Act, that is, before we're 100% sure that what we target IS what needs to be targeted.
I suppose I could go all philosophical here and ponder over whether we really know anything or whether all is illusion - but screw that.
Let's look at some basics.
1. The Nuke Club is seen as highly desireable by failed states. With this, they can either destroy those who seem to oppress them (IE Israel and the US) or hold them hostage via threat of use to get things they want (IE NK's demands for fuel oil and food after they popped off a nuke 'test'.)
2. In neither situation is the plight of the people inside the countries attempting to develop the Nuke Club truely addressed. Whole lot of money and effort going out, no good result for THEM - and all the time they're told how it's the damn Joos and Amerikkkans who are making their lives miserable!
3. If, by chance, there's a nuke strike on Israel - where do the folks perpetrating the strike think the fallout's going to hit? Yep - Jordan, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. I'm sure Jordan and Saudi are gonna be happy to get some radioactive stuff from Syrians and Iranians who can't restrain themselves.
4. Pre-emptive action is roundly condemned by the international community - but there's a point beyond which waiting for certainty on either intent or capabilities is profoundly stupid, because it WILL lead to death and destruction in wholesale lots.
5. Have you noticed that there were no ringing condemnations of the actions Israel took, aside from a complaint from North Korea? Syria was silent. The usual suspects in the area were suspiciously silent. Iran was silent. North Korea raised a bit of a fuss, and was pretty much ignored. Did you wonder why?
Israel lifts veil of secrecy over air strike in Syria | Jerusalem PostLet's just say... they might have had a reason to NOT say anything.
ABC News: EXCLUSIVE: U.S. Stalled Israel on Syria Air StrikeWhy didn't US intelligence pick up on it? Perhaps... it wasn't seen as a threat to the US so much as a pragmatic decision was made to look the other way. There's a lot of folks in the State Department who are considerably ticked off at Bush upsetting the status quo applecart in the ME - and it would be difficult to imagine this partisanship wouldn't extend to the intelligence community. If this allowed them to get back at Bush in a roundabout way, then it's not much of a stretch to imagine they'd sit on this little egg until it hatched and couldn't be ignored any further.In early July the Israelis presented the United States with satellite imagery that they said showed a nuclear facility in Syria. They had additional evidence that they said showed that some of the technology was supplied by North Korea.
One U.S. official told ABC's Martha Raddatz the material was "jaw dropping" because it raised questions as to why U.S. intelligence had not previously picked up on the facility.
Officials said that the facility had likely been there for months if not years.
"Israel tends to be very thorough about its intelligence coverage, particularly when it takes a major military step, so they would not have acted without data from several sources," said ABC military consultant Tony Cordesman.
Sadly, I don't believe that the folks in the State Department and the Intelligence communites are loyal to much more than the continuation of their jobs without hindrance by Republican oversight. They, after all, RUN Washington - Presidents are temporary annoyances at best.
Then again, I might be sliding into Troofer territory. Pretty soon, I'll be imagining collusion between the State Department and the Intelligence community to hide this until Israel was attacked, at which point they'd 'leak' info that we knew about this well in advance, but BUSH DIDN'T DO ANYTHING!
I hate being so cynical.
J.
Comments (7)
There's a book coming out - it may be out already - that I have heard about, but haven't seen yet..."The Shadow Government"? ... that relates the actions of the State Department undermining the President's policies since 9/11. I'll try to run it down - I'd heard rumors about it within the last couple of years...that is, the actions of State in opposition to the Pres...but this definitely looks like a worthwhile read. The Pres definitely should have cleaned house when he took office - he was way too charitable in assuming that his policies would _naturally_ be put into practice by State.
Which raises a question - how far down can the President "clean house"? where do the bureaucrats with civil service protection begin, and how much influence can they wield?
Posted by suek | October 6, 2007 12:53 PM
Posted on October 6, 2007 12:53
Suek said:
Since he didn't clean house in Jan. 2001, I think W should make up for that political blunder and give the country a nice Christmas present for 2008.
