Out To Lunch
As an opponent of the war in Iraq, as someone who strongly supports the commencement of immediate withdrawal I am often beset by doubts and fears of what would fill the vacuum left behind.
Curse Colin Powell all you want (I certainly do) but there’s an undeniable truth to his invocation of the Pottery Barn analogy regarding Iraq. We have created and aggravated an enormous mess, so don’t we have some responsibility to seek a modicum of stability, if possible, don’t we owe the Iraqi people something positive before throwing in the towel?
The theoretical answer to both questions is certainly affirmative. Problem is, it seems an impossible task. I read this news, that the Iraqi parliament is closing down for a month of vacation, and (at the risk of sounding a tad like an arrogant Big Power chauvinist) I just don’t see how the expenditure of a single additional American combat death can any longer be justified.
No reason to be stupid here. Legislators, anywhere and like everyone else, deserve vacation time. But not when your government is on the verge of collapse, not in the midst of a growing insurgency, not when your own soldiers and those of a foreign power are being sacrificed in your name on an hourly basis.
Can anyone fathom the pain and anguish of the parents of a young American soldier now being called up for a second, a third, in some cases even a fourth tour of combat duty while those he are fighting for have taken off for the Casino du Liban?
The Iraqi parliament will reconvene on September 4th, less than two wees before The New Jesus General Petraeus is due to deliver his much-awaited report on all the progress — both military and political– we and our erstwhile partners are making in Iraq. No one with an IQ above room temperature really believes that any of the so-called benchmarks will have been achieved by the Iraqi government. But they sure will look great: tanned, rested and ready to serve — to serve as props in this ongoing tragic farce of a war.
July 30th, 2007 at 7:54 pm
The problem is the same people who are warning of the dire consequences of an early withdrawal are the folks who advised us that this was a noble effort and that Saddam would not be missed, there would be no sectarian violences, and the oil revenues would pay for everything.
I think when we leave there will be a bloodbath. Why? Because there is one now. And that is the only “Truth” about Iraq. The time when there could have been a “Good” outcome – if that time ever really existed – has long since passed. And so we should hope for the least worst option. But I’m not confident.
July 30th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
I know that many folks in these parts don’t likle Alexander Cockburn but he makes a good point at Coutnerpunch this week in pointing out that the Republicans are trying to st up the Dems as hastening a “pell mell” (forced out) withdrawl as opposed to a planned arranged withdrawl with the help of a “trusted” neutral force (Iran, India, Brazil..etc.) thus glomming the inevitable mass killings (which will not be as bad as some warn but still don’t constitute an argument against withdrawl) onto Dems.
July 30th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
Yeah, there could be a bloodbath, like in South Viet Nam after the Democrats cut the funding for that nation. Political gains for Democrats are worth every foreign life that it costs.
What happened when Democrats in Congress cut off funding for the Vietnam War?
July 30th, 2007 at 8:09 pm
Vietnam became a proto SE Asian Tiger and a prime investment opportunity for American Business. That’s what happened Woody. Been there? I have.
July 30th, 2007 at 8:15 pm
Been there? I have.
Oh, snap!
July 30th, 2007 at 8:18 pm
They’ll have to blame us for the fiasco in Iraq. How else could cowards compensate for their own disastrous decision ?
July 30th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
rlc, there you go again. Implying that no one can express an opinion on a region unless they fought there. Maybe you need to keep your mouth shut about the South.
Did the millions slaughtered by the communists in southeast Asia ever cross your mind after we abandoned that part of the world–or, even today?
I returned something to a store when I saw that it was made in Viet Nam.
July 30th, 2007 at 9:02 pm
I wonder what was crossing Jeanne Kirkpatrick’s mind when she was defending the Khmer Rouge as the “legitimate government” of Cambodia while Reagan’s ambassador to the UN, after the Vietnamese moved in and stopped the genocide.
July 30th, 2007 at 9:16 pm
Woody, you’re out to lunch. Make analogies to the Vietnam disaster all day long, but the fact of a runaway civil war that we can’t control, or at best only inflame, is not going away. Take a look at
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20470
There’s a lot of analysis that any serious observer of the war needs to take into account — in particular the (now quite well-exposed) failure to meet the benchmarks, and furthermore the fact that the benchmarks, even if achieved, would not retrieve the situation — indeed could aggravate it.
But regarding outcomes:
***
The Iraq war is lost. Of course, neither the President nor the war’s intellectual architects are prepared to admit this. Nonetheless, the specter of defeat shapes their thinking in telling ways.
The case for the war is no longer defined by the benefits of winning—a stable Iraq, democracy on the march in the Middle East, the collapse of the evil Iranian and Syrian regimes—but by the consequences of defeat. As President Bush put it, “The consequences of failure in Iraq would be death and destruction in the Middle East and here in America.”
Tellingly, the Iraq war’s intellectual boosters, while insisting the surge is working, are moving to assign blame for defeat. And they have already picked their target: the American people.
***
Sound familiar?
July 30th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
I’m not sure what difference it makes. They can be on vacation a month, two months, or 18 months. They can’t seem to pass legislation there, anymore than we can here. Nor am I convinced that they have the means, political capital, or incentives to do so. Petraeus argued that we couldn’t win this militarily – victory, if it came, would be political. We pretty much know Petraeus will say in September whatever Bush wants him to say, the spinmiesters will gin-up whatever numbers or reports Bush wants to support his position, and the MSM will parrot it. I’m sure things will be going just ‘swimmingly well’ in September.
For all the ‘good will’ that exists between Maliki and Petraeus – Maliki having told us we can leave any time we want on one occasion, and reportedly having said he personally wants Petraeus out of Iraq, more recently – I’m not convinced that Iraq’s Parliament won’t ultimately kick us out anyway. If that’s the case, sooner is better than later. Initially, I had hopes that Bush would merely try to run out the clock in Iraq. Whoever inherits the White House from him would simply have to deal with it. However, Bush/Cheney’s gestures toward Iran and Pakistan make me wonder if they aren’t capable of some bold move that would guarantee our involvement in the middle east right through 2012. I’m beginning to feel that we need to get out of the middle east for the middle east’s sake, as well as our own.
