Prince of Darkness, Seismology, Nukes, Dejavu and your personal scientist

Remove all ads!

Now the title is wonkish, and the issue is about nerds, from a time that Americans are said to consider ancient history - the age of fables, when dinosaurs and cavemen still roamed the face of the earth - the 1980s, the Reagan era.

In the 1980s Perle, then Assistant Secretary of Defense at the Pentagon, was asserting the existence of “significant evidence that the Soviets have violated the 150 kiloton threshold” in the Threshold Test Ban Treaty, despite utter lack of such evidence. How did he come to do that?

I found this on Arms Control Wonk who are so kind to link to a Youtube clip with an interview with Perle on this. First watch the clip and then read their comment.

Point is, that it gives a rare chance to get a glimpse on the thinking of neo-cons, namely the Prince of Darkness himself, Richard Perle, about threats and the way they argue their, cases. A brief sketch:

• They are convinced that the pros have 'gone native' - have adopted the ideas of their insitutions - and thus cannot be trusted, and are wrong.
• So they go for a worst case view far away from the 'institutional mainstream', and then seek to solidify their case with whatever is available.
• They then reliably find some analyst, defector or some raw information from one of the myriad of US servicesto rise from obscurity to confirm their views.
• These views are relevant to justify preferred policies*.

Then they make their case, with considerable buereaucratic and publicistic skill. The secret to their success is that half of the neo-cons are journalists. You don't really need facts so much when you shape the public opinion.

*means: When you want to justify a change in policy with regard to nuclear tests - especially more tests or to kill the treaty entirely - say the Soviets are cheating. Delivering intelligence to the contrary, and of course open dissent, is disloyal, as it is undermining the Administration's position. Policy decisions rule supreme.

 

Ragusa,

Once again you dip onto the realm of name calling and using your historic 'neo-con' cry of distain instead of just letting the article speak for itself.

The 'utter lack of evidence' is actually part of the article:

The key words there are 'nine Soviet events, had signals larger than expected for 150 kilotons.' Most politicians are not very technically savvy. Any politician I know of would have latched onto the fact that nine Soviet tests had seismic signals greater that anticipated for 150 kilotons. It is quite common in ALL politics to raise the red flag and have the other guys prove they did not violate the rules -- this is exactly what happened.

Had Perle not confronted this issue head on and demanded proof such testing was not happening we (as in everyone in the free world at the time) would have been calling for his head.

Breaking down your arguments:

Gone native: it was not uncommon for either side in the cold war to hire 'independent' experts who really were quite biased.

Worst case view: Isn't that what we expect a military to do? They train for worst case, plan for worst case, and must view any data trying to find the worst case scenario. Again, to not do this is unconscionable -- an optimist is not a good thing in the military.

Confimation by human intelligence: This is the way EVERY country finds inside information. Deal with it. This isn't going to change for anyone.

Change policy to counter the threat: Well, duh. You can either adopt the stance 'we will not violate the Threshold Ban Treaty and maintain the higher moral ground,' or 'we need to be on a level playing field here.' Any military would rather have a level playing field and be allowed to fight an equal opponent rather than die saying 'at least we took the higher moral ground.'

What we really see here is an alarming issue is brought to the attention of the military leadership. This information probably came from the extremely sensitive seismic/sound equipment that was strategically and secretly placed by the US. The larger seismic signals were reported. The Asst SecDef was chosen to play devil's advocate to get the Soviets to explain the issue. Experts were brought in but were required to view data from less sensitive equipment (the secrecy of the military equipment could not be compromised). Those experts came to the same conclusion even though they were viewing less sensitive results. Human intelligence was sought and a scientist from the project was willing to come forward if granted asylum (very common and not always accurate for the reasons you mention). All of this facilitated a joint Soviet/NATO venture of calibrating the equipment on both sides to evaluate the testing.

Just how is this wrong?

 

T2,
the difference is between playing devils advocate and be neutral toward the outcome and playing devils advocate for a desired conclusion. The first is something that can and should reasonably done in all military institutions. The latter is what Perle did. For military planning to be meaningful the threat analysis should be 'realistic'. Striving to meet imaginary threats wastes resources. Adressing imaginary threats carries the potential to ruin nations, if the example of invading Iraq is any indication.

