FYI, the WSJ notes today that the NIE of Sept. 19, 1962 said:
The USSR could derive considerable military advantage from the establishment of Soviet medium- and intermediate-range ballistic missiles in Cuba, or from the establishment of a submarine base there. . . . Either development, however, would be incompatible with Soviet practice to date and with Soviet policy as we presently estimate it.
That’s 25 days before the start of what we call the Cuban Missile Crisis.
So do you think the CIA is better at that stuff now, or then? And is it better than it was in 2005, when it concluded the opposite of what the latest NIE concluded? And is it better than the Israelis, or the Brits?
Someone on this post raises the yellowcake case to discredit MI6. First, like the NIE, that whole thing was a lot more complicated than either side’s shorthand version. Second, the British are historically seen as better at human intelligence than we are. The Americans do satellites, the Brits do people. And the latest NIE was based, in part, on humint.
Related Posts
The USSR of 1962 and Iran today are quite different places. And our president then was a far more capable individual. To borrow a line from the 1988 VP debate, George W. Bush, you are no Jack Kennedy. Russia did have the very belicost Nikita Kruschev, a man very much like the Iranian leader Amamidijahd but there the similarities end. The Soviet Union in 1962 was an enormous nation with vast resources and a gigantic military budget. They had in Cuba an ally that was less than 100 miles from the Florida cost.
In contrast Iran is a very weak, backwards country with a tiny military budget that is simply not capable of building any type of threatening weapon for at least 4-5 years.
So what is the real lesson to be learned from the Cuban Missle Crisis? It is simply this: The military option is a last resort that in most cases is unnessesary. Kennedy understood that. Even though he had the military option at his disposal he wisely chose another course.
Today we can engage the Iranians diplomatically for the next 15 months until we have a real president who can actually walk and chew gum at the same time. To trust the current president with anything like a military option against Iran is folly to the nth degree.
Brad, on this I am in total agreement with bud. Without any hyperbole intended, I honestly believe that giving our current President any pretense for attacking Iran will make America less safe, not more.
Wally and bud, y’all seem to be participating in an argument of which I am not a part. This is not about attacking Iran. This is about the very difficult, heavy-lifting diplomatic effort in which this nation has been engaged the last few years. We were making progress; Russia and China were increasingly the odd men out in this discussion. In close partnership with our ally France (yes, our ally France) we were having a good effect in pressing Iran back from the nuclear brink (even the NIE says that, although it exaggerates our success).
All of that just went to hell, as people around the world who did NOT want to work with us on this (Russia and China especially) grabbed the headline version of the NIE as leverage against our hard work. So far, we’ve kept our European allies together, but it’s much, much tougher going. This NIE — or rather, the political effect of the headline version of the NIE — has done great damage.
With all due respect Brad your perception of the president’s intent on Iran is just plain wrong. He wanted desperately to attack Iran. The NIE report bought some time, it didn’t work against diplomatic leverage. Iran is no immediate threat. You simply have to understand that the current president is very dangerous and needs to be reeled in. Thousands of American lives have been squandered by this president’s attrocious decisions. Russia and China were simply showing some restraint on Iran. That feeble country is just not the threat you betray it to be. Thank heavens for the NIE.
Maybe this is why white house spokes woman Dana Perino admitted to total ignorance as to the whole Cuban missile affair.
You’re talking about this one guy named Bush and what his intent may or may not have been.
I’m talking about what this country, in concert with allies, was actually DOING, and the NIE — or rather the perception of the NIE, for the report contains within it all we need to know how critical it is to keep up the pressure on Iran — has set those efforts back.