tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8446351548038522890.post1428099872919702397..comments2024-03-28T16:15:19.319-04:00Comments on Saideman's Semi-Spew: Worst Op-Ed of 2009? (updated)Steve Saidemanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09881915512311951902noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8446351548038522890.post-7831839157847824342009-12-27T10:24:39.719-05:002009-12-27T10:24:39.719-05:00I've known Alan for years, and this op ed took...I've known Alan for years, and this op ed took me totally by surprise. He's not usually one to be pollyana-ish about the efficacy of military force -- as pax notes, that's the core of his argument on humanitarian intervention. So how he now breezily says we could successfully bomb their program; that bombing would *help* the Iranian opposition; and that if needed we could just do regime change like Iraq/Afghanistan again (!!), I have no idea.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8446351548038522890.post-69169796401139564252009-12-24T14:00:32.284-05:002009-12-24T14:00:32.284-05:00This is pretty disappointing. I've read Kuperm...This is pretty disappointing. I've read Kuperman's <i>The Limits of Humanitarian Intervention</i> and thought it laid out a convincing argument--or at least presented a useful check against the idea that an military force can simply swoop in and save the day without considering the logistics (and I'm someone who thinks we should have intervened in Rwanda). But this is just a series of unsupported assumptions strung together. Does he really think that that the NATO bombings in Bosnia is an apt comparison to a potential bombing of Iran? Are there a lot of neoconservatives at the LBJ School who have influenced his thought, or is this just bad cost-benefit analysis gone horribly awry?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com