Interesting Article over at NRO today which touches on a subject Will and I discussed in the comments section some weeks ago: Kennedy and the threat of force in the Cuban Missile Crisis.

I believe that Kennedy’s peaceful resolution of the crisis was made possible by his readiness (though clearly not willingness) to use force if necessary, despite the consequences. Or at least that he saw the value in the Soviets thinking the confrontation might “go hot.”

Now, historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., has a totally different take on KennedyÂ’s Cold War strategy. I read the Schlesinger piece a few days ago and was somewhat bewildered at the revisionism of it. In the NRO piece, Michael Knox summarizes SchlessingerÂ’s weird logic, with heavy sarcasm:

According to Professor Schlesinger, the Missile Crisis was successfully resolved because Kennedy “was determined to get the missiles out peacefully.” Once the president had the wisdom to dispense with all bellicose courses and adopt this thoroughly pacific policy, all difficulties vanished; the Soviet Union, impressed, doubtless, by the president’s conciliatory intentions, his manifest goodwill, and the justice of his arguments, embraced his proposals, and the missiles were promptly carried off. Kennedy followed this success, Professor Schlesinger informs us, by calling on both Americans and Russians to reexamine their “attitude” towards each other, “for our attitude,” the president said, “is as essential as theirs.”

So successful a strategy deserves a universal application. If the United States would only make it clear that its policy is always to act peacefully, and that it will never use what Professor Schlesinger calls “preventive” force, its diplomacy would proceed smoothly. It is the saber-rattling of men like President Bush that creates the danger, Professor Schlesinger contends; a thoroughly Quaker policy will dissipate it.

More: I can only describe Schlesinger's statement that an Iran war would be based on "fantasy, deception and self-deception," as idiotic.

Look, no serious person can argue that nuclear weapons in the hands of an Iranian religious dictatorship would not be a very bad thing. Or do Schlesinger and those of his ilk deny that Arab nations have tried to destroy Israel multiple times in the past? (And yes, I know that Persians aren't Arabs.) It goes beyond revisionism to deny that they might still want to destroy Israel. Especially since they say so just about every five minutes.

The only reason Israel wasn't destroyed before now was because their enemies have never been strong enough to beat the IDF. That, plus the fact that the ultimate gaurantor of Israel's existence was the American nuclear arsenal. Now, what if a sworn enemy of Israel were to come into possession of a great "equalizer," which could negate Israeli superiority and American might. Given all their previous attempts to destroy Israel, is it such a stretch to believe that a muslim nation might try again?

And another thing. Liberals are so hot to get our troops out of Iraq as soon as possible. Yet why do so many of them say that we should do nothing about Iran? What do they think would happen if Iran got the bomb?

I'll tell you. We would have Cold War II at the very least. Once Iran gets the bomb, our whole strategy would have to change from pre-emption to deterrence. Western Europe in the Cold War would be the template. Yes, that means we would have to deploy nuclear missiles in Iraq! We'd have no choice. And that means we could never leave. I don't know why nobody is mentioning this, but it's plain as the nose on your face.

Technorati: Iran

Posted by: annika at 11:36 AM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 634 words, total size 4 kb.

1 I believe that both your's and Arthur's perspectives are closer than you think. Brinkmanship (in this context) means convincing the other side that you will not be afraid to use deadly force if necessary. The 'bellicose' attitude Schlesinger referred to IMHO is often the starting point in such exchanges, especially with an adversary that only respects shows of force. From my admittedly limited study of the details of the exchanges, Kennedy allowed an exit route out of the standoff with the enticement of a symbolic olive branch at the other end. This was no simple standoff; civilization stood on the throes of a horrifying nuclear exchange, unlike anything in history. Now to be fair, we are seeing Schlesinger's work through the filter of an NRO writer with an agenda, so carefully parse each concept with the eye of a propaganda sleuth.

Posted by: will at April 26, 2006 12:25 PM (GzvlQ)

2 The Russians capitulated for one reason, and one reason only. We had a real Navy, and they didn't. The Soviet Navy in 1962 consisted of some patrol boats and diesel subs. They were not a blue water navy, and thus incapable of forcing the blockade of Cuba. For those of you who are products of a modern education, and thus ignorant of any meaningful history, Kruschev folded his hand, and had the cargo ships carrying missles to cuba turn back. He did this because we told him that when those ships reached a certain point, we would stop them by force. We could backup our threats, they couldn't.

Posted by: Casca at April 26, 2006 12:40 PM (rEC2k)

3 The reason that the Cuban Missile Crisis occurred is the Russians perceived Kennedy to be a weak and cowardly president. A year earlier the Russians started building the Berlin Wall in tentative steps fully expecting Kennedy to object. It was obvious in their tentativeness that they were willing to back down under pressure. Kennedy did nothing and thus caused an even greater crisis to occur. It was the closest we came to having war with the USSR. There is only one lesson to learn from this. Dictators and terrorists only react to force and resolve.

