Let’s compare track records…
I was mildly amused to see FP contributor and respected nuclear expert Joe Cirincione labeled "Obama’s radioactive potato" and "an apologist for Syria" this week on Commentary‘s "Connecting the Dots" blog and the Powerline blog, respectively. At issue are some comments Cirincione made on Passport back in September, when early, sketchy media reports about the ...
I was mildly amused to see FP contributor and respected nuclear expert Joe Cirincione labeled "Obama's radioactive potato" and "an apologist for Syria" this week on Commentary's "Connecting the Dots" blog and the Powerline blog, respectively.
I was mildly amused to see FP contributor and respected nuclear expert Joe Cirincione labeled "Obama’s radioactive potato" and "an apologist for Syria" this week on Commentary‘s "Connecting the Dots" blog and the Powerline blog, respectively.
At issue are some comments Cirincione made on Passport back in September, when early, sketchy media reports about the alleged Syrian nuclear site were just coming out. Like me, Cirincione was highly skeptical at the time, though subsequent disclosures have obviously caused him to revise his views.
Powerline’s Paul Mirengoff seems to think Cirincione is biased against Israel — even though the latter has family in Israel and describes himself as "strongly pro-Israel." Commentary‘s Gabriel Schoenfeld, meanwhile, is certain that Cirincione, despite his rather explicit denial, really is secretly the top nuclear advisor to the Obama campaign. I guess conspiracy theories aren’t exclusive to the Middle East.
"I am one of over a hundred experts advising the campaign," Cirincione told me over e-mail, "and have never claimed to be a top advisor, nor have I been listed that way by the campaign." Denis McDonough — who really is a top Obama advisor — confirmed to me that "Joe Cirincione is one of hundreds of people advising the campaign. He is not Senator Obama’s top advisor."
What about Syria? "No one bats 1.000," as Cirincione tried to explain to Schoenfeld, but his track record is far better than most. And if you compare his record on Iraq to Commentary‘s, well — it’s just laughable. Here’s Frederick Kagan writing in December 2002:
THE INVASION of Iraq is an essential requirement of American and global security. That is not simply because Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons, or even because he is actively working to acquire nuclear weapons. It is because he is a violent megalomaniac determined to recast the Middle East in his image and willing to use absolutely any means to do so, even if it results in his own destruction.
On March 23, 2003, Cirincione wrote:
Here are four likely consequences of America’s first preemptive war: Instability in the Middle East will increase; Terrorism will increase; Alliances will weaken; and Proliferation may worsen.
If the United States had taken his advice and backed coercive inspections (pdf), a whole lot of American blood and treasure could have been saved — and those consequences might have been avoided. That’s a much bigger deal than some hasty comments on a blog post.
More from Foreign Policy
Can Russia Get Used to Being China’s Little Brother?
The power dynamic between Beijing and Moscow has switched dramatically.
Xi and Putin Have the Most Consequential Undeclared Alliance in the World
It’s become more important than Washington’s official alliances today.
It’s a New Great Game. Again.
Across Central Asia, Russia’s brand is tainted by Ukraine, China’s got challenges, and Washington senses another opening.
Iraqi Kurdistan’s House of Cards Is Collapsing
The region once seemed a bright spot in the disorder unleashed by U.S. regime change. Today, things look bleak.
Sign up for World Brief
FP’s flagship evening newsletter guiding you through the most important world stories of the day. Delivered weekdays.
By submitting your email, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to receive email correspondence from us. You may opt out at any time.
