Another Lie Continued
Yesterday I took Paul Krugman to task for misleading readers on the comparison between Argentina and the United States. Soon after publishing I received an email from Don Luskin who provided me with an interesting link and a challenge to obtain more detail about Argentina. The link was to a piece by Paul Krugman showing that even Krugman felt that the Argentina problem was all about a bad currency arrangement. Boy is it nice when Paul Krugman proves himself wrong!
I still decided to do a little more research—something that Paul Krugman seems either unwilling to do, or unwilling to tell readers about. Be forewarned, I am about to provide a massive data dump (if you just want the conclusion scroll to the last paragraph).
The first link is from the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and it makes clear one other thing. The reason that the debt in Argentina was so bad was that: “(a) the stock of government paper held by banks, part of which was "forced" on their balance sheet by the government, and (b) the significant proportion of dollar-denominated loans extended to borrowers with peso-denominated income.” Clearly these are not true in America. Read here.
Next I looked to The Economist since it is always a trustworthy source. Unfortunately people will have to register and pay to read the article I have found. This article proposes solutions, but implies the bottom-line that the currency peg to the dollar was a mistake for the reasons that the AEI sites. Here it is.
I found this essay, likely by college student, which makes the conclusion that pegging to the dollar was the real problem. While the source is dubious, the message is clearly stated and consistent with what I have found elsewhere.
I was confident at this point in the bad comparison by Paul Krugman. However, in reading I discovered that one consistent message about Argentina did show up. There WAS too much foreign debt. In fact, Argentina was in debt to foreigners to the tune of 50% of GDP. I wanted to be sure that this would not be a problem in the US. Interestingly enough, US debt held by foreigners IS on the rise. And recent numbers are not great. But here is the interesting thing—the trend started long before Bush came to office.
I found this research paper from the New York Federal Reserve Bank that shows that US foreign debt increases began under Clinton (1999 to 2001), and at least one third of the explanation is a strong dollar policy at the time—which we all know is not the case anymore. That is one third of the effect, another third of the effect is attributable to changes in current accounts—it’s the TRADE deficit stupid!
And just in case you want some data on the trade deficit. What this data says to me is that the trade deficit was going the wrong way long before Mr. Bush took office: here and here. Two more related links about the current accounts problem which clearly started under Clinton: here and here.
That all being the case, back to Argentina. In yet another NY Fed article the case is made that the financial crisis in Argentina cannot be solely explained by a deficit since Argentina still had the assets to pay off the debts. This article blames it on panic on the part of lenders.
What is the point of all this research? Can any conclusions be drawn?
The fundamental differences between Argentina and the US center on the nature of the debt in each country. The difference, to be more blunt, is between the Peso and the US Dollar. Here is an article that sets out to show what limitations there are on data about who owns American debt. In doing this, the author provides some interesting insight. The US dollar is not truly comparable to the Peso. When Argentina incurred debt it was in dollar denominated accounts. This meant that in order to repay the loans, Argentina would need to convert Pesos to Dollars while maintaining a Peso to Dollar exchange rate. When the economy began to look bad, no one wanted to buy Pesos with US Dollars at the pegged rate. This left Argentina with a tough choice: devalue or default. How is this different from the US? US debt is denominated in US Dollars. No matter the exchange rate with other currencies, the money we owe is in US Dollars. Therefore, foreigners and citizens holding US debt are in the same boat. They all need the same thing to happen. They all need the US Dollar to remain stable in order to repatriate the investment. The interesting thing is that many foreign nations use US debt as a way to manage the value of their own currency against the Dollar. Do you think anyone is using Argentina’s debt as a currency rate management tool? To put it another way, what was the big fear, that so many made a big deal about in the 1990s, of paying off all of the US debt? That the Federal Reserve would no longer have a strong way to manage the money supply. What do I mean? The US Treasury issues bonds to borrow money. The Fed manages money supply by buying or selling these securities. There are other ways to manage the supply, but this is the preferred method. Since the Fed can print money, they simply print more when they want to purchase more bonds. When they want to tighten the money supply they sell the bonds they own and burn the money. How does this apply to other central banks? They do a similar thing. When they want to strengthen their currency against the US Dollar they sell US bonds for their currency and burn the money. As I asked earlier—do you think anyone was doing that with the Argentina Peso? The answer is conclusively no. And this is the fundamental difference that Paul Krugman hopes that you will not figure out. Shame on Paul Krugman!
