Bruce Thornton and the Wages of Appeasement--Iran version
Over at National Review Online you can see Peter Robinson's interview of Bruce Thornton, who, like Victor Davis Hanson, is a classicist and perceptive commentator on current military and diplomatic policy. (If you want to hear the whole interview you can download the audio without the video right now--or you can wait until Friday and see the whole video version of the interview).
Professor Thornton has a new book, The Wages of Appeasement, that will be out in mid-March and which is the subject matter of the interview. I recommend the interview highly, and can't wait to read the book. In the interview, he and Peter discuss some examples of appeasement, ranging from ancient Athens, to the infamous "peace in our time" Munich sell-out of 1938, and--most pertinent to us--Obama's disastrous Cairo speech and the on-going appeasement of Iran. One of Thornton's points is that when Islamists tell us they wish to kill us, we should believe them and act accordingly (because they really do mean it).
All of which raises questions I'd like to throw out to the Ricochet community: What should be we doing about Iran, and its continuing effort to obtain nuclear weapons? Military action after a clear ultimatum (which includes the right to verify)? Encourage Israel to take military action (and then be ready to protect their back)? Blockade? Stronger sanctions? Foment, then support, a revolution to get rid of the Mullahs? Continue to engage in the UN Kabuki theatre? Other tactics? I hate the idea of another military effort by the United States, but isn't the alternative (a nuclear Iran) far worse?
- Comment (24)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Dec '10
Re: Bruce Thornton and the Wages of Appeasement--Iran version
On the far worse alternative:
Let us suppose Pakistan loads a half-dozen nuclear devices into a cargo ship and sends it to Iran. Let us further suppose that the Iranians have long-range missiles ready to accept those devices as warheads, missiles capable of delivering those warheads anywhere up to and beyond the Mediterranean.
Now let us suppose Iran, having readied its missile arsenal, announces to the Gulf Arab oil states, "We now have 100 missiles capable of hitting anywhere in the territory of each of your nations. Six of those missiles have nuclear warheads that can obliterate your capitals or make your main oilfields unusable for years. We promise not to launch a mass attack with these missiles against any Gulf Arab nation that pledges to follow Iran's guidance in matters of foreign policy and oil production and exports. As for any nation that does not make that pledge, it is incumbent on you to ask yourself whether American anti-missile defenses are 100 percent effective, and what happens if even one nuclear weapon hits your nation."
Under this scenario, wouldn't Iran and Pakistan together be able to dictate terms to the rest of the world?
Re: Bruce Thornton and the Wages of Appeasement--Iran version
This is tricky. Iran is no pushover. If we attack, they will use a host of small boats to try to close the Persian Gulf to oil tankers. To deal with them, we would have to take out many of the villages along what is a very long shore. That having been said, I doubt that the job could be done any other way.
Dec '10
Re: Bruce Thornton and the Wages of Appeasement--Iran version
So, what to do?
I lean toward fomenting a counterrevolution in Iran.
But if it comes down to the necessity of military action, I expect that Israel will act with or without the US and that the current US Administration would react poorly to Israel's attack. What the US should be doing, of course, is soliciting commitments from the Gulf Arab nations that they will make peace with Israel if Israel acts to neutralize the Iranian threat -- as great or greater a threat to them as it is to Israel.
Dec '10
Re: Bruce Thornton and the Wages of Appeasement--Iran version
I wonder if we have the naval capacity -- number of ships and aircraft -- to enforce a cordon sanitaire around supertanker convoys. We seem to be incapable of protecting shipping as it passes the Horn of Africa, and the Somali pirates are pretty low-grade threats compared to Iran's small fast boats.
Moreover, does the current Administration have the will to order rules of engagement that specify destroying any watercraft of any type that gets near a convoy? I am afraid that the first fishing dhow that gets blown up by mistake (or by Iranian design) will cause the President to lose his nerve.
Re: Bruce Thornton and the Wages of Appeasement--Iran version
Stuart Creque
I wonder if we have the naval capacity -- number of ships and aircraft -- to enforce a cordon sanitaire around supertanker convoys. We seem to be incapable of protecting shipping as it passes the Horn of Africa, and the Somali pirates are pretty low-grade threats compared to Iran's small fast boats.
Moreover, does the current Administration have the will to order rules of engagement that specify destroying any watercraft of any type that gets near a convoy? I am afraid that the first fishing dhow that gets blown up by mistake (or by Iranian design) will cause the President to lose his nerve. · Mar 2 at 5:41pm
We are building ships meant to fight close to shore -- and in some numbers.
