Responding to your feedback
I have read carefully all the responses to my two recent pieces, from those who agreed with me and those who took exception to what I wrote. Because one of my hopes in writing The Price of Liberty and my two earlier posts here is to deepen the dialogue on these issues of how America can and should pay for its security, I was eager to read them all.
One person asked “was I listening?” and the answer is, emphatically, yes. The problem with much of the debate on the war, and war funding, is that too few people are listening to one another and too many are so set in their views that they do not care to hear what those who differ from them are saying. That is not how vibrant democracy should work.
A few specific points bear mentioning.
There has been some heated discussion in the comments of my credentials, and I thought those interested might like to hear directly from me about my background and my research. I am not an historian, but the book I wrote — The Price of Liberty — cites many primary sources and lets them speak for themselves. In reading the book, you will find that I have tried — and I believe succeeded —to faithfully describe the views of the many formidable figures who have shaped American financial history through their own words. I think you will find their ideas engaging and interesting, both in what they had to say about their own times and in what their approaches might offer us today. I also had great support in writing the book from David Kennedy of Stanford, Richard Buel of Wesleyan, John Gaddis of Yale, the former chief historian of the Army, Brig. General John S. Brown, and numerous other historians, though of course any errors, as book acknowledgments invariably say, are my own. If in reading the book, you find there are any historical errors of fact, please do bring them to my attention. I will certainly acknowledge and correct them. I have of course also drawn upon three decades of experience working on the National Security Council staff, in the U.S. State Department, and in the financial world in considering and analyzing the financial side of national security. While this experience might make it easy for some to have labeled me an “elite,” I clearly and emphatically criticize conventional wisdom on the funding of this war in my book; America’s leaders did not level with the American people.
Neither my book nor these two pieces attempt to justify the conduct of the Iraq War or the fact of the war itself. The point — and a key point in my book — is to argue that when the United States does go to war, the American people need to be told candidly what it costs and not have those costs disguised or skirted through techniques such as “emergency supplementals.” One writer asked whether I thought the war was justified or not. At the time, I thought it was, based on what I was told by our leaders. I was especially impressed by Colin Powell’s presentation at the United Nations. Had I known then what I know now, I would certainly not have supported it. It was my mistake. But finger pointing about the past is less productive than a clear and forthright dialogue about how to do better and avoid such mistakes in the future. That means: better intelligence, better judgment, better consultation with allies — as in the first Gulf War — and a more candid assessment of the risks of being wrong or of mishandling a war. Moreover, I am particularly concerned with the fact that Americans serving in Iraq and Afghanistan have sacrificed heavily — along with their families — but few others have. I think that is inequitable and unfair — and the nation should not have let this happen. During past wars, all Americans have been asked to sacrifice when our forces were fighting abroad. Those who want the troops removed quickly have every right to make their case forcefully — but they should not take their frustrations out by de-funding the troops that are on the ground now.
Regarding my point about sustaining America’s presence in the Middle East, on which some contributors have raised concerns, it is important to note that the U.S. Fifth Fleet has been in the region for a number of years before the war to protect oil routs and to deter terrorists from attacking Saudi and other oil fields. We could, of course, withdraw the fleet from the region altogether, as some commenters to my earlier posts seem to want, but there could be a large economic cost for doing so. If, in the event of a successful attack on Saudi or Kuwaiti oil facilities, Americans wake up paying five bucks a gallon for oil, opinions may change. Moreover, the United States has long been involved in peacekeeping in the region. There are a number of countries in the Middle East who fear their neighbors. These include, but are not limited to, Israel and Saudi Arabia. To various degrees, these countries want us to maintain some sort of military presence. If Iran gets a nuclear weapon, such requests will likely become more urgent. That’s simply a function of America’s position in the world.
One contributor asked that I define what I mean when I refer to a war on terrorism. I agree that the threat of radical jihadists is not only about military bases, although we still need them in some parts or the world. But this is not a conventional war. It requires not only military readiness but also good intelligence to anticipate a terrorist attack and to interdict terrorists’ ability to obtain money and weapons of mass destruction, to ferret out plans to attack civilian or other targets before they take place, and to hit terrorists (before they attack, if we can, and certainly in the case when they do attack). It requires shoring up domestic police, fire departments, public health capabilities, and infrastructure. And it means working with allies to enlist their help — recognizing that many of them are at least as vulnerable as we are.