Perle was never military, he was never intelligence but a policy enforcer, a high powered aidee. And I think that counts for most of the neo-cons who found their way into government service. And that should be taken into account when talking about their actions. And then there is their self-image: They're on the side of the angels and are right. And their view is that 'extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice'.

So Perle had a literal army of intelligence analysts and scientists whom he ignored when they produced analysis that put question marks on a set policy. Let's presume the policy is to 'nuke up' and test more to achieve 'peace through strength'. To justify that you have to find a reason, you can't just start building nukes. You need a sell, like the assertion that the Soviets are cheating - take the test results as clear evidence - and argue that only an arms buildup can guarantee deterrence. But the intelligence services only find intel that sais the Soviets are in fact compliant. What do you do? You start cherry-picking, find two lone analysts who support your view, and accuse the intelligence services of undermining administration policy and armtwist them until they yield. At least that seems to be exactly what Perle did then. Sounds in any way familiar?

The implications are interesting: If policy is paramount, intelligence and scientists are merely useful idiots, and whatever facts they line up and analyse is pretty much irrelevant to their political masters. Career folks are there only to execute and justify policy decisions*. Their expertise and experience then are in fact an obstacle. The neo-cons need no facts, thanks to their 'moral clarity' they 'know'. That's the mindset that ruins people in Vegas.

The majority of experts concluded that the seismic signals, despite the stronger signals, did not indicate larger yields. Perle in the interview specifically referred to 'other sources' to discount this conclusion, with an implicit reference to policy. The majority of scientists was later vindicated in the “Joint Verification Experiment”. Perle was not. And he has a poor track record. And indeed, verification is the key.

I found this in an old Heritage Foundation file, and it pretty well describes the thinking behind opposing any arms control - starting from the Soviets to more recent example of Iraq's disarmament.

If you withdraw to the clinical-paranoid view that your enemy will always be cheating, after all he is the absolute evil, your case for confrontation is perpetual. As a result the only way to satisfy such verifyability demands is unconditional surrender of the enemy and full access to all his assets. You get war on your mind. Only hegemony can guarantee your safety. I think that is where the neo-con doctrine of global benevolent hegeomony comes from.

* just read Lt.Col. Karen Kwiatkowski's account on her term next to the OSP, especially the bit about message control and ordered use of talking points in verbatim.

[ May 08, 2007, 18:21: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Absolutely. And I made that point to you in another thread a short time ago. The media was crucial to the run-up on the Iraq war. And journalists, like Judith Miller, were instrumental in feeding the spin machine, which "proved beyond any doubt" that Saddam had WMDs, was aquiring nukes from all over the world, was meeting regularly with Bin Laden's henchmen and was involved in the 9/11 plot.

Of course, the neocons had much larger plans than Iraq - the building of Imperial America would have required much more than taking out Saddam. But Fox News, the Weekly Standard, even the WSJ have the neocon fingerprints all over them - the WS is the "official" neocon outlet for spin. But take heart, Ragusa, the neocons were done in by the sheer incompetence of Team Bush. It was as many of us suspected would happen, and all the journalistic spin will not help them now. Spin will only take them so far, as Wolfowitz still has not learned with his problems at the WB. He is toast, and he is still trying to spin his way out of trouble.

The neocons had 8 years to add Syria and Iran was well, but it does not appear likely at this point (and good thing). The problem, of course, for America and the region, is where to now? Who is willing to shoulder the mess that the neocons and Team Bush have made of the region? House Speaker Nancy met with Syria, and Rush almost had to go back to rehab over the ordeal of having a woman US leader try to pick up the broken pieces of Bush's failed policy. Who's going to save them? I heard someone quip the other day, "maybe they need Spiderman."

 

Ragusa, your arguments are conjecture, not facts. You didn't really address any of my points. Instead you chose to rephrase and expand upon your previous rambling -- I guess old habits die hard.

Why in the world would anyone be neutral about the outcome here? There were indications the soviets were testing high yield weapons -- what was the US supposed to do in this case? It was only through playing hardball the Soviets actually gave in and allowed confirmable, baseline testing. Again, just what was wrong with that?