Jul '10
Re: Bruce Thornton and the Wages of Appeasement--Iran version
On the long list of George W. Bush's misdemeanors, his failure to deal with the threat of a nuclear Iran is the most egregious. He should have crushed their nuclear facilities by any means necessary, up to and including tactical nuclear weapons.
As the 2008 presidential election neared, I expected to awake any morning to find that Bush had taken decisive action. Alas, he did not - and we cannot expect any such thing from the current administration.
Dec '10
Re: Bruce Thornton and the Wages of Appeasement--Iran version
Paul A. Rahe
Stuart Creque
I wonder if we have the naval capacity -- number of ships and aircraft -- to enforce a cordon sanitaire around supertanker convoys. We seem to be incapable of protecting shipping as it passes the Horn of Africa, and the Somali pirates are pretty low-grade threats compared to Iran's small fast boats.
Moreover, does the current Administration have the will to order rules of engagement that specify destroying any watercraft of any type that gets near a convoy? I am afraid that the first fishing dhow that gets blown up by mistake (or by Iranian design) will cause the President to lose his nerve. · Mar 2 at 5:41pm
We are building ships meant to fight close to shore -- and in some numbers. · Mar 2 at 5:59pm
I wonder, can the US Navy suppress all of the Iranian military boats coming from the coast of Iran? The closer in to shore our ships operate (even the new "stealth" ships), the greater the threat from shore missile batteries.
And what about innocent-looking "civilian" boats like the one that hit the USS Cole, ones perhaps coming from shores other than Iran's?
Jul '10
Re: Bruce Thornton and the Wages of Appeasement--Iran version
Yes. But we should start writing the damn script. On another thread Casey Taylor argued that opium was the key to Afghanistan.
It could be worthwhile to have some diplomatic cable state that the U.S. is seriously re-evaluating its position on the poppy fields, dependent on "contingencies." (cue Assange)
We go to the security council with a series of heavy duty resolutions designed to truly isolate Iran (Norks too for that matter) and demand that the other members play nice, or else:
We just don't have the resources to deal with Iran on our own and maintain a tight inventory on Afghan opium production. What's that China & Russia? You say that tons of heroin could be dumped into your countries? Well... that would be terrible. Just imagine if it was selling retail at less than current wholesale.
Don't like the idea? Fair enough. I came up with that in twenty minutes. State has thousands of smarter, more knowledgeable folks than me.
What are they doing all day?
We aren't even trying to develop levers. The council's ours, if we'll take it.
Oct '10
Re: Bruce Thornton and the Wages of Appeasement--Iran version
Paul A. Rahe
We are building ships meant to fight close to shore -- and in some numbers. · Mar 2 at 5:59pm
The Strait of Hormuz would be next to impossible to defend agains missiles and rockets. The entire Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman would be lost to trade for the duration of hostilities.
Dec '10
Re: Bruce Thornton and the Wages of Appeasement--Iran version
Stuart Creque:
Let us suppose Pakistan loads a half-dozen nuclear devices into a cargo ship and sends it to Iran.
They do not need to transport them by ship. Pakistan has a long common border with Iran, south of Afghanistan.
Sep '10
Re: Bruce Thornton and the Wages of Appeasement--Iran version
Matthew Osborn
The Strait of Hormuz would be next to impossible to defend agains missiles and rockets. The entire Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman would be lost to trade for the duration of hostilities. · Mar 2 at 7:42pm
Not so. Ticonderoga-class cruisers and Arleigh Burke-class destroyers were built to perform this kind of task. The AEGIS combat system can detect and track anti-ship missiles, including sea-skimmers, in jamming environments far worse than anything Iran can put up, and engage inbounds with a variety of weapons (e.g. SM-2, CIWS). The system can even pinpoint the launcher coordinates and send them to the battle group for counterbattery fire.
If we wanted to, we could engage Iran at sea and raise merry hell with them. And by the way, those little zodiac boats wouldn't even get near the fleet after the Cole incident.
Sep '10
Re: Bruce Thornton and the Wages of Appeasement--Iran version
We fought the Iranians in precisely this way in the 1980s, during Operation Earnest Will. We pounded them and they retreated. Our Navy had more ships but less capability back then. If the Iranians want to replay that particular game, we can win it again.
We have the capability. What we lack is the will.
Dec '10
Re: Bruce Thornton and the Wages of Appeasement--Iran version
Matthew Osborn
Paul A. Rahe
We are building ships meant to fight close to shore -- and in some numbers.
