this is rather ironic.

Three years ago, BD was one of those grossly exaggerating the threat represented by Saddam Hussein --- while ignoring stuff like "historical transformations underway in China" and the inpact the invasion would have on how the US was perceived by the rest of the world.

Thanks to that invasion "radical islam" that engages in terrorism now actually represents a serious national security threat -- one that could easily send the US and world econony into another Great Depression --- and we're supposed to pay more attention to other issues.

*************

The reality is that "radical Islam" is simply the template for resistance to the Bush regime's imperialistic/hegemonic ambitions that has been adopted by the Arabs and Persians who control mid-east oil. In South America, that template is "socialism" ... in Canada, its "free trade with China."

The US may be at "war" with radical islam", but the rest of the world is at "war" with a United States that seems to embrace the neo-con mindset that is based on "American exceptionalism" and assumes that the US has a divine right to dominate the planet. Bush's poll numbers may have tanked, but there is no evidence that the problem that the Bush mindset represents is disappating.

The biggest threat to US National Security is our own hubris, and the corruption of the GOP and our political process in general.

Posted by: p.lukasiak at March 21, 2006 12:03 PM | Permalink to this comment

Yes, it would be a grevious blow to the region's stability, shatter U.S. credibility, and leave Iraq very likely in the midst of brutish sectarian conflict for many years.

Irony indeed.

Suddenly Mr. D is concerned about mideast stability, US credibility, and the opinion of Mr. Iraqi on the street.

Similar to Ozzy Osbourne embracing PETA late in life.

Posted by: Davebo at March 21, 2006 03:54 PM | Permalink to this comment

Yes, it would be a grevious blow to the region's stability, shatter U.S. credibility, and leave Iraq very likely in the midst of brutish sectarian conflict for many years.

Irony indeed.

Suddenly Mr. D is concerned about mideast stability, US credibility, and the opinion of Mr. Iraqi on the street.

Similar to Ozzy Osbourne embracing PETA late in life.

Posted by: Davebo at March 21, 2006 03:56 PM | Permalink to this comment

The trouble is, we've reached our limits and passed them.

We won the Cold War. We outspent the USSR until they collapsed and we didn't collapse. We went on spending. We're about ready to collapse now.

Some ways, the USSR provided a way for us to pace ourselves. In each competition we tried to spend enough to beat them, and not too much more. With them no longer a superpower now we try to control the whole world and spend as much as it takes to control the whole world. It isn't working.

"Who is to say China's economic growth will not have more far-reaching impact than international terror on the international system three or four decades hence?"

Or even one decade hence. Or five years. Or two years.

The USA was all ready to mostly ignore international terrorism in 2001. It was only 9/11 that got us excited about that. Now, remember the big earthquake/tsunami/etc that caused so much problem in south asia? Suppose the governments there all got transformed by the experience, and they started doing things different as a result. Could it have more impact on the international system than international terror? Maybe. I doubt that it's happening because there's no obvious enemy. But if it did happen would the US media mention it? Would I have heard about it yet? Meanwhile, 9/11 with well under 1% the casualties and under 1% the dislocation transformed us from America into what we are today. Why would it have so much effect on the international system? Because it turned us into such a threat.

"I agree that specific mention of luring moderate Islamists away from the al-Qaeda types is critical."

How much influence does al Qaeda have among muslims? 1%? 0.1%? Part of the problem is that nobody knows, because muslim countries that don't have anything like free speech strongly encourage people to lie about things like that. But things like free speech make nations harder to control. We're a superpower, remember? The natural approach is to persuade moderate muslims that we are so powerful we'll kill them if they try anything. But suicide bombing is a natural response to that approach. "Nyah, Nyah, you can't do anything to me, I'm already dead!" We can of course follow the israeli approach and do collective punishments, we can go after the relatives of terrorists etc. And of course there's hardly any better way to stir up opposition than persecuting the innocent....

When you need to "lure" members of subject countries, you aren't a superpower any more.

"How far do we tolerate Putin's back-tracking on political and economic liberalization"?

What are we supposed to do about it? The idea that we can impose political and economic policies on russia depends on us being the only superpower.

"And while the Monroe Doctine is not dead, as the Chomsky's prattle on, we have certainly been losing influence in the southern hemisphere"

We have as much influence as we ever did in western hemisphere countries that are small enough to invade. We lose economic influence as our economy gets less important for theirs. And that happens because without the USSR to pace us, we overspend on our superpower goals.

"...short on what kind of dialogue we should be having in places like Asia and the southern Hemisphere where the war on terror elicits less interests than, say, it does with our European allies."

The europeans are just more polite about it.

"Make no mistake, the Middle East is a critical front"

When you're the only superpower, every front is critical.

"We have to be involved there, and in a major way."

When you're the only superpower, you don't get any choice about things like that.

"Nor will us pulling out of Iraq hand over large swaths of the Eurasian landmass to a genocidal thug bent on world dominion (another of Rummy's Hitler analogies)."

Actually, it might. You never really know about that sort of thing, but 50 years from now the historians will have lots of guesses about which actions led to what. But look at our own propaganda from 3 years ago. Remember Cheney saying that syria and iran were next? Large swaths of the eurasian landmass, check. Thug bent on world dominion, check. I dunno, somehow it's easier to accept a genocidal thug bent on world dominion when he claims he's on your side....

"But this isn't the time for rhetorical overkill and ginning up the masses for the Long War"

I'm starting to wonder. How can we possibly get out of this trap? Well, when was the last time we pulled together in a giant crisis? WWII? If you're running the US government and you have to do gasoline rationing, would you rather do it ijn peacetime or do it in WWII? Sugar rationing? Beef? Wheat? Electricity?

Say we get a china/terrorist/oil-nation axis against us. Right away we can declare all our debts to china void, and we can freeze all chinese assets under our control. We get to impound oil tankers heading for china. We can tell the public it's unpatriotic to buy chinese, so they don't miss the WalMart stuff as much. Ration them to 8 gallons of gasoline a month and they'll figure out how to conserve. Likewise with heating oil, beef, etc.Tell them it's patriotic to eat soybeans. Reduced hospital supplies means reduced medical spending, and it's necessary for the war effort Right down the line, things that are politically impossible no matter how necessary they become, turn possible for WWIII.

We need to start preparing for the war now, but we can't admit it's war with china we're getting ready for. So we talk up the Long War instead.

I somehow doubt that the current administration is planning this. They don't strike me as people who look that far ahead. But can you see any other way that the USA could solve our pressing problems? And after a war with china we could step down from superpower status, as the british did after WWII. We can't do that without a big war either, can we? To admit that we're no longer a superpower, without fighting a world war to prove it ... how could we bring ourselves to admit such a thing?

Posted by: J Thomas at March 21, 2006 04:02 PM | Permalink to this comment

You are correct that there is a massive amount of foreign policy in the next 2 - 20 years. We need a great deal of fresh minds in this administration to make sure America does as well as it can. But, Bush is not capable of this.

We're in for a bad run.

Worst.President.Ever.

Posted by: Chris at March 21, 2006 04:24 PM | Permalink to this comment

We can't expect anything from Bush and his circle but more fuck-ups, true. But I see them as a symptom of American decline, as a cause. Their case for invading Iraq was laced with self-contradictions and logical holes, but they still managed to get the country to shrug and passively go along with the debacle -- and this at a time when information was more easily available than it had ever been. Crucial elites -- in particular, the national press, and the Congress -- simply abdicated their self-proclaimed roles as pillars of democratic decision-making.

At the shank end of this disaster for our democracy, I don't expect we're going to see any "Aha! I was wrong!" moments from the (many) wiz kids who thought invading Iraq would be a swell thing to do. But maybe it's time that we revisit our assumptions, and ask, what are we really gaining anything from our "superpower" pretensions? We're on track to spend a solid HALF-TRILLION dollars on "defense". Is this really making us or the world *more* secure, by any sensible measure?

Posted by: sglover at March 21, 2006 06:10 PM | Permalink to this comment

No, those of us who supported the invasion of Saddam's Iraq are not going to issue heart-felt regrets now or any time soon, unless we are politicians and the maneuver is thought politically expedient.

The Bush team, of course, has messed things up badly, very badly, and has also learned from its mistakes and is currently turning in a mediocre performance in a bad situation largely of its own making.

Has the Bush team messed up things more than other administrations in situations of war? More than did the Kennedy-Johnson administrations with respect to Vietnam? More than the Truman administration with respect to Korea? More than the Lincoln administration with respect to the war on our own soil?

Probably not. Separate out Bush derangement syndrome from the critique of the handling of the war on these threads, and what do you have left? A lot of perfect 20-20 hindsight. Let it be said clearly and without apology; despite all his disasters, better Bush than Gore or Kerry from everything we know about the latter two.

Posted by: jfhobbins at March 21, 2006 09:57 PM | Permalink to this comment

More than the Truman administration with respect to Korea?

Unfair; Truman's people's screw-up was *before* the war, implying to NK that we wouldn't defend SK.

The war went to hell when MacArthur went north. Can't lay that one on Truman.

Posted by: Anderson at March 21, 2006 10:13 PM | Permalink to this comment

"Separate out Bush derangement syndrome from the critique of the handling of the war on these threads, and what do you have left? A lot of perfect 20-20 hindsight."

Er, sorry, ace -- more like 20/20 foresight. Few if any of the setbacks and fiascos we've seen over the last few years come as a surprise to war sceptics. It's war apologists who made fools of themselves by predicting imminent "victory" when Saddam's sons were killed, when Saddam was captured, when a government-in-name-only was elected, when a constitution-in-name-only was adopted, when this or that provincial town was "liberated" the second time, or the third, or the fourth.....

By the way, you really DO NOT want to compare Lincoln's performance with Bush. If nothing else, Lincoln showed himself more than willing to shed subordinates who weren't up to the job. The man also had genuine moral depth. He had no need to strike poses or play dress-up.

"Let it be said clearly and without apology; despite all his disasters, better Bush than Gore or Kerry from everything we know about the latter two."

Anybody who says that, at this moment in history, is a fucking idiot. I hope that's clear enough for you.

Posted by: sglover at March 21, 2006 11:07 PM | Permalink to this comment

"We went on spending. We're about ready to collapse now."

Um, wouldn't the debt have to be like three or four times the size of our GDP for that to happen? Not to mention the unemployment rate would have to be about 5 times higher than it currently is.

"By the way, you really DO NOT want to compare Lincoln's performance with Bush. If nothing else, Lincoln showed himself more than willing to shed subordinates who weren't up to the job. The man also had genuine moral depth. He had no need to strike poses or play dress-up."

What a silly comparison. There were individual battles in the Civil War that had more combat deaths than the past 4 and a half years. Civil liberties were curtailed beyond what even the most hysterical Leftist believes today. And I don't know what the exact deficits during 1861-1865 were but I'd be willing to be they were more than 3% of GDP. Where is Bush's Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, Chickamauga, Shenendoah Valley Campaign (the first one where Stonewall Jackson got really famous), First and Second Manassas, Cold Harbor, Battle of the Crater (Petersburg)? What about the time a political general (Sickles) marched his entire III Corps forward without orders and almost single handedly lost the Battle of Gettysburg? What about the NY City draft riots? What about the tortue at the prison camp in Chicago? What exactly was the post-war "plan" for Reconstruction?

I personally think Lincoln is tied with Washington for being our best president but the stuff that went on in the Civil War really puts into perspective the efficient and largely successful war that has been waged so far and the lack of any actual screw-ups that match the version that the loony Left is putting forward. Try reading some history and learn something.

Posted by: andrew at March 22, 2006 01:32 AM | Permalink to this comment

andrew, you're talking without knowing what you're talking about.

"Civil liberties were curtailed beyond what even the most hysterical Leftist believes today."

The Civil War was an insurrection. The Constitution specifically - specifically, mind you; none of this penumbra-upon-penumbra-upon-half-assed-lies crap the Bushists shovel - specifically gives the President power to suspend habeas corpus in event of an invasion or insurrection.

"What exactly was the post-war "plan" for Reconstruction?" Lincoln's plans for Reconstruction were to gradually re-admit the Southern states to full status as American states. The problem with that plan was a little glitch you seem to have missed hearing about in your re-enactment frenzy: Lincoln was assassinated. You can look it up in the history books; I'm pretty sure the fact that John Wilkes Booth shot Lincoln at the Ford Theater is mentioned in there somewhere. When Lincoln was killed, his Vice President took office; and his Vice President had no intention of following Lincoln's policy for the South.

As for your blather about deficits - Jesus H.F. Christ, that was in the 19th-effing Century. I'm not even sure "deficits" were recognized as such back then. The entire taxation and economic infrastructure were entirely different 150 years ago. Comparing government spending then to government spending now is like saying transportation was a lot safer in the 1860's because there weren't any automobile accidents then.

My god. I cannot believe you offered up Lincoln and the Civil War as an example of something that makes Bush and his policies look good. Is that what passes for historical analysis on the Right? I'd be downright embarrased to offer up a comparison that historically illiterate and intellectually sophomoric. But Bushists don't have any shame at all.

Posted by: CaseyL at March 22, 2006 02:02 AM | Permalink to this comment

I am not going to wade into the “Bush is v. Bush is not” an idiot argument for the simple reason that it gets nowhere. It is a simple fact that the present administration will remain in power for about three more years and the Dems, while quick to be critical, are woefully inadequate in proposing any alternatives both in foreign affairs and in domestic concerns. I think it terribly unfortunate that our body politic is so polarized that there is an utter absence of constructive dialogue on just about any pressing subject, and there are many of those. We here on BD, are engaging in the same redundant, useless polarized blather.

I believe it was in chemistry class, years ago at the U. of Michigan, that I learned the phrase, “ enthalpy begets entropy”, that is that in any system, the inherent energy of the system impels the system to disorder. Organization degenerates to randomness. Only pollitical consensus and enlightening leadership can prevent the ultimate chaos. As I read the above posts, with the endless apocalyptic prognostications ranging from Mr. Thomas’ war with China to BD’s fear of a vast Middle Eastern conflagration, I resort to something my very uneducated but very wise Russian grandmother would say, “ Most of what you worry about is never going to happen and the rest is a matter of accommodation.” (Translated from the Yiddish.)

We are seeing a world adjusting to the forces of modernization, a rise in nationalism, a complete failure of international institutions, and overriding it all, the difficulty of folks everywhere adjusting to such a rapid pace and volume of communication that no one knows what to believe. In the confusion, we here, and most abroad find comfort in the familiar to which we retreat. The French are a fine example. French youth are rioting in the streets over a very minor change in the notion of lifetime employment, a change that must happen and will ultimately happen. Is this just the rite of Spring? I think not – at least not this time. The French are painfully aware that the world is changing very fast and the pace of change inevitably means drastic changes to France and what is French. The resulting uneasiness compels them to withdraw and to vigorously defend the familiar, in effect, vainly fighting the changes.

In China we see a tremendous number of people getting wealthy, becoming consumers and an emerging middle class. The old guard looks at what was once a well organized and obedient populace and sees what is certain to be an uncontrollable mass that will have and will inevitably assert its own political ideas. By enlarging the military and engaging in subtle saber rattling, the old guard thinks it can rally public opinion back to obeisant, pliable state. Chavez in Venezuela learned his lessons well from Castro and backed by his access to the oil wealth longs to succeed where Castro failed. And on and on. Sooner or later each of the countries will experience widespread and probably violent turmoil and we will be little more than bystanders. Is this going to lead to world war IV or to complex regional wars? I doubt it as the leaders both in power and in contention are well aware of the economic consequences of such conflagrations. No, I don’t see the world going to hell in a handbag but I see a prolonged era of civil unrest in many places.

The middle east is a horse of a different color. The medieval ideologies that drive movements there override nationalistic inclinations and the apparent cheapness of life itself introduces a different calculus, one that the Western mind and particularly the American mind does not grasp. Even if we could grasp it, I am not sure that we have the cultural and historical experience to deal with it other than in a confrontational fashion. The irony of these confrontations is that they exist between the supplier of an essential commodity, oil, and the larger consumers thereof, for were the West to stop buying middle eastern oil, China and India could scarcely make up the shortfall. So, we are financing our enemies defenses and offenses while at the same time, we fight them.

We will have the opportunity to test BD’s hypothesis, for it seems certain that domestic political pressure will lead to a departure of the American military from Iraq before the stated objectives have been achieved. We will surely find out whether Iraq descends into chaos and drags some of its neighbors with it or whether the seeds of democracy have taken root. Fortunately, all of the comments on this site are archived somewhere in cyberspace and if we commentators remain engaged, we will be able to look back at them and see who prognosticated what and who was a windbag. In the meanwhile, firing recriminations based upon what one or another thought three years ago seems to offer little of a productive nature. Arguing whether the Battle of Gettysburg would have turned out differently had one general or another been more or less dyspeptic at some particular point in time misses the point entirely.

History teaches that in the fog of war, the best of battle plans go by the wayside as soon as the battle is joined. I think much the same occurs in politics. When politics and war are intermingled, the fog of war infects the politics and both turn and twirl into a confused miasma that only time and an ultimate, frenzy of destruction straightens out. We have not yet reached that climax in Iraq and I rather expect that when it does occur, American troops will be as much bystanders as participants. Whether we can appeal to moderate Islam and indeed, whether such does exist in any meaningful, influential fashion is the topic of the day. I have been thinking about that for a long time, and reading just about everything I can find on the subject, and I sure don’t have much of an answer. In the meanwhile, rather than beating all of the dead horses once again, why don’t we try to figure out what the heck to do that would change what is increasingly a very sorry picture, and a very sorry debate.

Michael

Posted by: Michael Pecherer at March 22, 2006 05:06 AM | Permalink to this comment

"andrew, you're talking without knowing what you're talking about."

Show me where, cuz you certainly haven't.

"The Civil War was an insurrection."

Yeah.

"The Constitution specifically - specifically, mind you; none of this penumbra-upon-penumbra-upon-half-assed-lies crap the Bushists shovel"

What has the Bush Administration done that's been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court?

"specifically gives the President power to suspend habeas corpus in event of an invasion or insurrection."

Maybe you should read a bit more about the Civil War and all that happened.

"What exactly was the post-war "plan" for Reconstruction?" Lincoln's plans for Reconstruction were to gradually re-admit the Southern states to full status as American states."

That was the GOAL. You haven't answered what the "plan" was.

"The problem with that plan was a little glitch you seem to have missed hearing about in your re-enactment frenzy"

"Re-enactment frenzy" WTF? If you knew anything about the time period you would know why I brought up those specific battles and not others.

"As for your blather about deficits - Jesus H.F. Christ, that was in the 19th-effing Century. I'm not even sure "deficits" were recognized as such back then."

How is it blather? The government takes in a certain amount of revenue and spends a certain amount. And hopefully Lincoln tossed anyone complaining about "record" deficits in prison on the charge of being unserious.

"The entire taxation and economic infrastructure were entirely different 150 years ago."

Irrelevant. Government takes it in and spends it.

"Comparing government spending then to government spending now is like saying transportation was a lot safer in the 1860's because there weren't any automobile accidents then."

As long as its adjusted for inflation and proportionally taken as a percentage of the economy it's entirely reasonable to compare it.

"My god. I cannot believe you offered up Lincoln and the Civil War as an example of something that makes Bush and his policies look good."

Why? Because comparing the relatively low cost of this war versus the bloodbath that Lincoln led us through back then makes your hyperbole look bad?

"Is that what passes for historical analysis on the Right?"

I'm no spokesman for the Right. I'm just tired of ignoramuses like yourself. Nothing would make me happier if the Left and the Democrats got serious and stopped being so damn childish.

"I'd be downright embarrased to offer up a comparison that historically illiterate and intellectually sophomoric."

You remind me of a quote "Uncle Junior" Soprano once said to his nephew, "some people are so far behind they think they're ahead."
(I'm paraphrasing the wording might be a little different)

Well anyway. Try and learn something.

Posted by: andrew at March 22, 2006 05:31 AM | Permalink to this comment

"Arguing whether the Battle of Gettysburg would have turned out differently had one general or another been more or less dyspeptic at some particular point in time misses the point entirely."

I appreciate the other stuff you were saying Michael but I think you missed the point of what I was trying to get across. I'm trying to provide a little perspective to the debate about the Iraq war. The Left-I include the MSM as part of the Left-is conducting a scorched earth policy of hysteria where everything that happens is portrayed as the end of the world in their attempt to defeat Bush and the Republicans. Now Bush can't run again and I'm sure once his term is over he'll enjoy a nice comfortable 20-30 years of retirement so I don't care what people think of him, I'm sure he doesn't care, and I don't care whether or not he is viewed favorbaly by history. But I do care about the country and I think it would be devastating if the Left succeeded in convincing the country that a 3% of GDP budget deficit is too great a cost, or if a historically low number of combat deaths makes a war not worth winning. My point about Lincoln is that even our greatest President oversaw defeats and disasters, which by the way makes our current troubles look trivial by comparison. So people who think it's ridiculous to compare what Bush is going through to what Lincoln went through should at least know that by certain benchmarks Bush is actually doing well as opposed to the hysterical picture the Left has constructed.

Posted by: andrew at March 22, 2006 06:09 AM | Permalink to this comment

Andrew, I understood completely what you were saying and I share your perspective on Lincoln. I have read every book I could find on him and truly understand the difficulties that he had administering the Civil War. I also agree that the left's scorched earth policy is destroying civil discourse in this country and that was the larger point of my post. When you cite to history, regardless of your knowledge or how factual your reference may be, someone will counter by calling you names and refusing to see the teaching of your citation. If you review the more than 100 posts on Greg's last entry, and those above, you can see that discourse here has degenerated. I am merely urging a group of very intelligent people who hang around this blog to drop the polarity and to, if at all possible, put our collective heads together and formulate some solutions. To be a critic, or even a hysterical critic is all too easy. To step above the frey is difficult indeed. So please don't take my comment on Gettysburg to be an insult. It was directed largely at the response because I agree with your sentiments.

Michael

Posted by: Michael Pecherer at March 22, 2006 06:23 AM | Permalink to this comment

I am merely urging a group of very intelligent people who hang around this blog to drop the polarity and to, if at all possible, put our collective heads together and formulate some solutions.

Solutions for who to implement? The President and his SecDef have a tin ear to parts of their own party, so its not like they'll listen to anyone here.

Posted by: Doug H. at March 22, 2006 07:15 AM | Permalink to this comment

Separate out Bush derangement syndrome from the critique of the handling of the war on these threads, and what do you have left? A lot of perfect 20-20 hindsight. Let it be said clearly and without apology; despite all his disasters, better Bush than Gore or Kerry from everything we know about the latter two.

Oh, and while I'm here, I'll meet your Bush derangement syndrome, and raise you a Democrat derangement syndrome.

Posted by: Doug H. at March 22, 2006 07:20 AM | Permalink to this comment

Andrew, you do yourself no favors by flaunting your deep ignorance of history.

Take this Know-Nothing "retort" to CaseyL:

"What exactly was the post-war "plan" for Reconstruction?" Lincoln's plans for Reconstruction were to gradually re-admit the Southern states to full status as American states."

YOU: That was the GOAL. You haven't answered what the "plan" was.

Hours of digging took to me to this article in the obscure and oh-so-hard-to-find Wikipedia. Here's an interesting passage (emphasis added):

Planning for Reconstruction began in 1861, at the onset of the war. The Radical Republicans, seeking harsh policies, used as their base the Congressional Joint Committee on Reconstruction. Abraham Lincoln pursued a lenient plan for reconstruction, especially in Louisiana, Tennessee, and Arkansas. In those three states, he proposed a ten percent plan that required 10% of the voters from the 1860 election to swear an oath of loyalty to the Union. These states did not comply until well after the end of the war and so were not immediately readmitted to the Union and to representation in Congress.

Lincoln wanted to bring the Southerners back into good standing as fast as possible and with a minimum of vengeance. Insisting as well that there be new rights for the Freedmen, he created the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, known as the Freedmen's Bureau. His goal of providing land for blacks, commonly referred to as "40 acres and a mule" (The expression was coined after General Sherman issued Special Field Order 15, which temporarily gave freedmen land owned by their previous masters) was not pursued by his successors.

Kinda looks like a plan to me. It also kinda looks like the matter of reintegrating seccessionist states was getting serious thought almost from the beginning of the conflict. So remind me -- how much time did the Brain Trust of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld give to planning for the war that they scheduled? Is there any evidence that they gave it any thought at all?

In addition, it's really not a good idea to call somebody an ignoramus when they make the entirely accurate and sensible observation that the structure of federal finances in the 1860's was radically different from today's. Hell, between notes that state banks issued, greenbacks and gold, it's hard to say that the U.S. even had a uniform currency in the 19th Century.

You wouldn't look so totally uninformed if you tried to make a more reasonable comparison, say, Bush and Harding, or Bush and Franklin Pierce.

Posted by: sglover at March 22, 2006 03:07 PM | Permalink to this comment

Tell me how were're going to keep lots of troops in Iraq for years when public support has collapsed. I'm curious.

Although personally, I can see advantages in keeping them there as long as the Portguese kept their troops in Africa, the Soviets in Afghanistan, or the French in Algeria.

Posted by: gcochran at March 22, 2006 04:07 PM | Permalink to this comment

Greg, back when she was a hawk, Diana Moon told me, indignantly, that wars are run on emotion, not logic or words to that effect. She was onto something, and Bush and Rumsfeld probably recognize it. It's hard for normal people to support killing and dying for mere marginal policy alternatives, and as hard to sustain a policy of killing and dying on only the "loftier" emotions.

Thus the essential contradiction in the war: it could only be "won" by successfully implementing a "humanitarian" program of political liberation and societal reconstruction, but you can't sell killing and dying and spending hundreds of billions of dollars for that. So the antebellum sales pitch was heavy on the Million Mom War program (give us the sense of perfect safety from scary weapons) and that Jacksonian payback everyone talks about. ("I'm gonna kill you, and anyone who looks like you" in revenge for the September 11, 2001 atrocities.)

Hatred and fear make a really poor foundation for humanitarianism. I'm speaking in practical terms here. I'm not saying, Oh aren't we terrible people? I'm saying, the emotional substructure of the war compromises vox pop and elite ability to think and act their way toward the stated victory conditions. Because wars need a good bit of hate and fear behind them to sustain themselves.

This makes me wonder, for the first time, if the hawks demonizing of the opposition to the war (and "the Left," generally) isn't a (mostly unsuccessful) subconscious attempt to solve their own contradictions. They attempt to offload the hate and fear they need to power the business of killing and dying onto someone other than the Iraqis, because they recognize, however unconsciously, that hatng the Iraqis gets in the way of winning in Iraq.

There are "Jacksonians" and "Wilsonians" but "Jacksonian Wilsonianism" is hard to pull off. And it goes without saying that we aren't the world homeland of Jacksonianism, either. The Sunni Triangle is full of Jacksonians; Basra does not lack for Jacksonian Shiites. There is also, of course, a Jacksonian Kurdistan (currently riding high).

I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader how the US solved the "Jacksonian Wilsonianism" problem during and after WWII. But there's a big hint in the phrase "during and after."

Posted by: Jim Henley at March 22, 2006 05:36 PM | Permalink to this comment

"Kinda looks like a plan to me. It also kinda looks like the matter of reintegrating seccessionist states was getting serious thought almost from the beginning of the conflict."

Yeah, but I don't see any plan for how to deal with the KKK or take care of the freed blacks.

"Is there any evidence that they gave it any thought at all?"

Iraq has the beginnings of a government after 3 elections and an army that was built from scratch has produced dozens of battalions that are now in action. It's economy also grew by 50% in 2004.

"In addition, it's really not a good idea to call somebody an ignoramus when they make the entirely accurate and sensible observation that the structure of federal finances in the 1860's was radically different from today's. Hell, between notes that state banks issued, greenbacks and gold, it's hard to say that the U.S. even had a uniform currency in the 19th Century."

The structure and currency is irrelevant to what I'm talking about. The government no matter what the era takes in x amount and spends x amount. Surely you can understand that.

Posted by: andrew at March 22, 2006 06:56 PM | Permalink to this comment

Yeah, but I don't see any plan for how to deal with the KKK or take care of the freed blacks.

Ummmm.... You want to see something like "The Anti-KKK Law of 1865" -- when the Klan was just a notion skittering around the back of Nathan Bedford Forrest's skull?!?!?

You are aware -- aren't you? -- that the Confederate States were occupied by the U.S. Army up until the political chicanery of 1876. I'd say that, at a minimum, was a tangible effort to secure the rights of freed blacks. Not to mention federal agencies like the Freedman's Bureau.

The government no matter what the era takes in x amount and spends x amount. Surely you can understand that.

Y'know, in the Civil War, individual states fielded regiments, too. How does this fit in with your simple-minded notion of "the gummint"?

Iraq has the beginnings of a government after 3 elections and an army that was built from scratch has produced dozens of battalions that are now in action. It's economy also grew by 50% in 2004.

As of a month or two ago, there were precisely zero Iraqi batallions rated capable of engaging in independent operations. And that was a decline from an earlier estimate of a mere three batallions. We can quibble about what "combat capable" means, or ought to mean. But so far the only Iraqi armed forces that are even remotely cohesive or viable seem to be the various militias. Finally -- 2004?!?! WTF? Every recent index of Iraq's economic activity shows a pronounced drop in living standards over the past three years. Invasions and civil wars will do that....

Enough, man. You're just too dumb to argue with.

Posted by: sglover at March 22, 2006 07:13 PM | Permalink to this comment

"Ummmm.... You want to see something like "The Anti-KKK Law of 1865" -- when the Klan was just a notion skittering around the back of Nathan Bedford Forrest's skull?!?!?"

Yeah. I want to know what the plan was.

"You are aware -- aren't you? -- that the Confederate States were occupied by the U.S. Army up until the political chicanery of 1876. I'd say that, at a minimum, was a tangible effort to secure the rights of freed blacks. Not to mention federal agencies like the Freedman's Bureau."

So what's your point?

"Y'know, in the Civil War, individual states fielded regiments, too. How does this fit in with your simple-minded notion of "the gummint"?"

This is just incoherent to what we were talking about. But at least you've given up arguing that deficits were different back then.

"As of a month or two ago, there were precisely zero Iraqi batallions rated capable of engaging in independent operations."

That has to do with logistics not combat capability. Are you seriously arguing that there are no Iraqi battalions that are engaged in combat operations?

"Finally -- 2004?!?! WTF?"

Yes it's economy grew 50% that year, you can look it up.

"Enough, man. You're just too dumb to argue with."

Yeah I've just been blown away by your solid arguments and keen understandng of history. Hahahahaha. Explain to me again how you can't compare deficits back in the 19th century because of different currencies and different ways of collecting taxes. How does that change the fact that government takes in x amount of revenue and spends x amount? Hahahaha. Dumbass.

Posted by: andrew at March 22, 2006 10:03 PM | Permalink to this comment

Hatred and fear make a really poor foundation for humanitarianism. I'm speaking in practical terms here. I'm not saying, Oh aren't we terrible people? I'm saying, the emotional substructure of the war compromises vox pop and elite ability to think and act their way toward the stated victory conditions. Because wars need a good bit of hate and fear behind them to sustain themselves.

Couldn't agree more Jim. I think Fareed Zakaria was on to this same notion in his discussion here of Bush's speech at the GOP convention [emphasis mine]:

Bush is right to note that after World War II, because "generations of Americans held firm in the cause of liberty, we live in a better and safer world." But in those years the United States adopted a series of wise, generous policies and a conciliatory style that made it much loved in the countries we were trying to help. Spreading democracy requires allies, particularly among the targets of one's affection. [...]

The Republican convention had two alternating approaches toward foreigners. On the one hand, it repeatedly ridiculed them. The cheapest applause lines in New York last week were ones that ended in "the French," "Paris" or, worst of all, "the United Nations," which was probably meant to conjure up images of envious Third Worlders plotting against America. On the other hand, Republicans constantly declared they were going to deliver the blessings of liberty to the far corners of the world. This is the party's dilemma -- it wishes to spread liberty to people whom it doesn't really like.

Kind of like Coulter and the "rag-head" posse within the GOP that patronize her in such high numbers talking up our sacrifice so that the "rag-heads" can be free. Unless those same "rag-heads" act up. Then they get what's coming to em. Or something.

Posted by: Eric Martin at March 23, 2006 12:12 AM | Permalink to this comment

The Eastern European nations wish they had it as good as Iraq has it now!

Eastern Europe wishes that the United States would have invaded and occupied all of them so that they may have tasted the fruits of democracy and freedom.

Vietnam wishes we would have stayed so that they may taste the fruit of liberty and federalism.

Iraq has the opportunity Eastern Europe and Vietnam never had...why do you liberal defeatist wish to deny them of this opportunity?

Posted by: Bill Sanders at March 23, 2006 12:17 AM | Permalink to this comment

"This is the party's dilemma -- it wishes to spread liberty to people whom it doesn't really like."

This is simply retarded. There's no contradiction in helping some people achieve liberty while holding other groups of people in contempt who deserve it. The criminal syndicate that is the UN bureaucracy deserves all of the contempt it gets.

Posted by: joe at March 23, 2006 01:05 AM | Permalink to this comment

I am merely urging a group of very intelligent people who hang around this blog to drop the polarity and to, if at all possible, put our collective heads together and formulate some solutions.

Two questions michael:

1) Given the perception of the Bush regime held by the rest of the world, do you honestly think that there are any "solutions" that can be formulated by the people of good will on this blog?

2) Given the record of the Bush regime over the past five years, how confident are you that, were it actually possible to "formulate some solutions", that the Bush regime could be relied upon to carry out those solutions without screwing things up?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again..... if someone like Greg was in the White House, I'd be willing to entertain the idea that success in Iraq was possible.

But ultimately, we have reached the point where "policy" is no longer the primary consideration, and "regime change" is a prerequisite for any kind of productive discussion of options with regard to the mid-East.

Posted by: p.lukasiak at March 23, 2006 01:57 AM | Permalink to this comment

I just want to say that I am against turning Iraq over to Hitler. Mussolini too. Tojo is right out. Don't even get me started about General Franco, because I have nothing to say about him and getting me started would just leave this big stretch of white space in the middle of Greg's comment section. But offhand I don't think too much of giving Iraq to him either.

Posted by: Zathras at March 23, 2006 04:25 AM | Permalink to this comment

Luka, I think you raise important points. However, I see them differently. In my mind, the most important problem with political discourse today is that the loyal opposition has utterly failed to propose alternative solutions to any of the most pressing problems including Iraq, social security, medicare, the budget, etc. Instead, the discourse has descended to name calling and insults. The result is that instead of the formation of a political consensus around change or innovation, the process is completely stalemated. This is not going to change until enough of us step up and insist on change and act accordingly. You may well be correct that even if our collective brilliance could arrive at effective solutions, no one in power would either listen or would implement if they were listening. However, I believe that for every poster on this blog, there are scores, if not hundreds who read this commentary. If we make the start, is it not possible that it could spread. Who knows, it could become a pandemic!

Ok, I am a glass is half full kind of guy and I realize that there is a naive element in my suggestion. I guess that the constant retreading of the same accusations over and over here and elsewhere is leading nowhere. Witness the argument over civil war history above. Each of the contenders is about half right in their history and about the same in their analysis. And I suspect that they are both acting in good faith and could keep it up until they both drop from exhaustion. Then what?

One other thing. I have been abroad lately and while there is a lot of suspicion about the US, I didn't hear anybody speak favorably about their own governments, about the UN, the EC, or any governmental institution. In fact, I am deeply concerned about the depth of this malaise.

Michael

Posted by: Michael Pecherer at March 23, 2006 05:05 AM | Permalink to this comment

You don't have to worry, Zathras, Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead.

Posted by: Doug H. at March 23, 2006 12:31 PM | Permalink to this comment

"In my mind, the most important problem with political discourse today is that the loyal opposition has utterly failed to propose alternative solutions to any of the most pressing problems including Iraq, social security, medicare, the budget, etc."

This is a Republican talking-point. There's no political reality there.

Reagan conclusively showed us that given a choice between a US-glorifying fantasy and a responsible alternative, voters will take the fantasy. Bush has driven the lesson home. And before that -- it was Republicans who were strong on fiscal responsibility etc, and it didn't work for them. There are no politicians today who will talk about reasonable alternatives in public. It's a process of natural selection. The ones who tried to do that are gone, they gave up running for office.

This isn't because of Bush, Bush is just the culmination of the process, the President who largely does domestic and foreign policy based on what focus groups and polls tell him will be popular. If it wasn't him, it would be somebody else doing pretty much the same things, perhaps a few elections later. I expect at some point american voters will prefer straight-talking politicians who take responsibility, and when the focus groups reveal that trend then politicianis will try to present that image. But that time is not yet, and at this point it's political suicide to speak frankly.

But I'm not a politician and I don't represent one or any political party. I can present alternatives.

About iraq, we need to get our military out. We aren't doing any good there, our attempts to reduce US casualties pretty much make sure of that. Our attacks are tending more and more to airstrikes which minimise our casualties and do no good. Innovative ideas are all very fine but the military is a vast machine that can't switch mindsets easily, by the time we retrain on the fly the situation will have changed again. And it doesn't help that a whole lot of our enlisted men think of iraqis as ragheads. That makes friendly occupation a whole lot harder, and we're already ovetaken by events -- you don't change attitudes like that quickly, and not when you're getting shot at.

All the things people say about likely bad consequences of us leaving are, well, likely. But the likely results of us hanging in there are no better. And we're paying an upfront cost for the improbable chance of a good outcome years down the road. It isn't worth it.

We can look at whether we want to do specific training for long-term occupation, in case we ever decide to do this sort of thing again. We can look at what kind of training we want to give our military in nation-building. If we put enough effort into planning it, maybe as soon as 5 years from now we'll be ready to do this kind of thing right. If that's what we want. But it isn't what we're ready to do now.

This approach doesn't go over well politically. It's admitting defeat. Murtha presented it, you're wrong to say there's been no proposal. He reasonably suggested we can do airstrikes about as easily from neighboring nations and from carriers, at vastly less expense. He tried to present it as something other than giving up. Somehow it gets ignored and Republicans repeat their talking point that no alternatives have been presented.

Posted by: J Thomas at March 23, 2006 03:05 PM | Permalink to this comment

Luka, I think you raise important points. However, I see them differently. In my mind, the most important problem with political discourse today is that the loyal opposition has utterly failed to propose alternative solutions to any of the most pressing problems including Iraq, social security, medicare, the budget, etc.

Michael -- on foreign policy issues, its not really the job of the Congress (wherein the loyal opposition can be found) to come up with "alternative solutions" per se. And lets face it, the last thing that either of us want to see is congress using its appropriations powers to micro-manage foreign policy decisions.

As far as the "domestic" issues you cite -- "social security" isn't in crisis -- and never was in crisis, and the Dems didn't need to come up with a solution. (Medicare is a different story -- but neither side has been willing to address that problem. ) And as far as the budget is concerned, well, the Democrats opposed the Bush tax cuts which are contributing enormously to the deficit -- and I'm sure that if Bush proposed tax increases to do things like pay for the war in Iraq, he'd have Democratic party support. (Note that the Dems voted against the increase in the debt limit....)

It really isn't a lack of ideas from the Democrats that is the problem --- the fact that with both houses of congress and the White House under GOP control, those ideas have no outlet because the GOP has decided NOT to compromise with democrats.

That is where the real problem here is --- the GOP leadership has engaged in a strategy for a "permanent Republican majority" that is designed to marginalize democrats.

Posted by: p.lukasiak at March 23, 2006 04:16 PM | Permalink to this comment

(I hope this is not a duplicate post, but I had difficulty posting the original)

Mr. Thomas, I am not an automaton that speaks for the Republican party or for anyone else. My political loyalties are to the country and not to a particular party or movement. I learned the futility of that decades ago. I went to school with many of the so-called leaders in both parties and while I don't claim to know them well, I soaked in the same political and social soup. I don’t see how a dismissive attitude contributes light rather than heat.

In my opinion, it is an error to perceive either political party as a unified force with sinister motives. Within both the Republican and Democratic parties there are many individuals whose loyalties and best wishes are for the country as a whole and not to their particular party. Party discipline and the rewards system suppresses their individuality especially in a Congressional context. The idea that either political party contrives all their actions toward the creation of a dynasty is good for the soul of some, but hardly accurate. In fact, this attitude, which is widely discussed these days is partially responsible for the dearth of attractive candidates for higher office.

As for Mr. Murtha, serving in the Marines does not qualify him as a military strategist. For all his years, there is a complete absence of writings, discussions, etc. that indicate that he has the depth of knowledge or understanding of the military and of military functioning so as to be taken seriously. I suggest that you may be latching onto his suggestion of remote bombing etc with ready forces just over the border as a viable strategy because it comports with your notions of the failure of the mission. You may turn out to be right, but the argument is not persuasive. There are plenty of highly credible military thinkers that are dismayed about the war and none of them are jumping on Murtha's bandwagon.

Luka, you are thoughtful as usual, but you limit your definition of the loyal opposition to Congress. While I agree that micromanagement by Congress of foreign policy or for that matter, anything else is not desirable, I think that the foment of ideas has to come from outside of the beltway. You can lament the control of Congress by the Republicans, but that is how the electorate voted and I think they voted that way because they were unimpressed by the Democratic candidates and the Democratic ideas. Those ideas are presently controlled by Kennedy, Shumer and Pelosi all of whom have moved so far to the left as to be at great distance from most Americans. What we have is a horizontal polarity that presumes that anything different has to be impressed on that axis. In fact, a good, better, best valuation model is inherently primitive. We need to start thinking in a three dimensional space where ideas that don't fit the molds set by current thinkers are not automatically discarded.

For example, I strongly disagree that Social Security is not a problem. The demographics plainly show that we cannot go on as we have with a one size fits all model that cannot be financed under the current structure. Even if the crisis is not as severe and immediate as is Medicare, there is a crisis and there is no good reason to wait until it is politically unmanageable before doing something about it. Perhaps individual accounts are not the answer for everyone, but they certainly were for many. Yet the entire subject was demagogued to death rather than intelligently considered.

Likewise for tax reform. I have just finished filing my Federal Tax Return. Yes I have a few investments etc. but as the lyrics of the song, “ My name is Morgan but it is not JP.” There are auto workers who make more than I do. But filing a return of 96 pages is ridiculous and having to deal with complexities of language that no one can understand is a joke. It is absurd that my children who worked summer jobs and made a few thousand dollars have to file multipage returns even though they pay no taxes only because they had $50 in dividend income. In my professional life, I am finding that transactions are more and more being driven by tax considerations. I believe that tax revenues could easily be increased by many percent by simply reducing the complexity of the system. History has taught over an over again that broadening the base rather than raising the rates increases overall revenue. Anybody heard anything from anyone about this subject?

Foment for change is not going to occur within the existing political class. They are too driven by party loyalties, hubris in general, and an awful condescension that they know what is best for us out here in the trenches. That attitude will defeat Hillory regardless of her other merits, it defeated Keary and Gore, and at a very basic level, it breeds contempt for the political system out there where most Americans live. We need to stop, take a breath, and listen to the real concerns of the people who comprise the majority of this country. Only then will the hot button issues like abortion, and gay rights cease to be the driving force for political alignment. I pray for that day.

So my plea is that we use some of the space on this forum to rekindle a long lost discussion (not debate) on what ought to be done to regain a meaningful political discourse. I would like to see a "social compact" here that we refrain from calling one who disagrees as an idiot or other pejorative insult. A pipe dream, perhaps, but I do have a dream and hence I could have a dream come true.

Michael

Posted by: Michael Pecherer at March 23, 2006 05:23 PM | Permalink to this comment

The claim that no alternatives get presented is a standard Republican talking-point. I am glad to hear you claim that you actually mean it.

However, you then entirely dismiss Murtha's alternative on the claim that he isn't sufficiently an expert and that various experts don't like it.

So it appears you don't just want alternatives, you want alternatives that will be universally accepted as better than what we're doing now. For the war, though, there can be no such thing. What is needed is a victory strategy that works for our current army. And it simply can't be done, when victory requires iraqi cooperation. It can't be done. It's like trying to use a pipe wrench for a delicate surgical operation. It can be the best pipe wrench in the world but that doesn't make it a good scalpel.

No expert has a strategy for victory because the experts know that nothing will work. The best they can do is find some role for US forces that doesn't cause too much trouble, things like training iraqi security forces. The thing we're really good at -- airstrikes -- we can do about as well from neighboring countries. But it looks like giving up control, and we would be. When we don't guard the iraqi national assembly in the Green Zone, then we don't control them. No telling what they'd do. We'd lose control of the media. Reporters might go anywhere and report about anything. The iraqis might make whatever treaties they chose with any foreign nations they chose. We would give up any chance of victory. So of course it gets rejected and no alternative is proposed.

About social security, I disagree that there's a crisis. A crisis is a sudden emergency that lasts no more than 3 weeks. The cuban missile crisis was a crisis. Chenobyl was a crisis. The evacuation of New Orleans was a crisis. Social security is a minor part of a looming catastrophe.

Here's the problem. We're collecting money to pay for Social Security 20 years from now. We are loaning that money to the government, which is using it to partly pay for the iraq war. The theory is that 20 years from now the government will pay it back. How will they do that? Run a surplus? Sell extra bonds to whoever wants to buy them? At this point there's a strong chance the government will be completely insolvent in 20 years. We might have Republican administrations for 20 years. Who would lend to them? How could they possibly raise that much in taxes?

Social security has been lending to a bad credit risk, that's the central problem. If it was legal, we could fix a lot of the SS problem by letting SS lend its money to the EU etc, to people who will predictably pay it back. Cash in the existing US bonds and invest in something safer. But that would be a giant catastrophe for the US government, which might become insolvent immediately.

So, what solution can we find for 20 years from now? Um. Say it was 1905 and we were looking for a solution that would work in 1925. How could you possibly plan before WWI for 1925? Say it was 1925 and you were planning for 1945. Same thing. Are we heading for something like a world war? Something where they soak up the available resources, including most of people's retirements, and then during and after the war they inflate the money supply to reduce the obligation? It might not happen, but do you have any particular reason to doubt it?

The most important thing for providing good retirements is a thriving economy. Get a great economy with a minimal debt burden, and it's no big problem to give old people a year 2000 standard of living on the scraps nobody important will miss. But when there isn't enough to go around then you've got a problem.

A great economy based on new technology would be a great help if we do get into a war. And it prevents trouble if we don't. So there's the problem. The problem isn't social security. The problem isn't really even that the government one way or another will steal the social security money. The problem is to find a way to keep us prosperous now and then, both. Solve that and social security can take care of itself. And at this point we have no hint how to solve it. Maybe switchgrass?

Foment for change is not going to occur within the existing political class. They are too driven by party loyalties, hubris in general, and an awful condescension that they know what is best for us out here in the trenches.

Yes. Devoted to the status quo. We had a chance to make sweeping changes. "9/11 changed everything." But we didn't do it. It didn't change much at all. We might not get our next chance until the next world war.

Posted by: J Thomas at March 23, 2006 06:29 PM | Permalink to this comment

Michael,
I would agree with you about the discourse. I first started reading this blog not only because I was impressed by Greg, but by the quality of the commenters. For goodness' sake, why are people here abusing each other over interpretations of the Civil War?

Posted by: Antiquated Tory at March 23, 2006 07:03 PM | Permalink to this comment

"And as far as the budget is concerned, well, the Democrats opposed the Bush tax cuts which are contributing enormously to the deficit"

The deficit is from the collapse of a gigantic stock market bubble and increased defense spending as a result from the war. Maybe if the Democrats/MSM hadn't been cheerleading the stock market bubble in the late 90's and instead focused just a little bit of attention on the fact that jihadists had declared war on us and were spreading like a cancer throughout the world people like me would actually take them seriously on the most important issue of the day. But first you have to admit you have a problem but instead you guys are throwing your hopes around a media hyped third rate insurgency.

Posted by: andrew at March 23, 2006 07:07 PM | Permalink to this comment

"For goodness' sake, why are people here abusing each other over interpretations of the Civil War?"

I'm not abusing anyone over their interptretation of the Civil War. I'm just showing how if you take the ignorant assualts upon the Bush Adminstration by the Dems/MSM and apply them to another situation you could make a case that even the greatest American ever was a bad president. I could use WWII if it makes you feel any better. I could also use the Revolution and maybe even the War of 1812, although to be honest I don't know enough about WWI to say anything about it.

Posted by: andrew at March 23, 2006 07:15 PM | Permalink to this comment

Please stop,it is painful to read the commentary from people who prefer diplomacy to real solutions.Arm chair QB's who may never have served their country in a time of need,think that they are all knowing regarding our national security. Diplomacy is the ideal that put us in this place to begin with,and now real men have to stand up and deliver while you, (the collective you) argue your points from your office or bedroom. This is no better then the First Ave Debate Society,get over yourselves and your self labeled importance to our Country,get over the fact that your arrogance in trying to analyze history in the making,minute by minute does no one any good.Listen more,talk less.I would be willing to bet that most respondants to this blog are esteemed graduates of the bastions of American education.ie;Georgetown,Yale,Harvard,Columbia and others which have Foreign Diplomacy Schools,maybe try talking to regular people rather then all your clubby friends who share disdain for our Country.

Posted by: Richard Martin at March 24, 2006 04:33 AM | Permalink to this comment

Richard Martin, Michael Pecherer says he welcomes real solutions.

It's your turn to present one.

Posted by: J Thomas at March 24, 2006 02:34 PM | Permalink to this comment

We should just let the Government do what it does best, save the world!

Stop confusing yourselves with complex questions and let Bush lead us to victory!

Posted by: Bill Sanders at March 24, 2006 08:35 PM | Permalink to this comment

If 9/11 had happened during Clinton's watch we would have been in Iraq as well. How would they have "screwed up"?

Step no. 1: get rid of Saddam.

2: Do our best to create the conditions for a legitimate government to take root.

3: leave the rest to the Iraqis, stay out of the way, and hope to hell it works.

References to Hitler: The first time I saw the term "Iraqi insurgents" was in a description of a Messerschmitt 110 in Iraqi markings during WWII. German pilots were flying in support of an armed rebellion against the British in Mesopotamia. The Baath Party can in part trace its beginnings to Nazi adventurism during this period.

While Saddam's rule more closely resembled Stalin's, the comparison is not too far from the mark, IMHO.

Posted by: Chuck at March 25, 2006 02:04 AM | Permalink to this comment

Chuck, whyever would you think that Clinton would have invaded iraq after 9/11?

There was no credible evidence of iraqi involvement, unless we accepted Mossad's claims that they wouldn't reveal sources for.

Assuming Clinton wanted to invade iraq, do you think he could get UN support? I tend to doubt it, but if that worked for Clinton he'd have whatever benefit UN support got him. Would Clinton invade iraq after the UN disapproved? It takes Bush to create the present fiasco.

I'd like to think some other president might think a bit outside the box. Like, if we wanted iraq, we should have at least made an attempt to buy it. That worked well for us with the Mississippi valley and Alaska. Saddam might have been quite ready to sell. He gets to go live on the West Bank and be a writer or whatever. We get iraq as a territory, and depending on events, after some years they can start voting whether to become independent, or join the USA as a state, or continue the status quo. Like puerto rico. Having all those muslims might be a problem, but it might not. We've done just fine with the LDS in utah.

It would have the disadvantage that Saddam would escape justice. But bringing Saddam to justice has been very very costly....

I suggested this before the invasion, but didn't get a lot of attention. Maybe I shoujd have tried harder.

Posted by: J Thomas at March 25, 2006 02:13 PM | Permalink to this comment

Likewise for tax reform. I have just finished filing my Federal Tax Return. Yes I have a few investments etc. but as the lyrics of the song, “ My name is Morgan but it is not JP.” There are auto workers who make more than I do. But filing a return of 96 pages is ridiculous and having to deal with complexities of language that no one can understand is a joke. It is absurd that my children who worked summer jobs and made a few thousand dollars have to file multipage returns even though they pay no taxes only because they had $50 in dividend income. In my professional life, I am finding that transactions are more and more being driven by tax considerations. I believe that tax revenues could easily be increased by many percent by simply reducing the complexity of the system. History has taught over an over again that broadening the base rather than raising the rates increases overall revenue. Anybody heard anything from anyone about this subject?

of course the tax system can and shoud be simplified.... but keep in mind that the reason you children have to fill out multipage tax returns is because Republicans want to give capital gains special treatment. (i.e. if all income, regardless of source, were taxed equally, the system would be much simpler.) The reality is that filling out your taxes is easy --- if you are willing to forego all the deductions that you might be eligible for. All those extra pages and incomprehensible language exists in order to allow you to reduce your taxes by narrowing the tax base.

The tax system is complicated because those complications benefit the wealthy, not the poor.

***********
as for social security -- there is no real problem. The problem is that we continue to sustain and incur new debt above and beyond what is held by the Social Security Trust Fund. Prior to the Bush deficits, we were on a course that would have allowed us to pay off all of our debt in a timely fashion --- including the debt held by the Trust as it became necessary.

(The simple explanation is this----The key here is that although the trust fund would have run out of money in 40 years or so, by the time that happened we would have been spending 6.2% of GDP on Social Security benefits for over a decade. (Right now we spend about 4.2%, and starting around 2010 that increases by 0.1% per year for 20 years until it reached 6.2% of GDP around 2030, and it would have basically stayed there indefinitely.

We had the legal obligation to pay off the social security debt to supplement payroll taxes in order to pay full benefits until the trust fund ran out. That means that we would have been using general revenue to redeem the debt held by the trust fund from about 2015 on. By 2040, when the Trust Fund ran out, our economy would have adjusted to the fact that we spend 6.2% of GDP on Social Security each year --- and the "problem" of insolvency would be taken care of by simply transferring general revenue into the social security system.

(An alternate solution would be to use the estate tax to supplement social security.....I believe that would extend the solvency of the system until at least 2095 or so, IIRC.)

Posted by: p.lukasiak at March 26, 2006 01:28 AM | Permalink to this comment

Jay, I am basing my opinion regarding on statements made by Tom Brokaw, and I believe it was Ted Koppel on one of the Sunday morning shows less than a year ago. I base it also on my memory of "operation desert fox" which were missle attacks on suspected WMD sites in 1998. Republicans in congress accused him of just trying to get the Monica Lewinsky affair off the front pages, as I recall. Well, now the shoe is on the other foot and the Democrats are now the ones making political hay; only this time we need to realize that the stakes are much higher. Clinton is now being a good soldier because of his wife's ambitions; but I do recall his defending the invasion obliquely early on with the statement that "we couldn't take the chance" regarding Saddam after 9/11.

Just a little something for you alternate history buffs.

Posted by: Chuck at March 27, 2006 12:45 AM | Permalink to this comment