I was distressed to read in the comments that some feel that we do not need a robust capability to counter security threats. We do. And we need to address these candidly. I do not advocate reform of entitlements and other domestic measures simply because we need to sustain a reasonable amount of funding for national security spending; we need to reform them because they are unsustainable — and if we want to keep faith with our elderly and those who need government support for their health care, we must put them on a more sustainable basis. But an additional reason is that if they continue on their current trajectory, they will siphon off funds for all discretionary programs, including not only national security but also education, energy research, and health care for the poor. That is not tenable either.
Further, I am not suggesting a zero sum game. Defense spending needs to be prioritized and made more efficient, too. We need a long-term fiscal strategy that can ensure sufficient sums for the elderly and for medical assistance and for national security as well. This all must be done in the context of ensuring sound national finances, avoiding bloated deficits that push up interest rates and thus hurt home owners and other citizens; increased taxes that would impose new burdens on working Americans and slow the economy, or dangerously high dependence of foreign funds because our own savings are too low. Without a number of changes in U.S. fiscal policy —including changes on the revenue side (consider that even Reagan accepted tax hikes to reduce budget deficits when pressured by Congress in the 1980s) and on the spending side (consider that spending has been restrained during every past war, until now) — we will find ourselves unable to meet critical needs.
One contributor noted that there is plenty to do here at home with our money. I agree. In fact, war funding has sucked money out of a host of worthy projects that would better our lives at home and enhance national security as well — e.g., strengthening the public health services in this country (which would be vital if we were to face a pandemic or a terrorist attack) and bolstering fire departments and police forces to cope with natural disasters and any future terrorist attack. There are many other infrastructure requirements that have been postponed as well. As I discuss in the chapter on the Cold War in my book, no less a military figure than Dwight D. Eisenhower made a similar point in the 1950s.
Thanks to all who commented in such lively fashion on my two earlier pieces.
Comments (40)
Really cool of you to take the time to respond to the comments. I still have quibbles but my hope of having some back and forth with you was certainly fulfilled.
Nice job TPMCafe. It's not often that you get a chance to respond to and hear back from a Goldman Sachs exec, and Goldman really is influential on the culture and economy in ways that are sometimes hard to quantify.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
May 24, 2007 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
The main thing is, I don't believe the money being spent in Iraq is being invested wisely. The entire executive branch seems to be dominated by wishful thinking and self-delusions with little basis in the reality of the Iraqi situation. In my view, de-funding the troops and forcing a withdrawal is the lesser of two evils compared with "staying the course". After all, it also allows our Army to catch a much needed break, considering the President and his yes-men have willfully ignored all the Pentagon's established protocols regarding duration of deployments, time between deployments, and training before deployments.
May 24, 2007 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
deleted
May 24, 2007 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Americans are dying in Iraq for nothing in Iraq except Bush's neo-imperialist lunacy. Fund only their safe withdrawal and nothing else. I am horrified (once again) by Democrats who cave in to Bush.
Tom
May 24, 2007 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
[...] American people need to be told candidly what it costs and not have those costs disguised or skirted through techniques such as “emergency supplementals.
Quite so. What kind of "emergency" is it, if it drags out for longer than a full-blown war (WWII)? It's like the current "surge" that's no surge but a long-term escalation. But, because the Iraq fiasco continues to be financed via supplementals, the costs are never driven home. They're never quite real, because they're coming out, mostly, from borrowed money, and not from the usual tit-for-tat (if we spend it here, we'll have to cut it there) of hammering out the budget.
May 24, 2007 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shame on you, sir.
It's one thing to admit when one has made an error. It takes a "big" person to reverse a course.
It's entirely another thing to excuse deliberate lying by making believe it was your fault for not perceiving the lie. That implies the "free pass" that Wolfowitz, Rice, Perle, Cheney and Bush have claimed.
I don't think that Powell has received his free pass in the mail yet. He seems to bear the greatest brunt of derision for his willful acts of deception and has been globally disgraced. Though he probably went into the enterprise with the most credibility and (perceived) honor of any of that crew, I feel he has come out underneath the bus.
