Binge and Purge

In another one of those Washington insider stories every Serious Person is required to care about, Brink Lindsey and Will Wilkinson, two noted “liberaltarians,” have allegedly been “purged” from the Cato Institute (that’s Dave Weigel’s theory, anyway, so take it for what it’s worth). Wilkinson is good on matters of war and peace (see “Bradley Manning’s Guilt — and Ours,” which we highlighted last week), so too bad about him.

Brink Lindsey, on the other hand… ugh. He should have been sacked back when he was using his trade policy position to agitate for dropping freedom bombs on Iraqis. In his response to the purge story, Daniel McCarthy links to this 2002 Joseph Stromberg piece. As you read Stromberg’s take on Lindsey, keep in mind which one of the two was marginal at the time and which one is walking into yet another cozy think-tank sinecure today.

Monday Iran Talking Points

from LobeLog: News and Views Relevant to U.S.-Iran relations for August 23rd, 2010:

Reuters: Ramin Mostafavi reports that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told a Japanese newspaper on Friday that Iran might be willing to stop higher-grade Uranium enrichment. “We promise to stop enriching uranium to 20 percent purity if we are ensured fuel supply,” he was quoted as saying.

Los Angeles Times: Borzou Daragahi reports that fuel roads were loaded into the Bushehr nuclear reactor on Saturday. The move puts the plant within “a few weeks” of being operational. U.S. and Israeli officials have expressed concern that Iran could theoretically make a weapon by extracting plutonium from the spent fuel rods, but Russia has committed to keeping a close watch on the activities at the Bushehr reactor.

The Atlantic: Senior Fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, Reuel Marc Gerecht, argues in favor of an Israeli preventive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Gerecht advocates not just bombing facilities but targeting Iranian personnel involved in Tehran’s alleged nuclear weapons program. “If Tehran were to lose several of its key nuclear scientists and technicians in such a blow, the Iranian program might sustain a crippling hit from which it would be extremely difficult to recover,” writes Gerecht. He concludes, “Although President Obama may become (privately) furious with the Israelis, any Israeli strike will make the United States, and probably even the reluctant Europeans, more determined to shut down Iran’s program.” Gerecht advocated for an Israeli preventive strike in a July 26th cover story in the The Weekly Standard.

The Weekly Standard Blog: Lee Smith repeats Anne Bayefsky’s warnings (Eli discussed Bayefsky on Friday) that the Park 51 Islamic community center has dangerous ties to Iran. Smith suggests that Imam Feisal Rauf’s unwillingness to denounce Hamas, and his ties to Iran are a threat to national security. He concludes, “… [I]t would be a bad idea to allow an asset controlled by American adversaries to be built anywhere in the United States, including lower Manhattan.”

We Won the Wikipedia ‘War’

We took Wikipedia to task for their parroting of officialdom on Friday; since then, an explosion of comments and edits, some even reversed by other editors, have pushed the consensus away from declaring the Iraq War over. It now lists Operation Iraqi Freedom as having ended on August 19, 2010. It still repeats the canard that the remaining 50,000+ troops are simply for training purposes — though Gen. Odierno warns they could switch back at any moment — but let’s take what we can get.

There are still a few “dead-endersslogging against the stream of plain truth in the discussion area — won’t the Wiki-savvy among you weigh in with your own volley to protect this important correction? Whatever one’s opinion of Wikipedia, the fact remains it is a respected source and often its articles are taken at face value.

Breaking! Gasbag commenters mull murder, fatwas against leakers

There’s nothing that gets the American can-do spirit going in the morning than a rightwing scribe urging the U.S military to ‘have a fire sale’ (read: destroy) Wikileaks, while invoking Bruce ‘Die Harder’ Willis and CIA ‘friends’ who openly advocate ‘getting’ (read: bagging)  Wikileaks founder Julian Assange.

From Jed Babbin at the American Spectator, this morning:

A friend of mine, a more-or-less retired CIA paramilitary operative, sees the solution in characteristically simple terms. “We should go get him,” he said, speaking of Assange.

When my friend says “get him,” he isn’t thinking of lawsuits, but of suppressed pistols, car bombs and such. But as heart-warming as it is to envision Assange surveying his breakfast cereal with a Geiger counter, we shouldn’t deal with him and WikiLeaks that way.

