« A Golden Week Friday-ish Game of Kings open thread | Main | The split mission and split personality of the MPAA movie ratings »

May 03, 2013

Comments

And the Administration was planning on publicly informing U.S. citizens of this when?

This is rich, given the thread below. Anyone want to rerun my guest post demonstrating that, at least when Republicans go to war, they first have, you know, a national debate and a vote in both the house and senate? But, for those who think the constitution is out of date and more than 100 years old (truly, it is *more* than 100 years old), I guess these stupid formalities don't really apply.

Care to expand a little? I mean, you've been reading here long enough to know that not everyone to the left of the center is in agreement - with each other or the Obama administration (hell, I think this and the prior two posts of mine have been critical of the latter, at least in part).

If you want me to throw a link to your guest post up I'm happy to (I recall it but can't seem to find it).

Should the Obama Administration attack Iran, it would be interesting to see it's legal justification if it doesn't have Congressional approval (I imagine the AUMF would play a significant part).

Does anyone here doubt for an instant that it would be possible (heck, probably not even difficult) to rush a Declaration of War thru Congress at the last minute? It may be the one thing that President Obama could propose that would get broad Republican support. (And if not, it would be fascinating to see the knots they would tie themselves in to justify not supporting it.)

Given that, it obviously makes sense not to announce the intention to do so until the last minute. Why give one's opponents any more warning than necessary?

Mind you, I think it would be a seriously bad idea to attack Iran at this point, at least without some really hard evidence that they at least have a weaponization program in place. Not just that they have the ability to do so, but tha they actually are doing so. But still, if we are going to be crazy enough to start yet another war in the Middle East, announcing our intentions to attack far ahead of time would merely compound the madness.

I don't think it is unusual to prepare the capacity for war before declaring the war.

That said, I am very much opposed to this intiative. If I ran the world, I'd cut the Isrealis off without a cent and tell them that they would get nothing in the way of support from the US until they cooperated in the formation of an economically viable Palestine.

If Isreal did that, the Iranian ruling elite would have a hard time justifying an attack on Isreal.


But back to McK's point--I don't think the issue with Bush was lack of a war declaration (but I could be remembering wrong). I think the issue was that the rationalizations for the war were untruths. Falsehoods. Lies. S

That was the debate after the authorization and the start of the war: Did the Bush admistration delierately lie, or did they just exaggerate and mislead, or were they sincere but mistaken?

I know that Congress voted. One of my biggest objections to Hillary CLinton was that I didn't believe she could be dumb enough to believe Bush's lies, which to my my mind meant that she voted for the authorization out of self-serving cynicism, on the mistaken asumption that a "yes" vote would help her run for President.

But maybe McK wasn't eluding to the authorization vote. If not, then I apologize for the digression.

In case it matters, an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities would kill or injure thousands or maybe tens of thousands of Iranian civilians--

link

Of course that won't matter much in the mainstream debate, not in itself, but I'm going to guess it might lead to some sort of Iranian reaction, sooner or later, that we might not like.

" I mean, you've been reading here long enough to know that not everyone to the left of the center is in agreement - with each other or the Obama administration "

That's putting it mildly.

I am reminded of the great national debate over the 'vans of doom', artillery tubes, Colin Powell's great disgrace ...

The intelligence agencies will serve up what is needed, it is not like we will have anything to do with it but go shopping.

If President Obama in fact presents a Declaration of War against Iran and/or Syria, he needs to attach to the legislation a minimum trillion dollar tax surcharge (payable upfront by the American people by next year's April 15 deadline) to finance the wars, the resulting decade-long clusterf*ck of a guerrilla war that will ensue, and the various legless, headless, and buttless casualties shipped home for long-term unemployment.

Make it three, four trillion -- then pay down the debts from Iraq and Afghanistan, too.

This will ensure maximum contortionist reflexivity among the usual suspects as one knee jerks joyfully for yet another war and the other knee jerks and hits Grover Norquist in the jaw over the socialist funding of war through theft (as John Boehner termed it earlier in the year), otherwise known as taxation back when even conservatives thought it prudent policy to pay the bills.