The objective should have always been Osama. Consider the infrastructure that could have been built in Afghanistan with half of the money that has been pissed away into the Tigris. Infrastructure that would be now and in the future an asset, unlike the spent shell casings in Iraq.
Lastly, I agree with your citation of Eisenhower. It was good 'ol conservative "Ike" that considered the Interstate Highway System a national security priority, not as something to be privatized and auctioned off to the highest bidder.
Thanks for your attention to the comments- it speaks volumes to us!
Alphonse ( Al ) Kada
Iranians are fighting the Americans in Iraq so they don't have to fight them on the streets of Tehran
May 24, 2007 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only one I see trying, successfully so far, to defund the troops in Iraq is George Bush. He vetoed a bill that did fund the troops. That it wasn't the bill he wanted was not a good excuse. Compromises are always necessary when governing.
Hoppy in Sacramento
May 24, 2007 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, be fair... those in the administration like Powell, Wolfowitz, Rice and all the rest had access to enough information to know they were selling us B.S. One might argue that people in the senate did too. But, while I never supported the war, we're dealing with a civilian in this post. He didn't have access to the proper information. That's kind of the point. The administration tried to keep information from us in order to sell the war to us.
Mr. Hormats was never in government. He didn't have access to information that administration officials did.
Don't confuse the issue -- they sold a war on false pretenses. Don't blame the people who were cut off from real information and who thus bought their argument.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
May 24, 2007 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was distressed to read in the comments that some feel that we do not need a robust capability to counter security threats.
Where are these people? I doubt you would find any reasonable person disagreeing with the idea that countries need robust capabilities to counter the security threats they face. But I do think you will find a lot of disagreement about what exactly those threats are in the case of the United States, how serious is each one, and how much it should cost to maintain a robust defense against them. You said:
Even if U.S. troops leave Iraq on a rapid schedule, there will not be a large “peace dividend” for the American people. Wounded veterans require generous assistance. Military equipment destroyed or worn out during the war must be replaced. Many aspects of homeland defense have been disregarded or under funded, in part because so much attention and money have been focused on Iraq. Intelligence capabilities, public health services, communications equipment for first responders, and security for ports and transportation infrastructure desperately need to be shored up. Pentagon forces and weapons programs must be strategically retooled for antiterrorism and other new types of threats. And diplomatic and other outreach programs to improve relations with countries alienated by U.S. actions must be well funded.
While you list a number of things here on which we will need to spend money, there is no attempt to give an accounting of their actual costs. Your argument sticks to generalities. If someone tells me that ending one very long and very expensive war will not produce a peace dividend, I'd like to see that case substantiated with some detail, since the position is counterintuitive on its face. If a government agency terminates an extremely expensive project, and yet goes on to claim that that their budget shouldn't decrease, surely it is natural for voters to wonder if the agency's bureaucrats are not just dreaming up creative ways to hang onto existing levels of funding.
In addition to the end of the war factor, it is also the case that the US has a superabundance of military installations scattered about the world. Many of these bases constitute the sentimental antiquities of a post-WWII and Cold War security order that has lost much of its former purpose. We need a national discussion about how much of this global defense structure we really need, how much it costs in terms of outlays and foregone opportunities, how many of its responsibilities could and should be met by others, and whether or not some substantial portion of it should be dismantled.
Maybe a really good argument can be made for preserving the bulk of this structure. But I'm very skeptical, and need to be convinced. So far, it doesn't seem our timid political system can even bring itself even to put the subject on the table for debate. Instead we have candidates running around competing with each other with promises to increase the size of the army (message: don't worry about us closing any of those local military bases folks!) This systematic inability to conduct a rational national debate on a massive government military program and supporting private economy strikes me as a symptom of an ossified society in decline.
