Can We Not Threaten to Obliterate Anyone Today?

We have serious issues with Iran. The Iranians have emerged as the main beneficiary of the Iraq war. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been saying disgusting things about Israel. He and other Iranian leaders seem determined to acquire nuclear weapons. It's not clear that we can or will stop them. Many people are very nervous about all this. I count myself in that number. Speaking to this constituency among others, Hillary Clinton made the following comments in a television interview:

"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran," she said when she was asked what she would do if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons. "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them," she added.

(The news story can be found here:http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/01/mideast/iran.php)

Senator Clinton is basically a good person. As a woman locked in a tough presidential race, she has an obvious need to look strong and decisive. It's important to deter Iran. Still, this is a terrible statement to make about any nation, perhaps especially one with which we might someday be at war. After all, how would Americans react if a prominent Iranian said the same thing.

It is telling that Senator Clinton speaks with greater menace than do our own military leaders. To state the obvious, a massive attack of the sort described by Senator Clinton would be monstrous and crazy. As Omid Memarian notes, such an act would also be a crime, violating the Geneva Convention, international treaties against genocide, and our own uniform code of military justice. Senator Clinton's comments are especially dismaying when we are already equipped to respond to any attack the Iranians could mount.

To our military's enduring credit, it has spent billions of dollars developing smart weapons whose accuracy allows smaller warheads and less collateral damage. West Point cadets read and debate works such as Michael Walzer's Just and Unjust Wars to ponder the wrenching dilemmas of counterinsurgency and preemptive war. One does not have to support the Iraq war or every military policy to realize that we have built very different armed forces from the one that firebombed German and Japanese cities and sometimes behaved shamefully in Vietnam.

Whatever difficulties we've encountered in Iraq, our forces needed only a few short weeks to maul Saddam Hussein's war machine that had fought Iran's military to a standstill in a long and devastating war. If Iran were foolish enough to attack Israel, Israel is quite capable of launching a devastating response. If Israel could not, our forces are equipped to severely punish the Iranian military and the political establishment that launched the strike without exacting massive collective retribution against the Iranian people with whom we have much in common. Iran is a sophisticated society. Everyone, from the president down to the lowliest cabdriver knows it would be crazy to attack the United States, Israel, or our other key allies.

Senator Clinton also speaks quite differently from the scientists who developed nuclear weapons, and who were often chastened by what these weapons had wrought. Four blocks from my office, a Henry Moore sculpture marks the spot where Enrico Fermi supervised the world's first nuclear reactor.

Fermi was a central figure in the Manhattan Project. He was equally famous among scientists for other achievements. He was perhaps the last great physicist who made fundamental discoveries as both a theoretician and a gifted experimentalist in the lab.

In 1949, Fermi and other Manhattan Project scientists tried in vain to prevent the development of the hydrogen bomb. In a famous (then-secret) statement, Fermi and another great scientist, I.I. Rabi, concluded:

It is clear that the use of such a weapon cannot be justified on any ethical ground which gives a human being a certain individuality and dignity even if he happens to be a resident of an enemy country. It is evident to us that this would be the view of peoples in other countries. Its use would put the United States in a bad moral position relative to the peoples of the world.

Any postwar situation resulting from such a weapon would leave unresolvable enmities for generations. A desirable peace cannot come from such an inhuman application of force. The postwar problems would dwarf the problems which confront us at present....

The fact that no limits exist to the destructiveness of this weapon makes its very existence and the knowledge of its construction a danger to humanity as a whole. It is necessarily an evil thing considered in any light.

These words make more chilling reading today than they did 59 years ago. The fact is, atomic bombs are 1945 technology. Many determined nations with fairly rudimentary technical infrastructures could probably build these weapons if they so chose. Hydrogen bombs are more complicated. Yet their basic features have been widely understood since physicists unpacked the furnace-mechanisms of the sun seventy years ago. There are no deep secrets here.

Leaving aside the challenge of global warming, nuclear weapons proliferation is the most serious threat to peace and security in the world. The barriers to acquiring these weapons have declined in the post cold war world. Several countries appear to have enhanced their security and prestige by openly possessing these weapons. The great powers seem hesitant and divided in trying to stop this trend. We must do better, partly by getting a better grasp on loose nuclear materials, partly by negotiating new international agreements that address these dangers. Reducing our own nuclear stockpiles would be a helpful gesture in furthering these agreements.

We must also think, talk, and act differently about the use of mass violence. We must stand ready to defend ourselves and our allies in a dangerous world. Without abdicating this responsibility, we must try to diffuse the anger and hate that ultimately threaten everyone. One of the best things we can do is to encourage global norms of decency in which it becomes simply unthinkable to harm or terrorize innocent people in pursuit of any political cause or to unleash any weapon of mass destruction.

Elements of the Iranian regime pose real dangers. We are still the superpower with the world's most powerful military. Saber rattling does not become us. It frightens our allies and encourages adversaries to be even more fanatical than they would otherwise be. Loose talk about nuclear obliteration will not hasten the day that Iran is ruled by a more benign government that reflects the urbanity and tolerance of so many Iranian people.

Other than to scare up a few primary votes, it's hard to imagine anything good coming from Senator Clinton's unfortunate comments.

Postscript: My friend Mark Kleiman over at Reality-Based Community has a terrific short essay on the disastrous moral and diplomatic implications of Senator Clinton's comments:http://www.samefacts.com/archives/hrc_/2008/05/not_a_gaffe.php

Money quotes:

Seventy million people live in Iran. They are currently ruled by a religious dictatorship covered by a thin veneer of "controlled democracy": the voters can vote, but only for candidates the mullahs approve in advance....

The current Iranian regime has an unsure grip on power. Younger people and the educated urban elite (think of it as the Iranian version of the Obama constituency) hates the current ruling clique and would like to move toward democracy and civil liberty. Iran's wealth and military power make it a key player in the Middle East, and the fact that Iranians aren't Arabs means that Iran isn't necessarily part of the anti-Israel coalition. (The Shah was strongly pro-Israel, and that wasn't what caused him to fall.) Bringing about regime change in Iran by fostering the growth of democratic forces must rank very high on any intelligent list of American foreign policy objectives: much higher, for example, than achieving a stable Iraq....

It is precisely because the United States has the biggest stick in the history of the world that we can and must talk softly.

Comments

[mamacat]

Personally, I believe her statement was very ill-advised. I think that the Muslim nations already believe that we are overtly pro-Israeli. A statement such as Sen. Clinton made raises the spector of a rapid deterioration toward war. During the Cold War, we did not threaten to "obliterate" the USSR. To do so would have been an unnecessary and unwise provocation of an already uneasy "cold war." One can let another country know of ones concerns without scaring the whole world into thinking there is an imminent threat of nuclear warfare.

[Maury66]

Unfortunate...this person is so desperate to gain the Presidency, she will say or do nearly anything. This is so patently wrong...beyond words. HC is our new embarrassment to replace Geo Bush. At least McCain has an excuse, he's old.

[OrionGal]

Please email your Congressional SuperDelegates about Hillary's statement:

http://www.rollcall.com/politics/endorsements.html


Hillary's outrageous statement cannot be tolerated by us, or Congress.

[LiamR]

I think a one-day moratorium on obliteration threats is a good idea. But just for one day. We don't want the world to think we're getting soft and losing our nerve.

[retarius]

Don't Americans ever learn? Bush and Congress hoodwinked you all about Iraq and the non-existent threat that Saddam posed. They are now in the process of hoodwinking you again about a non-existent threat posed by Iran, using poorly interpreted, out of context sound bites to attempt to support their case.
Israel is a real problem in the Middle East and the US turns a blind eye to the atrocities committed against the Palestinian people. To bring peace to the Middle East and the energy security that America believes is her god-given right, America must stop this blind unconditional support for Israel and put pressure on to roll the borders back to 1967.Only then can there be peace.

[AntonBursch]

All that is required to realise what an RETARDED idea it is to Obliterate Iran is a brief LOOK AT A MAP of the Middle East.

If you wipe out Iran with nuclear weapons then you wipe out the whole Middle East.

You don't just kill 70 million Iranians, you kill everyone around Iran.

And that's not taking into consideration... WIND!!!!!!!!!

This is why we do need ELITIST people running the country. So idiots don't kill the whole planet.

And by retarded... I mean literally retarded... as in a retarded ability to THINK... which is what anyone has who thinks destroying a whole country is even remotely reasonable.

[JimR]

Yup. And there are roughly 30,000 Jews living in Iran. Is she going to kill them, too?

[Wanjiru]

...well, HRC...

...you sure told the Iranians!!!...


...MORON!...



Obama 2008!

.

[flacon]

Thank God none of you will ever be in a position of making a decision. Israel is an ally. She is surrounded by enemies and we have promised her our protection. That we would retaliate against anyone on Israel's behalf shouldn't surprise anyone.

What is surprising, however, is the reactions to this post. The blame America crowd is in full voice! The USA is , whether you approve or not, the world's policeman. Hatred of our current leadership has influenced responses that don't reflect reality.

The real world is a tough place. Sometimes you have to break a few dishes.

[AntonBursch]

what do you think will happen to all of that radiated sand in Iran when we obliterate Iran with nuclear bombs? what do you think will happen when an entire country of sand goes up into the atmosphere?

[Leota2]

Did you actually say--"break a few dishes"
as in annihilate 70 million people? And we are no
longer the world's policemen. George Bush has made
us the world's bullies and Senator Clinton, it seems, shall
try to continue his bigfooted, idiotic ways.

And not wanting any American to bluster crap about
destroying a sovereign nation and all of it's men, women
and children puts you in"the blame America crowd?"
Well hell---I got my badge on then . . . .

And you---you need to get those knuckles off the ground
before you get drag marks on them.

[JimR]

"Obliterate" isn't breaking a few dishes. It's burning the entire kitchen down to the ground.

There are roughly 30,000 Jews living in Iran. Think we should kill them, too?

[SeekTruthNow]

"Zabunam mu dar avord."
The literal Farsi to English translation is "Hair grew on my tongue."
The figurative, and proper, Farsi to English translation is "I've repeated it too many times."

Thus, when Ahmadinejad made his "wipe Israel off the map" comment, what we got was the LITERAL translation, and not the PROPER translation. When you look at a current world map, do you see the Soviet Union anywhere?? No. It has been "wiped off the map." Was it done through war?? No. By dropping a nuclear bomb?? No. By annihilating an entire population?? No.

Iran helped the US forces bring down the Taliban in Afghanistan. Right before the US attacked Iraq, President Khatami offered to:
(1) help US forces bring down Saddam Hussein,
(2) help US forces control the inevitable sectarian violence,
(3) cease supporting Hamas and Hizbollah, and
(4) enter into an agreement whereby the US would go to Iran and enrich their uranium for them.

In exchange, Iran wanted a security agreement from US...that the US would abide by the Algiers Accord (the agreement entered into that secured the release of the US Embassy hostages) to not seek regime change in Iran and to respect Iran's right under Article 4 of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to enrich uranium for peaceful, civilian purposes.

The only mistake was that Khatami made this offer to Bush.

After that humiliating experience, President Khatami, the moderate reformist, was defeated in the next elections by Ahmadinejad.

[katefranklin]

Somebody ought to pass the message to the Iranians that the loon that threatened to obliterate them will in no way shape or form be our next president. They can attach a delegate count to the email message to validate this fact.

[BubbaC33]

First, the blogger failed to mention the nature of the question, it was hypothetical. And Ms. Clinton did not threaten to use nukes, she said the US has a number of ways to attack and destroy Iran.
The more important question for the folks attacking Ms. Clinton is what should the US response be if Iran destroyed Israel? What should the US do? MY thinking is Ms. Clinton wasn't that far off the mark. Nations like Iran do not respond to promises and weakness. If a rogue nation like Iran does something so despicable what else should the US do in response?
The UN can declare all sorts of actions illegal, but in the real world nations like Iran have to know there will be terrible conscequences for terrible actions.

