If this post was meant to make a statement about Iraq it falls short. The biggest detriment to a peaceful, functioning democracy in that country is the centuries old Sunni/Shia struggle for power. In this type of war, you can't straddle the fence and hope to resolve the conflict. I suppose you could wait for the participants to become fatigued but that could take generations. In order to achieve its goal, Washington is going to have to choose sides. So for whom do we ask kids to die, the Sunni or the Shia?

"If this post was meant to make a statement about Iraq..."

Not directly, no.

I don't have a problem with cheerleaders, the President used to be one. Mitch is free to urge kids to volunteer to fight for the Islamic sect of his choice. Once the volunteers dry up, so does the war in Iraq.

What you mean to say Jeff is once the volunteers dry up, so DOES THE CURRENT US ENVOLVEMENT in the war in Iraq. The war in Iraq will continue, of course. The only people killed though will be brown people. Probably a bunch in Iran too. Eventually at some point the US will have to come back in. Maybe Iran will have nukes by then. Lots and lots of dead brown people. But that's cool, non of our business. That's what brown people do.

Buzz: I've never been particularly enamored with neither the Sunni nor the Shia to care what they do to one another once U.S. troops withdraw from the Triangle.

Geography played a nasty joke on the Sunni. The Shia control oil distribution in the south and the Kurds control the same in the north. The Triangle is devoid of crude. Production will likely increase after after the incentive to destroy what is perceived as American infrastructure is removed. I'd like to see the U.S. maintain a presense in Kurdistan and along the border with Syria but I can't find much incentive to straddle a sectarian conflict in the capital.

Nuclear weapons are *extremely* difficult to manufacture. Without assistance, Tehran has no chance to meet your timeline. The likelihood of a nuclear Iran increased when Bush undermined negotiations with that very stupid deal with New Delhi. Regardless, Tehran has a return address so I'm not losing sleep over it.

Jeff fails to grasp that classical nuclear deterrence fails once enough actors have nuclear weapons, and surreptitious deployment is possible. Such a system is entirely unstable, in contrast to the Cold War model, where there are only a handful of actors. I'll be damned if I have any solutions to the problem, but the notion that "return addresses" are going to act as an effective deterrent, once possesion of nuclear weapons becomes more widespread, is false, and if Pakistan and North Korea have the capability, there aren't too many states that really lack it.

Will: Your assumption is about my grasp is unfounded. Certainly the model breaks down under the circumstances you describe. The world is nowhere near widespread proliferation. Tehran may support Hezbollah but it is sure as hell not going to hand them nuclear weapons. It seeks a deterent.

If proliferation is a concern, then I like to think you wrote your Senators to express concern for the dangerous deal Bush cut with New Delhi.

Jeff, why do suppose poverty cases like Pakistan and North Korea can obtain fissile material, yet it remains outside the grasp of other highly motivated actors, except in the very long term? Why do you suppose that Hezbollah is the only means by which Iran could deploy a nuclear device surreptitiously, thereby rendering the meme of a "return adress" (and it was the "return address" meme which you stated as, ultimately, why you need not lose sleep over Iran) meaningless? The whole "return address" paradigm of nuclear deterrence is, over the next 10 to 20 years, going to become meaningless, if it not much sooner.

Like I said, I don't have any solutions, since in all of human history there is not a single instance of desired technology being denied to highly motivated people with adequate wealth. Technology simply does not remain bottled up. Pretending that "return addresses" will remain a useful deterrent, however, is simply silly.

"Why do suppose poverty cases like Pakistan and North Korea can obtain fissile material, yet it remains outside the grasp of other highly motivated actors, except in the very long term?"

Until recently Washington has been very good at interlinking treaties and engaging countries with nuclear ambitions. Countries, like people, respond to incentives. It's no coincidence that the antics of greatest concern have occured in countries that Washington refuses to engage directly.

"Why do you suppose that Hezbollah is the only means by which Iran could deploy a nuclear device surreptitiously"

I think Tehran wants a deterent. I mentioned Hezbollah because I thought that angle was one of the fears keeping you up at night. I'm pretty confident that Tehran could not successfully deliver a nuclear payload through proxy or otherwise without a trace to its origins.

Yes, Ryan, the "Jeff statement of confidence" really does settle the matter.

On the other hand, graveyards are filled with confident, as well as indispensable, men.