As a parting gift to the entire country the exiting president should fire everyone who works at the State department who has more than 8 years seniority.
Never happen, but it's a pleasant fantasy.
otpu
Posted by otpu | October 6, 2007 11:12 PM
Posted on October 6, 2007 23:12
Sue - If you look at the troubles he's had simply trying to get rid of a few attourneys, can you imagine the journalistic feeding frenzy if he'd tried to clean house in the State Department? He MIGHT have been able to get away with it then, but there's no way now...
J.
Posted by JLawson | October 7, 2007 12:08 AM
Posted on October 7, 2007 00:08
John -
One problem is we've developed some pretty complex organizations designed to support the country's needs and goals. That requires a stable staff, and a continuity of manning and purpose that it wouldn't be wise to replace every 4 to 8 years.
And then you've got the problem that people will tend to promote others who are like them and believe as they do. This can effectively 'repurpose' an organization, and to my thinking, this has happened at the State Department. THEY will decide what the President gets done, the President doesn't make the rules as far as they're concerned. He needs to dismantle the whole organization - but what would he replace it with? The rot goes deep.
J.
Posted by JLawson | October 7, 2007 9:01 AM
Posted on October 7, 2007 09:01
>>The rot goes deep.>>
And that's at the heart of it. The president is pretty much alone in what he's trying to accomplish. Not good.
Posted by suek | October 7, 2007 10:55 AM
Posted on October 7, 2007 10:55
No, but it's better than not trying to deal with it at all.
And I'm pretty sure if the Dems get in, that's precisely what will happen.
J.
Posted by JLawson | October 7, 2007 11:01 AM
Posted on October 7, 2007 11:01
How far down can the President go?
Finally the *right* question! This is something that I have been addressing on the INTEL Community side for awhile, starting with this post on reformulating it and winding up as part of a Democracy Project look at Taming the Turf wars. And the salient part from that posting is this:
"The entire problem is government-wide systemic, not point bottlenecks by this or that advisor or 'Czar' or Director. The temporary positions are stymied by the entrenched bureaucracy, and the entrenched bureaucracy sees no need to adjust itself to changing National Outlook, even in time of War. Luckily, the entire Civilian Senior Executive Service serves not as bureaucrats, but as high-paid individuals that can be *fired* by the President. That highest echelon over the immediate Civil Service, and often having worked its way up through its ranks, and that shows allegiance to the Agencies it serves need to be heavily reminded that they serve the President and NOT their Agencies and Departments."
This goes across the ENTIRE civil service. The Senior Executive Service (or Senior Intel Service equivalent) all serves the President on annual, renewable contracts and can be FIRED immediately without cause. This is a T4C (Terminate for Convenience) power of the Federal Government in ALL its contracts. Any President who does not like, say, the head of Departments in the State Dept (or CIA or NSA or Education or IRS) can just *fire them* and tell the Agency/Department involved it *still* needs to get reports and work done to his orders and the President expects the Civil Service to pick up the slack until someone can be hired to fill each of those positions. Poor performance reflects on the rating of *all* individuals in the Civil Service and that can be promulgated by Presidential order as within the work check-offs necessary for a performance appraisal: answering to the boss.
The SES wields tremendous power. And the President *lets them do so* as those are HIS delegated powers to THEM. Yes, this President could start *today* in doing that. Likewise on 'earmarks' he can say they were not on his desk for signature (they are, after all, 'off budget items') and thus are not legitimate and will not get done... all funds returned to the Treasury. Yes, he can do that *today* also.
That Presidents don't do this shows how little they actually understand their job and/or fear the bureaucracy and vested interests. You want a President to clean house? Elect one that will stand up to the SES and fire their butts and refuse to spend money on earmarks until they pass his desk for signature. The 'Chainsaw Al' approach works just fine.
I don't see any of those in the running. Shame. The US could use a President who had some idea of what the job *is*.
Posted by ajacksonian | October 8, 2007 3:48 PM
Posted on October 8, 2007 15:48