This is an excellent point. I sold cars for 7 years, and was in more than 1500 sales negotiations. Craziness is a good tool. You must not let yourself become predictable. The opposite party must believe you are crazy enough to be unreasonable. It is best, sometimes, to openly spit on a reasonable proposal, just to make a point. It will help you in the long run.
PS: I've used the same principle in parenting - with success! A 14 year old is a crazed, unreasonable being anyway. I needed every extra advantage I could muster. Being a little crazy and unpredictable was helpful. Plus - it gave my child some stories to tell!

VDH steps it up. Again. He's done it too many times to doubt him, but every time he comes out with something like this I can't help but be awed.

Good one!

More sloppy intellectual effort from VDH . If he would actually spend some time in the Middle East and talk to folks from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Oman, Jordan,etc; then he'd realize the religious, ethnic and a geopolitical reasons why many of the Arab (Iran is not Arab) states fear a nuclear (and too powerful) Iran.

What's so mad about a country surveying its security environment and calculating the US wants to topple its leadership, perhaps by force? Iran knows it cannot win a conventional fight, but it can have an effective deterrent against the US with nuclear forces and perhaps an ability to threaten/block the shipping lines. It's called balance of power realism.

As usual, the Col. is spot on.

No one is saying the Iranians are crazy to want to have the bomb. That's quite sane, from their point of view. Like VDH says, its a win-win for them. What's crazy is that they might use it for no particularly good reason. And that's exactly what they want us to think, too.

I think JFK would turn over in his grave if he heard your allusion to GWB's incursion into Iraq. Again, there was no threat to the US or its allies (no WMD, etc).

Being a little crazy doesn't buy one much besides bankrupting civilization as we know it in this case.

"Shoot first, ask questions later" often ends with the wrong answer, as it did in this case.

I will admit, however, that we should not be hamstrung when the time for action presents itself. Knowing when that occurs, however, separates the trigger-happy from the true leaders.

Hmmmmm, the world's chief state sponsor of terror just wants to maintain the "balance of power"? Steveo, you spent too much time hanging with the MAD crowd.

Will: and I suppose Cuba was a threat to the U.S. in '61?

Cuba was a Soviet nuclear missle launchpad right into the US, a 'clear and present danger' that was undeniable. Iraq had nothing but forged documents, distorted intelligence 'analysis' and unreliable 'witnesses' to describe its 'threat'. In the former, diplomacy and statesmanship (applying brinkmanship) solved the matter without war; in the latter, W made a mistake that continues to incur political, economic, and diplomatic damage. Wanting to be a war president for domestic policy shielding undoubtably was cooked up by Cheney/Rove/Rumsfeld with help from Wolfowitz, Tennant, and, sadly, Powell.

Will: that's great you believe our folks are dying because of some wag-the-dog scenario, keep on supportin' the troops so well.

"Shoot first, ask questions later"

What foolishness about the Iraq war. The UN asked questions for over a decade -- the reason it took that long is because Iraq did not comply. Damn man, how come you people keep forgetting this basic fact?

"we should not be hamstrung when the time for action presents itself. Knowing when that occurs, however, separates the trigger-happy from the true leaders."

Right, an example of true leadership being the Democrat's alternative to the Iraq war which was...well I guess just letting the corruption of the Oil-for-food program continue while US planes kept a constant presence over 2/3 of Iraq's air space...hey where's the exit strategy to that?!? I guess knowing when to force compliance separates the true leaders from the incontinent.

The Cuban-crisis analogy mainly demonstrates how the change in threat requires a change in strategy. That was a bold move by a military superpower and it was not an attack. 9/11 and the related attacks are not from a military superpower but from a vaugely united collection of fundamentalist muslims who thrive on similar terror tactics. These groups cannot operate without State sponsors. States with ties to terrorist groups, who have been in non-compliance with the world's demand to disarm and disclose for over a decade, and who have a recent history of hating America, are main targets if we are looking to change a world status-quo which produced 9/11 and the related attacks upon us and our allies.

It seems Steve has forgotten that Iran has been at war with us for almost 30 years now, starting with the Embassy fiasco under that feckless fool Carter. Reagan, to his discredit, did nothing to effectively respond to the Beirut barracks bombing. I could bore you all with other overt acts of Iranian aggression up to the present.