Like a family sitting around the kitchen table deciding how to raise the money to bomb the neighbors.

Just like that, we've been told.

I will oppose Obama and his wars, as I did Bush and Iraq. Afghanistan was necessary, but we should have retaliated and left.

I'll back him on the tax revenue, even without the wars.

We'll see which one of those two proposals garners the first calls for Barack Hussein Obama's impeachment from the House of Representatives, since we're keeping track of reactionary reflexivity now.

MckT: "Anyone want to rerun my guest post demonstrating that, at least when Republicans go to war, they first have, you know, a national debate and a vote in both the house and senate?"

Well, regarding Iraq, I suppose if you put a bunch of no-nothing crypto Christian bulletheads and a bunch of cowardly, intimidated liberals in a room and present to them a tissue of a lying travesty of a mockery of a sham of a travesty of two mockeries and a sham via Powerpoint by some lying big swinging dicks, you could call it a national debate and a vote in some world unknown to me.

I'd call it a tissue of a, and so on, but I already did.

McKT, our reflexive reactionary liberalism around here would be so much more satisfying (to me, at least) if you were not an open minded, eloquent conservative and instead were one of those creatures who have infested the Republican Party who call themselves conservative but are really something extraordinarily and simple-mindedly radical and, IMHO, dangerous to the Republic.

We used to have some of those around here, but they cut and run, as one of them likes to say behind yet another banning firewall.

You're just no fun. ;)



If by "national debate" and "constitutional", we are referring to the lying travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of two travesties of a sham of a Powerpoint presentation put on before a roomful of bullet-headed Christian Ayn Rand radicals who refer to themselves mistakenly as "conservative" AND cowardly, intimidated, useless Democrats who call themselves "liberal", then I don't know what.

For the benefit of the American People?

These American people?:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2013_05/closing_off_the_revolutionary044535.php#

Many of whom would be pleased if the American government who so oppresses them and that they want to overthrow violently (see the latest words from the new fat motherf*cking load of confederate pigsh*t now heading up the NRA); again, you'll notice I didn't insult decent conservatives by calling him a "conservative") refused once again to make them pay for turning Iran and Syria into glass, as in the murderous clusterf*ck we wrought in Iraq.

Should Obama take a Declaration of War to Congress, I'll oppose it because it's beyond American capability to do anything but leave a worse corrupt ruin than what was there to begin with.

But, if he's stupid enough to make such a move, please attach a tax surcharge of a couple or trillion bucks, due in full upfront next April 15 from the American taxpayer to pay for the debacle and the legless, buttless, headless, unemployed veterans who the vermin filth (again, not conservatives) now infesting the Republican Party will be pleased to deny foodstamps.

Make it five trillion to pay for Iraq and Afghanistan in arrears.

By the way, if we go war with whomever we're pleased to go to war with, I want this guy sent in first, preferably head first, parachuteless, but fully diapered out the bomb bay doors and directly into the exhaust vent of the Iranian facilities, since he's so into liberty:

http://money.msn.com/now/post.aspx?post=0638de35-2174-42f0-8b0d-a3d3df3bc50a

Given the insane f*cked up notion now abroad in the land that the citizenry should be armed with firepower equal to the military, I sure hope this witless jagoff comes up with some 3-D printable bunker-busting bombs because if he gets anywhere close to me, I'm going to use my ration on him and his twatless mother.

The Pentagon has redesigned its biggest "bunker buster" bomb with more advanced features intended to enable it to destroy Iran's most heavily fortified and defended nuclear site.

"The Pentagon" hasn't redesigned anything. "The Pentagon" has, if anything, just issued a new set of requirements, around which the prime contractor (I am guessing Raytheon, because IIRC they bought the Texas Instruments division that designed the original bunker buster) redesigned the weapon.

Probably hair-splitting, I know. However: this likely involved little changes to the weapon other than tweaks to the fuze.