Oh, I missed where the current or previous American Administration refused to talk directly to Pakistan. The notion that American diplomatic efforts are predominantly determinative of the behavior of other nations is another silly one.

Right on Will. Jeff's an idiot. He's too stupid to realize that by us invading a nation with absolutely no nuclear capabilities, we are in fact blunting nuclear proliferation. I for one sleep quite soundly knowing that our nation's military and diplomatic resources are so cleverly utilized.

Gee, non-sequiturs are so enlightening!

Will: care to show me where I said "that American diplomatic efforts are predominantly determinative of the behavior of other nations"?

I said, "Until recently Washington has been very good at interlinking treaties and engaging countries with nuclear ambitions." Along with its partners in the NPT, Washington has dissuaded capable states (Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Japan, etc) from going nuclear. It has successfully encouraged some who've tried (Brazil, Australia, Argentina, Romania, Sweden, etc) and some who've achieved them (South Africa and three former Soviet republics) to turn back.

Unfortunately, Washington seems to have abandonned a successful course of action. In 2001, it opened hostilities with an "Axis of Evil." In 2003, it attacked one member of the triumvirate. That same year, North Korea withdrew from the NPT and Riyadh publically declared its interest in a nuclear weapons program as a result of a deteriorating relationship with Washington. Soon after that, Tehran began to pursue its own nuclear ambitions. Then George Bush cut his stupid deal with New Delhi. The confidence with which you should be concerned is the confidence you seem to have with the folks who currently have their grubby fingers on the controls.

Aye, yi, yi. Let it be noted that Jeff neglects to mention Pakistan. Why would that be? If someone is very good" at something, then the something must be a significant, if not primarily determinative act, since it otherwise would hardly be worth mentioning. It may have escaped you, Jeff, but the success stories you think are worth mentioning are all nations which do not have a significant portion of their polity or elites in the grips of a completely hostile ideology. In other words, they were predisposed to listening to us to begin with. The fact that your stapler is good for attaching two sheets of paper together does not strongly suggest that it will an effective tool for fixing your leaky faucet. Sheesh.

Will, what do you mean? I'm totally serious. I know now that Iraq didn't have nuclear weapons. However we needed to invade them so that Saddam Hussein wouldn't fly any more airplanes into buildings here in America. It also sent a message to all those Al Queda types (CT excluded) that the USA is completely unpredictable, and therefore should not be fukked with.

Islamabad had strong incentive to develop nuclear weapons technologies. It began its program in the 1970s in direct response to a nuclear neighbor on the subcontinent. Unlike Iran and North Korea, Pakistan was never a signatory of the NPT. Given strong incentive to develop a nuclear weapons program and its lack of treaty obligation, Washington's hands were tied. According to Pakistani sources, that nation was able to detonate a nuclear explosion in 1987.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/pakistan/nuke/chron.htm

On the subject of Pakistan: the big concern is that Beijing, most unhappy with Bush's New Delhi deal, cuts a similar one with Islamabad and ignites an arms race on the subcontinent. If a Democrat had cut such a stupid deal, the political right would be foaming at the mouth. Since it was made by a Republican, they've acquiesced in the policy such is the current state of partisan politics.

Jeff, how dare you refute Will's assertions with facts. That isn't the way things work out here in flyover country. Apparently you are yet to learn the lessons of 9/11. The only thing that can save your ass is blind obedience to the policies of our anointed leader. That, and avoidance of actual military service.

Yes, Jeff, people with strong incentive to develop nuclear weapons are likely going to do so, whatever the U.S. might be good at. That was my point; that the actions of the U.S. are not always, or even usually, the key factor as to whether a nation develops nuclear weapons. Once again, sheesh.

Hey, coward; lemme know when you have something to say.

Yeah anyways Jeff. You let Will and I know when you have something to say. In the mean time the two of us will be hanging out at the VFW with all of our fellow veterans.

Will: If you're going to summarize my positions, please include all my points. Anything less is straw.

Will: I am NOT going to rebut another incorrect summation of my comment.

Yeah, sure, Jeff, it's an incorrect summation. Whatever you say.

OUCH! Nice one Will. I would have said, "I know you are, but what am I".

If your summation is correct, then perhaps you could tell me where I made this claim: "if we just have the right man at the control panel, pushing the right buttons, and pulling the right levers, at just the right time, can control the behavior of other actors in the international arena"?

cibjozp bdztfpyns oqtjsd ohlrpunme kjbngwyet znipve rkxyl