We owe these guys a massive hurt and would be insane to allow them to acquire nuclear weapons. I don't care whether Iran's reasoning for wanting nukes makes sense or not. We need to make it clear that it is national suicide for them to acquire nuclear weapons. Of course, once GWB is out of office, the next president will fold.

Ha ha, Will. You fell right into my carefully laid trap! I said "in '61." The Cuban Missile Crisis was in '62. I was talking about the Bay of Pigs invasion, in which we planned and supported an attack on a sovereign foreign power that was not a threat, for the purpose of regime change. One of the reasons Cuba became an actual threat a year later was the Bay of Pigs.

I realize that you could easily use that argument to say that the Iraq War begat Iran's nuclear ambitions, but as Scof and Mark D point out, Iraq and Iran had been a threat for decades.

Still, my main point is that JFK's foreign policy proves he would have supported the Iraq War. I'm sure Teddy would deny that if asked, and I think Robert (as his political philosophy later evolved) would have been against the Iraq War too. But if JFK were president in 2003, he would have gone in, I'm sure. Of course we'll never know.

Oh, a couple of other side points I just thought of.

In the Cuban Missile Crisis, JFK employed "brinksmanship," but was fully prepared to go hot if necessary. Luckily it didn't become necessary, because both sides knew that (as Dr. Spengler once said) "it would be bad."

Also, whereas JFK was unsuccessful in toppling Castro, GWB was successful in getting rid of Hussein. We still got problems over there, but one thing we don't have is an Iraqi government that is our enemy (at least not at this moment) and we DO have an Iraqi base of operations on the border of Iraq. Which is something that most pundits seem to overlook. That is a huge asset because if we hadn't gotten rid of Saddam, and we'd still needed to get tough with Iran, we would have had a harder time without a friendly Iraq as a launching point. Think of all the problems we had with bases and flyover rights in the past.

Scof and Annika are right on about this. The disdain from the left is laughable considering the Administration has simply enforced rules laid down by the Big House. (U.N.) And who can forget how much time we gave Sudumb to comply? Let us not forget the politicos from both sides of the aisle who endorsed the war, correctly.

As a former isolationist,I think the bigger picture is liberty itself and actually enjoy the 'imperialist' label used to describe so many Republican presidents. If imperialism is helping people defeat communism, dictators and invaders without aquiring new territory or property, than it's an accurate term.

Clearly Iran must be dealt with. Again we will garner little support from our 'Euro Friends' and will likely be mostly alone again. But there appears to be a vast untapped pro U.S. citizenry in Iran unlike anything that side of the United Arab Emirates. Is it possible that Tehran's student generation is now democracy maker instead of hostage taker? (*I know, awful poetry*)

A country possesing nukes is not inherently bad but a bad country having them is.

John Kerry really got to me the other day, to the point my face flushed and I wanted to pummel him unconscious, when he said the following on Chris Matthews:

"We will be stronger against Iran if we're out of Iraq. We will be stronger with respect to what Putin is doing in Russia today if we regain our moral authority in the region."

Just before that statement, Kerry said Bush should announce we will not have permanent military bases in Iraq. This is pure Jimmy Carter crap: give stuff away without gaining anything in return - in hopes of gaining "good will". Makes me want to puke. And then punch Kerry. (It is also the anti-Annika method of negotiation, btw)

That's hilarious. Just goes to show you that being skipper of a riverboat doesn't make one an expert on military strategy, as Kerry supporters would have had us believe.

Nobody could have expected presidents Ford through Clinton to do what George W. Bush is doing right now in Iraq. They would not have been willing to withstand the political price of a hugely unpopular war. And one result of that perceived unwillingness is the war we are now in.

That is a highly misleading reading of recent history, Annika. As I remember the polling, support for the war for the year before and the year after the invasion was close to 70%. Even during the campaign, it was polling in the low sixties. It was only when it became apparent that the occupation and pacification policies (though perhaps not the war itself) were fundamentally wrongheaded and going nowhere did support ebb. In short, this is NOT an unpopular war, the Bush administration MADE it unpopular. Shocking political mismanagement for someone whose political skills I have a great respect for.

You do make a good point in suggesting that presidents Ford through Clinton would not have done Iraq, at least not in the manner that Bush 43 has. Even Reagan, the most revolutionary of modern presidents would not have placed the United States in such an intractable position.

