort. War will be disastrous to the entire south east Asia region.

I should be clear though. This opinion is mine (one Indian) and doesn't accurately represent the opinions of the two countries in general. There are several people pushing for a more radical solution to the problem festering on violence. This is why the politics of India concerns me. The party in power now is a secular liberal party coalition. But the conservatives are pushing for a military showdown, or a harsher response to the terrorism.

OK, so what's a diplomatic solution that both parties would accept?

A significant theory in academic studies of international relations argues that domestic politics can have large influence over the foreign policies of states (Putnam, for those who care; Gourevitch as well). Saying that a more conservative/religious party would be more willing to undertake aggressive action to find a final solution to Kashmir may be accurate, or may be domestic posturing in order for that party to return to power (in the US the Democrats are often accused of just criticising Bush without having any sort of plan themselves; when Democrats had the Whitehouse, Republicans were often harshly critical of the lack of aggression in our foreign policy).

You still didn't explain what "push harder" means in this context.

It's generally accepted that Israel didn't have them in 1973? Really? I thought the consensus was that they did have a few then.

I thought what he said was that they didn't have reliable ones?

This Wikipedia entry is unclear: they were certainly working on them in the 1960s, and there is one reference to a US (Nixon) official arguing that Israel might be able to build a bomb by the end of 1969. However, having a bomb, and being able to use it are two very different things (as North Korea has discovered). Israel has never publicly tested a bomb (it's possible that they and South Africa jointly tested one in 1979), so to go from a possible bomb in 1969 to a reliable and usable one in 1973 is a stretch. I could be wrong, but if I were the Israeli leadership in 1973, I'd be very, very nervous about any nuke I might have.

Well my understanding (and I'm just going from memory on stuff I haven't read lately - the 1973 war is the Arab-Israeli war I know the least about) is that Dimona was up and running in the 1960's, and that the White House, definitely by Nixon's time, thought Israel certainly could have built a few bombs (I want to say there was discussion of that or intel reports going back to 68 or 69). And in terms of my readings on the Israeli side of things, I think I remember some reference to them inside the cabinet during the war. But you are right in that they weren't planning on trying to use them. I want to say it was a sort of raise the alert and/or move 'em situation.

But all the papers I have on that are at the office, and I'm not there, so I can't check (presuming I could even find them).

Push harder: What I mean by that, is a military showdown akin the 1998 Kargill skirmish except longer and more protacted. A harder push would also lead to the possibility of a nuclear war for the ultimate solution (military).

The funny thing about Indian politics is that both the liberal and conservative parties chide each other over security and economics of the country. It doesn't matter who is in power, and they could be doing the exact same thing or be faced with the same situation. No matter what action is taken, the other party ALWAYS chides them for lack of action or lack of proper action.

I say this because when the conservatives were in power, they didn't do much to resolve the situation. Now that liberals are in power, they aren't doing much to resolve the situation. The only constant in that equation is Musharraf. It's a friggin' stalemate. It looks like we need something to break the monotony. It may sound horrible, but the bombings in Mumbai is something that could stir up politics toward an action towards the festering terrorism issues..