Jul 18, 2003
Another Lie?
Paul Krugman accuses President Bush of telling another lie in his state of the union speech:
Here's another sentence in George Bush's State of the Union address that wasn't true: "We will not deny, we will not ignore, we will not pass along our problems to other Congresses, to other presidents and other generations."
The premise of the accusation is that large budget deficits ARE passing things on to future generations and burning a hole in the social security "surplus".
I will give Krugman this: spending needs to be reined in. We are out of control and it is time to stop the free spending that goes on. However I think that Krugman is playing that familiar game of "I have a PhD in Economics so just believe me."
He is wrong. Let me explain. To begin with he makes a faulty comparison between Argentina and the US. He says: "Right now the U.S. government is running deficits bigger, as a share of G.D.P., than those that plunged Argentina into crisis." What really plunged Argentina into crisis? One argument is that Argentina used a faulty premise for money supply. They made the issue of money supply independent of elected officials by pegging it to the dollar. While it is a good thing to take money supply away from politicians, the peg to the US dollar may have been faulty. Argentina does NOT share a common economy with the US and consequently this was inefficient. This may not be the definitive answer, but my point is that a responsible economist should know that the issue is still open to research and debate.
But this is not the only problem with the comparison. Let's make some economic comparisons (all of my facts are from the 2002 CIA World Fact Book).
GDP:
Argentina: $391 Billion
US: $10 Trillion
GDP growth rate:
Argentina: -14.7%
US: 0.3%
GDP composition
Argentina:
agriculture: 5%
industry: 28%
services: 66%
US:
agriculture: 2%
industry: 18%
services: 80%
Population Below Poverty Line
Argentina: 37%
US: 13%
Unemployment
Argentina: 25%
US: 5%
Budget
Argentina (2000): $48 billion with $44 billion in revenue
US (1999): $1.7 trillion
Import/Export
Argentina
Imports: $20.3 billion
Exports: $26.7 billion
US
Imports: $1.148 trillion
Exports: $723 billion
What is the point of all this data? To prove that Argentina does not equal the US for more reasons than the reason that Krugman gave: "The reason we don't face a comparable crisis is that markets, extrapolating from our responsible past, trust us to get our house in order." The reason people invest in America includes a good track record, but it also includes the robustness of the US as an investment. This is the strongest, healthiest, most dynamic economy in the world when assessing the last 50 years of economic history.
A few other faulty comparisons: When people pull their money out of Argentina, where do they park the money? The most likely target is the US. Argentina is a borrower from the IMF, the US IS the IMF. Argentina is politically unstable--when was the last time there was a coup de tat in the US, or a military junta ruling the country? The world financial centers are New York, London, and Tokyo—none are located in Argentina.
Krugman sounds like the doomsday forecasters of the 1980s. They predicted that there was no way to end deficits. Then, miraculously, in the 1990s the budget balanced. I prefer the optimistic view that the economy of the US is incredibly dynamic and we should free it to do it's thing. Sure, I do think Bush and Republicans are irresponsibly spending too much, but tax cuts are not the problem.
There are other problems with Krugman’s piece, but in general he makes the mistake of using his liberal/socialist worldview to interpret events. While it is true that debt is always paid in the future, if that debt is thanks to spending us out of a recession that if ignored could become a depression (though I doubt it), then it is not a bad thing to run debt for. Krugman just wants a new angle for criticizing tax cuts and I refuse to allow that to go unanswered.
UPDATE: I have a follow-up to this piece available above.
