Yglesias could actually buy the issue at a newsstand, right? He doesn't need a free subscription to find out the context of that paragraph in the current issue.
I'm not going to comment on the substance of the excerpt because what can you say?
How prevalent is the American Conservative at your average newstand or even your average bookstore magazine section? I would guess the answer is not very for the first, and rather for the second, but this calls for some empirical study. Everyone go to a newstand or bookstore or both during lunch today.
While there, consider looking for the American Conservative, or just read some other stuff if that's what you're into.
I thought that there was a general consensus that we'd wait until they put out an RFP for a neutron bomb that destroyed only Teh Gay before we called them crazy.
Back on the original topic, sort of I don't know that what it says that this always cracks me up when I get to "utter fucking madman," but I think it's that we're totally fucked. (Linked comment, on further review, should point to 8 of that thread.)
Contingecy planning, I believe, is about planning for contingencies. There's some terrible Robert Redford movie where we (the audience) are supposed to get all het up that there's a plan for invading England!!!! (or something). Look, this is just what warplanners do. Let me ask a rhetorical question: Is there no possible scenario which would justify US attacks on Iran? Let me offer one: nuclear terrorism on the US, where material was provided by Iran. Hey, I'd kinda like to have a plan to take out Iranian nuclear sites in that circumstance. I could imagine that such a plan could even involve tactical nukes. So this is actually not a big deal. It's the opopsite of a big deal. If Jews were involved in the drafting, I feel certain the American Conservative will inform us.
baa, yours is the extremely sanguine reading, and I think the AC's reading is the alarmist one. The scary or overblown points, depending on your point of view:
acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney's office [why Cheney? and of course we good liberals assume that Cheney means nefarious intent]
in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States [that is, not strictly as a contingency plan among other contingency plans]
the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States [this might be pure hokum inserted by the AC, but who knows?]
officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing [same as above]
I am a big believer in contingency plans. But I've also read the issue of some version of the Justice League in which the contingency plans that Batman had for defeating every other memory of the Justice League (if they turned bad)were used by some enemy or other to defeat them. And my worry always was, why doesn't Batman have a plan in place to stop himself if he turns bad? By analogy, the U.S. Military should have plan to defeat every country, including its allies, in the event that they "turn bad". But it should also have a plan to defeat itself/launch a coup. Thank you.
baa might just be right here. Consider the following.
eb can't find The American Conservative at the fine research institution where eb does graduate work. That's not a good sign for TAC's reputability.
Nor is its being run by "the old right."
Notice the fishy language:
a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons.
The implication is that we'll just up and pop Iran if anyone blows anything up over here. But even TAC's writer doesn't really say that: he says, "another 9/11-type"; he doesn't say "any other 9/11-type" -- which suggests baa could be right that this might be a contingency plan for a specifically Iranian attack. The later language in the piece --
an unprovoked nuclear attack
-- is similarly subject to misunderstanding; do they mean, unprovoked period, or unprovoked by a nuclear first strike?
I can totally believe that should, kenahora, there be something so dreadful again, Rumsfeld would be putting the strongarm on staffers to come up with reasons to take out Iran, good reasons or not. But I find it hard to believe they'd write it out in advance that that's what they're going to do.
Up until World War II the US had a contingency plan for invading Canada. I don't think we're so worried about that one anymore.
And I'm not sure if the lack of AC in my library is a result of disreputability or if it's just because it's a new magazine. My library doesn't have some reputable history journals.
With ogged's caveats in place, I'd note that it's not as if one has no reason to suspect that the Administration might use a terrorist attack to justify war on a member of the Axis of Evil that had nothing to do with the terrorist attack.
I assume at some point we get to start quoting, "Nobody ever expects the Spanish Inquisition," with the same frequency that we heard, "The Constitution is not a suicide pact."
Yeah, they'd use it to justify such an attack; but would they codify that intent and make it part of official plans? I mean, maybe they would. Maybe they've decided, it doesn't actually matter what people write down anymore, people believe what they want. But I hope not.
That Borders did carry the American Conservative, reading it adding nothing to the cited article other than the author's name and that he's a retired CIA officer.