Before continuing, I should state why the current policy is intractable. Toppling Saddam was comparatively easy. Instituting a democracy in an ethic cauldron is almost impossible. It certainly didn't work in Yugoslavia. Nor is "democracy" in the US strategic interest, regional stability is.

Even President Bush has stated that Iraq wasn't a strategic threat, Saddam Hussein was. His removal was necessary, but an ethically driven civil war that is certain to spread and involve Syria, Iran and Turkey is an even greater threat to the American national interests. And it is becoming clearer every day that this is where "democracy" in Iraq is heading.

Had Reagan made the same determinations that Bush has, yes, he probably would have invaded and toppled Saddam. But I doubt that he would started the ball rolling to the Yugoslavia-style dissolution of the country. More likely, he would have allowed a military takeover of the country and supported that junta as happened in El Salvador. This would have preserved regional stability and almost certainly have even been better for the Iraqi people than either Saddam or civil war would have been.

Neither the Ba'ath Party or the Iraqi military made decades worth of strategic miscalculations, Saddam Hussein did. Nor were these miscalculations part of Ba'athist ideology, as they were with Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan. Either could have governed in the absence of Saddam.

Even if it were possible or wise for a lasting democracy to be imposed on Iraq, the United States did not use the resources necessary to do so. 130,000 troops clearly weren't enough to pacify a nation of 25 million and revolutionize a historical system of government. All that has done is invite anarchy.

I'd go further on this, but I have to go to work now.

The Kurds won't secede without Kirkuk's oil resources. Even if they had control over those resources, they'd still have to export their goods overseas. And, last time I checked, Kurdistan is landlocked by hostile Arabs, Persians, and Turks. We won't support their separatist movement with "no-fly-zone" air support again. Therefore, it is in the Kurds' interest, especially economically, to remain part of the state of Iraq.

If the Sunni Arabs want a civil war, then I won't miss them when the Shia and Kurdish majority shows them which side has more guns.

Reagan,

It was also in Slovkia's interest to remain in Czechleslovakia and Crotia's to remain in Yugolslavia. Guess what? They didn't. Quebec will unltimately leave Canada too, although that's suicide.

If the last 20 years have taught us anything, it should be that nationalism trumps common sense each and every time.

Don't forget that regime change in Iraq became an official tenet of US foreign policy during the Clinton administration. But since Clinton's entire presidency was nothing more than Bubba holding the chair down with his fat ass for eight years, it took someone like Bush to actually pull the trigger on Iraq.

Someone above said 'Iraq had no WMD'. That's the genius of hindsight, so cheaply and easily claimed. Riddle me this- just what was it that gassed all those Iranian soldiers and Kurds in the 80s?

This Iraq/WMD story is not over.

As for the element of 'craziness' in foreign policy, the US has demostrated it can drop the Big One- twice, if necessary- if it comes to that.

>Ha ha, Will. You fell right into my carefully laid trap! I said "in '61." The Cuban Missile Crisis was in '62. I was talking about the Bay of Pigs invasion, in which we planned and supported an attack on a sovereign foreign power that was not a threat, for the purpose of regime change.

No trap, dear Annika. US troops did not invade Cuba, which is a crucial distinction. And Kennedy withdrew air support, which resulted in the slaughter of the invading forces.

> One of the reasons Cuba became an actual threat a year later was the Bay of Pigs.

So our support of an invading army resulted in a greater threat? You are making my case for me. What was the threat of Iraq to the US in 2003? No WMD, no support of anti-American terrorists, no missile delivery system capable of reaching the US by a long shot. However, since the war started, the rate of terrorist incidents has skyrocketed, though some are relieved that Iraqi citizens are being killed, not US citizens. What will happen to Iraq now, will it be a more stable society?
And what kind of threat is Cuba to us now? If nothing else, they will outlast us after Peak Oil wreaks havoc on the American economy and lifestyle.

> I realize that you could easily use that argument to say that the Iraq War begat Iran's nuclear ambitions, but as Scof and Mark D point out, Iraq and Iran had been a threat for decades.
Iran and Iraq have been little if any threat.

Again, from a carefully examined military standpoint, what was the threat to the US? Iran is stronger now after OIF, if anything, as they are helping to steer the ship in Iraqi politics, and know that the US could not invade their soil, as we are far too overextended as it is. So I cannot embrace the scenarios proffered by Mssrs Scof and Mark D.

> Still, my main point is that JFK's foreign policy proves he would have supported the Iraq War.

