Answer the damn question
As a political reporter (or just a political observer) I can fairly say that a politician's most annoying and obvious dodge is a refusal to comment about "hypotheticals". Obviously this practice is smart politics, and indeed some hypothetical questions are absurd, but universal objection to commenting about any possibilities that aren't yet facts is, I think, a despicable impediment to understanding our elected officials.
I mention this in the context of Ezra's most recent blog debate. And though I hesitate to say anything--because he's so very able to defend himself--I can't help myself any longer. Here's Jason Zengerle of TNR:
Ezra Klein is "genuinely puzzled" by some of the negative responses to his "liberal hawk" column--particularly Kevin Sullivan's argument (or, as Ezra deems it, whinging) that
"Liberal hawks" are liberals that acknowledge the existence of very real enemies in the world, and maintain any and all options in dealing with those enemies. You thank God when you can avoid confrontation, but act swiftly and decisively when left with no other diplomatic options.
Ezra whinges back:
As opposed to...who? Who are these liberal doves who avoid confrontation when avoiding confrontation is impossible, and then seek to act sluggishly and in as muddled a fashion as possible when finally moved to act? Name names, please. I'd like to steal their lunch money.
But isn't Sullivan describing Ezra--at least as it relates to his views on Iran? So far as I can tell, Ezra really does believe that, in the case of Iran, the military option should be taken off the table no matter what.
No! No, no, no, no! No because this totally mischaracterizes Ezra's question, which is about military options vis-a-vis some hypothetical situations, but not others. Should we use military strikes against Iran if Iran attacks Israel? Quite possibly! Should we use military force against Iran if Iran begins supplying nuclear weapons to other counties? Perhaps! Those are perfectly reasonable hypothetical questions--questions nobody should shy away from answering, even if ambivalently. But they're not the one's Ezra's asking! If tomorrow we were to wake up to find the Ayatollahs suggesting convincingly that Iran had a small stockpile of nuclear weapons, would it be wise to start bombing their facilities? Or, if tomorrow we were to receive some intelligence that Iran was weeks away from compiling such a stockpile, would it be wise to... start bombing their facilities? Those last two are basically the questions Ezra has been asking. And though (to him and to me) the answer is emphatically "NO!", an unwillingness to answer those questions at all--other hypotheticals not withstanding--is most certainly a dodge.
Update: Chris Orr writes in to point out that J-A-S-O-N Z-E-N-G-E-R-L-E does not, in fact, spell "Christopher Orr". Corrected to reflect that insight.
Comments
The blog post you are criticizing was written by Jason Zengerle, not me. If you could update/correct, I'd appreciate it.
Brian, I would respond post-to-post, but our similar blog format makes me feel like I'm in some vortex or something. So I'll try to be brief.
You seem to be supplanting Ezra's supposedly non-hypothetical questions with more hypotheticals. Your examples are pretty feast or famine. "Ok, either Iran is ready to level all of America, or they can't fire a rocket 10 feet."
There are, of course, options in between complete nuclear annihilation of Iran and nothing. Were the Israelis wrong for pre-emptively bombing Iraq's nuclear facilities in the 80's? This incident, after all, was often cited as reason for why Saddam PROBABLY had no WMD's.
Would you support sanctions, with bombings as a condition if violated? Clinton did it to Iraq, would you support sanctions and possibly no fly zones (presumably on the Iraqi border) if it came to that?
Folks like you and Ezra keep saying that you're dealing with very specific questions. "What should we do to Iran?" But shouldn't the question be "What should we do if Iran (blank)?"
I'll tell you one thing we shouldn't do, and that's tell our enemies up front that we will absolutely not attack them. We weaken our own position then, and also make an Israeli bombing campaign all the more likely.
Kevin,
Normally I'd put your comment on top of the blog, but I think you've really misread me.
For one, I don't think either Ezra or I ever thought we were asking non-hypothetical questions. We were asking them, though, not about how severe our responses to Iran should be, but under what conditions those responses should involve force. I've been pretty clear that if we're talking only about Iran becoming a nuclear power--not about what happens if Iran bombs Israel, not about what happens if they proliferate--then no, I do not support either the threat or use of force.
So, yes, the question is "What should we do if Iran (blank)?" Now fill in that blank: "What should we do if Iran acquires--just acquires--a nuclear weapon?" I've answered it. Ezra's answered it. You guys... not so much.
Read Joe Cirincione's analysis of Osirak. It's not as clear cut as that, not by a mile.
Really I don't think an argument about "weakening our position" is constructive. It's all in what you conceive of as a strong position (are we in a strong position in Iraq?) and it sounds all too much like it came from an administration TPM. That said, if the Israeli government takes it upon itself to attack Iran, well I think that would be stupid, and it would create a problem that I haven't devoted enough thought to yet. But we have extraordinary leverage over Israel. And if a U.S. president wants to make sure Iran isn't bombed by either the U.S. or Israel, well then it's just a matter of not doing it.
Soon enough I'll be on a non-grey non-typepad site, and then we can have blog wars all day! Till then!
Post A Comment