At this point, I will leave you and Chandos to continue your perpetual biased attack on conservatives and all the evil they have brought upon the world.

[ May 08, 2007, 18:26: Message edited by: T2Bruno ]

 

[Chandos hands T2 a Resurrection spell for Ronald Reagan.]

 

Great comment Chandos. Actually, Reagan scared me -- I even voted against him (and against his VP). I was POSITIVE he was going to get us into a war with the Soviets. I was wrong (about the war).

 

T2,
first, we agree! Reagan WAS scary. It was under him that the US reauthorised production of neutron weapons, for use in ... most likely place ... Germany - as an anti-tank weapon.

second, I have a very concrete impression of what a neo-con is and what not. Do not accuse me of name-calling, or you are doing just that. Perle is a neo-con by even the narrowest definition of the term - Scoop-Jacksonite, student of Leo Strauss, registered Democrat (he iirc still is) drifted to the right and so forth. And no, it's not because he's a jew. Jeanne Kirkpatrick, the godmother of the neo-cons was catholic. It has little to do with religious affiliation. It's a particular school of thought, a mindset.

third, in a more direct reply to your post - you allow Perle the presumption of competence. I don't want to go that far.

I adressed the point about imprecision of yield estimates by referring to the scientist's finding from the “Joint Verification Experiment”, that showed that they had been accurate. Your point is moot. The guys you quote, and Perles assertion were wrong. What I allege is that Perle either knew it and didn't care, or that he was ideologically disposed to see Russians that are three metres tall and cheating. What's worse?

Now that, in either case would be very wrong because then a political view held by Perle would have prevented a realistic threat assessment because it was politically convenient to stick with the assertion that the Soviets were cheating. That wouldn't be illegal but, h/t to Mr. Feith, merely improper.

As for changing policy to counter a threat - it is one thing to say that every politician would have freaked out - had it been right - or to ignore the majority of seismologists because their analysis doesn't fit a policy you pursue. That was what I meant with realistic threat assessment. Politicians should have an interest in realistic threat assessment first of all, so that they can determine a policy based on that. Here it's the other way around: It starts with the assertion that the Russians are cheating. The seismic measurements then are just a confirmation of a belief held. Delusion accomplished.
Have you ever read what Perle did write in the 1970s when he was on Team B? Or on the Committee on the Present Danger? Bottomline of Perle's efforts then: Arms control, Soviets, bad. And have you ever checked on how much of it was correct? It was all hogwash. But it helped displaying Carter as weak on defense, after all Carter was cutting the defense budged -- in face of such a ... formidable ... if inflated threat. The price for being wrong? The next presidency? Sometimes the ability to see Soviets that are three metres tall and cheating is just the job requirement.

As for the accusation that the career personnel went native - I held against that, that this view is likely unjustified or exaggerated and merely an excuse to politicise the executive branch.

Confirmation by HUMINT: Like Curveball? Totally off mark, but the right story at the right time? (that was what I was referring to in my first post). Or TECHINT: A lone analyst seeing centrifuge parts in missile tubes? Two seismologists doubting the accuracy of yield estimates?

[ May 08, 2007, 20:00: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

I'd just point out that it's difficult to argue that America wasn't an imperial power prior to Bush.

Philippines, anyone?

 

How was that again - an empire in denial, but with military bases in three-quarters of the countries of the world.

 

Carter was weak on defense, which is why -- I voted for Reagan (I was one of those "Reagan Democrats" everyone wonders about), but it was not against Carter, but the first election I could vote in, which was when Reagan ran against Mondale. I'm still OK with that vote, because - as T2 pointed out - Reagan managed to get us through it without a war. And I still respect Reagan for that (although he didn't know a whole lot about economics).

I did not vote in the next election at all (George Bush Sr, Reagan's VP), but I did vote in the next election for Bill Clinton -- twice.

 

Then it has worked? What is a little white lie, for victory in the Cold War? In fact, if only done for the just cause, lieing is a virtuous act? Sometimes you got to trick people into doing the right thing, that's called leadership? After all it was the hawk driven arms build up under Reagan that made the Soviets behemoth collapse, right? The US won the Cold War.

