Nuclear Beef

(From incitor: I'm privileged to be one's of darwin's closer friends, and he's been trying to get me to write something at least a little coherent to contribute to 'Beef for some time. Boy, is he going to be red!) [ed -- are you calling me a Communist?]

Bob Herbert's recent article for the New York Times is possibly one of the most poorly reasoned I've read in a long time. Considering the terrible quality of journalism, and in particular of editorial writing, these days, that's saying quite a lot, I think.

Witness:

You might think that the debacle in Iraq would be enough for the Pentagon, that it would not be in the mood to seek out new routes to unnecessary wars for the United States to fight. But with Donald Rumsfeld at the apex of the defense establishment, enough is never enough.

Leaving aside the question of whether or not Iraq is truly a 'debacle' as there is so much disagreement, I choose to lament Herbert's phrasing, 'enough is never enough.' Let's face it, Bloom County was a pretty damn amusing comic in its time, and the whole Lee Iacocca - Too Much Is Never Enough bit was damn funny. But Herbert can't even get it right.

Pentagon officials are putting together a plan that would give the military a more prominent role in intelligence gathering operations that traditionally have been handled by the Central Intelligence Agency. They envision the military doing more spying with humans, as opposed, for example, to surveillance with satellites.

As Jason Van Steenwyk pointed out, is there any evidence that more satellites (whose launches so pollute the environment! horror!) will prevent attacks such as those of 9/11? No, there is no such evidence. Many in the military and intelligence communities have been complaining for decades that our lack of HUMINT - HUMan INTelligence assets, has been a serious threat to our security. It was a problem at Desert One in Iran, it's a problem in China and North Korea now I'm certain. Spies, yes spies, are needful to the security of a nation.

Further encroachment by the military into intelligence matters better handled by civilians is bad enough.

Wait. Why is this bad? What proof is there that intelligence is better handled by civilians. Uh, didn't the CIA allegedly screw up big time both before 9/11 and before the resumption of war in Iraq? Perhaps Mr. Herbert, if he can bear learning anything about Israel that isn't fed to him by the left, should consider Aman also known as Agaf ha-Modi'in, Israel's military intelligence. Although they've had their share of mistakes over the years, many would consider them the most important part of Israel's intelligence community. While the Mossad is widely feared by leftwingers and conspiracy theorists the world over, it is Aman who does much of the most vital intelligence work. They don't always get the sexy jobs, but intelligence isn't about saving the world from supervillians and then banging scary looking seven foot tall black chicks.

Consider the overall success of Israel's military and intelligence efforts since 1948. Consider that since the 60s, Israel has faced terrorism in a variety of forms. Now explain to me again why their system isn't worth emulating, even a little?

The geniuses in Washington have already launched one bogus war, which has cost tens of thousands of lives and provoked levels of suffering that are impossible to quantify

Please, resumed a bogus war! Aha.

I suspect that reason we cannot quantify the level of suffering is that the terrorists just aren't transparent in their operations. Although that seems to be changing. It's a shame Saddam isn't still in power, he kept things nice and pleasant for Iraqis.

We don't need to be contemplating new forms of warfare waged for the sole purpose of gathering intelligence.

Why? Why should we not contemplate new means for gathering intel? Not, mind you, that the means are truly new. One of the first things a military commander must do is figure out where his enemy is. That is a form of intelligence gathering, and many of our special forces capable units has that as one of their primary missions already. All we really need to do is unleash them.

The war in Iraq was the result of powerful government figures imposing their dangerous fantasies on the world. The fantasies notably included the weapons of mass destruction, the links between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, the throngs of Iraqis hurling kisses and garlands at the invading Americans, and the spread of American-style democracy throughout the Middle East. All voices of caution were ignored and the fantasies were allowed to prevail.

As opposed to fantasies propagated by the mainstream media of Iraq unilaterally destroying its chemical weapons stockpile, while simultaneously forcing out inspectors... *cough* Syria. *cough* And which agency was responsible for the WMD claims? The CIA, a civilian agency, run by George Tenet who famously claimed that the case was a 'slam dunk.'

This latest overreach by Mr. Rumsfeld is a sign that the administration, like a hardheaded adolescent, has learned little or nothing from the tragic consequences of its wrongheaded policies. The second term is coming, so buckle up. It promises to be a very dangerous four years.

I think that this administration has very much learned a lesson about policies. Looks to me like they're giving the go ahead for real intelligence reform, and the development of improved methods and actors. A dangerous four years? Yes. For our enemies.