Paul Krugman accuses President Bush of telling another lie in his state of the union speech:
Here's another sentence in George Bush's State of the Union address that wasn't true: "We will not deny, we will not ignore, we will not pass along our problems to other Congresses, to other presidents and other generations."
The premise of the accusation is that large budget deficits ARE passing things on to future generations and burning a hole in the social security "surplus".
I will give Krugman this: spending needs to be reined in. We are out of control and it is time to stop the free spending that goes on. However I think that Krugman is playing that familiar game of "I have a PhD in Economics so just believe me."
He is wrong. Let me explain. To begin with he makes a faulty comparison between Argentina and the US. He says: "Right now the U.S. government is running deficits bigger, as a share of G.D.P., than those that plunged Argentina into crisis." What really plunged Argentina into crisis? One argument is that Argentina used a faulty premise for money supply. They made the issue of money supply independent of elected officials by pegging it to the dollar. While it is a good thing to take money supply away from politicians, the peg to the US dollar may have been faulty. Argentina does NOT share a common economy with the US and consequently this was inefficient. This may not be the definitive answer, but my point is that a responsible economist should know that the issue is still open to research and debate.
But this is not the only problem with the comparison. Let's make some economic comparisons (all of my facts are from the 2002 CIA World Fact Book).
GDP:
Argentina: $391 Billion
US: $10 Trillion
GDP growth rate:
Argentina: -14.7%
US: 0.3%
GDP composition
Argentina:
agriculture: 5%
industry: 28%
services: 66%
US:
agriculture: 2%
industry: 18%
services: 80%
Population Below Poverty Line
Argentina: 37%
US: 13%
Unemployment
Argentina: 25%
US: 5%
Budget
Argentina (2000): $48 billion with $44 billion in revenue
US (1999): $1.7 trillion
Import/Export
Argentina
Imports: $20.3 billion
Exports: $26.7 billion
US
Imports: $1.148 trillion
Exports: $723 billion
What is the point of all this data? To prove that Argentina does not equal the US for more reasons than the reason that Krugman gave: "The reason we don't face a comparable crisis is that markets, extrapolating from our responsible past, trust us to get our house in order." The reason people invest in America includes a good track record, but it also includes the robustness of the US as an investment. This is the strongest, healthiest, most dynamic economy in the world when assessing the last 50 years of economic history.
A few other faulty comparisons: When people pull their money out of Argentina, where do they park the money? The most likely target is the US. Argentina is a borrower from the IMF, the US IS the IMF. Argentina is politically unstable--when was the last time there was a coup de tat in the US, or a military junta ruling the country? The world financial centers are New York, London, and Tokyo—none are located in Argentina.
Krugman sounds like the doomsday forecasters of the 1980s. They predicted that there was no way to end deficits. Then, miraculously, in the 1990s the budget balanced. I prefer the optimistic view that the economy of the US is incredibly dynamic and we should free it to do it's thing. Sure, I do think Bush and Republicans are irresponsibly spending too much, but tax cuts are not the problem.
There are other problems with Krugman’s piece, but in general he makes the mistake of using his liberal/socialist worldview to interpret events. While it is true that debt is always paid in the future, if that debt is thanks to spending us out of a recession that if ignored could become a depression (though I doubt it), then it is not a bad thing to run debt for. Krugman just wants a new angle for criticizing tax cuts and I refuse to allow that to go unanswered.
UPDATE: I have a follow-up to this piece available above.
This Guy Gets It
If you are still not sure about the entire Iraq deal then you needed to see Tony Blair's speech to Congress yesterday. In case you missed it, all I am going to say is read the speech!
If you are still not sure about the entire Iraq deal then you needed to see Tony Blair's speech to Congress yesterday. In case you missed it, all I am going to say is read the speech!
Jul 17, 2003
Drugs--The Legal Kind
Robert Novak never fails to get good reporting into his editorial pieces. It is for this reason that I make him a regular read. Today he has a piece on how the pharmaceutical industry seems unable to get the votes they need to win on current legislation in spite of large donations to Republicans.
There are two completely unrelated points to be made about this article.
First, this is the proof that money does NOT control all politics. In reality perception of voter interests is far more powerful than money. That is the real news in the story. I can remember Al Gore making a big deal during the 2000 Presidential campaign about "Big Pharma" and the control that it has on Republicans. This story is enough proof for me that John McCain and Al Gore must be high on drugs.
Second, there is an ironic twist that proves that some conservative politicians do not understand the free market. Here is the revealing quote:
Demand for re-importing American drugs, at a dramatically lower cost to consumers because of Canadian price controls, is no longer confined to Democratic politicians from northern border states. The bill pushed by Emerson is sponsored by Rep. Gil Gutknecht, a Minnesota Republican with a 95 percent lifetime American Conservative Union rating.
Now pay attention because you have to think to get this. The argument is that if the drugs are this cheap in Canada, let's force the drug companies to be more competitive with pricing here by allowing arbitrage to have an effect (arbitrage is the process whereby capitalists take advantage of gross price disparities to make a profit and thereby bring the overall market into equilibrium). Sounds good? But the reason the prices in Canada are lower is NOT because of the free market, but because of "Canadian price controls"! If you don't know what price controls are then you need to go back to watching the Jerry Springer show and stop voting! It is a liberal back door to price controls in America! Since they assume that the public would never vote for a price control out right, they instead promote a system for allowing the Canadians to set the prices. Shame on conservatives for joining in!
Robert Novak never fails to get good reporting into his editorial pieces. It is for this reason that I make him a regular read. Today he has a piece on how the pharmaceutical industry seems unable to get the votes they need to win on current legislation in spite of large donations to Republicans.
There are two completely unrelated points to be made about this article.
First, this is the proof that money does NOT control all politics. In reality perception of voter interests is far more powerful than money. That is the real news in the story. I can remember Al Gore making a big deal during the 2000 Presidential campaign about "Big Pharma" and the control that it has on Republicans. This story is enough proof for me that John McCain and Al Gore must be high on drugs.
Second, there is an ironic twist that proves that some conservative politicians do not understand the free market. Here is the revealing quote:
Demand for re-importing American drugs, at a dramatically lower cost to consumers because of Canadian price controls, is no longer confined to Democratic politicians from northern border states. The bill pushed by Emerson is sponsored by Rep. Gil Gutknecht, a Minnesota Republican with a 95 percent lifetime American Conservative Union rating.
Now pay attention because you have to think to get this. The argument is that if the drugs are this cheap in Canada, let's force the drug companies to be more competitive with pricing here by allowing arbitrage to have an effect (arbitrage is the process whereby capitalists take advantage of gross price disparities to make a profit and thereby bring the overall market into equilibrium). Sounds good? But the reason the prices in Canada are lower is NOT because of the free market, but because of "Canadian price controls"! If you don't know what price controls are then you need to go back to watching the Jerry Springer show and stop voting! It is a liberal back door to price controls in America! Since they assume that the public would never vote for a price control out right, they instead promote a system for allowing the Canadians to set the prices. Shame on conservatives for joining in!
Recession Long Gone
The National Bureau of Economic Research has determined that the recession is over. I have long being saying that the economy is fine. The problem is that the people who ARE unemployed are the educated and talented and this is disconcerting to friends and family. Furthermore it is the white collar middle class that accounted for the biggest increase in new investors in the stock market during the 1990s. Consequently it is this same group that still hasn't returned to the stock market in droves and therefore keeps the value of the market down.
The National Bureau of Economic Research has determined that the recession is over. I have long being saying that the economy is fine. The problem is that the people who ARE unemployed are the educated and talented and this is disconcerting to friends and family. Furthermore it is the white collar middle class that accounted for the biggest increase in new investors in the stock market during the 1990s. Consequently it is this same group that still hasn't returned to the stock market in droves and therefore keeps the value of the market down.
Jul 16, 2003
Republicans are Wimps
Republicans and the White House need to stop running scared on the issue of Iraq and weaknesses in the arguments for war. Instead of looking like we are afraid to answer the questions we should turn the table.
PRESS: You have not yet found conclusive WMD proof, what do you have to say?
WHITE HOUSE: Has anyone ever had any proof that there was NOT a WMD program? We believed there was, and Saddam had every chance to prove to the world that he was willing to play by the rules of the international order--he blew it and we have no regrets. Next question.
PRESS: But aren't you embarassed?
WHITE HOUSE: Aren't the Democrats embarassed that Saddam fell so fast? Aren't the French embarassed that there is evidence they were signing oil deals with Saddam? Aren't the opponents of war embarassed that they never raised doubts about the WMD intelligence but only argued that it was not our right to overthrow a dictator? Next question.
Republicans and the White House need to stop running scared on the issue of Iraq and weaknesses in the arguments for war. Instead of looking like we are afraid to answer the questions we should turn the table.
PRESS: You have not yet found conclusive WMD proof, what do you have to say?
WHITE HOUSE: Has anyone ever had any proof that there was NOT a WMD program? We believed there was, and Saddam had every chance to prove to the world that he was willing to play by the rules of the international order--he blew it and we have no regrets. Next question.
PRESS: But aren't you embarassed?
WHITE HOUSE: Aren't the Democrats embarassed that Saddam fell so fast? Aren't the French embarassed that there is evidence they were signing oil deals with Saddam? Aren't the opponents of war embarassed that they never raised doubts about the WMD intelligence but only argued that it was not our right to overthrow a dictator? Next question.
Albright on Iraq
Albright said on the Newshour (I paraphrase without a transcript): 'I always understood the why for war with Iraq, I just didn't understand the why NOW...'
With all due respect Madame Secretary, did you miss 9/11?
This is my point about Iraq and the axis of evil and what it all had to do with Osama. The statement attributed to Osama is that when people are faced with a choice between a strong horse and a weak horse they will pick the strong horse. Osama believed that he would be the strong horse. I think we have mostly put that to rest.
Albright said on the Newshour (I paraphrase without a transcript): 'I always understood the why for war with Iraq, I just didn't understand the why NOW...'
With all due respect Madame Secretary, did you miss 9/11?
This is my point about Iraq and the axis of evil and what it all had to do with Osama. The statement attributed to Osama is that when people are faced with a choice between a strong horse and a weak horse they will pick the strong horse. Osama believed that he would be the strong horse. I think we have mostly put that to rest.
Nuke the SOTU Controversy
State of the Union speech delivered January 28, 2003.
The IAEA makes its report to the United Nations Security Council that the claims by British Intelligence about purchasing Uranium from Niger are "not authentic" on March 7, 2003.
War begins in Iraq on March 19, 2003.
Exactly how does the faulty Uranium claim become THE justification for war with Iraq?
State of the Union speech delivered January 28, 2003.
The IAEA makes its report to the United Nations Security Council that the claims by British Intelligence about purchasing Uranium from Niger are "not authentic" on March 7, 2003.
War begins in Iraq on March 19, 2003.
Exactly how does the faulty Uranium claim become THE justification for war with Iraq?
Iraq
I have just posted comments on 9/11, Afghanistan, and Vietnam. My point being to place comments on Iraq in perspective.
I agree with those who say we will be in Iraq longer than implied and that this will require more soldiers than was initially hoped for. I don't feel that this is a criticism of going to war with Iraq.
I agree that the Uranium mistake looks bad. Examples of intelligence errors can be found throughout history and consequently I am unwilling to translate the current snafu into a conspiracy. Do we really want to bring out the lists of mistakes? It appears that our intelligence people underestimated Osama bin Laden before 9/11, does anyone for a moment believe that we let that happen? Or have we forgotten the stories a while back about Bush being briefed in August of 2001 about the possibility that terrorists might try to hijack airplanes? We can take these intelligence failures back through every presidency. Mistakes of judgment? Happens all the time.
But where I differ is the implication that this somehow means that we made a mistake in going to war with Iraq.
In my opinion the war was always about one thing: the axis of evil. And for me the axis was always something different than the way it came to be spinned. Yes, I am saying that Bush got it right by accident. The real thread that binds the axis of evil is a willingness to defy US policy in a way that defies all civilized conventions while holding hostage the economic interests of the world.
To make my point lets actually discuss why others failed to make the axis list. Syria is clearly a sponsor of terrorism. They make life really hard for Israel. If Syria were gone the Israelis and Palestinians would settle out of court. Yet, Syria has been very adept at not channeling these actions towards the US. In fact, they make efforts at diplomatic overtures to the US all of the time. How about Libya? After Reagan scared the bejeezers out of Khadafi he began singing a new tune. He has handed over the accused in the Lockerbie case and offered a settlement to the families. He wants to rejoin the civilized world. How about Cuba? Without a doubt they are a thorn in our side. But beyond long speeches by Castro, they have been relatively benign since the end of the Cold War.
Members of the Axis have clearly done the equivalent of telling the US to go fly a kite. Iran is the truest sponsor of terrorists in the tradition of Osama bin Laden and Afghanistan. The mullahs have clearly rejected any attempts by moderates to try and reenter the civilized world. In essence Iran is the pattern for what Osama would like to establish in Saudi Arabia. They are openly building a nuclear power plant in spite of having free flowing natural gas; they sponsor various terror groups, and destabilize the region. North Korea adheres to a similar pattern. They defy the trend of the fall of communism. They refuse to enter the normal world. They openly build missile technology that finds it way to some of the most troublesome countries (Iran and Iraq to name a few). And on top of it all they seem determined to make the US the focus of their rhetoric. How about Iraq? You fill in the facts. But the point is that the fact that Uranium was or was not purchased was not the reason for war. The reason was to make clear that we would act against countries that were openly defiant of international norms, demonstrated a rhetorical desire to confront the US, and backed up the rhetoric with actions. In this sense Iraq's unwillingness to fully cooperate with inspectors was enough. It was not necessary that the inspectors would have discovered anything.
Why does this defiance matter? It encourages the likes of Osama bin Laden by demonstrating that US power and influence can be defied without repercussion. This emboldens Osama to defy the US in the same way.
It is also interesting to point out that there is an element of national economic interest involved that is not just a matter of safety. I don't deny that Iraq and Iran clearly have an influence on the safety of the world oil supply. And what of North Korea? Forget that they are trying to make missiles that can reach the US and realize that they already have missiles that can strike Japan, South Korea, China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong. Why don't you explain the world economic interest involved? While this is not enough to justify action by itself it is the reality that puts the argument for action over the top.
And how about human rights? This is the icing on the cake. And just to be clear, I love icing--I am like Homer Simpson when it comes to icing. But I would be satisfied with my cake, and generally I need some cake with my icing. I will leave it at that.
The justification for war with Iraq was legitimate. Saddam posed a clear and present danger to the stability of the international order. Let's stop trying to score political points and work together to get Iraq on it's feet so we can come home.
I have just posted comments on 9/11, Afghanistan, and Vietnam. My point being to place comments on Iraq in perspective.
I agree with those who say we will be in Iraq longer than implied and that this will require more soldiers than was initially hoped for. I don't feel that this is a criticism of going to war with Iraq.
I agree that the Uranium mistake looks bad. Examples of intelligence errors can be found throughout history and consequently I am unwilling to translate the current snafu into a conspiracy. Do we really want to bring out the lists of mistakes? It appears that our intelligence people underestimated Osama bin Laden before 9/11, does anyone for a moment believe that we let that happen? Or have we forgotten the stories a while back about Bush being briefed in August of 2001 about the possibility that terrorists might try to hijack airplanes? We can take these intelligence failures back through every presidency. Mistakes of judgment? Happens all the time.
But where I differ is the implication that this somehow means that we made a mistake in going to war with Iraq.
In my opinion the war was always about one thing: the axis of evil. And for me the axis was always something different than the way it came to be spinned. Yes, I am saying that Bush got it right by accident. The real thread that binds the axis of evil is a willingness to defy US policy in a way that defies all civilized conventions while holding hostage the economic interests of the world.
To make my point lets actually discuss why others failed to make the axis list. Syria is clearly a sponsor of terrorism. They make life really hard for Israel. If Syria were gone the Israelis and Palestinians would settle out of court. Yet, Syria has been very adept at not channeling these actions towards the US. In fact, they make efforts at diplomatic overtures to the US all of the time. How about Libya? After Reagan scared the bejeezers out of Khadafi he began singing a new tune. He has handed over the accused in the Lockerbie case and offered a settlement to the families. He wants to rejoin the civilized world. How about Cuba? Without a doubt they are a thorn in our side. But beyond long speeches by Castro, they have been relatively benign since the end of the Cold War.
Members of the Axis have clearly done the equivalent of telling the US to go fly a kite. Iran is the truest sponsor of terrorists in the tradition of Osama bin Laden and Afghanistan. The mullahs have clearly rejected any attempts by moderates to try and reenter the civilized world. In essence Iran is the pattern for what Osama would like to establish in Saudi Arabia. They are openly building a nuclear power plant in spite of having free flowing natural gas; they sponsor various terror groups, and destabilize the region. North Korea adheres to a similar pattern. They defy the trend of the fall of communism. They refuse to enter the normal world. They openly build missile technology that finds it way to some of the most troublesome countries (Iran and Iraq to name a few). And on top of it all they seem determined to make the US the focus of their rhetoric. How about Iraq? You fill in the facts. But the point is that the fact that Uranium was or was not purchased was not the reason for war. The reason was to make clear that we would act against countries that were openly defiant of international norms, demonstrated a rhetorical desire to confront the US, and backed up the rhetoric with actions. In this sense Iraq's unwillingness to fully cooperate with inspectors was enough. It was not necessary that the inspectors would have discovered anything.
Why does this defiance matter? It encourages the likes of Osama bin Laden by demonstrating that US power and influence can be defied without repercussion. This emboldens Osama to defy the US in the same way.
It is also interesting to point out that there is an element of national economic interest involved that is not just a matter of safety. I don't deny that Iraq and Iran clearly have an influence on the safety of the world oil supply. And what of North Korea? Forget that they are trying to make missiles that can reach the US and realize that they already have missiles that can strike Japan, South Korea, China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong. Why don't you explain the world economic interest involved? While this is not enough to justify action by itself it is the reality that puts the argument for action over the top.
And how about human rights? This is the icing on the cake. And just to be clear, I love icing--I am like Homer Simpson when it comes to icing. But I would be satisfied with my cake, and generally I need some cake with my icing. I will leave it at that.
The justification for war with Iraq was legitimate. Saddam posed a clear and present danger to the stability of the international order. Let's stop trying to score political points and work together to get Iraq on it's feet so we can come home.
Afghanistan
Am I the only one who as noticed that the stories on Afghanistan have gone away? Is this because Iraq is more interesting? Or is this because things are really improving? Take a look at this compilation of Afghan news stories and this one. On the one hand the news is good in the sense that there really is an absence of significantly bad news. Yet, on the other hand a US soldier did die in late June and it went unnoticed. It is possible that Afghan news stories have gone away because Iraq provides much more to talk about. It is also possible that Afghanistan is improving and opponents of President Bush would prefer to ignore the story.
I believe that Afghanistan has become nothing more than a policing operation. There is still room for things to fall apart, but it has been a success. We have denied terrorists the comfort of free movement. We have removed a destabilizing presence. And we have made it clear that we will act to protect our interests.
Am I the only one who as noticed that the stories on Afghanistan have gone away? Is this because Iraq is more interesting? Or is this because things are really improving? Take a look at this compilation of Afghan news stories and this one. On the one hand the news is good in the sense that there really is an absence of significantly bad news. Yet, on the other hand a US soldier did die in late June and it went unnoticed. It is possible that Afghan news stories have gone away because Iraq provides much more to talk about. It is also possible that Afghanistan is improving and opponents of President Bush would prefer to ignore the story.