Aah, folklore

 

"the suggestion that any United States administration had the power to influence decisively the course of a tremendous domestic political upheaval in another great country on another side of the globe is simply childish." - George Kennan

"Thus the general effect of Cold War extremism was to delay rather than hasten the great change that overtook the Soviet Union" - Same

 

What worked? I'm not sure what your rant is - if you are commenting on my post (?). For many years I was loath to admit that I voted for Reagan - I really disliked that vote. But now I'm "ok" with it. At the time, there was a real feeling that none of this would still be here. It seemed that war was almost certain - real war - not a cold war, regardless of who was president. In fact, I think almost everyone was surprised by the outcome - everyone just figured that there was no place to duck once the missiles started flying...BTW, I was too young to vote for Carter, so there's little point in going there in this rant...but there was a feeling that Carter was a weak leader, (and that included more than just the Cold War) even still today.

 

warning.

Ack! I feel so deluded! I was previously under the impression that Chandos was a 30-something, but evidently, that can't possibly be true, if he was already at least 18 in 1984. I was still in grammar school at the time. Sheesh - Chandos gets the label.

Back on topic, I can obviously only speculate as to how I would have voted in the early years of the neo-cons. However, based on how I have consistently voted against neocons more recently, I think I probably would have voted against Reagan both times. As it stands, my presidential voting record has looked like this: Clinton, Clinton, Gore, Kerry. Not that I never vote for Republicans - I have voted for several in my lifetime - I've just never voted for a Republican for president.

 

Just because you can quote someone doesn't mean it is true. Kennan wanted to believe it was HIS policies that brought about the demise of the Soviet Union (after all he influenced policy through several admistrations). He simply could not accept that Reagan's policies were more effective than his own.

I have voted all over the political map (except recently): Mondale, did not vote (didn't like either candidate), Stockdale (it's not often you get to vote for a hero, didn't really care for his running mate though), Dole, Bush (voted against Gore), Bush (voted against Kerry). My order of priority for this next election is McCain, Obama ... all other candidates except ... Hillary (I'll write in Mickey Mouse before I vote for her).

 

On topic:

Ragusa - It's really hard to imagine Ronnie as a neocon, regardless of how you try to paint him. Reagan had his faults, but that's not one of them, IMO.

Off topic:

Aldeth - I'm sure I've mentioned at least a few times that I went to college in the 80s. But I don't think of myself as old.

T2 - A Hillary-Obama ticket appears likely - and for the win, as well. McCain needs to distance himself from Bush, and quickly, if he wants a chance.

 

Chandos,
Reagan was no neo-con at all. He used the neo-cons as policy enforcers. Think of them as the Sampolit from 'Hunt for Red October'. They are whips. You use them like a whip to drive a policy through. That's all they're good for. Look at Iraq - quod erat demonstrandum.

Give them a loose leash and they screw up, nutters that they are. They weren't called 'the crazies' for no reason. That was what the Old Guard under Reagan recognised and what limited these folks to junior positions. They need adult supervision.

T2,
did detente really fail? Isn't that merely an assertion? How did it fail?

 

I never said it failed. It was merely a piece of a very complex issue -- an issue that Reagan put enormous strain on and ultimately caused too much external force to be able to be repaired internally. We were just lucky that Gorbachev was in charge -- he was the real force behind a peaceful demise of the Soviet Union.

Ragusa, you don't seem to understand how politics works in America or what junior personnel are for. A junior administrator is there to pass on rhetoric -- they do not get to think for themselves often. They play a role as dictated to them by their superiors. Those that don't play by those rules are fired. Your assertation that this was Perle acting on his own is absolutely and entirely false. He was carrying the torch of the Reagan Administration. He played a specific role, that is all. This whole thing was about being able to keep closer tabs on the 'evil empire.' And it worked.

More importantly, the free world breathed a collective sigh of relief knowing the US and her allies could keep a closer eye on the Soviet Union.

Chandos: McCain really just needs money.

 

Actually, he's said that the two individuals who deserve the most credit for the end of the Cold War are Gorbachev and Reagan.