Thanks for the response, Bebop. You find such gentle ways to tell someone they are naive. Life is, and always, a mixed bag. And, so it is with the military, agencies intended to serve the military, military blogs, and the people who "inhabit" them. I should know that. Mixing a metaphor, I should read with a sharp ear, and a finely tuned eye. Clear pictures are hard to find; the battered truth is somewhere out there in the fog. Would I recognize it if I saw it? Caution.

One of the reasons why I stopped caring what Thomas Friedman had to say years ago, and made sure to read everything of Krugman's I could get my hands on instead:

The Conscience of a Liberal

Paul Krugman

November 18, 2007, 2:54 pm

Premature anti-Bushism

http://tinyurl.com/29dwgt

... where Krugman quotes Tyler Cowen as now saying The ironic legacy of the war to end all proliferation will be more proliferation. and references a column of his own from 2003.

The New York Times

Games Nations Play

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: January 3, 2003

http://tinyurl.com/24v8uq

What game does the Bush administration think it's playing in Korea?

That's not a rhetorical question. During the cold war, the U.S. government employed experts in game theory to analyze strategies of nuclear deterrence. Men with Ph.D.'s in economics, like Daniel Ellsberg, wrote background papers with titles like ''The Theory and Practice of Blackmail.'' The intellectual quality of these analyses was impressive, but their main conclusion was simple: Deterrence requires a credible commitment to punish bad behavior and reward good behavior.

I know, it sounds obvious. Yet the Bush administration's Korea policy has systematically violated that simple principle....

Friedman is a washed up, dried out, hack. If he ever was, he's a has-been, now. I have no idea why the NY Times keeps him on the payroll. Maybe they feel sorry for him. I dunno. Dowd is another puzzle. Her 'wit' (such as it is) is all that's left of her. If one were interested in the writings of an Irish Catholic (IIRC from Siblings) woman of a certain age, Anna Quindlen could mop the floor with Maureen.

But, Friedman is trying to make a real point about deterring Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapons program because he very much wants to avoid a war. He and every other sensible American want negotiations to succeed; however, we cannot expect to get an acceptable settlement without being able to leverage credible threats over Iran, both economic and military.

[...]

At the same time, for deterrence and negotiation to work, when it is preferable to and more effective than force, we must be able to bring a credible threat against such intransigent opponents. DHK220 11/18/8:20

Second, the purpose of his column was not to literally embrace Bush's policies or Cheney's absurd pronouncements (he has written as often as any columnist about this administration's serious failings), but to make a point about the use of credible threats as a means to deterrence and negotiation.

[...]

What he is saying is that negotiations with Iran must be backed up with a credible threat of force or that they will fail and, potentially, lead to the war that all sensible people wish to avoid. DHK220 11/18/11:53

I say that humanitarian intervention has been given a bad name because intervention abroad has been delegitimized with the US public in general because of the Iraq debacle. DHK220 11/19/6:25

But I think game theorists do contend that some element of uncertainty, short of the lunacy card, is necessary for credible deterrence under certain circumstances. DHK22011/19/6:46

I was discussing deterrence in the context of the current standoff with Iran, not pre-war Iraq. I don't disagree with you when discussing the feasibility of deterrence as a strategy against Iraq in 2002 and early 2003. DHK220 11/19/8:18

What game does the Bush administration think it's playing in Korea?

That's not a rhetorical question. During the cold war, the U.S. government employed experts in game theory to analyze strategies of nuclear deterrence. Men with Ph.D.'s in economics, like Daniel Ellsberg, wrote background papers with titles like ''The Theory and Practice of Blackmail.'' The intellectual quality of these analyses was impressive, but their main conclusion was simple: Deterrence requires a credible commitment to punish bad behavior and reward good behavior. Krugman NY Times 1/3/03 http://tinyurl.com/24v8uq (link is also upthread)

DHK, What rewards did the Bush administration offered Irag (pre-invasion) or has Bush offered Iran now? How has that credible threat to Iraq worked out for us? What reason do we have to believe it would work out any better in Iran? Why do you presist in defending someone who has no real grasp of credible threat other than, It's gonna cost them more than it costs us. And, why would you assume the cost we've incurred is one we can bear? Or, have you not followed the financial pages recently?

Retired Military Patriot, needless to say, your past service to the country is undoubtedly appreciated... DHK220

Just not by you, eh?

And, even in the worst case scenario...

Boston Globe

Abizaid: World could abide nuclear Iran

By Robert Burns, AP Military Writer | September 17, 2007 http://tinyurl.com/2xmbw2

WASHINGTON --Every effort should be made to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, but failing that, the world could live with a nuclear-armed regime in Tehran, a recently retired commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East said Monday.

John Abizaid, the retired Army general who headed Central Command for nearly four years, said he was confident that if Iran gained nuclear arms, the United States could deter it from using them.... (continued)

Recalling that deterrence requires both punishments and rewards. Threatening to drop a bomb on them may be necessary, but it is insufficient.