Here is a news article almost devoid of information other than alarm:

(CNN) -- The United States believes Israel has conducted an airstrike into Syria, two U.S. officials tell CNN. U.S. and Western intelligence agencies are reviewing classified data showing Israel most likely conducted a strike in the Thursday-Friday time frame, according to both officials. This is the same time frame that the U.S. collected additional data showing Israel was flying a high number of warplanes over Lebanon.

There's more, but not much more in the way of real information.

Obama is a left of center Politician? when did this happen? wow. reading about Obama and Bush, it's hard to tell there is a difference other than skin color. lol

Bomb Iran? of course we will. remember the Axis of Evil? one down and two to go!

"If by "national debate" and "constitutional", we are referring to to ... , then I don't know what."

Yeah, actually, even if your side lost the debate, actually HAVING a debate, and HAVING Congress vote to authorize the war, is better, more constitutional, than simply launching a war, blowing off the war powers act, and pretending it's all good because you call it a "kinetic action", whatever that means.

So, yeah, you don't like Bush, but on this metric he was measurably better than Obama.

What's my side, tough guy?

I reluctantly supported entering Afghanistan, not that anyone asked either one of us.

"even if your side lost the debate."

If you once again mean the "debate" over Iraq, let me put a finer point on it.

The debate, such as it was, a tissue of lies, was over whether to eat a pile a dog shit. Yes, my side, whatever that is, lost the debate. Your side (you always seem to have the third side nailed down, but if you mean the pile of dog sh*t put forward by the prior Administration) won the honor of authorizing the consumption of dog sh*t.

But the pile of dog sh*t was a lot bigger than even you could choke down, so we all tucked in, with the Iraqi people getting the chunkier bits.

You won.

That you added a little "constitutional" flavor to dog sh*t seems to be a point of pride.

Ladies and gentlemen, yes, it's dog sh*t, but it's Constitutional dog sh*t.

Bon appetite.

Or are we talking about Libya now?

Or did I miss something and have we bombed and invaded Iran now without authorization from Congress, which contains its own joke?

I'd be against that sort of action in Iran, and I'd be happy to print off some 3-D weaponry for the swift street adjudication of Obama's impeachment, if unauthorized, and if authorized by Congressional goons without the means to pay for the mistake, the public 3-D hanging of the War Powers authorizors on Capitol Hill.

You on board with a little revolution now against the Federal government, or is your camo in the wash today, Ken?


for what it's worth, the WSJ is not really the pinnacle of bias-free journalism.

What would be that pinnacle?

so, for a moment ignoring the bush vs obama pissing match, i have the following questions:

in the current-day context, what level of authorization does the president need to drop a bomb on a nuclear development site in iran?

what would the legal justification be for doing so? iran's violation of a non-proliferation treaty? what sanctions are allowable under such a treaty?

i mean, can you bomb countries that violate a treaty nowadays?

and before we assume that we are about to be bum-rushed into a war with iran, how many steps are there between improving a weapon system to demonstrate the capability to accomplish some mission, and actually engaging in warfare?

to this question:

And since when does "diplomacy" include things like outright sabotage and crippling economic sanctions?

i think the answer is "since the dawn of recorded human history".

sadly so, but so.

assassinating scientists ups the ante a bit, but is certainly not without precedent, either.

the church commission seems quaintly pollyanna-ish these days, dunnit?

As for telling us about it, I suppose they told somebody since it is on the front page of the WSJ. Quoting government officials. Seems to be a pretty reasonable heads up.

Obama is a left of center Politician? when did this happen?

Bernard, it happened when the most extreme right defined anyone who disagreed with it as left of center (or, frequently, "socialist"). That's how a center-right politician becomes left of center -- you redefine the center...and convince the media to accept your definition.

russell: i think the answer is "since the dawn of recorded human history".

Well, I thought that killing people and destroying things were on the "war" side of the diplomacy/war line, but perhaps I was mistaken.

russell: how many steps are there between improving a weapon system to demonstrate the capability to accomplish some mission, and actually engaging in warfare?