I see nothing in your analysis that would lead me to believe that JFK would commit US troops to such non-existent threat. I sincerely doubt that JFK would have steered the intelligence to invent a threat of ‘mass-death’, etc.

> In the Cuban Missile Crisis, JFK employed "brinksmanship," but was fully prepared to go hot if necessary. Luckily it didn't become necessary, because both sides knew that (as Dr. Spengler once said) "it would be bad."

We concur on this point.

> Also, whereas JFK was unsuccessful in toppling Castro, GWB was successful in getting rid of Hussein. We still got problems over there, but one thing we don't have is an Iraqi government that is our enemy (at least not at this moment) and we DO have an Iraqi base of operations on the border of Iraq. Which is something that most pundits seem to overlook.

That base is causing us more problems than it is solving. Don’t expect such a base to last indefinitely.

> That is a huge asset because if we hadn't gotten rid of Saddam, and we'd still needed to get tough with Iran, we would have had a harder time without a friendly Iraq as a launching point. Think of all the problems we had with bases and flyover rights in the past.

That depends on the type of offensive under consideration. A land offensive against Iran wouldn’t work now, even with the base you are referring to. Don’t forget about carriers and Diego Garcia. Do you think that Iraq would allow an offensive against Iran from their airfields?? Any meager sense of fragile stability would be lost.

From Scof:
> that's great you believe our folks are dying because of some wag-the-dog scenario, keep on supportin' the troops so well.

This tired argument has no legs under it whatsoever. Supporting the troops is one thing; I have full faith in the men and women of our armed forces. It's the leadership in and around the White House that is incompetent and misleading. I reject any suggestion that uncovering the truth is somehow unpatriotic. Indeed, I view attempted coverups, political malfeasance, and blind allegiance as unpatriotic and ultimately debilitating to my country. Try watching something other than Faux News for 100% of your propaganda feed.

> [Terrorist] groups cannot operate without State sponsors. States with ties to terrorist groups, who have been in non-compliance with the world's demand to disarm and disclose for over a decade, and who have a recent history of hating America, are main targets if we are looking to change a world status-quo which produced 9/11 and the related attacks upon us and our allies.

If you are implying that Iraq was a sponsor of anti-US terrorism, then you must have gone into a closet after March 2003. Even Bush has derided this argument.

Reagan,

If the United States supports democracy in Iraq, why would it not support the right of self-determiniation for the Kurds? As I remember it, a good deal of the administration's rationale for the war (after the WMD case fell through) was Saddam's - and by extension, the Sunni's - barbarism toward the Kurds. Given that, shouldn't a democratic referendum in independence be something that the Bush administration supports? And if not, why?

As to the texture of a civil war, I wouldn't run around betting on a Sunni bloodbath. Even before the rise of Saddam, the Iraqi military class at the strategic and officer corps level was almost exclusively Sunni for decades. If Donald Rumsfeld was right about anything, he showed that numbers really don't mean much when it comes to killing a bunch of folks. A force that is light in numbers and heavy in know-how can be highly effective. And let's not for a moment forget that are already more Sunni insurgents than there are American forces in country.

On the other hand, you might actually be suggesting that the United States arm and support the Sunnis and Kurds in the event of civil war. This would, of course, make you an active participant since you already happen to be there. And it wouldn't go a long way in making friends in the overwhelmingly Sunni Arab world, which you sort of need to battle al-Qaeda. Remember them? Furthermore, does President Bush really want to be in a tacit alliance with Iran in the matter of Iraq? Wouldn't that belie isolating Iran in its nuclear ambitions?

I don't know, Skippy.

I'm open to the possibility of partitioning Iraq. I wish the Kurds well since they haven't given us any direct problems.

After the global "Mohammed cartoon intifada" and the Paris riots, I'm starting to wonder if the Islamic world (and perhaps Europe too) is even worth saving. I'm getting closer to mutating into a paleo-con as the fate of this Wilsonian endeavor is looking bleaker every day.

If we can't co-exist with these people, then we must initiate a Jacksonian "scorched earth" policy on the Muslim world. Whenever the Islamists nuke a major American city in the future, I hope we have a president that has the balls to wage a counter-genocide against these roaches.

It's sad that Canada might not be whole in the near future, but the next generation of Americans will probably have to worry about dealing with the secession of the Republic of Aztlan someday.

Shit. I'm feeling so emo now......