Mr Hormats,

Thank you for this post - always pleasant when you are able to read for free a concise outline of the history of congressional war funding. Personally, I don't really care how the Democrats leverage the purse strings, so long as they can effect a withdrawal of the troops from Iraq.

But the interesting piece of your post - the teaser for the next instalment it seems - is right at the end where you suggest the need for a continued military presence in the Middle East. I just wonder if it is at all feasible at the moment. It's not that you can't see a military presence in certain friendly countries as a helpful component of a broader regional strategy, it's just hard to imagine that currently, we will be widely welcome.

There's an almost interminable list of strategic disasters that arise from Iraq, one of which is the likely reluctance for some countries - especially in the Middle East - to invite our military's presence. To me, the post-Bush era will be one of rebuilding trust with old allies as well as finding new allies, and any talk of grand security plans is going to need to be tempered with the realism that a lot of countries will be thinking twice about our motives.

Don't forget the Congressional cut-off of funds for Clinton/Somalia...

Apart from the attempt to make the United States a multi dimensional armed camp inside our borders as protection against terrorists, what are we going to do (stop doing?) around the world that will cause people to have less and less reason to join/sympathize with terrorists who wish to do us harm?

Glen Beck 5/20/07:

How are we going to convince the Middle East that we don't fight like girls?

Certainly not using Glen Beck as an example; he's another chicken hawk who passed up serving in the Armed Forces, but he no doubt "supports the troops" fighting in Iraq.

As Bush has discovered wishing it does not make it so.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

I am confused. Robert Hormats has more experience and exxpertise in finance and government than all the participants normnally here put together. I am unclear about your complaint?

Daniel A. Greenbaum

I love him. A good old Prarie Populist. But a geopolitical heavy weight?  Hmm.

I have two complaints, Daniel:

1. In his post, he's not speaking as an economist solely, but as a historian as well.  There's nothing in his biography at TPM to indicate that he is qualified to Discuss Washington (the President) or the Federalists (the Party) or what the political controversy was at the time of the war of 1812.
2. The material presented in his biography is sketchy, to say the least.  I know from reading it that he has served in several administrations: I don't know which ones, or in which capacity.  I think it a good idea to provide a set of credentials for new persons publishing under the auspices of management as original contributors.  Without that kind of information, I don't know their educational background.  Which school of economic theory best describes this person.  Is he of the Chicago School?  Is he Keynesian? etc.  I've reached the point in my life where presenting one's self as a person of long government service isn't necessarily a kudo to be admired.  Rumsfeld certainly had long government service and, half a year after his leaving that service, his name still sours my stomach.  That's all I meant.  Hormats may be perfectly credible.  I don't know.  I have no way of knowing from whence he comes.

aMike

You know, you're as virulently rabid and fanatical as the neo-conservative hawks that initiated the Iraq War.

Pulling out of Iraq won't necessarily make the Muslim Arabs like us any better. Nor will it necessarily make us any safer (unless, of course, you're a soldier currently stationed in Iraq).

I would suggest that you stop seeing everything in black and white - while the neo-conservatives see the US as being completely right in the war, you seem to take the completely opposite view and see it as completely wrong. But nothing is ever as simple as that.

I'd also suggest that you actually read the entire piece, rather than simply drawing the conclusions you want to hear from it like a certain monkey in the Oval Office does.

The US was and is completely wrong on this war. There's plenty that is black and white about war. Life and death and all that.

Based on finances, there is plenty we need to do in this country, right here at home.

Hormats speaks vaguely of an indefinite if not infinite presence of American troops in the Middle East in case some "pose threats" to who or what he doesn't say.

As a fan of Stephen Colbert's "threat down" where he often tells us the 5 greatest threats du jour I know that bears are often #1 on his list of threats.

Bears are of more danger to me in Minnesota than terrorists. The Minnesota National Guard is in Iraq. The President of Iraq is in Minnesota because he apparently can't get a medical checkup anywhere nearer Baghdad than Rochester, MN and Katrina kids can't see a doctor because the American government doesn't give a damn.

How about sending the Minnesota National Guard home to fight bears, sending the President of Iraq home to fight "threats" and using the hundreds of billions we save to send American kids to places like the Mayo Clinic where they should have at least as much right to medical care as the President of Iraq.

Perhaps the next 9/11 . . . .

Well; it won't be my fault. I always take my shoes off and discard all box cutters before boarding an airplane.

P.S. It sounds like you're anticipating (looking forward to?) another of our government breakdowns.

Bob Hormats is an able, smart, experienced, thoughtful, and articulate   .   .   .   .

And so is Kissinger, James Baker, Condoleeza Rice, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc.   Do you welcome their views?

hmm, looks like Reed is applying for a job at Goldman Sachs.

"You don't explain what's a war on terrorism. Please do."

To me it means being proactive with regards to waging war with the Al Queda terrorists who have, many years ago now, declared war against us, rather than reactive.

Such a war should be way, way less costly since the enemy is not a large, conventional force, and therefore does not require a large, conventional force as we have now quaqmired in Iraq. I think there is a big difference between policing Iraq (what we are doing now) and hunting terrorists.

Since we would come to the rescue of any of our middle eastern friends if they were under attack by Al Queda, irregardless of whether we had a military presence ahead of time in the middle east or not, I doubt it would make any difference to the war plans of Al Queda one way or the other (whether we had a military presence in Iraq or not.) Bin Laden utilizes rhetoric as well as any other leader, let's not be so naive.

Now I would agree that having a military presence in the middle east can be used against us as a recruiting tool for Al Queda. But I'm not a micro manager, and as such I would tend to defer to the military experts as to weighing the recruiting value against any tactical advantage we might have maintaining a military presence. "Military presence" doesn't specify the degree of military presence. Perhaps a few air bases will do, with some quick reaction forces on hand, for all I know. How much of these needs can be met by aircraft carriers rather than land bases, I would have no clue, as I'm no expert. And I have no clue as to all the alternatives for locations of bases that would serve us well in the war on terrorism either.

Since you asked. But I am just your average American voter, I have no experience in such affairs.

Another point is that, 70 percent of Americans being against Bush and his War on Error (Iraq War), doesn't automatically imply that these same 70 percent of Americans are against the War on Terror. My guess is it would be just about exactly the other way around, that 70 percent are supportive of the War on Terror. If the 2008 candidates don't the voters that they too are supportive of the War on Terror, I doubt very much that they will be elected.

I for one don't believe that I showed Mr. Hormats any disrespect.  I called him nothing, I didn't question his conclusions, I didn't mention the war on terror at all.  I questioned whether TPM Café had given me any reason to believe that his views on history were authoritative.  The book, The Price of Liberty: Paying for America's Wars, from which you quote reviews available at Amazon.com is not mentioned in either his biography or his essay. It is mentioned under the Table for One guest blog button, with a link to the Amazon book page from which the reviews are extracted.

If we look at the three reviews.  One is by Paul Volcker, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, who served most of his tenure under Ronald Reagan.  The second is by Henry Kissenger, who needs no introduction to those of us who lived too close to his world politic through the Nixon Administrations.  The third by Wesley Clark, whose degree from Oxford was in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics (PPE).  None of these gentlemen are experts on American History.  In fact, these aren't reviews in the scholarly sense at all.  They're the kind of publisher's jacket blurbs actively solicited by authors and publishers.

Hormats' degrees are in economics and political science.  He's been associated with Goldman Sachs since 1982. (Click on the link on his page at Leading Authorities Speakers Bureau to read the Microsoft word version of his biography for his education).

I know that there are people who think anyone who can string together two or more coherent sentences is competent to write history.  I, and other historians, would beg to disagree.  I looked to find a review of the book by a historian, but found nothing.  I was not overly surprised, given the book's May 1, 2007, publication date.

Someone else around here must read history professionally.  I don't want to take on my shoulders the responsibility of defending the craft.  Just let me say that there are historians from the era of Charles Beard to Howard Zinn today who would find a number of Hormats' interpretations suspect.  There are economic historians and  social historians and business historians as well as political historians.  There are also economists whose slant on history is far different from that of Mr. Hormats.

So I don't think it disrespectful to question someone's bona fides, or to suggest that TPM Café might open up its guest list to specialists other than economists (whether the Wall Street version or the Academia version), political scientists, or political policy wonks.  IF anything, I'm calling for less group think, rather than more.  At present, I count nine economists on the front page.  I don't mind reading one or two--especially on economics.  I'd be happy to read Jared Bernstein every day.  But fair's fair.  Mr. Hormats' credentials and economic expertise do not make him expert on Hamilton, Washington, Madison, and Jefferson.

aMike

Re: Kuwait just announced yesterday that it too is dumping US dollars, link.

Only as a "peg" for its own currency, not as the world reserve or the currency in which oil prices are set. Pegging one's currency to the dollar was a fad for a while, notably in Latin America since it seemed to promise an easy way to manage one's own currency without the need for difficult or politically painful decisions. But the downside, the loss of control over one's own economy, has pretty disabused this wishful thinking and I doubt the use of the dollar in this fashion will continue, or would continue no matter what fiscal wisdom or folly Washington showed. There's really nothing here ominous for America itself.

"Our presence in Saudi Arabia was Osama's number 1 grievance against us."

Our presence in Saudi Arabia is none of Osama's business.

"I would never defer to the military to tell us how to fight terrorism."

Are you sure you aren't confusing "the military" for "the Bush Administration?"

So you are saying Ellen that the United States is at his every whim and command? We'll just put our tail between our legs because of one man?

Mr. Hormats, I read your post here and a previous one on the Huffington Post. In the Huffington Post article you write:

"It is a sad tragedy that relatively small portion of the population is making major sacrifices for this war, but the average American is not."

I believe you are referring to the fact that it is the volunteer army and the national guard bearing the brunt of the fighting and bleeding and dying and not the general populace. It is interesting that in both these articles on FINANCING this war you do not directly address who is bearing the burden of the financial cost...strange given your financial background. Of course you are well aware that this war is being financed on the backs of ordinary Americans...workers facing a drop in real wages for the first time in a very long time, facing increasing educational and health costs, uncertain retirement, all at the same time that corporations and the wealthiest have been enriched immensely at the expense, at the health and welfare of millions of us. This small matter seems to be overlooked in your otherwise very scholarly, albeit somewhat sketchy account of financing of wars. (For example, you do not cover the prosecution of war profiteers in earlier conflicts; the oversight exercised by Congressional committees in previous wars. And while you wave your hand at "mismanagement" of the war, you do not seem to acknowledge the widespread corruption by American and Iraqis, enriching themselves at the expense of the average American. You also talk about the need for future wars (by implication) but you do not deal with whether the Bush/neocon world-view which got usd into Iraq was at all justifiable. Certainly I do not remember then (or now) your voice being raised in opposition to theis very dangerous and stupid policy. Go ahead. Jump in. Why don't you tell us all what you are really thinking. You are probably worried more aboutAmericans not being willing to fight the next war than finding out what made it possible for the Bush/neocon/finance sector to start thecurrent disaster. But the war may not seem like such a big disaster to you. Perhaps for you, war was correct but not handled well. Or if you have some other variant, it is worth putting it out for discussion. But stop playing it so cute and so close to the vest. This "mismanaged war is obvious bullshit. The occupation of Iraq with the goal of projecting American power into the Middle East to ensure American "influence" and domination in the "new American Century" was from the very start, from its inception in the deformed brain of PNAC, in my opinion, both morally unacceptable and practically unachievable. I suspect from your avoidance of this issue, you do not subscribe to this viewpoint. Well then, what?)

I believe your corporation, Goldman Sachs, for example did fairly well in the war year of 2006, well enough to distribute 16 billion to its workforce a record in American financial history...all in a war year. Congratulations! At a time when Walter Reed is overrun by lice, rats and other vermin for want of funds, and you are distributing 16 billion to happy Goldman Sachs (unsacrificing, I guess) employees, I must say that observations such as yours above of the "sad tragedy" that a small number sacrifice, but the average American does not, ring true. One might even say a small number sacrifice greatly, a large number mortgage their future, and our fortunate elite financial leaders roll in the dough. How is the view from inside the money vault? At least Goldman Sachs, unlike Halliburton, are not bathing in blood money. Then again I just don't know.

I was just surfing some reviews by readers of books on similar topics at Amazon, and here is a cut/paste from one that I think is relevant to our conversation:

"global security is underwritten by American power. Brzezinski differs with the administration on how this power should be used. America may have the capablity of overthrowing rogue regimes in a few days or weeks, nevertheless, it still needs to build consensus in order to win a war. If the excercise of military power is not done with legitimacy it will fail and backfire. Operations in Iraq were executed in such a way that they spawned more terrorist groups, and even emboldened Iran and North Korea to press ahead with nuclear weapons development."

We will thusly also need to build consensus in order to win the islamic terrorist war. By going about it with other national interests in mind - not just our national interest in mind. Such cooperation would require some military cooperation with said nations would it not, given the "global security is underwritten by American power" premise? Althought it is just that, a premise. Lebanon seems to be doing just fine on their own battling an Al Queda inspired group these last few days. Nonetheless, we need to show countries like Lebanon what we have in common with their own interests, that we are both allies in the war on terror. This should have been our strategy after Afghanistan. I believed, when the dust of 9/11 was settling, in the saying that with breakdown also comes the opportunity for breakthrough, and now I believe our breakthrough would have been to "build alliances" not with Saddam as the common enemy, but with extremist islamic terrorist groups as the common enemy. Such alliances would naturally have gone beyond just fighting the war on terrorism. Our legitimacy would have increased, not decreased. We all know the Iraq blunder was just that. But perhaps, as Brzezinski says in the title of another of his books, it isn't too late (for a second chance to seize the opportunity behind the calamity of 9/11.)

Ah crud. A dope with a B.S. in Business, working on a teaching credential and maybe masters in Education, hopelessly addicted to this politics stuff. (me) But you can tell even a dope can just copy/paste some good thinking in reviews - not reading the books themselves mind you - from Amazon.com and piece together a decent strategy. If I can do it, why couldn't Dubya?!

REAL power of the purse would be used if everyone except for like, school bus drivers, the ambulance guy, and like maybe enough trucks to barely keep the grocery stores open went and parked their motor vehicles for 30 days. All the people running the show currently would be seeking other work in short order when they stopped getting financial support from the oil companies. Can you just imagine what it'd be like if all of a sudden they started ripping up paved roads(which are curiously ALSO made out of oil products...hmmm), and reintroduced horses? That'd be a pretty spectacular social change. Banish personal cars out of towns, and you'll see bicycles, electric carts, and horses come back into vogue in short order, and all the people that've been hyping this whole war thing kind of fade back behind the curtains where they came from to begin with...and about the time someone tried to stuff one of those emissions sniffer rods up a horses' 'tailpipe', they'd about get what they deserved...my position is, if we want energy independence, which coincidentally also represents political independence, we're going to have to change how much of this fuel stuff we import, pretty much from anywhere. Otherwise, we'll watch people in other countries who frankly seem to be a lot better at mathematics than we are run away with the deed to the ranch. A parked car burns no fuel, and a Ford Expedition gets the same mileage as a Model T, if not worse. And, as long as we're importing that oil to make into fuel, billions of dollars go out of our country to other countries that frankly don't love us no more and kind of wish that our country would have a 'little accident', and turns out they've been using that oil revenue to position themselves politically to help bring about that particular blessed event. In other words, we really have to chop our oil usage by about 40-60% long-term, but I don't know too many people that are prepared to do that.

Economic inertia has carried us along this far, the next step, the much-lauded 'way forward', has to be downright miserly when it comes to our utilization of petroleum and petroleum-based fuels.

One little-mentioned factoid is the recent 'discovery' of all that oil off the coast of Vietnam. Ah, yes, American Standard Oil...no, wait, Vietnam was to stop the commies....yeah...ok....
http://www.oilcompanies.net/oil1.htm
http://www.brojon.org/frontpage/bj050701-3.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/goff09152003.html
http://www.economist.com/diversions/millennium/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=347251

Ooo ooo, what was that last part? Sherman Antitrust Act? Hmmmm....Congress has their work cut out for em....new Congress slogan: Work, or get fired! LOLOL

Still not impressed.

Come on, dude. Show some respect.

Bob was a presidential adviser and helped prepare eight economic summit meetings. He served in the State Department as assistant secretary of state for economic and business affairs (1981-82), ambassador and deputy U.S. trade representative (1979-81), and senior deputy assistant secretary for economic and business affairs (1977-79). He was on the staff of the National Security Council from 1969 to 1977 *

*From an entry on the net by Global Business Networks to promote a recent seminar at which
Hormats spoke.

But apart from that he's not part of the Washington elite

I'm not always right. Why, if I had a nickel for every time I turned out to be wrong... I'd have at least ten cents. That's a dime. That's spending money.

Well, your country certainly spreads its legs for just one man.

I hope that wasn't tasteless.