As for the parents, grand-parents, spouses, etc. of those American military who will yet die, or be maimed in Iraq between now and then… It’s every inch of damed awful.
July 30th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
The US won the Vietnam war. They destroyed the independent hopes of a non-aligned JEffersonian country – Ho Chi Minh was initially quite pro-American, led them into a camp that manipulated and sold them out and while allowing them to defeat the US on the battlefield, guaranteed a situation of further suffering and evnetual reintegration into the capitalist world.
July 30th, 2007 at 10:29 pm
The Department of Defense has identified 3,642 American service members who have died since the start of the Iraq war. It confirmed the deaths of the following Americans yesterday:
BALOGA, Michael A., 21, Pvt., Army; Everett, Wash.; First Cavalry Division.
BILBREY, Charles E. Jr., 21, Specialist, Army; Owego, N.Y.; Third Infantry Division.
GRATER, Cody C., 20, Pfc., Army; Spring Hill, Fla.; 82nd Airborne Division.
HOWDESHELL, William R., 37, Sgt., Army; Norfolk, Va.; Third Infantry Division.
LECKEL, Daniel A., 19, Specialist, Army; Medford, Ore.; First Infantry Division.
RODRIGUEZ, Jaime Jr., 19, Specialist, Army; Oxnard, Calif.; Third Infantry Division.
July 30th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
Major Stalinist/Trotskyite feud between wsws.org and politicalaffairs.net. I’m with Lev, but this gets arcane to the point of ritual. Outside of all of it is that the CPUSA is a front-shop for professional “leftists” and no doubt some great organizers, while the SEP are marginal and somewhat bonkers, but are far more principled -= and put out the best daily left news analysis out there.
July 31st, 2007 at 5:48 am
So the war is lost, but is the war machine disabled and if so, for how long?
Will Marc Cooper, to pick on an easy target, fall for the next invasion to “take out” the next Saddam?
Maybe all the infuriatingly futile death and destruction in Iraq will at long last create the political conditions for the U.S. to at long last reassess its role as Globocop.
And Woody, straighten me out here, are you really blaming what the Communists did in SE Asia on U.S. policy? Are you actually saying all that blood is on our hands? If not, what’s your point?
July 31st, 2007 at 7:02 am
Michael Turmon, liberals have been comparing Iarq to Viet Nam from the beginning…well, not the beginning, but when they saw a political advantage to do that. But, when I do it, you say that I’m out to lunch. All the Democrats who make the same comparison and claim victory for the terrorists have made me lose my lunch.
reg, I wonder why we consider the Red Chinese the legitimate government of China.
July 31st, 2007 at 7:06 am
bunkerbuster, read the article that I linked further up. The Democrats pulled the funds so that the communists could take over. Hey, they did that in Nicaragua, too. They’re doing something similar with Iraq. I guess making a Republican president look bad is more important than life and freedoms for people in other lands.
July 31st, 2007 at 7:37 am
As I say, from a certain angle, the US WON the Vietrnam war, see my early post.
Be that as it may, I’ve been there, and very few people wish the Americans had stayed. IT is a very brand-concious middle class nation, in the cities, but united in their pride of defeating the Americans in the battlefield (while eating McDonalds of course)
July 31st, 2007 at 7:56 am
Jesus Christ. Will this “don’t blame the fallout from disastrous interventionism on the people who supported it” bullshit ever stop ? The sick thing is that people who consider themselves “conservative” have bought into an imperial narrative about the U.S. military as a vehicle for “life and freedoms for people in other lands”. They’ve managed to transfer a John Wayne movie about WWII onto any damned fool interventionism, no matter how cynical, ill-concieved or misdirected. Utterly ignorant and quite dangerous. Kids from Kansas remaking the Arab world. No there’s a “conservative” scenario ! What are these fools thinking ? The truth is, they’ll support any crackpot who promises to LOWER THEIR TAXES. That’s the bottom line with these fucks, really. Let’s not kid ourselves about their intellectual and moral universe. Cut my taxes ? Great ! Even if you drive the country into a ditch and send our kids to dies in a futile war. Because, you know, it’s all about “limited government” – which means not a goddammed thing anymore in their constricted, crazed little world except their Holy Grail of Tax Cuts. Why else would Bush refuse to pay-as-he-goes for the war ? Doesn’t want to rile up his base on the issue that they care about most. That’s probably as true of the Big Hair Preacher crowd as it is of clowns like Woody. We’re dealing with total fucking degenerates in these “debates” – no more and no less.
July 31st, 2007 at 8:14 am
Woody, why do you believe that old tired line about how we went in there to “liberate the Iraqis”? Where did that old WMD story go?
We went in on a LIE and we have been changing our story ever since.
In fact last I heard we were there to defeat al Qaeda? Maybe we went in to liberate the Iraqis from bin Laden?
Please get real.
We could have left once Saddam fell, but we chose to remain and become the imperial power that would show them how to do things our way. And right there is where the trouble started.
Keep blaming Democrats all you want, but stop denying that we are in this mess because of GW and his ignorant neocon handlers.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with liberation. This has to do with OUR interests in that region. The Iraqis are nothing but pawns in this sad little game.
July 31st, 2007 at 8:17 am
I’ve got an idea: Why doesn’t Woody work on the Republicans to get us out of Iraq, and the rest of us will work on the Democrats to get us out. Then we can have a beer when it’s over.
July 31st, 2007 at 9:05 am
reg, states what he imagines rather than what is real. However, tax cuts helped everyone by boosting the economy and resulting in record tax collections this year.
Rob, there were a number of reasons for taking out Hussein, and we couldn’t ignore his mass murders and torture. However, as far as WMD’s are concerened, check these “reliable sources.”
Michael Balter, I have been working to get us out of Iraq–by encourging the Democrats to quit giving support and hope to the terrorists by saying that we’ve lost and giving them a “hold on until date.” I did learn something from the Viet Nam experience. I really do want us out of there but in such a way that we don’t have to go back or suffer worse consequences from surrendering.
July 31st, 2007 at 9:11 am
Woody asks why the “Red Chinese”are the legitimate government of China. I’m too tired to tutor you this morning so I’d suggest you consult any good textbook on basic International Relations. Hans Morganthau’s “Politics Amongs Nations” is as good a place to begin as any. Sorry, no pictures.
July 31st, 2007 at 9:14 am
As to Economics Texts you might look at Samuelson but, frankly, if you still the bs about tax cuts you’re probably beyond hope but you might compare the 80′s and the 90′s and then look at this decade. Guess which decade performed the best? HINT: one of them saw taxes raised on the wealthiest cohort.
July 31st, 2007 at 9:15 am
Should say “still believe the bs . . .”
July 31st, 2007 at 9:20 am
From a hit-piece relying on (and further exaggerating) a hit-piece by Frank Rich: “Turns out that Petraeus’ purported infallibility is as much a shimmering desert mirage as the Iraqi throngs who were going to greet us as liberators, throwing flowers at our soldiers’ feet.”
Whoever is “purporting” Petraeus’ “infallibility”, Petraeus himself is not among them. He himself said the odds of success for the Surge were about 1-in-4. (A third-hand paraphrase, but not since denied by Petraeus, so I think it stands.)
rlc writes: “The problem is the same people who are warning of the dire consequences of an early withdrawal are the folks who advised us that this was a noble effort and that Saddam would not be missed, there would be no sectarian violences, and the oil revenues would pay for everything.”
Yeah, well, the problem with that statement is *I’m* one of the people who (against the tide of the time) warned that this was a decidedly ignoble effort, that some Iraqis would come to miss even the very draconian stability Saddam’s regime provided (even some Shi’ites, these days), that sectarian violence would be extensive, and that oil revenues would be unlikely to materialize without stability — a stability that would be very hard to achieve with a dearth of occupation troops. AND YET, I think it’s more than just flirting with disaster to leave precipitately — it’s just plain reckless.
Gee, I wonder how I became so stupid after apparently being so much smarter than so many people? What’s wrong with me anyway? Have I read too much history or something? I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again now, and I’ll probably keep repeating it: Bush should be impeached for lying us into invading Iraq, BUT we should definitely not leave Iraqis to hang just because the invasion was a colossal foreign policy blunder. I’m not worried about some need to “fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them here.” That is, and always was, scare-monger b.s. I’m worried about the approximately 50% of Iraqis who are 20 years old or younger, growing up (if they get a chance to live that long) in a mess that they had no part in making — and that America definitely DID have a big part in making.
July 31st, 2007 at 9:27 am
Good post, Marc. I share your concerns and anxieties. I fear that in our current political climate false certainty is privilaged over the honest humility of those who appreciate the unpredictability of current events. If you can’t promise to control and fix Iraq you aren’t considered serious even if those with solutions and promises are peddling lies and crackpot theories.
July 31st, 2007 at 9:32 am
I don’t doubt Turner’s sincerity, but I will ask him again what I asked him the last several times he made this point: What are American troops currently doing to bring about the stability he talks about, and what can they do if they stay? Just saying that it would be worse if they left is not an answer unless he can demonstrate that they are actually doing anything significant right now. What is it?
July 31st, 2007 at 9:45 am
AND YET, I think it’s more than just flirting with disaster to leave precipitately — it’s just plain reckless.
I am an “out now” proponent and recognize its recklessness though I do believe its even more rechless to stay. The best circumstance- which the US has squandered, would be a non-European, non-American UN stabilization force. The US will never allow that, because it takes away their oil revenues. A rapid withdrawal will not in fact take away thoise revenues from those who control Kirkuk, which is being etnically cleansed by Kurds, against Turkomens and Arabs
Of course a precipitous withdrawal will be dangerous, but even more dangerous is staying. This is part of the fallacy of those who oppose war without opposing imperialism. One has to be foursquare against imperialism even when it “works.” Those who wait for imperialism to work as a temporary band-aid, those who think that imperialism is OK in Kosovo, etc. don’t get it. The US has no moral authority to stay, and no fan that I am of the Iraqi government, they themselves want the US out.
I’m sure Iran and South Africa and other nations will help stabilize a new post-American, Pro-Iran regime. That is the biggest fear of Americans who would rather see chaos.
July 31st, 2007 at 10:39 am
rlc, my question about legitimate governments was rhetorical in response to a comment from reg about acknowledging another government that was evil yet fully in charge.
Your comment about higher taxes improving the economy is without merit and does not show cause and effect.
You seem to make it your role to attempt to discredit me. If you want to do that, at least be more intelligent and honest. I gave up on reg and Randy long ago on those points. Are you all alike?
July 31st, 2007 at 10:54 am
When you make silly statements about tax policy without actually looking at the relationship between same and the economies of the last several decades then why should I bother?
July 31st, 2007 at 11:02 am
@Turner: There are more options on the table than staying or “leaving precipitately”. From the article I pointed to –
We need to recognize … that Iraq no longer exists as a unified country. In the parts where we can accomplish nothing, we should withdraw. But there are still three missions that may be achievable—disrupting al-Qaeda, preserving Kurdistan’s democracy, and limiting Iran’s increasing domination. These can all be served by a modest US presence in Kurdistan. We need an Iraq policy with sufficient nuance to protect American interests. Unfortunately, we probably won’t get it.
July 31st, 2007 at 11:08 am
I don’t know the specifics behind the claim, Guess which decade performed the best? HINT: one of them saw taxes raised on the wealthiest cohort.
But, I do know, the Laffer Curve got laughed off the stage 10 years ago. In every investigation, the empirical evidence fails to support it. It certainly grew political legs, but it’s never found a basis in economic reality.
The degree to which any of us has credibility is grounded in the empirical realities, Woody. Even our staunchest of theorist (jcummings) grounds himself in reality. People who claim to see, touch, smell and hear things that no one else can see, touch, smell or hear, or produce any evidentiary basis for the claim that they heard, touched, smelled or saw will eventually lose credibility from even the most generous audience. At best, they are viewed as a little eccentric. At worst, they called barking mad.
July 31st, 2007 at 12:22 pm
Listener – just exactly how are you defining “sidelines” these days ?
July 31st, 2007 at 12:27 pm
broadly
want to suggest an alternative?
i’m open to it
July 31st, 2007 at 12:34 pm
LotS, I’m to believe that government taking more money from working people will help the economy more than letting those people use their own money for investments and for buying goods and services in this nation? Who needs a reality check here?
July 31st, 2007 at 12:42 pm
You do, because you don’t even understand the premise, are totally ignorant of the empirical evidence about taxation and government spending and can only think in soundbites and stupid cliches.
July 31st, 2007 at 2:00 pm
Fine. Let’s triple the taxes and tax ourselves into prosperity!
July 31st, 2007 at 2:04 pm
No. Let’s make taxes progressive. That’s really your issue, isn’t it?
Care to define who you are referring to as working people by Adjusted Gross Income in dollars?
July 31st, 2007 at 2:10 pm
The first time someone explained the Laffer curve to me my reaction was “well, duh”. It just made intuitive sense. Yet I have heard some people express disdain for it; for example, listener_on_the_sidelines states above that “the Laffer Curve got laughed off the stage 10 years ago”. Can someone provide a link that explains (in layman’s terms) just why the Laffer curve is fallacious?
July 31st, 2007 at 2:19 pm
Working people are not defined by how much one earns unless it is a Democrat doing the defining. Bill Gates works.
July 31st, 2007 at 2:50 pm
working people are defined by their earning from their labor
I don’t have time to find a laffer curve link, but the jist is that the basic concept is, of course, elementary and it’s “practical” application by conservatives has been “laffable”
July 31st, 2007 at 2:51 pm
Woody, please dont show me a bunch of Democrats claiming that there were WMD..there are PLENTY of professionals who knew it was doubtful and they wer ignored and mocked..yes including UN weaopns inspectors who just happened to be there checking out sites we claimed were loaded with WMD. So nie try.
As for the rest of it, are you seriously implying that Iraq is better today than under Saddam?? Maybe to you sitting back in suburbia USA. I dont recall too many IEDs and al Qaeda types while Saddam was around. Funny how we seem to know every last victim under Saddam, yet now we “dont do body counts”. I wonder why.
Its one thing to remove him, its another to do it correctly. This is ignorance, arrogance and ineptness at its worst.
July 31st, 2007 at 3:15 pm
Alex VanderWoude,
Like many ‘theories’ in economics, the mechanics as to why this doesn’t work in the US can/may/will make your eyes glaze over. Yes, on the face of it, it’s appealing. And, it would be nice if it worked. But it doesn’t. It could have legs at the extremes; 0% tax rate and 90% tax rate, but most folks in the US don’t fall at the extremes.
Two links that step out why it doesn’t work.
Tax Cuts Raise Revenue COMPLETELY DEBUNKED: http://tinyurl.com/2hjyn8
Debunking One of the Worst Ideas in Economics: http://tinyurl.com/297mhd
And, Wikipedia doesn’t do a bad job of outlining the entire discussion in understandable terms: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve
I personally like the discussion of the Neo-Laffer Curve.
July 31st, 2007 at 3:31 pm
The rich irony of a know nothing like Woody trying to pin his reactionary Presidents leathal stumbling in Iraq is, of course, this was all dreamed up by the leading right wing draft dodgers of the Veitnam era. Not to mention the rights most cynical realist, Kissenger, advising little Lord FuckSaddam all the way.
What Woody and his crazed heroes (dimwits like Rooper and Hewitt) will never admit the hard rights culpability. What sad is that the cheap senimentality of others for our boys in uniform always provides this creeps with such effective cover. Petrasus is Pace with window dressing, but he wouldn’t be were he is if the White House didn’t know they could count on him.
What the Iraq invasion, from an idealogical standpoint, is an opportunity to isolate the reactionary right once and for all. Yet the likes of Cummings stammer; having long ago sold themselves on their fairy tales of the liberals being the real bad guys. Sad really.
July 31st, 2007 at 3:48 pm
LotS is also one who would have said that Nobel Prize winner in Economics Milton Friedman didn’t know what he was talking about when he reversed course from being a high-tax Keynesian. Kennedy must have been an idiot, too, to reduce taxes.
Soak the rich
The 2003 Tax Cut on Capital Gains Entirely Paid for Itself
Mid-Session Budget Review Shows Surging Tax Revenues
Yeah, let the Democrats run on the platform of raising taxes because it’s good for you. It worked for Walter Mondale like I hoped.
July 31st, 2007 at 3:51 pm
K Nardy, you better hope that the Democrats can sabotage our progress in Iraq pretty quickly before it becomes widespread knowledge among the American people that the surge is working.
July 31st, 2007 at 3:53 pm
K Nardy would be home on the pages of Political Affairs or Izvestia.
Seriously, when did I say that liberals are the enemy – they are one of many, but I advocate working with liberals on some projects. More importantly, if you think theo nlly “ideological” (man are you muddled) ramification of a war thats killed 600,000 Iraqis and near 4000 Americans is “isolating the reactionary right” is patently immoral.. It is about stoppin the machine. Your logic is not at all antiwar, just Anti-Republican.
July 31st, 2007 at 3:57 pm
Thanks for the links, listener_on_the_sidelines. Based on those and others I googled, I conclude that the Laffer curve is an over-simplification that illustrates a good point (the law of diminishing returns), but can be abused when applied to real-world situations. It is intuitively obvious because it is correct — in the simplified model it presents. Perhaps a dramatically simplified tax code would be more helpful than attempting to decide where we are on the curve.
July 31st, 2007 at 4:37 pm
Totally OT, but the blog commonly discusses the effectiveness of the netroots. Kevin Drum nails this post: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_07/011784.php
July 31st, 2007 at 4:49 pm
Alex VanderWoude, would you now discredit anthropological global warming because it is based upon simplified and flawed models?
July 31st, 2007 at 5:06 pm
That’s interesting, Mavis. Prompted by jc’s (more or less) continual pokes to the ribs, I’ve had to do some thinking about how far to the right we’ve really gone. I had to laugh at myself recently for thinking about Justice Ginsberg as Left. I’d understood her to be a centrist when she was placed on the court. And, indeed, she behaves as a centrist. Thinking of her as left of center, at this point, tells me more about the shift in my perception, than it tells me about Justice Ginsberg.
Trying to nudge the thread back in the general direction of the topic, this post by Juan Cole http://tinyurl.com/3au47g reminds me how little honest analysis is coming out of our efforts in Iraq. Voters are being forced to make voting decisions blindfolded. It’s hard to formulate any real sense of one politician, or the other’s, position on Iraq with the absolute absence of trustworthy information. As unwilling as I am to take Bush, Cheney, Petraeus, or the MSM’s word for it – I don’t have many other options. So, applying the same logic as I apply to amendments to the state constitution that aren’t fully clear to me, I vote No. As in no more surge, no more troops, no more money, no to any candidate that can’t give me a sense of what least worst exit might look like. An information blackout on the part of our government tells me it’s past time to toss out the largest, heaviest anchor I can find.
July 31st, 2007 at 5:38 pm
“Anthropological global warming”? I guess anthropologists must be exhaling more CO2 than the rest of us. I think you meant “anthropogenic”, Woody.
Well, what can we expect from a lightweight who puts NRO’s Donald Luskin (“Mr. Oops-Upside-Down-Graph”, and a perpetual contender for the title of Stupidest Man Alive) in the same category as Milton Friedman? Friedman would probably, if he were still alive, be very embarrassed to be seated next to Luskin, who can hardly even add two numbers and come up with the same answer twice in a row.
Everything is starkly black and white in Woody’s universe; the idea, for example, that Hayekians of any intellectual worth see Keynes and Friedman as birds of a feather is probably WAY over his head. And yet, there’s something to it
http://www.auburn.edu/~garriro/fm2friedman.htm
Partisans suck when it comes to any science (climatology, for example), but particular the science of economics. Were we to revive Marx, Keynes, Friedman and Hayek and send them to a conference attended by fervent Marxists, Liberals, Conservatives and Libertarians, I have little doubt that the four of them would eventually sneak off together to some quiet bistro several blocks away, for coffee and beer, all four being very embarrassed by their (supposed) respective constituencies yammering away violently at each other in the conference hall. The ignorant armies of partisans would clash by night, while four great minds would probably argue brilliantly until dawn, unpersuaded in the end, perhaps, but parting on respectful and affectionate terms.
The TRUE life of the mind always transcends totemistic obeisance to theories and theoreticians, because the best theory-spinners have something that lesser minds do not: a recognition that they don’t have final answers, that they don’t know everything. They don’t argue by appeal to authority, because they ARE the authorities that would be invoked in those arguments, and they’d be dishonest if they didn’t shrug every now and then over complex issues, and say “Who knows? Not me, that’s for sure.” They wouldn’t be where they are in the history books if they’d been the kind of know-it-alls we see among partisans like Donald Luskin.
July 31st, 2007 at 5:40 pm
In addition, Open Left has some fascinating poll information on voter preferences with respect to troop reductions.
Support For Troop Reduction By Congressional District by: Chris Bowers http://tinyurl.com/2cwh43
It’s worth a look.
July 31st, 2007 at 5:51 pm
Yeah, mt, that’s what I meant, and if you link to something from Auburn University then it must have merit. I go to most of their home football games and know that they are spending my ticket money right. I even have family connections with a liberal history professor there who is a prolific writer–even if he and I disagree.
I always love it when someone says, “if so-and-so were here today, he would….” Well, if Friedman and Keynes were around today, they would probably agree with me.
July 31st, 2007 at 6:19 pm
I’m very busy, but one parting shot: did anyone fact-check Frank Rich’s hit-piece on Petraeus? I like Frank Rich’s take on things, for the most part, but when he went after Petraeus, it was with rhetorical slings and arrows resembling some of the worst slime you see on the Right. I’d take it apart, but … I’m busy. With business. And with having a life.
For now, chew on this: Frank Rich claims that Petraeus is disengenuous when he says the upcoming September report will be fair and objective, because Petraeus has already co-authored a plan for staying in Iraq out to 2009. Well, why not write such a plan, even if the chances are 1-in-4 of being able to execute it? Aren’t people here always hammering away at BushCo for having no real post-invasion plan? And yet, when somebody comes up with a plan for some contingency, it’s somehow automatically kowtowing to Bush’s ideological imperatives.
Somehow it doesn’t occur to anybody: maybe the selection of Petraeus to run the Iraq war is a case of Churchill’s “doing the right thing, after all other options have been exhausted”? Maybe this administration is finally down the last resort: trying to do something right?
And maybe it’s working? As well as can be expected after serial debacles, anyway?
http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/newstex/IBD-0001-18565289.htm
In the meantime, Peter Pace — a relatively straight talker — is being replaced by Michael Mullen, an even straighter talker:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-07-30-us-iraq_N.htm
Mullen — why, this guy must be some kind of neo-con-connected inner-circle type, to be working with the Bush administration at all? Right? Wrong. He filets Rummy appointees at the first opportunity, whenever it’s obviously the right thing to do.
http://www.militarycorruption.com/mullen.htm
July 31st, 2007 at 6:36 pm
WRT to Petraeus, Michael Turner, I might direct you to this by Glenn Greenwald at Salon: http://tinyurl.com/2bcxkp when you’re not pressed, or less pressed, for time than you are now.
July 31st, 2007 at 8:30 pm
I have an idea. Why don’t we put our troops on a boat. High-tail it back home. Appologize to the Iraqi people for invading their country and ushering the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens. Appologize to the families of US soldiers who died for Halliburton profits and so Exxon-Mobil and other multinational oil conglomerates could steal Iraq’s oil. Support impeachment proceedings against this criminal administration. And stop buying into the ludicrous notion that we cant leave Iraq because there might be a bloodbath. How could our leaving do anything but help?
July 31st, 2007 at 9:52 pm
Hear hear Andrea!
Problems with the Michael Turner, aka Potemkin Barn, doctrine:
It requires an assumption that staying in Iraq will not eventually lead to an extremely hasty withdrawal, a la helicopters taking off from the embassy lawn, when actual, final military defeat arrives.
There is no evidence I’m aware of that suggests we are not headed toward exactly such a denouement. There is always a chance that the direction could change, but until that day comes, shouldn’t Turner at least bend down to pick up the burden of proof he left in some dead kid’s pocket by the side of the road in Basra?
The calls for withdrawing troops now are actually a demand that the U.S.–at long last–find the political courage to forge a detailed, realistic plan to exit carefully, strategically and while there is still at least a skeleton of logistical infrastructure controlled by the rump government and a chance that regional allies will be in a position to help effect the retreat.
The assumption that withdrawal = hasty = bloodbath flows from the same sloppy quasi-imperialist “logic” that got us into this series of wars in the first place. Should Michael Turner find it in himself to shoulder any burden of proof, he can start by explaining how the miracle/propaganda coup it would take to ever declare “victory” in Iraq would not be a mandate to move seamlessly into the next disastrous Iraq war against the next Saddam?
July 31st, 2007 at 10:43 pm
Once again, The Onion has our Woody interpretation to aptly address the topic at hand. Uncannily, it even has a baseball metaphor!
July 31st, 2007 at 10:55 pm
Woody, I have not accepted the case for AGW since I first heard about it. To me it sounds like a poster-child for politicized junk science. But this is really quite off-topic, so I’ll stop now.
I’m not nearly as eager as Andrea Feodorov to abandon Iraq to its fate, mostly because I’m not at all convinced that everything would be peachy keen there afterwards. At the very least there would be massive retaliations against collaborators, and these retaliations would be orchestrated by some pretty nasty folks. It also seems likely that a full-fledged civil war would erupt, with plenty of ethnic cleansing all around and “humanitarian” interference from the likes of Iran and Saudi Arabia and Turkey. In addition the withdrawal of American forces would be seen (rightly or wrongly, it doesn’t matter) as a huge defeat of the Great Satan at the hands of the mighty Holy Warriors — a propaganda coup of unprecedented value. Sort of like how the Soviet Union’s collapse was seen as being the result of the efforts of the mujahideen in Afghanistan. So to airily dismiss these problems as “ludicrous” is in my opinion dangerously optimistic.
July 31st, 2007 at 11:34 pm
The Department of Defense has identified 3,644 American service members who have died since the start of the Iraq war. It confirmed the deaths of the following Americans yesterday:
STOKES, Sean A., 24, Cpl., Marines; Auburn, Calif.; First Marine Expeditionary Force.
SULIVERAS, Wilberto, 38, Staff Sgt., Army; Humacao, P.R.; First Cavalry Division.
August 1st, 2007 at 12:27 am
Here’s what I mean by quasi-imperialist:
”retaliations would be orchestrated by some pretty nasty folks.”–relative to whom?
“and “humanitarian†interference from the likes of Iran and Saudi Arabia and Turkey.”–there’s a reason none of these countries supported the invasion. now that their left holding the bag–even BEFORE the U.S. withdrawal–it takes a real imperialst snob to project “interference” from them as the struggle to cope with the massive, rapidly widening refugee crisis caused by legendary humanitarian Dick Cheney.
–“a propaganda coup of unprecedented value.”
as opposed to what, more Abu Ghraibs? Only the most committed neocon fantasists can still believe that continued U.S. involvement won’t produce more Abu Ghraib’s, whether or not the ban on digital cameras holds. The imperialism at work here is the assumption that Arab and Iranian leaders are too stupid to see how greatly continued occupation would weaken the U.S. hand in the region. Withdrawal would begin a rebuilding period for the U.S. military and allow it regroup and redirect resources to intelligence and security measures that can deal with the kind of 4GW threats their countries actually pose.
The only dangerous optimism here is the assumption that things are going to magically do a 180 in Iraq, allowing the U.S. to magically “win a propaganda coup” by uniting Iraq’s warring factions, rebuilding Afghanistan and killing every last Al Qaeda member…
August 1st, 2007 at 6:04 am
Samuel, here’s something that you’ll believe, because it comes from the Left rather than some conservatives. Nothing irrational here, huh?
Who Ordered the Execution of
NFL/Army Hero Pat Tillman?
“…what happens when famous football stars turned Army Heroes become anti-war critics:
-he screamed to the “friendlies†that he was Pat Tillman and please stop shooting him.
-But they didn’t; they executed him.
-They were Americans”
What’s funny is that I did a post before your comment comparing the Left’s wacky ideas to satire from The Onion. You and your ilk are not too far away from them yourself.
August 1st, 2007 at 6:34 am
Rightwingers hate the fact that Tillman’s senseless death didn’t turn out to be the John Wayne moment that they tried to portray it and that Tillman wasn’t one of them, but in fact a Lefty who held folks like Ann Coulter, who tried to twist his image and pimp his death in her pro-war columns, in total contempt . It was a tragedy, compounded disgracefully by disgusting Pentagon hacks. ( I don’t take Wonkette as serious commentary on anything and never read it, so I don’t feel a need to comment or concern myself with any particulars as to how they play what is clearly a scandal.)
But really – given what we’re offered here on this issue – if we want to contemplate how “rational” works in Woody’s world, here’s a recent quote from our Resident Moron on his blog:
“Communists, enviromentalists, Islamic terrorists, The New York Times, and Democrats all in one happy cluster, working together to help each other’s causes.”
If anybody’s interested in the context of that bit of “analysis”, they can click on the GMCorner link at the right of this thread and scroll around for Woody’s thoughts on Islam and environmentalism in Indonesia, of all places. Somehow it all leads to the above conclusion. Totally fucking nuts. And more to the point, a prime example of what’s toxic and degenerate about so much of the contemporary Right.
Perhaps Woody is doing us all a service by showing the ass of a particular species of “conservative” in these threads day in and day out. They have to be seen and heard to believe that such fodder for Coulter, Boortz and the rest actually exist. But, really – what nerve for this flaming asshole to accuse anyone else of irrationality. It’s irritating as hell, but it’s also quite amusing when an outburst accusing us of “Bush Derangement Syndrome” or droolings about liberals being “stupid, irrational and emotional”, flies from the mouths of such utterly deranged, hyper-hysterical morons.
August 1st, 2007 at 6:56 am
Leaving trivial pursuits aside, I don’t agree with Michael Turner except insofar as consistent critics of the war have got to think strategically about drawing down in Iraq in a way that doesn’t contribute to more chaos. This is a serious issue, as I think all of the Democratic candidates – except the fringe – undersand. Here’s an interesting article from USA Today about a trip to Iraq by Keith Ellison and one of our local congressmen, McNerney.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-07-30-ellison-iraq_N.htm
Obviously the surge can’t “work” because the political metrics that would be necessary to achieve a breakthrough don’t exist, but I’m for anything that diminishes the enormous gains that BushCo handed to al Qaeda by invading Iraq and damps the prospect of full-blown civil war. Even with the Idiot In Chief in charge, Democrats need to at least put forward options that deal with reality and not wishful thinking. I don’t want “anti-war wishful thinking” to replace the delusions that got us into this mess in the first place. Blog opinion tends to be reductionist when it comes to Iraq.
I don’t have a plan – frankly I’m exhausted by most of my worst fears becoming reality. Now my worst fear is that things do in fact get worse as we leave. Now is the time to think creatively – and I don’t give a goddam whether its Alex Cockburn or Hillary Clinton – about how worst-case scenarios can be diminished. I’m open to serious discussion of this. Sloganeering and reductionist either/or conclusions are what got us into this mess.
August 1st, 2007 at 7:03 am
Hey, reg, I was proud that I could link “Communists, enviromentalists, Islamic terrorists, The New York Times, and Democrats” into one sentence. If I had tried harder, I might have gotten unions and univeristies in there, too.
Regarding Islamic terrorists in Indonesia, I guess reg considers that the Bali bombings of a tourist district that killed 202 people and injured another 209 and another bomb at the U.S. consulate–”of all places”–to be something that is minor and nothing of concern. Maybe it was to the 411 people and their families who were affected–most of whom were visiting foreign nationals.
Who’s deranged?? We knew you were, reg, but it’s a real insult (or, maybe it’s a compliment considering the source) for you to call me one. As you and Randy say, “projection,” perhaps?
August 1st, 2007 at 7:10 am
Your “logical” leap makes absolutely no sense. I don’t think terrorism is “minor”. What I do think is “minor” – nay, miniscule – is your ability to rationally analyse anything – beyond what you’re having for breakfast or what to watch on TV.
August 1st, 2007 at 7:35 am
reg: Woody’s thoughts on Islam and environmentalism in Indonesia, of all places. Somehow it all leads to the above conclusion. Totally fucking nuts. …Leaving trivial pursuits aside
Then, he follows that up and tries to recover by expanding the frame of reference in saying, I don’t think terrorism is “minorâ€
The terrorist group was based in Indonesia and was responsible for the Bali bombings, which is what I added above but didn’t specifically address in my post. You tried to minimize the issue in your attack against me by stating that, because it was in Indonesia, it’s trivial and something only of concern to a “hyper-hysterical moron.”
I worry for our nation when the ultra-left laughs at concerns for terrorism in our nation and across the globe–all for political scores.
August 1st, 2007 at 8:20 am
I worry for our nation when the ultra-left laughs at concerns for terrorism in our nation and across the globe–all for political scores.
Me too. I think that the Left, with some exceptions have not so much as downplayed terrorism – no one has, regardless of what anyone says – but that we have yet to come up with a coherent response and O-bomb-a threatening Pakistan is not one of them.
People should read Susan Buck Morrs and Terry Eagleton’s work on terrorism, and also work for a universal concept of terror that could be thus taken care of through police and covert action under the auspice of the UN. Of course the US which shelters Emmanuel Constant, Luis Posada Carriles and various sundry terrorists – will not agree to such a universal interpretation. Any countruy that backs Contras can’t threaten another for backing another group. The law must be enforced internati0onally, against anyone who backs terrorism, be it right wing anti-Castro or Islamist.
August 1st, 2007 at 9:12 am
Go fuck yourself Woody. You’re a babbling moron . The “trivial pursuit” was responding to your attempt to generate noise. You’re like a 6-year old who’s in desperate need of attention. Just about the dumbest, most crass and clueless little fuck I’ve ever encoutnered.
August 1st, 2007 at 9:15 am
Defend the statement I quoted, you half-assed twit. How was that a “logical conclusion” from anything that’s happened in Indonesia or elsewhere? And don’t try to weasel out .
And cummings – your “me too” in this context proves you’re almost as much of an idiot.
August 1st, 2007 at 9:37 am
Them’s be fighting words. My “me too” was in reference to Woody beign right for the wrong reasons.
August 1st, 2007 at 9:50 am
reg, why do you constantly lie to yourself and everyone else that you’re not going to respond to my comments anymore?
You’re so eaten up with your twisted ideology that you can’t even see that my poking and grouping the “enemies of truth and justice”(1) was also to tweak people like you. No sense of humor–or justice..or truth. Sad.
(1) Communists, enviromentalists, Islamic terrorists, The New York Times, and Democrats
August 1st, 2007 at 9:58 am
Everybody’s an idiot except me. Fucking drooling idiots at that.
Why am I so insightful? Why can’t the others here keep up with me? It’s lonely at times.
Oh yea — Vote Obama. Invade Pakistan!
August 1st, 2007 at 10:37 am
@Alex
“the withdrawal of American forces would be … a propaganda coup of unprecedented value”
Echoing BB and reg –
This, and other pills far more bitter, we are going to have to swallow. It doesn’t matter that it seems inconceivable to have to do so.
The only question at this point is to make smarter choices to limit the damage.
August 1st, 2007 at 10:57 am
You guys would treat the infection by cutting off the leg rather than killing the germs. There are choices other than “cut and run” or maybe “cut and limp.”
August 1st, 2007 at 11:01 am
So in other words my comment that your ridiculous statement was laughable, at best, was absolutely correct.
August 1st, 2007 at 11:03 am
Cummings, what has occured with 9-11, the Neocons, and the invasion of Iraq occurred (alas) in on a place commonly known as the planet earth; not in some book of half clever, senitimential theory you have built for yourself to dwell in. The ever generous bill and coo you dance with Bush’s corperate killers is half stupidity; half a pride fueled by an ego that won’t allow you to admit how tragicly, leathaly wrong you have been.
The tiny percentage of the “libertarian” right you and Cockburn used to glory in did and does exist. Rather than keeping us safe from the War on Drugs, however, they have been uttlerly marginalized and ignored by an administration of reactionarys you do your prezel poses to consistently defend; as you basicly do with the Invasion of iraq here.
To once again state the obvious you are too eturnaly silly to admit: 9-11 cristilized power in this U.S. as it has never been simplified before: Bush was in control.
Cockburn’s brother gets it right in the fine “Rumsfeld” book, a nice primer on the war and it’s ideological beginings without the pathetic disclaimers made the likes of you.
For today this is one liberal inviting you to take your common cause and stick it (defined well enough for you here?), I don’t want you working with me on anything. Please, treat Woody to your gifts and leave decent people alone.
August 1st, 2007 at 11:49 am
reg, you’re correct only if you reject the idea that many a truth are said in jest. I stretched my comment to make one point that the groups I mentioned are interlinked. However, that was not the main concern of the post. It’s interesting when an environmental group working hand-in-hand with an Islamic terrorist group has a picture of Nancy Pelosi on its home page.
jcummings, you do realize that, when you try to convince these open-minded liberals against their will, that you’re wasting your time. It’s just more fun to watch them get upset.
August 1st, 2007 at 12:00 pm
“the groups I mentioned are interlinked”
Yeah. Right. I reiterate, you’re a flaming fucking idiot.
August 1st, 2007 at 12:28 pm
When the iron curtain fell, U.S. communists fled to environmental causes to fight capitalism, then an environmental group with the same objectives and which predominately donates to Democrats through its PAC, formed a partnership with a known Islamic terrorist group to attack businesses over a false story in The New York Times. It’s all quite simple.
Give up.
August 1st, 2007 at 1:14 pm
As I was saying, you keep proving yourself a total idiot.
This is so ingrained in your twisted soul, there’s no point in my even suggesting that you “give up.”
August 1st, 2007 at 4:54 pm
I’m dying to know how the Cheney-Bush plan–admittedly the Demos will probably go along with it–to sell Saudi Arabia billions worth of weapons fits into Woody’s cartoon world.
Let’s see, we have to keep killing and dying in Iraq because withdrawing would show we are “weak.” But in Saudi Arabia, which not only supports Sunni militia in Iraq that are killing U.S. boys and girls every day, but also originated most of the 9/11 attackers and has yet to comply with U.S. demands that it expose funding links between the Woody-types in its country and terrorists.
I have a feeling Woody will have nothing to say about this, since it isn’t included in the wingnut talking points memo of the day.
August 1st, 2007 at 7:26 pm
I write the points, but I’m tired of the discussion. I did cover that topic on another blog with someone from Australia, so I’m helping America’s reputation around the world.
August 1st, 2007 at 8:51 pm
Nardy. You’re off the lithium again, podna. As per usual you imply that I deny any of the very good points you make. Double your dose.
August 1st, 2007 at 8:59 pm
Andrew Cockburn’s Rumsfeld, havent’ started that yet. Great journalist. His book Dangerous Liasons is the best book ever written about AIPAC etc.
I actually have quite a bit of a problem with Alexander Cockburn though, on issues like global warming and the flat tax and some issues I have with Counterpunch (though I read it daily and have written great stuff for that site i think)…mostly having to do with some stuff Dennis Perrin once alluded to ion his blog in terms of replies from CP readers (abd writers in that milieu).
So there is a bit of a danger, indeed, in a left-right collaboration if the racialist right is allowed in the door. But Alex, in bringing Paul Craig Roberts, William Liond, etc. to a left audience, does gerat things.
August 2nd, 2007 at 3:57 am
Woody’s going to have the last laugh, I fear, when he admits once and for all that he’s part of a vast liberal conspiracy to make conservatives look dumber than kelp.
August 2nd, 2007 at 7:32 am
Hey, reg. You didn’t answer my question:
reg, why do you constantly lie to yourself and everyone else that you’re not going to respond to my comments anymore?
August 2nd, 2007 at 8:48 am
I didn’t state in any of my above responses to you that I wasn’t going to respond. I did say that it was a waste of time. I’ve said in the past that I wouldn’t respond because you’re such an idiot, and I’ll probably blurt that out again in a fit of frustration with your remarkable stupidity and dishonesty. But sooner or later I’ll take your bait. I’m not lying to myself. But I do have to laugh at myself, both when I resolve to do something I’m not likely to be able to do, and when I waste my time and everyone elses by acknowledging or actively engaging the annoying presence of a total fool on these threads.
August 2nd, 2007 at 9:01 am
vast liberal conspiracy to make conservatives look dumber than kelp LOL
August 2nd, 2007 at 9:19 am
More on the Laugher, er, Laffer Curve, for those who are truly Out To Lunch. Laffer Curve Revisited Matt Yglesias http://tinyurl.com/2zxno3 Embedded within is a link to working paper (pdf) by Alex Brill and Kevin Hassett of the American Enterprise Institute. I’ve downloaded it, but haven’t read it yet.
As a discipline, economics is pretty clear. You construct a theory about how you think the world might work. Then, you confront the theory with the data. The purpose of the exercise is to confirm, or fail to confirm, the theory with the data. It’s not an exercise where you frame a theory to suit your political purpose, and then jiggle the data around until you finally ‘confirm’ the theory. That’s known as having tortured the data until it confesses. And, it’s a dishonest application of statistical principles. That the WSJ blatantly went where no honest econometricians (or, statisticians) would go, tells me more about the Op-Ed pages of the WSJ than it does about the validity of the Laffer Curve. I guess I take consolation that it was put on the Op-Ed page rather than filed as a news story. This is an area where Murdoch’s ownership could actually improve, an otherwise reputable paper, but probably won’t.
A reminder by Mark, as hoisted from Matt’s comments:
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:18 pm
LotS, just a personal observation…after the lower capital gains rates went into effect, my tax clients started doing a lot more trading and selling of capital assets and reinvesting of that money. If you get half as much tax on five times as much activity (numbers pulled out of my head), then does that generate more tax revenue or not? There is a correlation between tax rates and income taxes which generates more revenue.
May 27th, 2008 at 9:17 am
access account card credit sears sears credit card account…
Offer card credit mutual providian washington best cash back credit card business card credit find small credit card balance transfer rate cash loan payday till…
June 26th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
www poker…
Es util roulette taktik www poker cartas de poker black and tan jack free omaha poker…