I'd love to see such a debate, but suspect the issue won't be discussed until it actually produces some kind of crash due to economic decay from within - not a crash as spectacular as the Soviet Union's perhaps, but a crash nevertheless. Then maybe economists will begin to wonder whether the vitality and long-term investment capacity of our economy has been drained for decades by security overkill, with a lot of unproductive dollars wasted in paying far too many people to sit around and float around preparing for wars that never come, and in purchasing equipment that sits in arsenals that are never deployed. Obviously some level of military investment is productive, even if the goods it purchases are not used, because it buys the security that protects the economy and underpins investor faith in its future. But it is equally obvious that such spending can be wasteful past a certain point. Can't we at least have a debate about whether we have passed that point?
Since the tendency of military public-private establishments is to do things from time to time to justify their existences and their budgets, perhaps a more likely crash forecast is that our society's ruin will be caused by a stupid succession of Iraqs, highly wasteful and highly destructive midlife spasms of bravura, post-imperial glory-seeking, leading in the end to exhausted old age, and bitter and irreconcilable domestic rancor.
It seemed to me that the underlying message of your posts, Mr. Hormats, was "don't rock the boat". The first post seemed aimed to dissuade Democrats from trying to end the war by actively addressing its funding, and to instruct us through a few history lessons that attempts in the past to do so have been politically harmful. We are encouraged by you to rest our faith in the idea that, with weak Congressional and public support, the war is bound to run down eventually, and so if we sit back and let the killing run its course, the war will end in the fullness of time, but we won't be blamed for unpatriotically ending it. I worry about the moral irresponsibility of this approach.
The second post seemed aimed at persuading us that we shouldn't think about making any really steep cuts in defense outlays, but should instead focus on keeping the gravy train rolling on more fiscally disciplined rails. Again, I am very skeptical about this message. The US has to begin talking about moving on to a new stage in its national existence - a new era in which America can thrive, but which will not be another "American Century".
On the less significant matter of whether you qualify as an elitist, we see this in your biography:
Robert D. Hormats is the Vice Chairman of Goldman Sachs (International) and a Managing Director of Goldman, Sachs & Co.
He has served in numerous presidential administrations and is a former member of the Board of Directors of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Goldman Sachs Vice Chairman ... numerous presidential administrations ... the Council on Foreign Relations. Alas. I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news, Mr, Hormats, but as damaging as this might prove to the fighting spirit of your inner rebel, I think you are just going to have to reconcile yourself to the sad fact that you are now a member in good standing of our nation's governing and financial elite.
However, I agree with those who point out that mindless elite-bashing and fallacious ad hominem arguments are no way to refute someone's position.
May 24, 2007 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Destor,
You're right and after I wrote that I realized it would be taken the wrong way.
Shame on him for feeling the need to say that he made a mistake. He didn't. I don't blame anyone for wanting to believe the best of elected leaders. I just feel very bad when they blame themselves for the deceitful nature of this scum.
Kind of like the way I feel now after watching the Senate vote. I feel the shame of actually supporting Democrats and expecting change.
Silly, silly me.
Maybe the Repugs have been right all along. Maybe Democrats are pussies, and afraid to stand up to a bully and bloody his nose for a change.
Mr. Hormats, I apologize. I know how you feel.
Alphonse ( Al ) Kada
Iranians are fighting the Americans in Iraq so they don't have to fight them on the streets of Tehran
May 24, 2007 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I must admit, in Mr. Hormats' defense, that I DID suggest that we cut military funding in order to shore up social security.
I didn't explain that I believe that we can keep the country safe for far less than we're spending. A reduction in the defense budget doesn't equal a recudtion in our actual defense, as I see it. I think that the spending on both the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security has been wasteful.
I'm all for a robust defense. But I think we're not getting a good deal, given what we're paying.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
May 24, 2007 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, destor23. And I am also strongly inclined to think we should cut defense spending and spend the money on other things.
But as you note, neither you nor I suggested that the US does not need robust defense capabilities to counter real threats. For Hormats to portray our position in this way - if we're the people he was talking about - is question-begging. Rather than consider the possibility that current defense expenditures are excessive, and more than is needed to provide that robust defense, he seems just to assume without detailed argument that current levels are roughly appropriate.
May 24, 2007 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Will someone please explain to Mr. Hormats what a vibrant democracy is. I believe I know what it is not.
