"Intelligence doesn't work against a madman."

[shereads]

The president just went off-script for a moment on Meet the Press.

Out of the mouths of babes...

 

[Pure]

Puts me in mind:

Ever heard of Nixon's "Madman" strategy?

 

[NoJo]

Yeah, wasn't the idea was to be unpredicatable to enemy forces, by acting with "irrational rage", attacking apparantly at random and unprovoked, but relentlessly. Very like the Inquisition.

Nasty little men in the Pentagon with PhD's in games theory probably came up with it.

I guess the soundbyte Bush uttered was in reference to the tactics of anti-Western terrorism.

 

[minsue]

I guess the soundbyte Bush uttered was in reference to the tactics of anti-Western terrorism.

You know you spend too much time with your computer when...

 

[shereads]

Russert (interviewer) asked him if the U.S. will "accept" a fundamentalist Islamic regime if one is democratically elected by the Iraqi people.

The president said that's not going to happen. Mr. Chalibi and others have assured him that it won't.

That's a relief.

 

[Pure]

Hi Sub Joe,

[on the madman strategy of Nixon]

Yeah, wasn't the idea was to be unpredicatable to enemy forces, by acting with "irrational rage", attacking apparantly at random and unprovoked, but relentlessly. Very like the Inquisition.

Nasty little men in the Pentagon with PhD's in games theory probably came up with it.

Yes, that's the gist of the first part of it; set yourself up to be viewed as 'mad', unpredictable, disproportionate (like incinerate Moscow if a US diplomat is kidnapped).

The next part of the analysis is that this forces your opponent to be *very* cautious, and reasonable (=intelligent, in Bush's terms).

It can be seen that Nixon's reasoning is the opposite of Bush's; Nixon sees 'intelligence' are the likely, hoped for and effective answer (to an apparent 'madman'). Bush sees the US leaders' 'intelligence' as not to be desirable or effective against the madman (like Osama).

What do you think he meant.?? (in the vast abyss, the mind of gwb).

I'd guess he's trying to say, "Don't be subject to legal or civilized restraints (reasonableness/'intelligence') in dealing with 'madmen' (terrorists) who'll kill you and yours by any means or method, no matter how despicable."

If you've ever seen "Battle of Algiers" you know the French paras tried this approach against the Algerians. The Israelis have tried it in assassinations. The problem is that you tend to discredit your cause, since your behavior looks similar to that of the enemy.

There's evidence that Nixon articulated and used the 'madman strategy.'

http://www.nuclearfiles.org/kinuclearweapons/strat_madmantheory.htm


Nixon “Madman Theory” Alert Revealed in Declassified Documents

In late December, 2003 declassified documents published by the National Security Archives disclosed a worldwide secret nuclear alert Nixon and his national security adviser, Henry Kissinger, stage-managed from 13 Oct. to 25 Oct., 1969. The alert consisted of a series of actions to ratchet up the readiness level of nuclear forces hoping to jar Soviet officials into pressing North Vietnam to meet U.S. terms in peace negotiations. The move caused no change in Soviet policy towards North Vietnam.


The nuclear alert was based on a diplomacy-supporting stratagem Nixon called the Madman Theory, or “the principle of the threat of excessive force.” Nixon was convinced that his power would be enhanced if his opponents thought he might use excessive force, even nuclear force. That, coupled with his reputation for ruthlessness, he believed, would suggest that he was dangerously unpredictable. {my bold}

Although Nixon favored this theory more than most, threatening excessive force was nothing new. In the 1950s President Dwight D. Eisenhower, his Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, and then–Vice President Nixon, had overtly practiced a version of the Madman Theory by means of the “uncertainty principle” and coercive nuclear “brinkmanship.”

(Sources: Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, January/February 2003, National Security Archive, 23 December 2002)

 

[oggbashan]

It worked well enough for the British Empire.

As far as most Asian and African countries were concerned we were completely unpredictable. We might send a missionary. We might send an army. If we were annoyed we might send a protest note or we might bombard your major city with twelve inch shells e.g Zanzibar and Alexandria.

We might even burn The White House. We did.

Og

 

[Guest]

We might even burn The White House. We did.

Oh, pleeeeeeeeeeze do it again. Soon?

Perdita

 

[oggbashan]

Oh, pleeeeeeeeeeze do it again. Soon?

Perdita

10 Downing Street is first on the list. Some of our military are getting seriously p****d with Tony Blair.

Bring back Guy Fawkes. He had the right idea even if he was a Catholic misled by fundamentalist clerics. He even had a beard like what's his name.

Og

PS. Do you realise that a British missile sub is off your coast right now and the US Navy can't detect it? The French are patrolling the East Coast. Isn't it comforting to have predictable friends?

