OT: Iraq: What now?

Triathlon Forum
93

Well, it seems this topic has been quite active since I left it yesterday.

Somebody earlier pointed out the general lack of nuanced opinion in this country, at least in public discourse. I would argue that there is in fact that some moderate nuanced opinion, but that it is in fact deliberately marginalized by the extremes who have determined that it is not sufficient to just express an opinion - one must express a strong opinion while simultaneously defining any opposition in whatever unflattering terms are available. Add to this the fact that hysterical sells. I’m disappointed in a country that has the finest higher educational institutions in the world, but has devolved dialogue into demagoguery and yelling (my favorite is whenever O’Reilly screams “shut up” to somebody he disagrees with). It has become less about consideration of the facts and more about discrediting the source before the facts can get traction.

Tim Roemer, one of the members of the 9/11 commission, mentioned the other day that part of the problem with doing this job in Washington is that whenever something or someone arises which is unfavorable to one side or another, a partisan agenda is assumed, reducing credibility. It’s awfully difficult to foster any sort of intellectual inquiry when you know that people are coming after you if you threaten their interests.

I don’t think the American public helps much. We don’t really read very much, we tend to form opinions pointlessly quickly, and we don’t think nearly as much as an enlightened democracy ought to. I recall that after the Madrid bombing, CNN ran an online poll asking people who they thought did it? My response was WTF - what does it matter what I think!? I wasn’t there, I’m not investigating it. This sort of speed for speed’s sake is just stupid. Add to this the Philadelphia Inquirer’s periodic polls of people asking their feelings regarding connections between Al Qaeda and Hussein and 9/11. Startlingly, a vast majority not only believe he was involved, but that we HAVE in fact located WMDs, and that Hussein used them against American troops in this conflict. Given that Administration sources from Rice to Cheney have denied this connection (only under the bluntest of questioning) I’ve been trying to comprehend this staggering ignorance on what one might consider an important issue of the day. The only Administration voice who has marginally supported this theory is Wolfowitz, and the best he can do is suggest that we don’t know it doesn’t exist (the connection, that is). This rather bizarre double negative which seems to me to defy the basic laws of logic and deduction (instead of suggesting and proving, I merely then have to suppose and ask you to disprove), but its what passes for logic today. This obvious disingenuousness is rather disappointing, to put it mildly.

With the respect to the argument regarding energy, I find this rather amusing. First of all, petroleum is a dwindling resource, as everyone knows. Whether or not we drill in ANWR is not going to change that, especially given that the population continues to grow and our per-capita usage continues to increase. At best, it might push hard choices a little more distant into the future. Basically, its a politician’s easy choice, but not one of a leader.

Despite the fact that we are held hostage to energy supplies from a somewhat hostile part of the world, we continue to purchase larger and larger vehicles we don’t need, allow CAFE standards to drop, and basically pretend that we can continue do this, and that if we suffer any repercussions, its “somebody else’s fault.” How shortsighted. And to suggest that we should be able to take things because we can is rather silly. How long do you think we can do that before we get bitten back? Ultimately, we have to invest in renewable energy (something I know a little about) and make ourselves independent. Unfortunately, given a choice between promising immediate help and showing a vision for the future with actual dollars backing it, our great leader chooses the easy and ephemeral. Not to mention, this might alleviate issues of climate change.

Right, right, climate change is “just hype”. Interestingly enough, the DoD, which is generally not known for its liberal leanings, has assumed significant climate change in its war-planning. More specifically, it has tracked current and predicted changes to warm water currents in the Atlantic and believes that human intervention has caused its periodic cessations to accelerate significantly, as in the currents may stop within 20 years. The practical impacts are rather disturbing - significant precipitation changes worldwide, droughts, food shortages, etc. And given the choice between military mobilization and technological innovation to garner resources, history has indicated a preference for the former. As a result, the Pentagon has been giving this scenario rather serious consideration. Reminds of that old movie “Three Days of the Condor” (which is great by the way), where Cliff Robertson as the CIA station chief tells Redford (during the 70s) that the CIA was considering an invasion of the Middle East, because (and I paraphrase) “today its oil, and maybe tomorrow food and water. And you’re not going to care how we get it. You’re just going to say get it.” While I know that the Pentagon obviously wargames all sorts of scenarios, I suspect this one is higher on the probability list than, let’s say, a Martian invasion scenario.

Kind of makes you think.

94

thanks for your response. i think you are completely misapprehending the point of polls. I’m sure that wouldn’t be the first time I’ve misaprehended something.

much of what shows up in debates like this is emotion, and not fact. so, i find it very helpful, as a way of trying to understand the “merits” of an issue, to understand the “lenses”.
but all that being said, that’s just my emotional response. and it is not entirely clear to me that all this emotional back and forth is going to serve much purpose beyond digging everyone a little deeper in their trenches. Agreed about the emotional point, and you have a valid point about understanding the lenses people view things through. But I think we tend to give far too much weight to those lenses. I agree they can’t, or shouldn’t be completely discounted, but they ought to take a back seat to a rational discussion of the facts. And I don’t think it’s too much to ask of my fellow citizens that they put a lid on their emotions and have a rational debate on an issue as important to our country as this one. I sure as hell hope it’s not too much to ask, anyway.

95

We are trying to undermine the sick culture of the Middle East that has allowed it, alone in the entire world, to make no social, political and economic progress for any number of decades or even centuries. We are doing this by establishing a successful model of freedom and democracy in the heart of the region. Again, I’m going to say that the Middle East is not alone in this regard. And I’m going to point out that not all “progress” is positive. And I’m going to ask why it’s any of our concern that the Middle East progress in the manner we want it to. I find it more than a little ironic that so many people can’t understand what motivates religious proselytizing, but they have no problem going to war to promote American style secular democracy. Explain that one to me, please.****

Roll the tape forward two or three decades. Success in Iraq will undermine the dictatorships in the other 21 Arab countries. The end result will be freedom which is the engine of progress. The radicals are desperate to prevent this since it will destroy their power. Thus we have the attacks in Iraq which were completely predictable and predicted. More of the same will continue for many years. The cost in blood and treasure will be substantial. **Yes, lets roll the tape forward three decades. What I want to know is, specifically, what type of government do you want to be in place in Iraq at that time? Given the totality of the situation, do you think your goal is realistic? If so, please lay out the plan for achieving it. I mean, I want specifics. No platitudes about “staying the course,” please. **

To respond to Tri_larry in another thread, we fight away from our shores so we don’t have to fight on our shores. In that way we enhance our security. I’m all for fighting wars away from our shores, assuming they have to be fought at all. This idea that we have to destroy any country that may possibly present a threat to us is a dangerous overreaction to a real problem. It’s based in paranoia. It won’t serve us well in the long term.********

There will be benefits outside the region as part of this process as well. The most notable dividends to date have been the destruction of the engine of nuclear proliferation out of Pakistan and the disarming of weapons of mass destruction by Libya. **Please. Whether or not the engine of nuclear proliferation out of Pakistan is destroyed, the damage is done. And why aren’t we concerned with the engine of nuclear proliferation out of the former Soviet republics? **

Our soldiers and countryman risk their lives that they might bring freedom and prosperity to millions. 50,000,000 so far in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is a good start. **I don’t *want *our soldiers and countrymen risking their lives to bring “freedom and prosperity” to others. I want American soldiers to defend America and the Constitution. I especially don’t want our soldiers risking their lives in an attempt to give “freedom and prosperity” to a people who clearly don’t want it. If the Iraqis choose to live under a religious regime you deem opressive and backward, which they clearly would if let to choose for themselves, I say that it’s their choice, and they should be allowed to make it.

96

These are all very fair questions. We want the Middle East to progress toward democracy because in general democracies don’t start wars. If you want to remove the seeds of terrorism, help people build countries and opportunities so as to give people a constructive direction to focus their energy. Democracy is on the march all around the world. This makes America more secure and more prosperous. We need to encourage it.

The hope is that in two or three decades some form of democratic government would be well established in Iraq. This would be some sort of federalistic government such as in Canada where areas have substantial autonomy but recognize a central government that juggles the competing ethnic interests as best it can. Alternatively, the area may ultimately split into three or more countries along ethnic lines, at least some of which are solid democracies. The Kurds could likely do this today if we allowed them. The Sunni triangle will take a while.

Accomplishing this is the hard work of nation building. That term makes me shiver. I voted for Bush in part based on his promise to refrain from nation building. 9/11 changed a lot of things however, and Iraq is a place where this is necessary if ever there were such a place. Blood and treasure will be lost in the process.

This is a war we can not avoid. 9/11 proved that. Preemption is a controversial policy. A preemeptive attack against Germany in the late 30s would likely have saved 60 million people. Unfortunately we had Chamberlin instead of Churchill. A preemptive attack against Afghanistan in the late 90s would have saved the world trade towers. These things are easy to see in hindsight, but much more difficult at the time.

Who says we aren’t concerned about the proliferation out of the former Soviet republics? I certainly am. The US is attempting to contain the problem, but it is not easy. There is no silver bullet, so we take our victories where we can.

I can understand your not wanting to sacrifice American blood and treasure to bring freedom and prosperity to others. That desire is logical and consistent, but I believe it to be myopic. By that reasoning, Hitler would have conquered Europe, and brutal regimes would likely be in place in South Korea, Panama, Grenada, Yugoslavia and a long list of other countries. The Soviet Union would still exist and might have won the cold war.

I don’t see any indication that the majority of the people in Iraq don’t want freedom and prosperity. I see many of indications to the contrary. We are there to allow them to make choices. The road to democracy will be very bumpy there as it was here. I have a never ending faith in the desire of the human spirit to be free. The idea that Arabs or anyone people are not good enough for freedom is an idea I reject. I am glad George Washington rejected the idea too, when he chose to not be king of America.

97

Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Art- now we’re getting somewhere with this!

These are all very fair questions. We want the Middle East to progress toward democracy because in general democracies don’t start wars. If that’s true, great. I don’t think it bears up well under scrutiny, though. Lots of democracies have started wars.If you want to remove the seeds of terrorism, help people build countries and opportunities so as to give people a constructive direction to focus their energy. Democracy is on the march all around the world. This makes America more secure and more prosperous. We need to encourage it. This is a fair argument. But I think we need to be honest with ourselves, and admit that if this is our reason, we’re acting out of self-interest, not charity. Which is OK, in and of itself, I just want us to face up to it.

The hope is that in two or three decades some form of democratic government would be well established in Iraq. This would be some sort of federalistic government such as in Canada where areas have substantial autonomy but recognize a central government that juggles the competing ethnic interests as best it can. Alternatively, the area may ultimately split into three or more countries along ethnic lines, at least some of which are solid democracies. The Kurds could likely do this today if we allowed them. The Sunni triangle will take a while. This is an area where I really think we need to be more precise in our language. When we say we hope that some form of democracy will take root in Iraq, what we really mean is some form of secular democracy. If we were only concerned about democracy, we could be out of there tomorrow. Iran is a democracy. What we’re interested in is not simply that the Iraqis have a representative government, or self-rule, but that they adopt our cultural, secular values, and then have representative government. There is a vast difference. I think we should be honest about it.

This is a war we can not avoid. 9/11 proved that. Preemption is a controversial policy. A preemeptive attack against Germany in the late 30s would likely have saved 60 million people. Unfortunately we had Chamberlin instead of Churchill. A preemptive attack against Afghanistan in the late 90s would have saved the world trade towers. These things are easy to see in hindsight, but much more difficult at the time. **My first problem with preemption is simply that it is in clear contradiction to what Western Civilization has worked out over centuries as the just war theory. I really don’t think today’s situation is so unique, or that we’re so much wiser today, that we should throw out the values that our own culture is ultimately built on. More pragmatically, the problem with preemption, as we mean it today, is that none of us has that crystal ball. There are literally scores of nations out there with some degree of hostility to the US, any one of which may present a real threat at some point. Why not just invade them all, one by one? ( Am I the only one who thought that in the days after the fall of Baghdad, the administration was preparing for a subsequent invasion of Syria? And if things hadn’t bogged down as they have in Iraq, we would have?) **

I can understand your not wanting to sacrifice American blood and treasure to bring freedom and prosperity to others. That desire is logical and consistent, but I believe it to be myopic. By that reasoning, Hitler would have conquered Europe, and brutal regimes would likely be in place in South Korea, Panama, Grenada, Yugoslavia and a long list of other countries. The Soviet Union would still exist and might have won the cold war. **For emphasis, let me say that I especially don’t want to sacrifice American blood and treasure to bring what we consider freedom and prosperity to those who do not want it. By your reasoning, do we have an obligation to go to war for any people we think are oppressed? Where would that end? North Korea? Saudi Arabia? Any eight out of ten African nations? China? Do we have to free all the peoples of the world? Whether they want us to or not? **

I don’t see any indication that the majority of the people in Iraq don’t want freedom and prosperity. I see many of indications to the contrary. We are there to allow them to make choices. The road to democracy will be very bumpy there as it was here. I have a never ending faith in the desire of the human spirit to be free. The idea that Arabs or anyone people are not good enough for freedom is an idea I reject. I am glad George Washington rejected the idea too, when he chose to not be king of America. I think this is a little disengenuous. Certainly they want freedom and prosperity, but they want them on their own terms, as they define freedom and prosperity. Are you really saying that the majority of Iraqis don’t want a religiously based government? Or are you, in fact, saying that you don’t want them to be so free as to be able to choose that for themselves?

98

I have to take issue with your facts on much of this reply. It is a very rare event for two democracies to go to war. I believe it has happened, but I certainly can’t think of one in my lifetime.

Also, Iran is not a democracy. They have some democratic trappings, with a parliament and president of sorts, but ever decision of theirs is subject to a veto of a cabal of a self appointed counsel of clergy. Even this proved too much for the religious autocrats. In the last “election” they disqualified essentially all candidates that didn’t support their position. It is a funny thing about people who get elected. They think they should actually have real authority based on their legitimacy. This potential source of power is dangerous to dictators, so they generally don’t allow it.

Yes, ultimately our efforts in Iraq are out of an enlightened self interest. I have no problem admitting that.

Yes, when I say democracy, I mean some sort of secular democracy, at least in so far as the government protests some reasonable freedom of religion. By this I mean along the lines of our First Amendment, what it actually says not the way it is being distorted by the courts today.

There are many problems with preemption. When to use it is a tough call which will be often made incorrectly. If your neighbor wishes you harm and is building a cannon pointed at your house, I don’t think you will wait until he is finished before you try to do something. In the real world, unfortunately, the calls are less clear.

I didn’t think for a second that we would invade Syria. I did support the drum beating though.

In terms of where and when we intervene, there are no hard and fast rules. Every country is unique. Today we intervene in Iraq, but not the Sudan where slaughters and ethnic cleansing continue. yesterday we didn’t intervene in Rwanda where 800,000 died. Tomorrow we won’t intervene in North Korea where 20,000,000 are held in starvation in an nationwide prison. Years ago we intervened in Kosovo to stop the Christians from ethnicly cleansing the Muslims, so instead we now have the Muslims ethnicly cleansing the Christians. These are all tough decisions, each being unique and each being controversial. As a country we make the decisions as best we can. Sometimes we get it right. I pray Iraq is one of those cases.

I wish I knew better what the Iraqi people as a group want. I can not answer your last question well, though it is an excellent question that needs to be answered. I suspect there is no simple answer as public opinion shifts there over time as it does here. Democracy does not mean one election one time. Democracy means a form of government that provides for the orderly transition of power according to the wishes of the people.

I do plead guilty to my faith in the human spirit being disingenuous. Those who know me in business consider me to be a cynic. I don’t need to be cynical in all areas, so I embrace my naivete in this case until facts prove me wrong. As I look around this country and see what a mere 200 years of freedom have produced, I believe my belief is well anchored.

99

have to take issue with your facts on much of this reply. It is a very rare event for two democracies to go to war. I believe it has happened, but I certainly can’t think of one in my lifetime. **That wasn’t what you said- your original claim was that in general, democracies don’t *start *wars. Not that they don’t go to war with each other. **

Also, Iran is not a democracy. They have some democratic trappings, with a parliament and president of sorts, but ever decision of theirs is subject to a veto of a cabal of a self appointed counsel of clergy. Even this proved too much for the religious autocrats. In the last “election” they disqualified essentially all candidates that didn’t support their position. It is a funny thing about people who get elected. They think they should actually have real authority based on their legitimacy. This potential source of power is dangerous to dictators, so they generally don’t allow it. **Iran is a democracy. More precisely, a theocratic republic. It just isn’t a secular republic like we are. **

Yes, ultimately our efforts in Iraq are out of an enlightened self interest. I have no problem admitting that. **Well, good. Then the question becomes, was it really in our interest to remove Hussein from power? Because I think it’s quite likely that the increased freedom for the average Iraqi may very well have the same effect that incresed wealth had in Saudi Arabia. **

Yes, when I say democracy, I mean some sort of secular democracy, at least in so far as the government protests some reasonable freedom of religion. By this I mean along the lines of our First Amendment, what it actually says not the way it is being distorted by the courts today. Yeah, it almost seems as if there’s an appointed cabal which has veto power over our elected representatives’ every decision. . .Oh wait, that’s the Supreme Court. We must not be a real democracy.

There are many problems with preemption. When to use it is a tough call which will be often made incorrectly. If your neighbor wishes you harm and is building a cannon pointed at your house, I don’t think you will wait until he is finished before you try to do something. In the real world, unfortunately, the calls are less clear. It is precisely because preemption is “a tough call that will be often made incorrectly” that our civilization has historically considered it unjustified and immoral. The calls in the real world are often not as complicated as some people try to paint them. There’s a documentary out about Robert McNamara in which he’s talking about either the firebombing of Tokyo or dropping the atomic bomb ( can’t remember which ). He actually claims that the technology of war had so far outstripped the field of morality that noone knew whether or not it was right or wrong to incinerate tens of thousands of women and children. It’s ridiculous- he just didn’t like the answer morality gave him.

I didn’t think for a second that we would invade Syria. I did support the drum beating though. Fortunately, you were right.

In terms of where and when we intervene, there are no hard and fast rules. Every country is unique. Today we intervene in Iraq, but not the Sudan where slaughters and ethnic cleansing continue. yesterday we didn’t intervene in Rwanda where 800,000 died. Tomorrow we won’t intervene in North Korea where 20,000,000 are held in starvation in an nationwide prison. Years ago we intervened in Kosovo to stop the Christians from ethnicly cleansing the Muslims, so instead we now have the Muslims ethnicly cleansing the Christians. These are all tough decisions, each being unique and each being controversial. As a country we make the decisions as best we can. Sometimes we get it right. I pray Iraq is one of those cases. Yes, clearly each situation has aspects which are unique. The problem is that our criteria for deciding whether or not to go to war should be reasonably consistent, and they’re not. Looking at the big picture, one can only honestly conclude that we all to often make the decision not on the grounds of any deeply held values, or any consistent framework, but arbitrarily. And that’s wrong.

I wish I knew better what the Iraqi people as a group want. I can not answer your last question well, though it is an excellent question that needs to be answered. I suspect there is no simple answer as public opinion shifts there over time as it does here. Democracy does not mean one election one time. Democracy means a form of government that provides for the orderly transition of power according to the wishes of the people. **I don’t think it’s such a mystery what most Iraqis want, I just think we don’t want to accept it. **

100

**do we have an obligation to go to war for any people we think are oppressed? Where would that end? North Korea? Saudi Arabia? Any eight out of ten African nations? China? Do we have to free all the peoples of the world? Whether they want us to or not? **

IMO you have simplified the question to do we help everyone or intervene anywhere we see wrong? There are many places throughout the world where horrible people have power or are terrorizing and killing people. Brutal tribal and ethnic clashes not to mention governments like China that abuse there on people by the millions so that the leaders can live lavish lifestyles. I believe the difference in Iraq is that SH had shown an ability to be like these countries in that he abused, tortured, killed and terrorized his own people for his benefit and even enjoyment. What makes him different is he showed a willingness to use wmd against Iran and his own civilian population. He would have used them again he lied consistently… he could have avoided the war just by complying with a UN (not just US) resolution. Why not just comply? War over before it starts. he threatened the US before with an attempted assassination on GB1 he attacked Kuwait and had open desires to control the middle east on his own. he, IMO, is just not stable or rational. There are many other countries with leaders that oppose us but not many as crazy as Saddam. Korea comes to mind

I think we don’t have an obligation to solve all the problems of the world, but Iraq was a volatile mix of really bad scenarios that was waiting to explode. I would bet that if other countries, some of those listed above, start to behave in similar patterns the can probably expect at least a threat. Of course, countries like NK pose a bigger threat due to their nuk capabilities but I see them as being relatively stable and contained.

Great conversation, Slowtwitch has some educated and thoughtful people.

101

My point was that democracies rarely fight each other. Permit me that clarification.

You are wrong about Iran. It has only the trappings of democracy. The same was true for many years in Mexico. Lo and behold, they have evolved into a real democracy that actually had a transition of power. It is not a democracy when a self appointed cabal, religious or otherwise, controls all executive, legislative and judicial decisions.

When I invest in companies, I invest in companies that I am certain have a chance to succeed. I am not smart enough to know if they actually will. When I short companies, it is because I am certain they have no chance to succeed. We have created a chance for success in Iraq that has the ability to start a domino effect of spreading freedom and democracy in a part of the world that desperately needs it. Your cynicism could prove correct. The world would be an unhappy place if our ancestors had adopted a nihilist attitude that all is pointless and hopeless, so don’t bother. Instead they sacrificed their sweat and their blood so that we could live the dream come true existence they never even imagined. I am glad they did. I hope to help pass it forward.

Your point about the Supreme Court has some merit, but is not on target. The Supreme Court is not self appointed. We have contested presidential elections that are decided in part on what type of person the president will nominate. They do regularly abuse their power however, and given the increasing longevity of those with life time appointments, the historical checks on their power are not working well.

A better point might be the fact that our House of Representatives has essentially become a self perpetuating group that selects their voters rather than allow the voters to select their representatives. We now have the seats being effectively inherited. Our democracy is not perfect either, but at least we do have real elections to the Senate.

Not that I want to defend the architect of the Vietnam war, but you don’t fairly state the available choices. The question was how to balance the number of deaths of our soldiers in the Pacific, including my father, against the number of deaths of Japanese civilians. That was a tough call. Planning was in place to go in the other direction. The military ordered up hundreds of thousands of purple hearts. As of a few years ago, they still hadn’t depleted the supply.

I was just thinking about McNamara in the context of this thread. He was one of the most brilliant men to ever hold high office in government. He was also a disaster in every area he ever touched. I have always believed that it was because brilliance is counter productive if your basic ideas are wrong. Iraq comes down to what your basic belief in what free people will do. I have stated my belief. I am not wrong. The dramatic improvements in every aspect of life in the past century vouch for it. Perhaps the future will not be like the past. Perhaps your fears will prove correct. I only know we will have no harvest if we plant no seeds.

102

**do we have an obligation to go to war for any people we think are oppressed? Where would that end? North Korea? Saudi Arabia? Any eight out of ten African nations? China? Do we have to free all the peoples of the world? Whether they want us to or not? **

IMO you have simplified the question to do we help everyone or intervene anywhere we see wrong? There are many places throughout the world where horrible people have power or are terrorizing and killing people. Brutal tribal and ethnic clashes not to mention governments like China that abuse there on people by the millions so that the leaders can live lavish lifestyles. I believe the difference in Iraq is that SH had shown an ability to be like these countries in that he abused, tortured, killed and terrorized his own people for his benefit and even enjoyment. What makes him different is he showed a willingness to use wmd against Iran and his own civilian population. He would have used them again he lied consistently… he could have avoided the war just by complying with a UN (not just US) resolution. Why not just comply? War over before it starts. he threatened the US before with an attempted assassination on GB1 he attacked Kuwait and had open desires to control the middle east on his own. he, IMO, is just not stable or rational. There are many other countries with leaders that oppose us but not many as crazy as Saddam. Korea comes to mind

I think we don’t have an obligation to solve all the problems of the world, but Iraq was a volatile mix of really bad scenarios that was waiting to explode. I would bet that if other countries, some of those listed above, start to behave in similar patterns the can probably expect at least a threat. Of course, countries like NK pose a bigger threat due to their nuk capabilities but I see them as being relatively stable and contained.

Great conversation, Slowtwitch has some educated and thoughtful people.

103

My point was that democracies rarely fight each other. Permit me that clarification. OK, if I have to. :wink:

You are wrong about Iran. It has only the trappings of democracy. The same was true for many years in Mexico. Lo and behold, they have evolved into a real democracy that actually had a transition of power. It is not a democracy when a self appointed cabal, religious or otherwise, controls all executive, legislative and judicial decisions. **So. . .who decides what a “real” democracy is? Why doesn’t the fact that a third party will never come to power here mean we’re not a real democracy? ******

When I invest in companies, I invest in companies that I am certain have a chance to succeed. I am not smart enough to know if they actually will. When I short companies, it is because I am certain they have no chance to succeed. We have created a chance for success in Iraq that has the ability to start a domino effect of spreading freedom and democracy in a part of the world that desperately needs it. Your cynicism could prove correct. The world would be an unhappy place if our ancestors had adopted a nihilist attitude that all is pointless and hopeless, so don’t bother. Instead they sacrificed their sweat and their blood so that we could live the dream come true existence they never even imagined. I am glad they did. I hope to help pass it forward. **Holy cow. I hope I’m not coming across as cynical. ( cynicism: last refuge of the idealist) I certainly am no nihilist who believes everything is pointless. What I think is that as a country, we didn’t do a very good job of thinking this Iraq thing through. And I think if we’re going to champion the cause of freedom, and democracy, and self-rule, we had better be genuine about it. Which means accepting the possibility that some countries are going to choose a different type of government than us. If we are going to insist that they all should have a government just like ours, we should quit boasting about the high ideals of freedom. **

Your point about the Supreme Court has some merit, but is not on target. The Supreme Court is not self appointed. We have contested presidential elections that are decided in part on what type of person the president will nominate. They do regularly abuse their power however, and given the increasing longevity of those with life time appointments, the historical checks on their power are not working well.

A better point might be the fact that our House of Representatives has essentially become a self perpetuating group that selects their voters rather than allow the voters to select their representatives. We now have the seats being effectively inherited. Our democracy is not perfect either, but at least we do have real elections to the Senate. Well, one half of one third of the government isn’t bad, I guess. Though it seems we have a pretty low standard to meet to consider ourselves a “real” democracy.

Not that I want to defend the architect of the Vietnam war, but you don’t fairly state the available choices. The question was how to balance the number of deaths of our soldiers in the Pacific, including my father, against the number of deaths of Japanese civilians. That was a tough call. Planning was in place to go in the other direction. The military ordered up hundreds of thousands of purple hearts. As of a few years ago, they still hadn’t depleted the supply. **Hey, I’m not saying it wasn’t a tough call. I’m saying that there were norms in place that dictated against it. Sometimes doing the moral and ethical thing has a price, and sometimes that price is quite painful. But if we’re not willing to pay it, we shouldn’t turn around and say that we had no idea what the ethical thing to do was. **

I was just thinking about McNamara in the context of this thread. He was one of the most brilliant men to ever hold high office in government. He was also a disaster in every area he ever touched. **I’ve honestly always wondered why he has such a reputation for brilliance, considering the results he got. I mean, really, did he score high on his SATs or something? **

I have always believed that it was because brilliance is counter productive if your basic ideas are wrong. I am in total agreement with you about that.

Iraq comes down to what your basic belief in what free people will do. I have stated my belief. I am not wrong. The dramatic improvements in every aspect of life in the past century vouch for it. Perhaps the future will not be like the past. Perhaps your fears will prove correct. I only know we will have no harvest if we plant no seeds. **Actually, I think Iraq comes down to whether or not we allow Iraq to be free. ******

In case it seems like I’m just being an ass. . .Maybe I am. :wink: But I’m not trying to be. I’m trying to see if people are really thinking about the issues that face America, or if they’re just allowing themselves to be demagogued. ( Not directed at you, personally, Art)

**My grandfather and father were both career military. My grandfather spent two years in a German POW camp, and to this day my family won’t admit to being part German as a result. We tell the census taker we’re Swiss. My mother was conceived in Okinawa during the American occupation after the war, and I was born there two and a half decades later during the Vietnam war. I grew up on and around Fort Dix/MacGuire, and spent a good part of my childhood pretending I was a tail-gunner in a B-17. I served four years in the Navy, and I hadn’t married, I’d still be in. Many of the best friends I ever made still are. When I got out, I volunteered as a Reserve Deputy with my local Sheriff’s Office. I fly the flag, and my three year old son knew how to cover his heart during the Pledge before he could make the Sign of the Cross. **

I’m telling you all of this just to make it perfectly clear that I am not some anti-American, anti-military, pacifist wacko. I respect the military and those in it, I love my country, and I consider myself a patriot.

That said, I have never been so disappointed in my country as I was in the weeks leading up to the invasion of Iraq. The sum total of the debate this nation had before waging war was:

** “Violence is not the answer!”**

** “9/11!”**

**It sickened me, honestly. At first I thought it was just the media, and its usual lousy coverage. But I actually do talk to some people in real life, and guess what? That was about as deeply as they had thought about the war. Not that they didn’t have strong feelings. Oh boy, did they have strong feelings. Just no desire to have a rational discourse about it. Either side. **

So this is my latest attempt to contribute to the country I love. I am going to insist that whatever side you’re on, you ARE going to think about it. You’re going to weigh the consequences. You’re going to try to predict what the logical outcome of America’s actions will be. You’re going try to figure out which course of action is consistent with your beliefs, and which course of action is consistent with American ideals. Or I am going to hound you. I am not going to let my country descend into demagoguery without a fight.

And now I guess I better get off my soap box, before I fall off and break my neck.

104

You should never get defensive so as to defend yourself against charges that have not been made. The quality of your dialogue speaks for itself. Don’t apologize for holding consistent, well thought out opinions Don’t respond to attacks that try to dodge the logic of your positions. Those attacks are attempted on because the attacker is unable to respond in the arena of ideas.

I commented to my family that I was having an intelligent discussion about the Iraq war on the forum. Their response: Amazing!

American journalism is just awful. Gay marriages in SF – who will benefit politically? Strong jobs report this month == how will Kerry handle it? Men killed in Iraq – will this damage Bush? Investigation of 9/11 – will Kerry be able to blame Bush for the attack? Nothing going on – take a poll and lead the news with it. Gee, maybe they could have an intelligent discussion of the issue and pass on the horse race just once. They are so lazy.

You don’t really know if a country is a democracy until a transition of power is indicated. You don’t know who really controls a company until the players have a dispute. We have had multiple transitions of power for 200 years. We qualify.

Third parties have been very influential in our history. Last time around, Nader probably made the difference in the final result. Perot pulled the country to fiscal sanity for a time. That is democracy.

Thank you for your service to your country.

105

You should never get defensive so as to defend yourself against charges that have not been made. The quality of your dialogue speaks for itself. Don’t apologize for holding consistent, well thought out opinions Don’t respond to attacks that try to dodge the logic of your positions. Those attacks are attempted on because the attacker is unable to respond in the arena of ideas. Agreed. Thanks.

American journalism is just awful. Gay marriages in SF – who will benefit politically? Strong jobs report this month == how will Kerry handle it? Men killed in Iraq – will this damage Bush? Investigation of 9/11 – will Kerry be able to blame Bush for the attack? Nothing going on – take a poll and lead the news with it. Gee, maybe they could have an intelligent discussion of the issue and pass on the horse race just once. They are so lazy. All too true. The problem, as I see it, is that so many Americans are beginning to think only in these terms. It scares me.

You don’t really know if a country is a democracy until a transition of power is indicated. You don’t know who really controls a company until the players have a dispute. We have had multiple transitions of power for 200 years. We qualify. **Yeah, that’s not a bad indicator. I agree that we qualify. For the time being, anyway. I’m not as confident about the future as I once was. **

106

I suppose faith in the future is the foundation of our disagreement. I have a never ending faith in the future. Read “The Prosperity Paradox” by Greg Easterbrook, I think. He puts it all in perspective. It might rebuild your faith.

107

I’ll walk you through this. It’s really simple; The US imports 11.6M barrels of oil a day. 2.7M from the mideast. An oilfield the size of ANWR could produce 1.7M barrels a day for hundreds of years. Some estimates say until the year 3720. This is just one field, there are many many more. Why don’t you do the arithmatic? For most of the last century, the majority of USA oil production comes from private and state lands. The feds own 657 Million acres of land. Federal “multi-use” laws enacted by congress prohibit oil drilling on these lands yet 67% of untapped reserves are on this land; The oil is there, it can’t be touched. This is just land, it does not include west coast off shore or the gulf of mexico. Our known reserves are dwindling because there is, for the most part, a ban on new exploration. However, new reserves that could be explored and tapped are mindboggling. We could be energy independent. Unfortunateley, we will keep importing more oil and become more dependent on foreign sources because of the extreme environmental policies of the left. Trucks move the majority of goods in this country. A one cent rise in a gallon of diesel/gas costs the trucking industry $300M a year. Those costs will be passed on to consumers. So they’ll be hammered at the pump and when they go shopping as well. People won’t spend as freely, because they can’t afford to. Libs and democrats will scream and whine that the economy is slow. Like I said, they’re missing the economic literacy gene.

108

Agree US is catching up… but, gasoline is higher in most foreign countries because of taxes… not the price of raw materials and/or production.

But, perhaps the best results from higher crude oil prices is the more efficient long-term use of resources. This can occur as a result of both technilogical applications and/or concentration of resources toward the development of fuel efficient technology. Hybryd cars and people using more efficient heater, more home insulation, ect. are example. But, to assume that higher prices will automatically result in lower use of resources doesn’t pan out in real life (at least not in the short run). Most don’t go out and have their homes re-insulted, buy new cars or replace their furnace the moment fuel prices increases. Same is true for businesses.

Typically fuel efficient technology and applications factors occur over a longer period of time. In short, energy conservation is not a friend of oil producing countries. And, believe me when I say they are very much aware of this… as a result, most price increases occur for short periods of time. There is no advantage in accomodating an excessive high fuel cost environment. At least not for a period of time that would allow for fuel efficient technology to become cost effective.

On a side note, When it comes to gasoline prices … the REAL bottle neck is crude oil to gasoline production aspect of petroleum production… NOT crude oil supply. There are more instances where gasoline prices spike as a result of lack of refinery capacity to switch between various fuel type demands. The recent situation is no different… only the degree of impact is different.

I truely wish supply and demand for fuels were more simplistic and show immediate direct cause-effect… but, they don’t. As a result, you will see the cyclical nature of fuel prices continue. The only sure way of reducing the the cyclical nature of fuel prices is to provide ample disposable income (or, net income for businesses) so that capital expenditures can be made toward more fuel efficient lifestyles (or, manufacturing/production of goods). Anything less is simply a stop gap measure.

Joe Moya

109

So apparently we’ve agreed that we’re over there for the right reasons, we’ve agreed that soon (very soon!) the Iraqis will come around and thank us for installing probably the bestest, most bitchin’ democracy ever.

Heck, three decades from now they’ll probably celebrate L. Paul Bremer day like we celebrate Martin Luther King Day, though I’m not sure which speech they’ll play back.

And yet…

I wish I knew better what the Iraqi people as a group want.

You know, Art…I was wondering the exact same thing today as I watched the scenes from Baghdad, Najaf and Kufa.

It’s almost as if they are trying to tell us something…but I can’t quite make it out because of all the small arms fire and the rumble of Apaches overhead.

Now, my Arabic is rusty, but these folks they seemed a tad upset.

They didn’t like us shutting down Sadr’s newspaper, but tough noogies, right? We can’t have people advocating violence against coalition forces…that scares the Salvadoran Army.

Best to nip this whole freedom of speech thing in the bud, before someone gets hurt.

I embrace my naivete in this case until facts prove me wrong.

So noted…but be aware that on Wednesday there will be 7 new “facts” de-planing at Dover AFB.

111

Just because there are 54 newspapers, shutting one down does not affect freedom of speech? That’s strange logic. And in any case, shutting the paper down may prevent one moron from becoming a suicide bomber (do these guys really look to newspapers for ideas like that?) and has added to the perception of millions of Iraqis that the US is not serious about democratic values. Aside from whether it was right, was it smart?

That said, democracy (in particular freedom of speech and the press) is under attack everywhere. Canada has three major conglomorates that own virtually all of the big newspapers and TV channels, the Netherlands has two companies owning all national newspapers (though luckily they are all still quite different despite having the same owner) and three major TV groups, Italy’s three state-owned TV channels are controlled by the same guy who owns the three biggest private channels, US outlets seem to excel in “self-censorship”. Never mind having unbiased news sources (should such a thing exist), how about being able to hear different sides of the coin. So if Iraq has 54 newspapers and they are all independent, they seem to be doing better than any of us in that respect.

Gerard

112

Funny how the guys who have been on the ground get it.

There is only one Mr. Tibbs. You are unique.

113

“People in the middle east and islamic world did not nearly have the distaste for us, say, 40 to 50 years ago as they do now.”

Two reasons: (1) Establishment of Israel, a Jewish state in the heart of Islam. Largely supported by the West and the U.N. (This is one reason why people who say “bring in the U.N.” are fools. They hate the U.N. as much as the U.S.). (2) The rise of militant Islam. Militant Islam was fueled by two Egyptians (can’t remember their names from Dr. Habeck’s lecture) and one Saudi (Wahhab) who wrote books describing how Islam would rise back to its’ rightful place of dominance in the world through violence. These books were written starting in the 1950’s. The Egyptian disciples are the ones responsible for the assassination of Sadat after he signed a peace treaty with Israel. The Saudi disciples are now the followers of Wahabbism, a very militant form of Islam.