I believe that Afghanistan has become nothing more than a policing operation. There is still room for things to fall apart, but it has been a success. We have denied terrorists the comfort of free movement. We have removed a destabilizing presence. And we have made it clear that we will act to protect our interests.
Vietnam
It is time to put the ghosts of Vietnam to rest. Why did we lose the war? We failed to take the war to the enemy.
I propose as reading (the movie was terrible) the book We Were Soldiers Once...And Young. Even in this story, at the very beginning of the war it was obvious that we failed to do this. Unfortunately you sort of need to read the entire book until the end to get the import of this claim.
We never invaded North Vietnam. Why? We were afraid that China or Russia would become involved. That is the real history lesson. Why did Russia fail in Afghanistan? They were unwilling to invade Pakistan for fear that we would become involved. In this sense each was really a battle in a greater Cold War.
If you are unwilling to eliminate the power broker it is unlikely that you can break the will of the soldier. Because new soldiers will be found. Money is available for arms and advisors are available to train. The book implies that there is often ignored evidence that the Chinese actually had soldiers operating along side the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong. Even this was ignored so as to avoid official direct confrontation.
I don't dispute that the lack of public support back home was significant, or that the press made it sound much worse than it was. But, I think we do ourselves a history lesson disservice by not recognizing the role of the defend only strategy. We extrapolate the wrong lesson and wring our hands over the wrong issues in the case of the war on terror.
It is time to put the ghosts of Vietnam to rest. Why did we lose the war? We failed to take the war to the enemy.
I propose as reading (the movie was terrible) the book We Were Soldiers Once...And Young. Even in this story, at the very beginning of the war it was obvious that we failed to do this. Unfortunately you sort of need to read the entire book until the end to get the import of this claim.
We never invaded North Vietnam. Why? We were afraid that China or Russia would become involved. That is the real history lesson. Why did Russia fail in Afghanistan? They were unwilling to invade Pakistan for fear that we would become involved. In this sense each was really a battle in a greater Cold War.
If you are unwilling to eliminate the power broker it is unlikely that you can break the will of the soldier. Because new soldiers will be found. Money is available for arms and advisors are available to train. The book implies that there is often ignored evidence that the Chinese actually had soldiers operating along side the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong. Even this was ignored so as to avoid official direct confrontation.
I don't dispute that the lack of public support back home was significant, or that the press made it sound much worse than it was. But, I think we do ourselves a history lesson disservice by not recognizing the role of the defend only strategy. We extrapolate the wrong lesson and wring our hands over the wrong issues in the case of the war on terror.
September 11th
I am going out on a limb here, but the underreported story is that there has not been another terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11. Why is it underreported? Because you have to go out on a limb to report it. If there is an attack tomorrow then I look like a fool. But even if there was an attack tomorrow, I still feel that we are getting to the point that we can safely say this: something is working. Osama, if alive, is on the run. The best he could do is bomb a target in Saudi Arabia using the old method of driving up in a truck. What does this mean? I think it means that the Bush strategy on terrorism is working. What is the strategy? 1)Make things at home more secure, 2)Take the war to the enemy.
No matter the conflict in history there are nations involved. Ultimately these nations need to be held responsible.
I am going out on a limb here, but the underreported story is that there has not been another terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11. Why is it underreported? Because you have to go out on a limb to report it. If there is an attack tomorrow then I look like a fool. But even if there was an attack tomorrow, I still feel that we are getting to the point that we can safely say this: something is working. Osama, if alive, is on the run. The best he could do is bomb a target in Saudi Arabia using the old method of driving up in a truck. What does this mean? I think it means that the Bush strategy on terrorism is working. What is the strategy? 1)Make things at home more secure, 2)Take the war to the enemy.
No matter the conflict in history there are nations involved. Ultimately these nations need to be held responsible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)