 

[Guest]

Good lord! Thanks for the larf, Ogg.

Perdita

 

[oggbashan]

Good lord! Thanks for the larf, Ogg.

Perdita

Laugh? I'm serious. Ask any US Navy personnel who have taken part in NATO exercises. They can't detect us and we have 'sunk' several US aircraft carriers and nuclear subs.

We and the French have nuclear missile capability and enough warheads to take out most US cities. Who is the most unpredictable and warlike country in the world? You are.

Og

 

[cynter]

in the eyes of the world

Laugh? I'm serious. Ask any US Navy personnel who have taken part in NATO exercises. They can't detect us and we have 'sunk' several US aircraft carriers and nuclear subs.

We and the French have nuclear missile capability and enough warheads to take out most US cities. Who is the most unpredictable and warlike country in the world? You are.

Og

gee, really? who'd thunk? CYA is always the best policy. (CYA=cover your ass....if ya don't know). it never ceases to amaze me the number of americans that are totally clueless about how this country is perceived overseas. sigh......and worse yet, why.

 

[Pure]

Let me say I don't favor international bullying.

That said, being unpredictable-- but not necessarily mad-- is a legitimate, long-known and acknowledged aspect of the art of war.

Which is to say there's a least a grain of truth (=effectiveness) in the 'madman strategy'!

PS: I'd add, though, that there doesn't seem--at this point-- to be much unpredictability in Bush's foreign policies, practices, and adventures. And that is a vulnerability of the US in Iraq.

 

[oggbashan]

Re: in the eyes of the world

gee, really? who'd thunk? CYA is always the best policy. (CYA=cover your ass....if ya don't know). it never ceases to amaze me the number of americans that are totally clueless about how this country is perceived overseas. sigh......and worse yet, why.

And yet we, the UK, and France are your friends and allies.

You can imagine what your enemies think.

Og

 

[minsue]

Sadly, Ogg, the American public seems not to care one whit what the world thinks of us - enemies or allies. I suppose that distinction between the two changed when they started constantly hearing a leader preach that those who aren't with us are against us. I must admit to being very disappointed when Blair made it known that he was 'with us'. I was counting on him to rein us in.

- Mindy, ready to start chanting 'regime change starts at home'

 

[oggbashan]

The French hoped that their strong opposition would influence the decision. They know better than most what it is like to fight a war in a country divided by fanatics of various Islamic fundamentalists.

We fought with Arabs against the Turks in WWI - Read Lawrence of Arabia.

We fought with Arab help in WWII in Africa and around the Persian Gulf.

We (and France) fought Egypt over the Suez Canal. We tried to do that when the US wasn't looking. The US said 'No' and we had to withdraw. Was that a mistake because if we had won we would have stopped modern Arab nationalism in its tracks.

Even after that we have had good relations with many Arab countries and are not so committed to Israel. Our soldiers were killed in Palestine by the terrorist Stern gang yet some of that gang went on to rule Israel.

The US's support of Israel - whether Israel is right or wrong - upsets many otherwise reasonable people in the Arab countries. That policy alienates other countries as well. If the US would tell Israel to negotiate, not using tanks, bombs and shells, then a settlement might be possible. As it is, people who see no hope are easy prey for the fanatics who promise them paradise in exchange for being a human bomb. Despair is easily perverted to hate.

Og

 

[Boxlicker101]

[ Headline of the Day
Woman's Chastity Belt Sets Off Airport Security Alarm
(headline made me laugh, story pissed me off)

Hi, Mindy. That is a funny story but why should it piss you off? Her husband doesn't want her fooling around and he takes steps to prevent it. Most women don't their husbands fooling around either, and it there were ways as effective as this one, the women would use them. It's unfortunate, from both sides, but that's the way it is.

 

[minsue]

[ Headline of the Day
Woman's Chastity Belt Sets Off Airport Security Alarm
(headline made me laugh, story pissed me off)

Hi, Mindy. That is a funny story but why should it piss you off? Her husband doesn't want her fooling around and he takes steps to prevent it. Most women don't their husbands fooling around either, and it there were ways as effective as this one, the women would use them. It's unfortunate, from both sides, but that's the way it is.

The thought of anyone so controlling pisses me off. A chastity belt could be made to rein a man in as easily as a woman. It's not done because no man would wear one and few women are jealous, controlling, and physically strong enough to force a man to do so. In my mind, any man who would force such a humiliating device upon his wife is no man at all. I also view such a man as one who is likely to beat her and such a woman that would wear one as likely to have been beaten many times. It takes a complete lack of self-respect to allow yourself to be treated that way and I have known too many women who've had all self-respect beaten out of them to view it* as anything but abuse.

- Mindy

*edited to clarify 'it' meaning making your wife wear a chastity belt.