Hopefully an infinite number in this case, at least as things seem to stand now. It just seemed extremely incongruous to me for the US to be developing a bomb to show Israel that the US had the capability to destroy Iran's nuclear program so that Israel didn't...?

I mean, I guess the unstated worry here is that Israel will decide to drop a nuke or seven on Iran and so all this Kabuki dancing sh1t is about preventing that possibility.

Well, I thought that killing people and destroying things were on the "war" side of the diplomacy/war line, but perhaps I was mistaken.

Cue : von Clausewitz

Hopefully an infinite number in this case

From your lips to gods ear.

at least as things seem to stand now. It just seemed extremely incongruous to me for the US to be developing a bomb to show Israel that the US had the capability to destroy Iran's nuclear program so that Israel didn't...?

I guess I think two things:

1. I share your puzzlement at what appear to be the triple-bunker-bankshot nature of a lot of political posturing. It's basically too many for me, I just scratch my head and hope somebody knows WTF they're doing.

2. All of that goes triple for the relationship between the US and Israel.

Well, the US think of themselves as the new Rome* and for Rome diplomacy was just a tool to shift the blame for Rome's wars of aggression to the victims (which let a famous Roman author marvel about the 'fact' that Rome was the only empire in history that was the result of purely defensive wars).

*by traditional count it would be the fourth (after Rome, Byzantium and Moscow)

haven't seen any comments on troops - do we really have enough to start another war?
IMO Rumsfeld was 'brilliant'(altho evil) when he downsized the military and privatized everything (at great cost). He knew the American people would not support the draft for fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, and with private soldiers he didn't have to draft anyone.
Will that hold for another war?

well, semantics. lol. still Romney care is Obamacare. we are just talking finesse and camouflage with regards to Obama and Bush.

both the same, selling the rest of us to the Rich. lol. not much else changes.

it is awfully funny to watch those who dare to call Obama what they do. all this huffing and puffing, lol. full of it, and hot air as well.

just watching these people parse words and play games, well., what can i say. i can see they are full of lies and innuendo, but Truth. Not a single fact or bit of Truth. something else is what they are doing. sad they won't admit what they are up to. but most of us can tell by their deceit and defensiveness what the real "story" is.

defending evil right or left is still defending evil. that lesser of evil is how we got to where we are now. i just wish the Southern States would secede and get this uncivil war over with.

America has to bomb Iran in the "right" way so Israel won't "overdo" it. that's what i gather from the stupidity that our "Leaders" are saying with this Bunker Busting Bomb insanity.

any wonder why they hate America for its' "Freedom." Israel needs to get its' wars over with. not like the Arabs would dare to respond anyway. after all these years, what have they done to stop the Israeli target practice on the Palestinians? nothing, absolutely nothing. sad. to think its' open season on the Palestinians,but the last 60 years of Israeli existence has proved this is how to keep the "rabble" under control. the fear that is known throughout the Middle East, aka Israeli destruction, as in tactics like white phosphorus bombs, is well known to the neighborhood. effective measures to show who's boss.

sick and perverted and we Americans are supposed to support these lunatics?
but we probably can't judge the Israelis too much, the War on Americans aka know as the War on Drugs/Blacks, our Military Industrical Congressional Complex or the latest War by Sequester fostered by the Republicans/Rich and Obama is where we willingly play the "Palestinian" role here at home in America. and to think people actually vote for these slimy people/the Republicans, the R party since St. Reagan, and their enablers, the Democrats. lol.

at least the Palestinians are aware of the intense hatred the Israelis have for them. Here in America, we Americans just don't seem to get it that the Business of Business nowadays is making Americans pay for the Rich to get Richer. amazing ow TBTF Banks can't lose, but we taxpayers always do. lol. ever read the Powell Memo? Big Business had it in for us taxpayers for a long time now

Maybe we could make a deal with the Israelis in a quid pro quo, they bomb Congress and we bomb Iran. we for sure couldn't lose getting rid of Congresscritters. The Southerners would get rid of that Nasty creation called "Government". Northerners would get rid of the dissolving Union with those Nullification Southerners. Fear and Greed seems to be the modus operandi that motivates the den of thieves called Congress. For sure, it's not like Congress will ever stop sucking up for money, cause neither Republican nor Democrat has shown any interest in the taxpayer. Greed knows no party or color lines here.

I enjoyed the headline to this article:

17 Air Force officers stripped of authority to launch nuclear missiles.

So, um, how many people in the U.S. have such authority? And, we're worried about Iran?

So, um, how many people in the U.S. have such authority? And, we're worried about Iran?

Way back in the day, I did a lot of reading on the subject nuclear war-fighting. Back then, under very tightly defined circumstances, the chain of command with authority to launch involved a number of senior admirals and generals (and possibly submarine captains). However, the preconditions were, as I recall, a nuclear attack in progress against the US AND the civilian chain of command either dead or missing. Not really scary in context.

i just wish the Southern States would secede and get this uncivil war over with.

um. no.

President Merkin Muffley: General Turgidson, I find this very difficult to understand. I was under the impression that I was the only one in authority to order the use of nuclear weapons.

General "Buck" Turgidson: That's right, sir, you are the only person authorized to do so. And although I, uh, hate to judge before all the facts are in, it's beginning to look like, uh, General Ripper exceeded his authority.

The real question may not be 'Who has the authority?' but 'Who has the ability to launch something even without authority?'
I think there were a number of horror stories coming to light after the end of the Cold War leading to the conclusion that it was sheer dumb luck that WW3 was not started accidentally. And there were and are some rather scary guys reaching the higher military ranks that I would wish as far as possible from any nukes or the means to use them. In the past even a LeMay would not have dared to go Ripper. I would not trust a guy like Boykin to value his oath to a mere 'wordly' authority if push should come to shove.

Hartmut beat me to it - yeah there is the chain of command and preconditions, but if Dude A and Dude B operating the silo decided to fire one off because "Gus thought he saw a woodchuck," could they?

If the movies are to be believed the answer is "no," but, well.

The real question may not be 'Who has the authority?' but 'Who has the ability to launch something even without authority?'
I think there were a number of horror stories coming to light after the end of the Cold War leading to the conclusion that it was sheer dumb luck that WW3 was not started accidentally.

The was and remains a common meme on the left, usually supported by virtually no actual knowledge of how strategic command and control worked then or now. Further, consistent with imagining the worst with a corresponding degree of ignorance, is that the typical lefty begins and ends his/her with the belief that the incompetence is US-based.

What prudent thinkers might do, if the intent were to be constructive rather than simply taking shots at the obligatory bad guys, is give some thought to other parts of the world well and truly controlled by fanatics where nukes either exist or are under construction. Those are the people to worry about. But doing so is outside the meme and it's probably all our fault anyway.

17 Air Force officers stripped of authority to launch nuclear missiles.

Holy crap.

What prudent thinkers might do

Thanks for the tip! :)

What would be that pinnacle?

I like the Christian Science Monitor. IMO their stuff is usually pretty well researched, fact-checked, and written, and they don't make a point of stirring the sh*t.

Worth a look, maybe.

McKinneyTexas, the Soviets were not much if any better in that regard. The only significant difference I see is that the leaders in the Kremlin were paranoid about rogues in the ranks taking control of nukes (likely using them as tools to topple the leadership). They did not trust their own military offciers and divided the launch keys and codes between military and political personnel, so neither could act on their own (and both sides for obvious reasons hated each other making an alliance unlikely).

As for 'typical left', the US military had (and has) its own roster of Comical Alis that would deny any problem even if they were visible to everyone not blinded by RW ideology. That's not limited to geostrategy. Lying to the public (and occasionally the civilian leadership) is listed high on the job description of any military press official (worldwide). No categorical difference to politicians and corporate executives. And that is in no way a new development. Examples can be traced back literally thousands of years.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad