Have you heard about Tom Tancredo? I'd never heard of him until he said this:
A Colorado congressman told a radio show host that the U.S. could "take out" Islamic holy sites if Muslim fundamentalist terrorists attacked the country with nuclear weapons.Rep. Tom Tancredo made his remarks Friday on WFLA-AM in Orlando, Florida. His spokesman stressed he was only speaking hypothetically.
Talk show host Pat Campbell asked the Littleton Republican how the country should respond if terrorists struck several U.S. cities with nuclear weapons.
"Well, what if you said something like -- if this happens in the United States, and we determine that it is the result of extremist, fundamentalist Muslims, you know, you could take out their holy sites," Tancredo answered.
"You're talking about bombing Mecca," Campbell said.
"Yeah," Tancredo responded.
The congressman later said he was "just throwing out some ideas" and that an "ultimate threat" might have to be met with an "ultimate response."{...}
So, the guy's obviously an idiot, right? You'd think all sane people would agree that he's an idiot. Well, apparently not. LaShawn Barber thinks he's right on the money.
{...}Congressman Tom Tancredo, the only true conservative in Congress and the only politician on Capitol Hill who takes a hard line against illegal aliens, said that if Islamofascists upgraded to nuclear attacks, we could threaten to bomb Muslim holy sites.Republicans and Democrats are jumping all over him, mischaracterizing his remarks. They believe Tancredo should apologize. He said he won’t, and I hope he doesn’t. I stand behind him 100 percent, even as Republicans and so-called conservatives demand an apology. We need tough talk and tough action on global terrorism, and what Tancredo said was actually mild compared to what Islamofascists have in mind for us.{...}
As Doug says:
LaShawn thinks the billion plus Muslims witnessing such an attack would kick their feet and convert to some more convenient religion once Mecca was nuked? Please. The only certainty is that they'd know who NOT to turn to for security. And that would be the nation that nuked Mecca on the basis of simple religious affiliation. The same religious affiliation they personally hold.As I noted yesterday, LaShawn's position is morally, tactically, and strategically wrong. She cannot explain the benefit, and she conveniently doesn't even try. Her post is barren of substance. She admires the fact that it "talks tough" to terrorists.
Hey LaShawn - then why not threaten them with blowing up the whole planet, you freakin' pantywaist?! That's even tougher!{...}
I'm with Doug. Ignoring the political and social ramifications of such an action---or even threatening such an action---it's pretty clear that LaShawn doesn't have the props to claim she's a hawk as she's lacking in the few simple notions that govern the strategy associated with nuclear weapons, which is if you have them, you generally don't have to shoot them off. The knowledge of said weapons is, indeed, a weapon in itself. It ups the ante.
This strategy is called MAD---Mutually Assured Destruction and any undergraduate political science student knows what it's about. Two countries have nuclear weapons. Does one country fire their nukes on the other, knowing full well that if they do, they'll be blown up as well? No, they don't. The only option to use a nuke successfully is to use it on an enemy that does not have such weapons with which to retailiate, and that is only going to work if said country has not allied itself with a country which will retaliate for it. This is why we invaded Iraq, but not North Korea. This is why it's crucial that Iran not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. This is why it's a cause for worry every time Pakistan and India start going round after round on Kashmir. But mostly this is why it's not a good idea to ratchet up the rhetoric in regards to what you will bomb with your nukes. With MAD you have a built-in balance; you shoot yours off? Well, the other guy's going to shoot his off at you and you're going to get it just as bad as they did. It's pretty simple stuff, on the whole. But to make sure MAD works, you have to---ahem---keep your mouth shut for the most part. Nuclear weapons are most effective as a weapon when they serve the purpose of deterrance, ya dig?
One could, theoretically, argue that MAD is not going to work with non-nation state aligned Islamofascists. Continuing that argument, one could say that it was a good thing that Tancredo shot his mouth off about Mecca, to let the Islamofascists know just what was at stake. I disagree: first off, we are a nation-state: we will not bomb a target in a country that is our ally because said target has great meaning for the Islamofascists. Leaving aside the question of whether we can really consider Saudi Arabia to be our ally in the first place, it's nonetheless just plain stupid. We will not bomb a target that has meaning for more people---a billion people---than just our would-be attackers. It's not a proportional or rational response. And the last thing anyone wants in such a situation is an irrational response. Second, according to the principles of MAD, if you shoot your mouth off about targeting a certain city which holds great meaning for your enemy, perhaps, just perhaps, you would be encouraging them in their nuclear activities, so that we would think twice about targeting Mecca. Because, you see, MAD swings both ways: they would want to protect their holy city and they could do that if they had their own nukes and let us know about it.
Have no doubts about it, we are not in the cat bird seat when it comes to a rogue nuclear strike. During the Cold War, we did not shoot our weapons off at the USSR, and they did not shoot their back at us because our capabilities were, roughly, the same. On either side of the equation, the end product would be the same: not only the annihilation of our enemy, but of ourselves. There is much to be made of SAC and our capability to strike back in the event of a nuclear attack, but any way you slice it, the end result was the same. In this situation, we would only be able to retaliate: it's one thing to invade Afghanistan using conventional warfare because they are harboring terrorists; it is entirely another to claim that we would use nuclear weapons on Mecca if we were attacked by rogue, non-nation-state aligned terrorists. It ups the ante, which we've already established is not a good thing when it comes to nuclear capabilities. Leaving aside the rogue Islamofascists for a moment, think about Tancredo's remarks in terms of relations with one particular nation-state we consider to be an ally: do we really want Saudi Arabia, of all nations, to think they need to start acquring nukes to protect Mecca? Is that action going to stop the spread of Wahhabism? Would that bring about the changes we would like to see in the way the House of Saud governs that country? Sheesh. Think about it for a minute. Sticks and stones may break your bones, but words, when employed to throw nuclear threats around, really can hurt you. That's not a "weak" response; it's a sensible one.
So, when it comes right down to it, Tancredo is an idiot who knows absolutely nothing about nuclear strategy. He is playing a dangerous game that has serious ramifications to it. And anyone, LaShawn included, who thinks that "talking tough" to the terrorists on a nuclear level is going to get them to back down, or to mend their ways, is not exactly thinking things through. It's a whole different ballgame. It's simply ramping it up to another level---another level which could mean plenty of people would be killed, and not just Muslims. Furthermore, to make the claim that anyone who's "really conservative" should be advocating such an action is ignoring the example set down by Ronald Wilson Reagan, the man who---ahem--won the freakin' war without blowing ourselves up in the meantime. He did not win the war by using inflamed, Krushchev-like rhetoric (Remember the Cuban Missile Crisis? Remember dear old Nikita slamming his shoe on the podium at the UN? Remember the words, "We will bury you"? Did that cool things down? Hmmmm?); he won it by using MAD to its utmost capability: he bankrupted the Soviet Union. If that's not "conservative" enough for you, well, jeez, I don't know what will or could ever be.
Tancredo should apologize for his ignorant remarks and he should do it on the floor of the House of Representatives. That needs to be in the record, lest someone get the wrong idea about what, precisely, the United States' response would be in regards to a rogue Islamofascist nuclear attack on our soil.
Posted by Kathy at July 20, 2005 11:37 AM | TrackBack