 

[Guest]

It's unfortunate, from both sides, but that's the way it is.

Box, too many people saying that is why it is. Disappointed, not surprised at you.

Perdita

 

[shereads]

I'd guess he's trying to say, "Don't be subject to legal or civilized restraints (reasonableness/'intelligence') in dealing with 'madmen' (terrorists) who'll kill you and yours by any means or method, no matter how despicable."

Pure, you're giving him more credit than you would have if you had seen the interview. The context was a long and circular non-answer about the failure of U.S. intelligence - CIA.

He contradicted himself more than once. At the beginning of the interview, Russert asked him why he had agreed to appoint a commission to investigate the failed intelligence ("failed" assumes that there was no deliberate attempt to mislead, of course.)

GWB said that this commission will help future presidents use intelligence to deal with the war on terror, because good intelligence is essential, etc.

Later, when asked whether he would still have invaded if he had not believed that there was an imminent danger from WMD, he seemed to dismiss the importance of correct intelligence by saying it wouldn't have worked in this case.

 

[shereads]

Sadly, Ogg, the American public seems not to care one whit what the world thinks of us - enemies or allies. I suppose that distinction between the two changed when they started constantly hearing a leader preach that those who aren't with us are against us. I must admit to being very disappointed when Blair made it known that he was 'with us'. I was counting on him to rein us in.

I think most Americans do care, Min and Og. The majority who voted for Al Gore in 2000 because we feared this cowboy and his handlers. We were a majority, and if you added the votes that went to Nader's Green Party in a key state of two, we'd have been a significant majority. The fact that we weren't divided properly by state, to sway the electoral college, doesn't mean we didn't see a lot of this coming.

"We," the people who were so desperate to keep Bush/Cheney out of office, were predicting a war with Iraq if they were elected, along with the destruction of the budget surplus and the crippling of the Environmental Protection Agency.

We didn't seriously fear a war with Iraq, though, because we knew the public would never back a full-scale invasion unless there was some new threat from Saddam Hussein.

Osama Bin Laden handed Bush/Cheney the crisis they needed to go to war. All they had to do was some strategic misdirection to make people confuse the two issues.

Argh.

 

[shereads]

[
It's unfortunate, from both sides, but that's the way it is. [/B]

Whoa! Weren't you just at the Dented Head thread talking about the seriousness of spousal abuse?

Anybody who has to get a key from her husband before she can unlock her panties is in an abusive relationship.

Unless...she's in a happy and rather, um, "creative" D/s relationship. In which case she'll be the life of the party with her airport security story.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Whoa! Weren't you just at the Dented Head thread talking about the seriousness of spousal abuse?

Anybody who has to get a key from her husband before she can unlock her panties is in an abusive relationship.

Unless...she's in a happy and rather, um, "creative" D/s relationship. In which case she'll be the life of the party with her airport security story.

The thought of anyone so controlling pisses me off. A chastity belt could be made to rein a man in as easily as a woman. It's not done because no man would wear one and few women are jealous, controlling, and physically strong enough to force a man to do so. In my mind, any man who would force such a humiliating device upon his wife is no man at all. I also view such a man as one who is likely to beat her and such a woman that would wear one as likely to have been beaten many times. It takes a complete lack of self-respect to allow yourself to be treated that way and I have known too many women who've had all self-respect beaten out of them to view it* as anything but abuse.

- Mindy

Box, too many people saying that is why it is. Disappointed, not surprised at you.

Perdita

Ladies, I agree that this is a form of abuse, and, although it is funny on first view, it's a lot less funny when you think about it. Assuming this is for real and not just some kind of strange game they are playing, the woman's husband is a really controlling bastard. When I think of abuse, I think of physical abuse, but I will admit there are other kinds. I don't know, and there would be no way of proving one way or another, but I would be willing to bet there are more women who are verbally abusive of their husbands than vice-versa.

I don't believe a chastity belt could be designed for men that wouldn't inflict injury even if he is not fooling around. If there were such a thing, there are plenty of women who are controlling and jealous enough to make their husband wear one. They would not be physically strong enough to do so but there are other ways to force a person to do something he or she doesn't want. I doubt if the husband physically forced his wife to wear a chastity belt in this case, because he could get into serious trouble over such a thing.

When I say it's unfortunate from both sides, I mean that it's unfortunate that there are people, either men or women, who are so jealous and controlling that they would do such a thing. Of course, few people go to such extremes as this.

 

[minsue]

Box -



- Mindy

 

[Guest]

Box, the physical battering of women by men is generally accompanied by verbal abuse. It's been my experience (not personally, luckily only) that men aren't generally silent when beating up a woman (for whatever reason). So though I don't think it's right, a woman who only verbally abuses a man isn't a measure in the scheme of things.

Perdita