The Strait of Hormuz would be next to impossible to defend agains missiles and rockets. The entire Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman would be lost to trade for the duration of hostilities.
I think you are selling our sea and air military capabilities way too short.
If Iran tries to close down the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman it would affect the economy of the entire world and there would be few criticizing anything we do short of nuking them. It would be virtually an all out war. Our land forces may be fairly busy in Iraq and Afghanistan, but our Navy and Air Force have very little to at the moment. We would not need to invade. If we concentrated our naval and air forces on Iran it would be literally bombed back to the stone age, and they know it. Also, the Iranian coastal area would become a virtual no man's land.
Of course, this all assumes we have a President who would give the orders. I don't think we currently have one.
Dec '10
Re: Bruce Thornton and the Wages of Appeasement--Iran version
And what dogsbody said.
Dec '10
Re: Bruce Thornton and the Wages of Appeasement--Iran version
Nickolas, of course. I forgot about the local geography and how far to the east Iran's coastline runs. Of course, that means it's that much easier for Pakistan to arm Iran if it decides to mess up the West.
Dec '10
Re: Bruce Thornton and the Wages of Appeasement--Iran version
Paul A. Rahe
We are building ships meant to fight close to shore -- and in some numbers. · Mar 2 at 5:59pm
You say that like the Navy isn't going to be the very first thing to be offered up as a budget cut by the Dems.
I can hear it now, "You can't even stop building these huge warmongering ships, when nobody else in the world has even half as many as we do already!?!"
And the Republicans will fold like a cheap suit. Count on it.
Like the football team of my alma mater, the Republicans in Congress and (especially) the Senate are masters of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
Dec '10
Re: Bruce Thornton and the Wages of Appeasement--Iran version
Paul A. Rahe
We are building ships meant to fight close to shore -- and in some numbers. · Mar 2 at 5:59pm
What's your take on what Mark Helprin wrote in yesterday's WSJ?
We have the smallest navy in almost a century, declining in the past 50 years to 286 from 1,000 principal combatants. Apologists may cite typical postwar diminutions, but the ongoing 17% reduction from 1998 to the present applies to a navy that unlike its wartime predecessors was not previously built up. These are reductions upon reductions. Nor can there be comfort in the fact that modern ships are more capable, for so are the ships of potential opponents. And even if the capacity of a whole navy could be packed into a small number of super ships, they could be in only a limited number of places at a time, and the loss of just a few of them would be catastrophic.
Feb '11
Re: Bruce Thornton and the Wages of Appeasement--Iran version
With all the things you and the readers want to do to Iran, is it any wonder Iran would want to go nuclear? Wouldn't you if you were in their position? Going nuclear under the circumstances seems highly rational.
And as for changing regimes, the Shah had a nuclear program and was cooperating with South Africa to build a nuclear and missile program. So I'm not sure changing regimes is a way of nuclear non-proliferation if non-proliferation is the objective.
Edited on Mar 3, 2011 at 5:46amDec '10
Re: Bruce Thornton and the Wages of Appeasement--Iran version
IOW, Iran's behavior is our fault. Poor Iran.
Note that all of the "things you and the readers want to do to Iran" are either proposals about what to do about Iran's efforts to go nuclear or how to react to what they might do if we try to stop them.
Also, note that Iran had been covertly sponsoring terrorism since the 80's that has killed many Americans, from Beiruit to Iraq to Afghanistan. We have essentially been in a "warm" war with Iran since they:
Iran has provided arms and explosives to Shiite militias and the Taliban that were used to kill American soldiers and Marines in Iraq and Afghanistan
We are not the bad guys. Iran is a sworn enemy.
Edited on Mar 3, 2011 at 6:19amFeb '11
Re: Bruce Thornton and the Wages of Appeasement--Iran version
Nikolas, I agree Iran is a sworn enemy. So was Libya. The invasion of Iraq provoked two very different responses. Libya gave up on its nuclear program. Iran accelerated its.Hasn't Iran's behavior though been rational?
China used to put out all the same kinds of crazy statements that Iran does. China had attacked and killed American service men in Korea. China funded guerilla movements aimed directly against us and our allies. In short, China has done virtually every single thing Iran has done. We didn't take the kinds of actions against China as you would propose against Iran. Wasn't that appeasement? And didn't it work out? Not perfectly, but far better than a war with China would have been.
Iran can and will implode of its own stupidity and mismanagement. We need to help it along.
The basic problem I have with Bruce Thornton's thesis is that appeasement is always a bad idea. Sometimes it is. Sometimes it isn't.
Edited on Mar 3, 2011 at 6:56am