I think people should take rumors of a serious (not Pentagon-fantasy-contingency) plan to bomb or attack Iran very seriously. I think there are very serious factions with very substantial access to executive power for whom this is a quite real and meaningful ambition.
Timothy is right. Folks who have spent their entire adult lives advocating an attack on Iran (like, say, Michael Ledeen and John Bolton) hold positions of significant influence with this administration. baa is right that it's the military's job to develop contingency plans, but it's the political end of the party that decides which plan gets put into action. And that end is home to some real wackjobs.
Don't dismiss the possibility of lunacy from lunatics.
If someone comes up and punches you, go look for someone who looks similar to that guy, and punch him. Failing that, just find some guy you don't really like and punch him as retaliation. Demad everyone around help you beat up your target in retaliation for your having been hit by the other guy.
I wouldn't put anything past the administration, but it's also worth remembering that no matter how much he bashes neocons, Pat Buchanan is not a fully sane man and is not your friend. Claims that come from his camp should be viewed with some suspicion. Liberals constantly forget this these days.
Yglesias could actually buy the issue at a newsstand, right? He doesn't need a free subscription to find out the context of that paragraph in the current issue.
I'm not going to comment on the substance of the excerpt because what can you say?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 07-22-05 10:15 AM
How prevalent is the American Conservative at your average newstand or even your average bookstore magazine section? I would guess the answer is not very for the first, and rather for the second, but this calls for some empirical study. Everyone go to a newstand or bookstore or both during lunch today.
While there, consider looking for the American Conservative, or just read some other stuff if that's what you're into.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 07-22-05 10:22 AM
I just checked my library's databases and none of them (including Lexis-Nexis) seem to carry it.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 07-22-05 10:24 AM
We don't have The American Conservative at Caltech- but we have The American Banker. Close enough?
Fun blog, BTW.
Posted by TJ | Link to this comment | 07-22-05 10:27 AM
I thought that there was a general consensus that we'd wait until they put out an RFP for a neutron bomb that destroyed only Teh Gay before we called them crazy.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 07-22-05 10:33 AM
[redacted]
Posted by [redacted] | Link to this comment | 07-22-05 10:48 AM
If you can find the American Conservative somewhere, you can find it in DC. That goes for teh insanity as well.
Posted by Kriston | Link to this comment | 07-22-05 11:28 AM
Journalists don't pay for magazines. It's an important point of principle.
Posted by Matthew Yglesias | Link to this comment | 07-22-05 12:04 PM
I'm back from lunch without having checked either a newstand or a bookstore. As penance I will stop at this Borders on my way home from work.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 07-22-05 12:10 PM
Back on the original topic, sort of I don't know that what it says that this always cracks me up when I get to "utter fucking madman," but I think it's that we're totally fucked. (Linked comment, on further review, should point to 8 of that thread.)
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 07-22-05 12:55 PM
These guys start a war with a plan? That's not plausible. We invaded Iraq without a plan, why would we need a plan for Iran?
Posted by Brian | Link to this comment | 07-22-05 12:58 PM
Contingecy planning, I believe, is about planning for contingencies. There's some terrible Robert Redford movie where we (the audience) are supposed to get all het up that there's a plan for invading England!!!! (or something). Look, this is just what warplanners do. Let me ask a rhetorical question: Is there no possible scenario which would justify US attacks on Iran? Let me offer one: nuclear terrorism on the US, where material was provided by Iran. Hey, I'd kinda like to have a plan to take out Iranian nuclear sites in that circumstance. I could imagine that such a plan could even involve tactical nukes. So this is actually not a big deal. It's the opopsite of a big deal. If Jews were involved in the drafting, I feel certain the American Conservative will inform us.