At the risk of abusing the Bard, let’s “Cry havoc, and let slip the geeks of cyberwar.” We need to have a WikiLeaks fire sale.

A “fire sale” (as those who saw Die Hard 4 will remember) is a cyber attack aimed at disabling — even destroying — an adversary’s ability to function. Russia did this to Estonia in 2007 and Israel apparently did this to Syrian radar systems when it attacked the Syrian nuclear site later that year. The elegance of this is that if we can pull off a decisive cyber operation against WikiLeaks, it can and should be done entirely in secret.

And then he ends with:

WikiLeaks should be hit with the cyber equivalent of napalm. Let’s have that fire sale. Burn, baby, burn.

Put aside the pathetic chest-thumping for a second. Babbin fails to explain with any meaningful persuasion why these extrajudicial punishments are in order other than “we have a right to act to protect our secrets. And act we must.” To him, this is tantamount to everything, even the U.S Constitution. He proves this by blustering about the whistleblowers who exposed the government’s illegal spying on Americans under the Bush Administration (he says this, by the way, while the so-called conservative website he is writing for exploits and perverts the images of Ben Franklin and minutemen icons in the ad bars alongside his column):

Over the past decade, America has been unwilling to defend its secrets and punish leakers. Under Bush Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, fear of media reaction prevented the investigation of some of the most damaging leaks in history, ranging from the New York Times‘s publication of the NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program to the Washington Post‘s publication of the CIA’s secret prisons for terrorists. The people who leaked those secrets were left unpunished by Gonzales’s Justice Department refusal to subpoena the reporters and force disclosure of their sources.

Note to Babbin: Maybe they were left ‘unpunished’ (though we can hardly call losing one’s career and facing criminal indictment ‘unpunished’) because these “leakers” and journalists were doing their jobs — like serving The People — while the NSA and CIA were crapping all over the Constitution and soiling the reputation and honor of the United States all over the globe for decades to come?

But smearing the Constitution seems little bother to Babbin, who sets the Chinese Standard for the Pentagon, advocating a full-throated war cry and a STRATCOM offensive against Wikileaks and any like web operation, saying it is “not impossible,” though he does not say how it can be done. Noisome details.

The real punchline here is not in Babbin’s supercilious screed, but in the comments, which began posting immediately. Gasbags sitting with their morning joe, contemplating all manner of steroidal reaction. John McClane-meets-Slappy-the-Keystroker, if you will:

From “Jimbo”:

Since many Afghans are now at risk because of Wikileaks, why not have one of the tribal immams in Afghanistan declare a fatwa on Mr. Assange? This will make his life very difficult and would be a fitting punishment for his crime. Any why not place that PFC who turned traitor and gave away these secrets in front of a firing squad? This way, the next traitor may not be so brave.

How about giving every such anonymous commenter the gun with which to fire on said PFC and ask him to pull the trigger him or herself. Bruce would be proud. Better yet, round up the best of them and they can form the Best Hit Squad Ever:

Team America.

Now Comes the Deadly ‘Peace’ for Iraq

One soldier, the first since the symbolic withdrawal, lost his or her life during a rocket attack today in Basra.

For many Americans the withdrawal of the last “combat troops” from Iraq three days ago marked a psychological end to the war. Lost in the self-congratulatory reportage, however, were the approximately 52,000 servicemembers who remain behind in various functions, some of them as dangerous as traditional “combat.” One soldier, the first since the symbolic withdrawal, lost his or her life during a presumed “hostile” rocket attack today in Basra. More deaths will follow until the last servicemember is gone…if that ever actually occurs.

I would not count on it happening anytime soon though. On the heels of this tragic news, Gen. Ray Odierno, who is the top commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, admitted that “combat troops” could return if the Iraqi security forces completely fail at their job. Part of that success unfortunately rests on a government that has been unable to seat a new premier thanks to political chicanery from the sitting prime minister. It has been five months and hundreds of civilian deaths since Iraqis tried to elect a new leader and little has changed. Much like little has changed for the American troops who are still stationed in Iraq and still hoping they make it home alive.