Posted by: Jake at April 26, 2006 12:55 PM (XOf7A)

4 "Now to be fair, we are seeing Schlesinger's work through the filter of an NRO writer with an agenda, so carefully parse each concept with the eye of a propaganda sleuth." No doubt, Will, you do the same while reading your NY Times, LA Times, Time Magazine, etc, etc, etc; or while watching ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC; or while listening to the daily propoganda of NPR or even your averageg FM dj. Good advice, indeed.

Posted by: Blu at April 26, 2006 01:18 PM (j8oa6)

5 Schlesinger was at one time a great historian, although he was always a big lefty. Now, however, he is just a very very old man. The Cuban Crises was started not because the Soviets perceived Kennedy as weak, but because it was SOP to test every western leader. And guess what? we were never close to a nuclear exchange. Even a casual overview of the cold war shows that the Soviets backed down from American power EVERY SINGLE TIME. They only made gains when it was appearent that the Americans would not act. Now, in that sense Schlesinger might be right about Iran. I believe they are just a weak regime teetering on the brink, and using bellicose posturing to prop up their power. In fact I think they HOPE to be struck by America or even better, the Israelis. That would get the people back behind them like nothing else would.

Posted by: kyle8 at April 26, 2006 01:55 PM (oCg3n)

6 Uh, due respect guys, but didn't the removal of the IRBM's from Turkey also have something to do with this? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the naval blockade was irrelevant. On the contrary, it was vital. All I'm saying is that there was some carrot as well as some stick, and both were needed to convince the Soviet's to pull the missles out. Annika, I do agree with your incredulity at Schlesinger's article, although I don't agree that he's as far off the reservation as Knox's article paints him to be. Schlesinger does pay tribute to deterrence, which implies the use of military force when necessary. Maybe his threshold for "necessary" is absurdedly high -- who knows -- but he doesn't seem to be advocating the overly pacifist, Quaker-like stance that Knox is accusing him of. On the other hand, I do readily admit that the statements "There is no more dangerous thing for a democracy than a foreign policy based on presidential preventive war" and "Observers describe Bush as "messianic" in his conviction that he is fulfilling the divine purpose" are no more than cheap shots, not to mention logically fallacious straw man arguments ("Look! Bush is one of those radical Christians!", "Look, Bush will start a war on any pretext!"). Silly, stupid, and petty. I don't care if he's a Democrat, I expect better of Schlesinger. Bush is not as far away from other Presidents as many would like to think, and certainly not as far off as Schlesinger paints him as being. But I don't agree with Knox that he's being pacific to a silly extreme. Rather, I agree that he's "favoring Bush bashing over logical analysis." I can't think of any better way to put that.

Posted by: ElMondoHummus at April 26, 2006 02:26 PM (xHyDY)

7 "fantasy, deception and self-deception..." Yeah, I went back and re-read that. Sorry, Schles, but I don't think Bush is the one indulging in such. C'mon, Professor! (If you deign to come here and read these comments that is ) You talk about deterrence in positive terms, but deterrence is not simply a passive state. It's a combination of proper responses and proactive measures. Not all actions taken prior to hostile moves are provocations. Some are simply common sense.

Posted by: ElMondoHummus at April 26, 2006 02:36 PM (xHyDY)

8 Ok, I confess that, pressed for time, I merely scanned the NRO article and didn't even read the WP article. After finishing them both now, I'm of the opinion that Schlesinger's account is half-and-half. I agree with the observation about the motivations for the Iraq war being 'fantasy, deception, and self-deception'. So far, however, I don't believe that is the case with Iran, which I believe Bush has handled the best he could so far. I find it odd that Beran took exception with Kennedy's attempt to 'get the missles out peacefully'. In my mind, he demonstrates the type of attitude that all too frequently ends up with 'ready, fire, aim'. I see Kennedy's success at getting the missles out of Cuba peacefully as, well, a success. I haven't read any of Beran's books, though simply by looking at the titles, it's clear to me he's a strong advocate of the conservative right (big surprise at NRO) or else he poorly chooses his titles. I applaud the debate, as that is the best way to air all sides and let the reader absorb and analyze the main points. However,... Blu wrote: > No doubt, Will, you do the same while reading your NY Times, LA Times, Time Magazine, etc, etc, etc; or while watching ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC; or while listening to the daily propoganda of NPR or even your averageg FM dj. Indeed, one of the primary reasons I became a Republican was a backlash against media bias. It took reading DeBorgrave's "The Spike" to open my eyes wide enough back in 1982. I remained a staunch Republican for the next 18 years, until a series of stances and events, culminating in the 2000 Republican primary, led me to believe "my party left me". Or that I had not given as critical an eye to the party's machinations as I had the media's. Two references I find to be the most effective in my quest to root out propaganda are 1) (the most obvious) the various lists of logical fallacies, and 2) the Army's Psyops Field Manual (in its various forms). http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html http://www.constitution.org/col/propaganda_army.htm Propaganda can be subtle; it doesn't have to appear like a strident Communist leaflet. Indeed, it is most effective when the reader is unaware they are being manipulated. The line between advocacy and propaganda is often no line at all. Being true to all sides is very difficult when one is trying to advocate a position. The best leaders and statesmen/women are the ones who frequently overcome that difficulty.

