September 11, 2007

More from 2Blowhards' Cochran interview

Here's an excerpt from the second part of Michael Blowhard's interview with Gregory Cochran:

2B: As far as Mideast policy goes, how could we do better than we do?

Cochran: I think we have little chance of running a practical Middle East policy. The political class is ignorant and / or crazy (and also lazy) and seems to enjoy being manipulated by groups whose interests are not closely aligned with those of the United States. For example, Bush Senior had Prince Bandar try to prepare Junior for the world stage. Why the hell would anyone pick a fat Saudi thief as a political science instructor? Why not someone on our side? And when Rudy has Norman Podhoretz as a foreign policy adviser -- Norman who wants to invade Arab countries that haven't even been discovered yet -- well, I tremble for my country.

2B: So what's the right general course of action for the US as the world's premier power?

Cochran: Do little. Stay strong -- although this can't possibly require the current high level of military expenditures. If I were picking an actor to represent the right policy, it'd be Jimmy Stewart -- a nice guy that you never, ever want to threaten. A mix of "It's a Wonderful Life" and "Winchester '73."

2B: What are some basic things that you wish more Americans understood about the mid-east, and about their own government?

Cochran: 1. Iraq is a Seinfeld war -- a war about nothing. 2. The Mideast isn't that important. 3. The people running the country have no idea what they're doing.


My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

on

8 comments:

  1. Steve Sailer9/11/07, 1:53 AM

    Well, at least Prince Bandar isn't dumb. And that Ahmad Chalabi guy, with his Ph.D. in Math from the U. of Chicago, is downright smart.

    Figuring out a foreign policy that's in the best interest of America ... a job Americans just won't do anymore!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous9/11/07, 6:43 AM

    Yes, Greg Cochran, those middle easterners sure can't do much. Luckily for us, it was the Irish who tripled the price of gas in a single day, back in the 70's.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous9/11/07, 7:45 AM

    "The political class is ignorant and / or crazy "

    How true!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous9/11/07, 3:15 PM

    I agree with Cochran that Democracy in the Middle East = Hamas or the GIA. Also that the Political Class (pampered Ivy Leaguers with PC-Multiculti religion) is stupid and crazy. GWB and John Kerry being essentially the same guy with minor variations.

    Cochran though is frankly stupid on the problem of terrorism. We were "nice" to Muslims throughout Clinton's presidency, bombing Orthodox Serbia to protect Bosnian Muslims and it got us ... Khobar Towers, the Cole, the Embassy Bombings, and 9/11 (planned during 1998-2000) along with the failed Milennium bomber plot.

    Cochran is also frankly stupid on the subject of nuclear terrorism. The following nations have announced nuclear programs: Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Oman, UAE, Kuwait. He is correct that a non-state actor cannot BUILD a bomb, but can certainly "borrow" one from a weak regime that FEARS TERRORISTS more than the US.

    Without the US being FEARED, weak regimes like Pakistan, or Iran (riven by internal struggles), or any of the above nations will respond to the thug next door and give him nukes to make him happy, rather than secure them. Kim Jong Il will sell to anyone, and China protects him from any consequences.

    Moreover, Cochran is also frankly stupid again on Islam being no big deal for the rest of the world. It's true they are weak regimes with no innovation. But that has not stopped Thailand from being beset by Jihad, or the Philippines, or Indonesia making Jihadist noises towards Australia, or India's problems, or China's long-standing jihad problem in XianXing, or the move towards Sharia (and calls for Islamic European Republics, presumably protected by Iranian nuke missiles) in parts of Europe.

    You don't NEED innovation or economic strength if you have a lot of young men with guns and bombs (which are cheap) and the other side is hobbled by PC weakness and demographic failure (not many young men). You can simply take by raiding that turns into conquering. It's how Islam conquered Christian North Africa, Egypt, the Middle East, Spain, Sicily, Southern France and Italy, and the Balkans plus India, Southeast Asia.

    Cochran is also stupid on the consequences of a rapid US exit. It would be victory for Iran and AQ, defeat for the US. Being weak or seen as weak gets you attacked. It's almost a guarantee that Pakistan would hand off a nuke or three to keep it's regime in power to AQ.

    Cochran is stupid on military expenditures: as a measure of GDP it's around 3.4% even LOWER than Clinton's 4% and substantially lower than Reagan's 6% in the 1980's. If anything we need a much bigger military (which we had under Reagan) and a lot more willingness to hammer threats quickly so we can deter attacks.

    Cochran is still in the Cold War. Our problem is a bunch of thugs who find us weak and believe with enough attacks we will hand it over (money, power, influence).

    How stupid is Cochran? The unaddressed threat of Bin Laden from 1994 onwards led to 9/11. I'd say loss of 3,000 Americans all at once, a great big smoking hole where the WTC stood and part of the Pentagon is important. But then Cochran outside his area of expertise is just NOT THAT SMART.

    Example: The US is far stronger in Air and Naval power than any other nation. Why not use that power to our advantage to intimidate enemies into doing what we want? Like cracking down on groups like AQ? The biggest critique of GWB's Iraq policy is that played against the enemy's strength (guerilla action against hamstrung by PC troops) and kept the US Navy and Airforce sidelined.

    I suspect Cochran's bias is that war-fighting to deter non-state actors coupled with weak/unstable states marginalizes geneticists who's focus and expertise is well, genetics.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous9/11/07, 9:11 PM

    "We were "nice" to Muslims throughout Clinton's presidency, bombing Orthodox Serbia to protect Bosnian Muslims and it got us ... Khobar Towers, the Cole, the Embassy Bombings, and 9/11 (planned during 1998-2000) along with the failed Milennium bomber plot."

    I don't think that Mr. Cochran is proposing being nice to Muslims - I think what he's proposing is just to try to avoid dealing with them altogether.

    "It's true they are weak regimes with no innovation. But that has not stopped Thailand from being beset by Jihad, or the Philippines, or Indonesia making Jihadist noises towards Australia, or India's problems, or China's long-standing jihad problem in XianXing, or the move towards Sharia (and calls for Islamic European Republics, presumably protected by Iranian nuke missiles) in parts of Europe."

    Most of the nations you mention have problems with muslims because they have muslims living there. Europe has problems with muslims because - now, try to understand this - because they let them into thier countries. Just as we are doing. Just as we permitted the Sept. 11th killers in. If we stopped doing that, we wouldn't have much of any problem with terrorists. Muslim terrorists are not borne on the wind. They do not seep up out of the ground. They do not arrive in our harbors stuck to the hulls of ships like barnacles. They get in because our State Department gives them visas, and because ICE admits them at our airports - they get in because our government does not protect our borders. Our borders, not Iraq's.

    Of course, combatting terrorism would also require the occasional brutal employment of force so as to punish those who attack us and deter those who would like to. We started out doing that in Afghanistan, until we got side-tracked with all that "nation-building" crap.

    You have said much, Anonymous, in this and other posts, but little or nothing of any value. Your arguments have all the juvenile elan of those military fan-boys who post on "Ace-of-Spades". But enthusiasm is no substitute for wisdom. I find Mr. Cochrans' opinions to be of much much greater value than yours.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous9/11/07, 11:01 PM

    "And that Ahmad Chalabi guy, with his Ph.D. in Math from the U. of Chicago, is downright smart."

    That he is. I wouldn't be surprised if he ends up running Iraq in a few years. He's floating around there, in a high-enough appointed position to cultivate alliances, but not prominent enough to get blamed for any of the current government's incompetence. Meanwhile, we are pacifying the Sunni tribes, and the major Shiite militias are killing each other in Basra.

    "How stupid is Cochran? ...But then Cochran outside his area of expertise is just NOT THAT SMART."

    Cochran is obviously highly intelligent, but, like many of us, he can get sloppy when his prejudices get in the way. For example, Cochran is clearly prejudiced against government officials, assuming they are in government because they are too stupid and innumerate to do other work. Is this true though? And is it even relevant? Off the top of my head I can think of a couple of super-smart, highly-numerate former officials who didn't seem to do great jobs in government: John Deutch (Clinton's DCI, chemistry professor at MIT); Paul Wolfowitz (Deputy Defense Sec., double majored in math and chemistry at Cornell before getting Ph.D. in Poli Sci from Yale).

    Also, Cochran's prejudice against Muslims as weak incompetents is one that was common in American popular culture prior to 9/11. Remember Chuck Norris single-handedly kicking the asses of stupid Muslim terrorists in a series of movies? Fred Dryer doing the same? And these movies were only a few years after "weak" Muslims killed 200+ Marines with one truck bomb in Beirut. Didn't matter -- they remained stupid and weak in our popular culture. Think of "True Lies" in the late '90's. Perhaps a sense of humility is in order here. The Muslims don't need to be able to re-create or even fully understand our technology in order to use it against us in unexpected ways.

    I hope Cochran is right about the prospect of terrorists getting their hands on nukes being unlikely, but he seems a little too sanguine about the prospect of a nuclear arms race between Iran and the major Sunni Arab states, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. If those countries get in the nuclear club, one would think the risks of terrorists getting their hands on nukes goes up exponentially.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous9/12/07, 1:37 AM

    anon:
    "I suspect Cochran's bias is that war-fighting to deter non-state actors coupled with weak/unstable states marginalizes geneticists who's focus and expertise is well, genetics."

    His 'bias' is that, unlike you, he knows that war-fighting does not deter non-state actors!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous9/12/07, 6:57 AM

    Gee, thank God we have Jack Bauer protecting us from a dangerous world (full of Nazis and Islamofascists), and not dirty anti-Semites like Cochran!!

    The wave of the future. Take that, you dirty naive stupid cattle!

    ReplyDelete

Comments are moderated, at whim.