[JimR]

Agree on the last sentence. But saying you would "obliterate" any country is extremely childish and irresponsible. I expect more mature tough responses from someone who would be president.

[moderationsmuse]

This really would be a good time for everyone to learn something about the American president who negotiated a historic reduction of nuclear arms with the world's other nuclear superpower.
Reagan's philosophy of negotiation ,as demonstrated in his diaries (now published in part) and in his book "An American Life," ought to be "required reading" for anyone trying to think through the new nuclear threats posed today by terrorism and rogue states.

[Jonahson]

Three warmongers for president? Future World peace hopes rest in pieces.

[GrouchyJim]

Pollack does not know whom our military defeated in a "few short weeks". Iraq did fight Iran to a draw, However, the first Gulf War was conducted. This severely weakened Saddam's military particularily given that our military continued this campaign through the 90's right up to Bush's War. It really is one stinking war.
Hillary will become Margaret Thatcher if given the controls.

[moderationsmuse]

Margaret Thatcher? The British Prime Minister who Reagan described as one of the best friends American ever had? You evidently think more highly of Hillary than the facts support.
But of course you meant something different. Mrs. Thatcher was making the world safer. Perhaps you should find out about the real woman instead of alluding to the make-believe cartoon character.

[dadele]

We are the only nation to ever use nuclear weapons. We are the aggressors in the middle east.

Think about what we (as patriots and citizens) would do if, say russia or china had done in Mexico, what we have done in Iraq? Maybe join the nearest group with guns and ammo and learn how to use them? What if then, they started to threaten us with Obliteration?

We are becoming what we loath and fear. This is madness.

[rationalthought1]

I'm sorry, I don't buy your premise that Hillary is basically a good person - not any more. Not after conducting a campaign that Michael Moore has accurately described as "discusting". A good person doesn't make immoral choices that puts other peoples lives in harm's way so that se can appear tough and get elected. She is as false as the sniper fire that she attempted to use to get war cred - in the military that's called fake valor. She's become another chicken hawk. Yes, a woman can be one, too.

[mikekev58]

You are equating a hypothetical act by Russia or China, nations with histories of "liquidating" millions of their own citizens, and in Russia's case keeping other countries in bondage for over 40 years, with what we are doing in Iraq? Don't get me wrong, I opposed the Iraq war even before Barry spoke out about it. But on our worst day, there is no comparison between the United States and Russia (and its previous iteration as the USSR) and China.

Perhaps we shouldn't have dropped the bombs on Japan. Perhaps we should've fought our way to the Tokyo, losing 10s of thousands of American soldiers in the process and probably killing even more civilians than died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki put together. Perhaps. But I think not.

Your country, my country is far from perfect, but we are still, as others have said, the last, best hope of mankind. That is why we can have an election season like this and why we must do our all to put the country back on the right track.

[KareninSM]

Just curious, but why the "Senator Clinton is basically a good person?" I keep seeing some version of this in almost every piece, it seems. What exactly is your standard for a good person?
For myself, I'm not sure I can consider someone who can casually talk about "obliterating" millions of people, basically a good person. I don't think the various people who have crossed Sen. Clinton and been threatened rather viciously in return would agree that that is how a good person acts. I have trouble looking at the way she has conducted herself in this campaign and still seeing a good person.

[faith]

Amen to that. Anyone who flippantly indicates they would "obliterate" another people/culture is anathema and deserves shunning. Ms. Clinton should receive zero votes for such an ill considered statement, an awful statement. I hope Ms. Clinton takes a moment to view the pictures of the holocaust that was Hiroshima after the bomb was dropped.

[mikekev58]

Have you seen the photos or American soldiers on the Bataan Death March?
Have you seen the footage of American civilians held captive by the Japanese in the Philippines?

How interesting that you use the word "holocaust" in your rant. That is precisely what Ahmadenijad is proposing for Israel. He should know that we are prepared to do to Iran what it would do to our ally. It's what Barry means when he says all options are on the table. Really.