Posted by: will at April 26, 2006 03:16 PM (h7Ciu)

9 And Blu, to more fully address your question, I rely as much as possible on C-SPAN, sprinkled with the morning news during my workout (CNN while on the elliptical, Fox News while lifting). I don't watch ABC, CBS, NBC (or MSNBC); indeed we watch very little TV at our household (perhaps 20 hours worth over the last 6 months, and 90% of that was the Olympics). I did like The Newshour with Jim Lehrer, though spend time with the children these days instead. I do turn to NPR from time to time, which is less liberal than many neocons claim, though see my previous post for how I examine all of my news sources. Annika, hopefully I've made up for my haste in the first response, and will try not to turn these responses into a conversation that leaves you out.

Posted by: will at April 26, 2006 03:27 PM (h7Ciu)

10 One more point that I neglected to respond to; there would be no need to place nuclear missles Iraq, as we have many more times the number needed on boomers right now. Indeed, the IRBMs in Turkey were unnecessary for the same reason; their main purpose, rightly or wrongly, was intimidation.

Posted by: will at April 26, 2006 03:46 PM (h7Ciu)

11 Ya know Will, no matter how fully you explain it later, women don't like it when you cook off like that.

Posted by: Casca at April 26, 2006 04:00 PM (2gORp)

12 I disagree, Will, that our boomers would fit the role. If that were true, why all the fuss about Intermediate range weapons in the Eighties? An overt action to meet the threat would be necessary. Installing intermediate range missiles next door would send a definite message that we're serious, and also would provide an extra challenge to any Iranian attack plan, since they'd have to target those missiles too if they were going to shoot anything at Israel.

Posted by: annika at April 26, 2006 04:07 PM (zAOEU)

13 Annika, which fuss in the 80s are you referring to? I understand the overt intimidation factor, though how the Iraqis would take it is an important factor; they may throw us out on our butts faster than we would have planned. I do agree that we cannot let Iran have the bomb. I'm open to your approach to both the diplomatic and the military options. What would your OPLAN be if you knew or suspected that there were 10 places where refinement activity was taking places, some of them well shielded by large population centers? This is a tough nut to crack. Casca, I'll let the women speak for themselves; go lecture your son all you want, but don't expect other adult men to give you a minutiae of authority on unsolicited advice about women.

Posted by: will at April 26, 2006 06:06 PM (h7Ciu)

14 yes, Will, I am aware of the difficulties of the military option. Which is why I do not favor it. I'm not one of those hawks who say dumb things like: "Israel will take care of the problem easy" or "lets turn Iran into a parking lot." And I know that the refinement activity has been dispersed. I do not believe that Israel has the capability to strike these facilities easily, although they are probably working on a plan. Certainly if the job is to have the best chance of success, we will have to do it. I've read some journalistic crap that passes for analysis about how it is to be done. Nothing convincing though. Some of the liberal criticism of the military option makes good points. There are serious drawbacks to attacking Iran now. Which is why my plan (Gawd, I sound like Kerry now) is to topple the regime from within by funding opposition, and propagandizing the hell out of them now, while we still have a chance. I'd like to see someone "take out" Ahmedinejad too. And yes, I mean that in the Pat Robertson sense. Anything to put off Armaggedon. But I also think negotiations and sanctions have about as much chance of ultimate success as they did in stopping Hitler. They should be used only as a delaying tactic, while we concentrate on regime change. I've also said elsewhere that fomenting a civil war within Iran has its appeal too.

Posted by: annika at April 26, 2006 06:44 PM (fxTDF)

15 Oh Willy boy, that's not advice. To give advice I'd have to have personal experience in the matter. That was an observation. Here's another, you talk too much, and people don't like that. You're a smart fellow. You'll figure it out one day.

Posted by: Casca at April 27, 2006 06:29 AM (rEC2k)

16 OK, I have two regrets. Firstly that I have violated my rule of the weblog, i.e. don't read more than two paragraphs of some windy ass's screed, and secondly that I said, "You're smart". Having gone back and read your ode to your ego, you are in simple terms strategically ignorant, yet full of modern liberal intellectual conceit. Yes the Republican party is unworthy of you. Pretend for a moment that people who probably ARE smarter than you, and definitely privy to all manner of geopolitical and strategic detail that you will never know, and committed to the success of this Republic to the extent that they sacrifice their very lives in service to same MAY JUST KNOW THINGS THAT AREN'T FIT FOR PUBLIC CONSUMPTION! Alas, I've wasted enough time with a fool. Effort is admirable, but accomplishment is valuable. I'm off to do something valuable.

Posted by: Casca at April 27, 2006 06:54 AM (rEC2k)

Hide Comments | Add Comment