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 07-22-05 2:18 PM
baa, yours is the extremely sanguine reading, and I think the AC's reading is the alarmist one. The scary or overblown points, depending on your point of view:
acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney's office [why Cheney? and of course we good liberals assume that Cheney means nefarious intent]
in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States [that is, not strictly as a contingency plan among other contingency plans]
the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States [this might be pure hokum inserted by the AC, but who knows?]
officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing [same as above]
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07-22-05 2:24 PM
I am a big believer in contingency plans. But I've also read the issue of some version of the Justice League in which the contingency plans that Batman had for defeating every other memory of the Justice League (if they turned bad)were used by some enemy or other to defeat them. And my worry always was, why doesn't Batman have a plan in place to stop himself if he turns bad? By analogy, the U.S. Military should have plan to defeat every country, including its allies, in the event that they "turn bad". But it should also have a plan to defeat itself/launch a coup. Thank you.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 07-22-05 2:26 PM
baa might just be right here. Consider the following.
The implication is that we'll just up and pop Iran if anyone blows anything up over here. But even TAC's writer doesn't really say that: he says, "another 9/11-type"; he doesn't say "any other 9/11-type" -- which suggests baa could be right that this might be a contingency plan for a specifically Iranian attack. The later language in the piece --
-- is similarly subject to misunderstanding; do they mean, unprovoked period, or unprovoked by a nuclear first strike?
But baa and I could be awfully optimistic.
And that is some ugly html.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 07-22-05 2:30 PM
If Batman turned bad, why would he want to stop himself?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 07-22-05 2:30 PM
His present good self would want to stop his future self.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 07-22-05 2:32 PM
Up until World War II the US had a contingency plan for invading Canada. I don't think we're so worried about that one anymore.
And I'm not sure if the lack of AC in my library is a result of disreputability or if it's just because it's a new magazine. My library doesn't have some reputable history journals.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 07-22-05 2:37 PM
With ogged's caveats in place, I'd note that it's not as if one has no reason to suspect that the Administration might use a terrorist attack to justify war on a member of the Axis of Evil that had nothing to do with the terrorist attack.
I assume at some point we get to start quoting, "Nobody ever expects the Spanish Inquisition," with the same frequency that we heard, "The Constitution is not a suicide pact."
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 07-22-05 2:44 PM
Yeah, they'd use it to justify such an attack; but would they codify that intent and make it part of official plans? I mean, maybe they would. Maybe they've decided, it doesn't actually matter what people write down anymore, people believe what they want. But I hope not.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 07-22-05 2:49 PM
That Borders did carry the American Conservative, reading it adding nothing to the cited article other than the author's name and that he's a retired CIA officer.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 07-22-05 4:08 PM
The American Conservative is Pat Buchanan's magazine. People were commenting on how "reputable" it is?
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 07-22-05 6:23 PM
Actually, no.
Posted by aretino | Link to this comment | 07-22-05 6:40 PM
Oh, well, okay, then.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 07-22-05 7:25 PM
I think people should take rumors of a serious (not Pentagon-fantasy-contingency) plan to bomb or attack Iran very seriously. I think there are very serious factions with very substantial access to executive power for whom this is a quite real and meaningful ambition.
Posted by Timothy Burke | Link to this comment | 07-22-05 7:32 PM
Timothy is right. Folks who have spent their entire adult lives advocating an attack on Iran (like, say, Michael Ledeen and John Bolton) hold positions of significant influence with this administration. baa is right that it's the military's job to develop contingency plans, but it's the political end of the party that decides which plan gets put into action. And that end is home to some real wackjobs.
Don't dismiss the possibility of lunacy from lunatics.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 07-22-05 9:25 PM
"How to Win Friends and Influence People"
by GW Bush and D Cheney.
If someone comes up and punches you, go look for someone who looks similar to that guy, and punch him. Failing that, just find some guy you don't really like and punch him as retaliation. Demad everyone around help you beat up your target in retaliation for your having been hit by the other guy.
That's all.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 07-22-05 11:08 PM
I wouldn't put anything past the administration, but it's also worth remembering that no matter how much he bashes neocons, Pat Buchanan is not a fully sane man and is not your friend. Claims that come from his camp should be viewed with some suspicion. Liberals constantly forget this these days.
Posted by Matthew McIrvin | Link to this comment | 07-25-05 7:33 AM
...That said, I'm all in favor of asking lots and lots of questions about this. The mere existence of Michael Ledeen increases its plausibility.
Posted by Matthew McIrvin | Link to this comment | 07-25-05 7:37 AM