It is not is a plutocracy that attempts, on its more charitable days to create consensus for it's rule so as to maintain a fiction of said democracy. It is not a country with its media/free press in the hands of six or seven corporate giants who in essence taken candidate selection away form the rank and file of both major parties by the amount and type of exposure they are willing give a candidate. (In presidential candidate selection the media situation and the restructured primary system has made nominating conventions irrelevant) In is not a two party system in which both parties are controlled by campaign funding by essentially the same big money interests (Is Mr. Hormats familiar with any powerful moneyed intrests that contribute nearly equally to both sides in Presidential and Senate elections?)so no matter who wins an election they are beholden (nice way to say bought) to those intrests and held hostage by a monopolized media and more campaign money if they want to be reelected. It is not a country whose Middle East policies are controlled by military contractors, big oil, and Israel. The last time I checked a vibrant democracy was one in which the majority of the citizenry controlled the government’s officials not just rubber stamped a plutocracy’s choices for Representatives Senators and Presidents. I could be wrong I suppose…
May 24, 2007 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Illumination of the future was not something I found in what Mr. Hormats had to say. All pretty standard establishment straight line thinking.
What I am struck by, in the broad sweep of financial and physical security for the USA's medium to long term future, is the complete absence of mention of climate change. Even commenters only brought this up three or four times.
This proves that many have not even began to bring this into their strategic thinking although many major companies have started approaching their governments about this looming problem which will redirect the whole way we think about energy generation and its use.
There is no acknowledgment that this administration unilaterally reversed thirty five years of arms limitation and control progress that should have allowed us to reap an increasing peace dividend over time. The result has been that we now spend 45% of the worlds defence monies, before counting in the supplementals -- a multiple of what Russia, China and India spend altogether, and disregarding we do actually still have close allies for defence and justifiable operations. Do we really think this is money well spent? Plus the assymetry of our present greatest threats means that the the big, fancy, expensive weapons, the ones we could have treaties to limit, are mostly useless.
Security is supplied by good intelligence work and operations at all possible levels. Somebody has to title this a "war" to get the funding and spice up the speeches. It's really not and this thinking has hindered an productive approach to the whole problem(s).
Security and reaction at home comes more from our FBI, police and emergency services and a well prepared National Guard, not the armed forces.
There's really no reason for the defence budget not to fall by half over 10 years. Then, if we have some hubristic, manipulative, lieing, dangerous president, it won't be possible for him to ensnare us in some irresponsible adventure.
Which means that social security can be fixed with relatively small effort. Medicare and Medicaid as well as health care generally -- maybe something which does not worry the well rewarded Mr. Hormats much -- require some imagination.
Nothing market-based has even come close to showing a glimmer of a solution. Of course we are surrounded by myriad developed-nation systems that, despite their faults, supply better and cheaper health care to their populations, but the lobbyists and their politicians pretend they don't exist.
But then, this isn't the only thing about which we are kept in the dark.
May 24, 2007 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
On the Democratic side, I don't think it is accurate to say as Hormats does, that "too few people are listening to one another and too many are so set in their views that they do not care to hear what those who differ from them are saying."
It's clear to me, one Democrat, what the supporters of this war and of Bush are saying, have been saying, and how they change rationales but never conclusions to keep up with the little bits of reality that leak, from time to time, into the public's perception. (Today's vote in Congress would seem to make it clear that several - way too many - elected Democrats "grok" the other side.)
We get it. Some of us just don't like it.
This leads me to want to discuss a dissonance here which probably would have been better addressed in response to one of Andrew Golis's recent posts about Barack Obama. We seem to be conflating a couple of dissimilar things, empathy and love, or at least assuming that one leads to the other.
Not so. Not at all. Empathy with the other doesn't lead to love, liking, agreement or even caring. In other words, empathy doesn't lead to any specific outcome in terms of feeling, affect, opinion or action. It may constitute an intuitive, emotional resonance with the other that, when analyzed, could lead to a more or less rational understanding of opposing positions and motivations. But the experience may be frightening as much as it is informative.
Empathy is not a synonym for love, nor is it an antonym for hate. In the context of our discussion, I think of empathy as what was meant by Sun-tzu when he said "keep your friends close, your enemies closer."
May 24, 2007 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for saying that this is not a war, notthere. It is as you say, not.
Can we get over the waronterror warondrugs waroncrime waronabortion waronandonandon now? Or, if not now, soon?
May 24, 2007 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I, too, appreciate the careful response, and I thought it was unfortunate to question credentials. (Heck, I'm so used as it is to thinking myself, alas, as informed as some of our supposed experts anyhow.) He made a good contribution. I, too, however, share some reservations in the comments about the vague plans for a strong military, which what budgetary commitments and, ultimately, military commitments (unilateral or otherwise) it might entail.
Last, Notrol complains about apologies for being misled, lest it take the heat off the misleaders. And so many others go the other way, complaining about those who won't apologize, like Clinton. Look, when something goes this wrong, and something so wrong is running this country, it's a waste of time to worry about who has the higher moral ground. We've some bad stuff to clean up fast, starting with the 2008 election.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
May 25, 2007 6:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Being a member of an elite is rather obviously different from being an elitist. And it's been pretty stupid of other posters who get a rare chance to discuss these issues with someone like Hormats to then use that chance to insult him.
But I think you're correct that Hormats's assertion that there will be no substantial peace dividend from the end of the Iraq War seems pretty dubious. The just-approved Iraq supplemental was circa $100 billion. Give me one of those every year, and we'll see what kind of peace dividend it amounts to.
I also think you're right that Hormats embraces assumptions about the US's global security footprint that can't simply be taken for granted in the aftermath of the Iraq War, in which the entire weight of the US's mighty military was brought to bear on an effort that has done nothing but kill people needlessly, waste money, and make us less safe. If we're spending $600 billion a year to make ourselves more hated and more vulnerable to terrorism, then perhaps we could do with a military budget, oh, say, a third the size of what we have now. It is simply no longer self-evident that the US would be any less safe if it could not put 150,000 troops on the ground 10,000 miles away.
Accumulating Peripherals
May 25, 2007 6:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
"...there will be no substantial peace dividend from the end of the Iraq War seems pretty dubious."
Not really because the military-industrial complex needs the money to feed the system so it will drum up another bogus crisis if there is no real one.
Tom
May 25, 2007 7:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you believe that a "full withdrawal" would be a disaster (in the first para), why is "forcing a withdrawal" the right policy in the second para.
Looking ahead, absent a stunning reversal by this administration, US forces will remain in significant numbers in Iraq through 2009 (since even if the next president advocates withdrawal, it would take a year to start the process).
The point of Mr. Hormats' analysis is not just to prevent poorly funded wars in the future, but to make it necessary for this and the next administration to engage the nation in the sound funding of the current conflict and the programs to combat terrorism.
May 25, 2007 8:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
With all respect, John-
It should have started last night. If I ran the Senate for just one vote, no matter what the order of names called by the Clerk, the voting order would have been: Biden, Clinton, Dodd, Obama.
Then let everyone else vote. I think it was pretty flagrant to wait until the votes were in for passage before these candidates let us know how their vote would go.
Yes, I know there were speeches where they said what they were going to do, but I want to see the act so there is no mistaking, no spin, no BS.
You had the chance to vote your conscience and for what is right. That might take some courage (are you listening, Harry?). But a safe, "show" vote doesn't take anything. Just hit the button and be on your way.
But if those four would have stood up first, cast a no vote, and then had to stand in front and watch as every other Dem walked down to the front of the chamber and say in a loud voice yea or nay, who knows what might have happened? If every Dem just said no, if the Dems keep forcing Republicans to be the only war party in the country, how can that be a bad thing?
But, alas, I think we misled again- this time by the other guys.
Alphonse ( Al ) Kada
Iranians are fighting the Americans in Iraq so they don't have to fight them on the streets of Tehran
May 25, 2007 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the 1 expresso-ny. I guess I should say Americans are dying because of Bush's brilliant plan to protect the homeland and we should fund it indefinitely. Is that your idea of productive? Does that get me a 5? Learn how to use the ratings system.
Tom
May 26, 2007 5:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for taking the time to write and to respond to many of the comments. But with the greatest respect I profoundly disagree with:
Which I would rewrite ,
I was distressed to read in your comments that you feel that we do not need to maintain our entitlements and other domestic measures . We do. And we need to address these candidly. I do not advocate reform of our capability to counter security threats simply because we need to sustain a reasonable amount of funding for entitlements and domestic measures ; we need to reform it because it is unsustainable .
Both these needs are infinite . Either could consume our entire national wealth . With this difference . If devoted to those entitlements etc. at least our citizens would enjoy health care , secure retirements etc. until the day of reckoning. If to our military budget there is equally no reason why it should not expand indefinitely until like “ a universal wolf(it) must make perforce a universal prey and last eat up itself” …….with no benefit to those of us who might choose to fund a medical system which does not rely on triage in the ER instead of a National Missile Defense program on which we'll have spent $1.2 trillion by 2015. It wasn’t handed down on tablets from on high that our 2007 defense outlays had to be $622 billion. Half that would still far exceed the military spending not only of any other country but of any combination of countries that might ally against us-. Can’t our president and military defend the country with $311 billion ? If the answer to that is No , send out for a different president and different generals . The two types of spending are not in oppostion to one another . Rather , in combination , they are potentially in opposition to maintaining a sound economy. We should assign to the two of them a sustainable percentage of the economy and then democratically split that between "guns and butter". Some of us might choose more butter.
May 26, 2007 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for putting our two most successful social programs on equal footing with our very successful defense program.
Nobody is saying to defund the Pentagon and send me the proceeds. Just as nobody should be saying "cut my benefits and strengthen defense."
I suspect that we could defend ourselves well for less than we are spending now.
I also suspect that we could take care of our health and well-being for less than we spend now.
Let's improve both, by all means. Just, nobody try to convince me to cut Social Security and Medicare in order to build satellite space weapons or something.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
May 26, 2007 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
We could defend ourselves well for one hell of a lot less than we're spending on our unnecessary (except to the military-industrial complex) military empire.
Tom
May 26, 2007 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
At the time, I thought it was, based on what I was told by our leaders. I was especially impressed by Colin Powell’s presentation at the United Nations. Had I known then what I know now, I would certainly not have supported it. It was my mistake. But finger pointing about the past is less productive than a clear and forthright dialogue about how to do better and avoid such mistakes in the future.
when I read this, you lose all credibility with me!
If you read the european newspapers, easily done online, before the war started, you would have learned that bush was lying.
when rosie o'donnel recently mentioned that 650,000 iraqis died, many people just didn't believe mostly, I think, because they have no clue that Bush is dropping white phospher bombs on civilian populations and forcing entire cities into refugee status.
I was distressed to read in the comments that some feel that we do not need a robust capability to counter security threats.
Some of us believe what Ron Paul (presidential campaign website) had to say: "they came over here because we went over there!"
And MLK was infamous for talking about blowback: "violence begets violence" he said.
In general, not everyone buys the hype that a country can sieze resources without a response and, in particular, Ron Paul recently asked the question: "what would america do if the chinese wanted to set up military bases in the US?"
To boldly go...
May 26, 2007 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
for all I care, the troops stay but Iraq isn't forced to give away their oil reserves or take on high interest world bank/IMF loans for doing so.
To boldly go...
May 26, 2007 7:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is no question that inappropriate things began with the invasion. Tell me, though, why would a military organization, with a choice of weapons, drop white phosphorus on civilians? Especially given the usual construction of Iraqi cities, I don't immediately see a motivation.
Bush didn't decide to do it, since I doubt he knows the difference between white phosphorus and white clam sauce. White wine, I might believe.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
May 26, 2007 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Howard,
I don't know why 'willy pete" was used in Falluja, but the military confirms it.
Now, I'm not exactly sure how the military knew it was only hitting military people and not civilians, as exploding munitions rarely are smart enough on their own when fired from an artillery piece (even with the "smart" artillery of today), I still can't see how that type of ordnance would be preferable.
UPDATE :
Here's a link from 2005
Alphonse ( Al ) Kada
Iranians are fighting the Americans in Iraq so they don't have to fight them on the streets of Tehran
May 26, 2007 8:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I/ve seen the Italian film documentary on this. It is truly gruesome.
Tom
May 26, 2007 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know of it being used in specific tactical situations against fighters under cover. That's a questionable use; it's really not an exceptionally good weapon and is more used to generate smoke.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
May 26, 2007 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't speak to the specific documentaries. I've seen a lot of documentaries about one horror or another, which tend either to be much more or much less gruesome than medical teaching materials. The explanation of some don't seem to match the physical appearance.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
May 26, 2007 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Hormat,
A couple of comments:
I'm curious; for someone who's obviously given a lot of thought to US policies and their reprocussions, how is it exactly that you were apparently so uniformed to have been impressed with Secretary Powell's presentation to the U.N.?
I don't mean to be sarcastic or disparaging but I am just a regular joe with barely a highschool education but I read avidly on the internet and I kept particularly close watch on this administration since Bush was first sworn in. I was immediately suspicious (let alone appalled) when they commenced banging the drums for war in the summer of 2002 (and then, of course, the 'full court press' against anyone who was skeptical) I was so thoroughly convinced of the speciousness of their claims of WMD in Iraq that I honest to god laughed at Powell's presentation to the UN. "Is this all they've got?", I chuckled. (I was very gratified to have read reports months later that Powell, when reviewing what had been presented to him beforehand, used pretty much the same words)
I've seen quite a few admonishments to journalists (especially by some very bright bloggers) who know damn well they failed their craft and their nation because they should have been more skeptical. I've oft seen the quote by Ronald Reagan, back in the day, when he said, "trust but verify." With this present government and for all governments in the forseable future (including a Democratic administration that I favor) the rule of thumb should be, "immediately assume that they're lying, but verify"
Why oh why is it rarely discussed or acknowledged that determining and understanding why they attacked us in the first place and what can be done to mitigate that is never considered a component equally as important as the others you've listed?
My lawn is being threatened by weeds. I've of course cut the grass real short but just to be sure, I've taken a hammer and pounded the remnants of the weeds into the soil. That should do the trick.
And you don't want fingers pointed at you because you want to do better and avoid such mistakes in the future?
May 26, 2007 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not convinced that withdrawal would precipitate a 'regional disaster' in Iraq. I'm more with Jack Murtha to deploy to the borders, (native forces having secured vital infrastructure first, which is in their own best interests) and 'contain' the situation.
I am convinced that, for example, the much vaunted Al Qaeda threat in Anbar province and others would be quickly neutralized and eradicated by Iraqis themselves. I think Sunni and Shia are sick to death of any foreign meddling in their country, not just the American one.
It's often propounded that a bloodbath would ensue if we were to withdraw. It's happening anyways and I think it would burn itself out much more quickly if we weren't there to exacerbate it.
May 26, 2007 9:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
The situation often is compared to the final US evacuation of citizens and some Vietnamese in 1975, but it should not be forgotten that a large conventional army, with guerilla support, was taking over Vietnam. If there was a power vacuum anywhere, T-54 main guns could put a leak in the vacuum chamber.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
May 27, 2007 6:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
What the author of this posting wants, from what I can see, is a mono-cultured aristocracy.
That is, if Bush's government and the MSM encouraged "real debate," and recognized the arguments that europe was making before the war-- like bush was lying, then I might recognize them.
As it stands now, I think that Bush's government is an angry mob that's stealing oil from Iraq in order to benefit themselves.
There is "peak oil" and "peak PR!"
To boldly go...
May 27, 2007 8:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
it's a waste of time to worry about who has the higher moral ground.
John, isn't this the most important function of a democracy? debating the moral high ground? yield that and we have a dictatorship. yield that and the public becomes more skeptical.
To boldly go...
May 27, 2007 8:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
One comment;
$5/gallon oil might finally make the US seriously start investing in renewable energy. Which we NEED to do because of global warming ANYWAY. So yes, it will be good for the US if the Middle Eastern oil supply is cut off.
May 28, 2007 1:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
....As for domestic expenditures, national health care on a single-payer system would eliminate the health insurance companies, but would save *so much* money for the rest of American business that it could probably, all by itself, revive several industries which are going abroad (it would take the Big Three automakers out of bankruptcy, and provide a huge shot in the arm for most of the manufacturing industries, for instance).
Sigh....
May 28, 2007 1:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, 'tough love neroden, tough love.
May 28, 2007 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink