perfidy

I'm not going to fisk, but I'm going to take issue with a number of points you raise. Your general tone is "path of righteousness".

We are having an effect on certain terrorists, but new recruits are banging on their doors, and overall I suspect terrorism is largely unabated. I think that there just aren't all that many people in the world willing to commit suicide for their beliefs. There are some, but not that many. The rarity of events lik 9/11 is statistical evidence for this.

America's Army is NOT exterminating terrorists at the moment. They are engaged in a low-intensity battle against resistance forces, after having exhausted the regular forces invading a teeny-tiny country. Yes, there are some terrorists in the mix, and we hear about the car bombs and so forth. 99% of the conflicts with American forces are run-of-the-mill insurgents. You can't call them all terrorists. Some of them are pissed-off natives who don't want the US in their country. Some of them are Baathists. It's a mixture.

The bottom line is that most of the strength of the military is engaged in nation-building at the moment. By most reports I've read, resources have generally been shifted away from pursuit of terrorism, and towards political change in Iraq.

This is single-issue, silver-bullet foreign policy. A very great number of eggs are in a single basket. There are so many eggs in the basket that, yes, in the absence of other fiscal responsibility, there are serious threats to the economic stability of the country.

Nobody thinks the 7% growth rate is anything more than a single exceptional quarter. Most predictions go for around a 4.5% quarter next time, which is still very good, but more in line with history.

Do you not see that the debate has everything with what the US may _legitimately_ do in the world? If a nuclear bomb had detonated in NY, and was traced to Saddam Hussein, the entire world would have been behind the US in removing him. They probably would have lead the way.

This is instead a forceful war of political change...cynical and expensive. It is by no means a "war of revenge". There is no direct connection between Hussein and 9/11. Are you arguing that you believe there to be a solid connection? One that was known BEFORE the war was initiated? You are certainly willing to trade on the idea, to make your political points. Do you or do you not believe it? What evidence do you have? You have no business using it as an underpinning to debate otherwise.

So what does $300 Billion buy us? Quite a lot. Our yearly medicare budget is around $250 Billion. The interest on the national debt is around $175 Billion (due to rise dramatically). $300 Billion is a rather incredible amount of money! Of course, prior to the war, Mitch Daniels (long since fired as White House budget director) explained that the war would cost around $50 Billion.

It is simple, and deceitful, to throw round numbers like "1% of GDP". The government doesn't have anywhere near a large percentage of GDP to work with; the federal budget is around 25% of GDP, I think.

With the huge deficits Bush has created just around the corner. we will be spending, on interest, enough money to do an Iraq every year in short order.

There are so many absolutes in what you write. "Terrorists are created not by our actions, but by the failure of their societies". So our actions have no effect? I think they do. I think our actions matter greatly. I think Bush's snubbing of the UN has had an effect. His abandonment of the Palestinian-Israeli peace process has had an effect. The trashing of Kyoto has had an effect (we can argue all day long about whether it would work or not, but symbolically it was a tremendous blow to multilateralism).

I'll retract the NASCAR remark, with regards to YOU. I stand by it as far as this Administration goes. And I stand by it for most people I've met in favor of the war. Their thinking hasn't gone much past, "punch me, and get punched".

"tit-for-tat" is one of the winningest strategies for the Prisoner's Dilemma, a well-studied game theory example. I gather, in your world, that there need be no foreign policy more sophisticated than tit-for-tat. tit-for-tat is a conservative position that attempts to engender cooperation, rewarding cooperation where it exists, and punishing it where it does not. There are strategies that can beat it, but it's pretty good all around.

We aren't playing tit-for-tat, because we just took the first punch. We chose the path of non-cooperation, of unilateralism.

Finally, you state that "It is sadly common for those who are protected to resent those who do the bloody work of protecting."

Do you believe that you are somehow identifying with more firmly, and are showing more solidarity with our armed forces? I do not recall you have been on any secret missions to Iraq.

Men with guns, you can't handle the truth, and all of that. You are not on the wall with a gun, and neither am I. There are men (and women) doing that. Do you imply that those who disagree with Bush policy resent our soldiers, who protect us, and who follow orders?

Terrorists do care about US strategy and actions. Because right now, we are hunting them down. They are on the run, hiding in caves, and fearful that they will be ratted out. They are fearful that a group of US Special Forces like the ones described in GeekLethal’s first post will be knocking on the door of their hideout. The only places where terrorist attacks have happened in the wake of 9/11 are those places where we do not have troops – like Saudi Arabia, where we (hopefully temporarily) left, or Indonesia, or Israel. The most powerful military force in world history is devoted to exterminating terrorists. I think that this fact has made an impact on their thinking, and on their plans.

It will also have an effect on those who might have joined them in more salubrious times. When the uniform result of an attack on America is death and destruction not for America but for the terrorists, all but the most zealous will think twice. And even the most zealous might reconsider their means when 99% of all attempts result in abject failure. The martyr must not merely die for his faith, but he must inflict damage in the process. Continued failure will result in demoralization.

During the recent Gulf War, even Iraqi military strategy assumed the basic goodness and restraint of American forces. They hid behind civilians, knowing that we would not willingly harm civilians. The Iraqi people have witnessed that, and our efforts to rebuild their nation – not merely the damage from our brief bombing campaign, but from decades of neglect. If we are successful in remaking Iraq into a democratic nation – which will require the willing cooperation of the Iraqis, the Islamic world will notice. And the fact of a successful, free, prosperous Arab nation will put immense pressure on other authoritarian and despotic governments.

The proper question to ask is, “does America give a shit what the rest of the world thinks?” We were attacked; and we are, with the assistance of many other nations taking action we see fit to remove the threat. This is a basic right of national sovereignty. While we have taken steps to get the approval of others, we do not require it, any more than France needed UN approval to invade the Ivory Coast.

The cost of our invasion will likely exceed $300 billion dollars. That is less than one year’s expenditure on our military. It is less than three percent of our gross national product for one year. The occupation and eventual departure from Iraq will not bankrupt us, and I cannot conceive of any possible domino effect that would lead from that occupation to any kind of decline. "We didn’t spend the money on drugs for rich old people, Revolution in the streets!" This is, well, extremely unlikely at best.
The dynamism of our economy is intact – despite the recent cyclical recession, we grew at an over than 7% annual rate last quarter. The more mature and nuanced Europeans are still fighting high structural unemployment, low growth rates and stagnant technology. How this will lead to the things Ross fears eludes me.

I am reminded of an essay that PJ O’Rourke wrote, titled “Among the Euro-Weenies.”

Why yes, we do all have guns.

We're the badest-assed sons of bitches that ever jogged in Reeboks. We're three quarters grizzly bear and two-thirds car wreck and descended from a stock market crash on our mother's side. You take your Germany, France and Spain, roll them all together and it wouldn't give us room to park our cars. We're the big boys, Jack, the original, giant, economy-sized new and improved butt kickers of all time. When we snort coke in Houston, people lose their hats in Cap d'Antibes. And we've got an American Express card credit limit higher than your piss-ant metric numbers go.

You say our country's never been invaded? You're right, little buddy. Because I'd like to see the needle-dick foreigners who'd have the guts to try. We drink napalm to get our hearts started in the morning. A rape and a mugging is our way of saying "Cheerio". Hell can't hold our sock hops.

We walk taller, talk louder, spit further, f*ck longer and buy more things than you know the names of. I'd rather be a junkie in a New York City jail than king, queen and jack of all Europeans. We eat little countries like this for breakfast and shit them out before lunch.

The can of whup ass mentality does work in a world where civilization is not universal. Between the US and Canada, or in Europe and Japan, we can discuss things reasonably. There civilization is the order, literally, of the day. Elsewhere, where as you correctly note, there is no end of despots, it is a Hobbesian war of all against all. Europeans make the mistake of assuming that their polite discourse can be extended to this world, or that persuasion and kind words will change the hearts of totalitarian mini-fuehrers.

For those who are not part of civilization there is threat, coercion, and violence. In order to secure the safety of our nation, and not coincidently the safety of the the rest of the civilized world that depends on the American military for safety, we have to be prepared to open that can of whup ass. Sometimes there is no other way. Ten years of sanctions, resolutions and jabber did not end the horrific regime of Saddam Hussein. Bloody compulsion did. It is sadly common for those who are protected to resent those who do the bloody work of protecting.

Terrorists are created not by our actions, but by the failure of their societies. We did not piss them off so much that they decided to kill themselves. They fixate on our success, and figure that we must be preventing them from the riches, power and glory that by right is theirs. When we destroy those who attacked us, we are deterring others. We are demonstrating that is foolhardy in the extreme to bait us. We also demonstrate that we are magnanimous in the aftermath, and that we do not hold grudges, and that we are happy when others join us in prosperity, peace and freedom just as after WWII.

That you describe my foreign policy judgments as WWF smackdowns or NASCAR rallies is condescending not just to me but to the people who watch NASCAR and WWF. They, by and large, understand that if you’re attacked and do nothing, you will be attacked again. And nothing includes talking. Response must not be subtle. Despots are not noted for their grasp of subtlety and nuance. This level of wisdom seems entirely unattainable to much of the left. We used our force and accomplished something good – the removal of Saddam Hussein. Now we are using our unparalled wealth to rebuild that nation. The rest of the world will respect us no more or no less than it always had as a result of this war. Those who are envious or fearful will remain as they are. Those who appreciate that for all our flaws, we do stand for liberty, well they have always been our friends.

Last month I spent a few days in the company of warriors. It was like going to a different planet compared to my usual day to day existence at a liberal, snoot-ay private college. A filmmaker and I shot several training exercises conducted by special operations forces. This training was largely built around urban maneuver and combat; some exercises were held at night, others in broad daylight; some with live ammo, others with a 9mm paintball-type submunition. Many of the operators we spoke to were combat veterans and the rest are soon to be. Here's a short list of what I learned. I think it worthwhile to share these observations, particularly with Bad Guys. If you are a Bad Guy, please take these to heart and save us all some trouble in the future: 

1. These guys WILL get into your house/bunker/cave/RV/hijacked plane. You can lock the door and latch the gate if it makes you feel better, but you really needn't bother. They will blow it up, blow it off, torch or saw through it within about 15 seconds. If you give them half a chance and a pipe wide enough they will throw on some flippers, swim into your house, and come right out of your tap the next time you get a glass of water.
2. If commandos kick your door in in the middle of the night, they will not kill you if you are not holding a weapon. If you are not a Bad Guy, you might want to stop, drop, & roll like Dick Van Dyke encouraged in that old PSA. That was for fires. For this scenario, if you curl up and refrain from looking menacing you'll be OK. If you have to cry or piss yourself, try not to move too much. If you are a Bad Guy and insist on meeting Allah at that very moment, reach for your weapon. Hello, virgins!
3. Special operations people are high-energy. They do nothing slowly or half-assed. If you are a Bad Guy, you will not outrun them. You may make them tired in the process of catching you, but that will only make your immediate future exceedingly difficult.
4. Special operations people shoot better than you. While you and you cohorts were spending your days deciding whether Israel or the US was more responsible for the world's evil, they were training. Day and night, year-round: close quarter battle. Long distance sniper ranges. Heavy weapons training. Look, I KNOW you want to get your share of virgins but put it this way: I also know some want them more than others. All you have to do is not shoot at the SOF guys and you'll live. Just say, "I must live to spawn a new generation of martyrs" or some such. That'll probably fly on Al Jazeera.
5. Special operations people WANT to kill Bad Guys. ALOT of Bad Guys. Badly. They are disappointed if they are not in the fight, and will not accept failure once on the battlefield. If you are a Bad Guy, do not confuse soldiers with warriors. Soldiers exist to do specific jobs: cooks, drivers, artillerymen, military police, etc., and vary in their readiness and quality of leadership. Warriors don't share these problems. They exist to kill you. They are grouchy when they aren't. Please make a note of it.

Wow. Just wow.

U.S. economic growth surged in the third quarter of 2003 to the fastest pace in nearly two decades, the government said Thursday, in a report that was much stronger than most economists expected.

Gross domestic product (GDP), the broadest measure of economic activity, grew at a 7.2 percent annual rate in the quarter after growing at a 3.3 percent rate in the second quarter, the Commerce Department reported. Economists, on average, expected GDP growth of 6 percent, according to Briefing.com.

Hey, that's great news.

Now, could I see a little of that magic, please?

This Washington Post Editorial is very sobering. A key quote:

"It's war because our undefeated enemies say it is and behave accordingly.

In that stubborn resistance lies a fundamental truth that seems too often to have eluded American political leaders since World War II: It's not the winner who typically decides when victory in a war has been achieved. It's the loser. "

If that is true, and it does seem so to me, then the hearts and minds of everyday Iraqis are really the key to the mission. It also places in distinctly sharper relief the Administration's predictions before the war that Americans would be welcomed as liberators, and that the population would fall over themselves to greet the incoming troops.

That has happened in small ways, but the overall situation is poor, and the attacks are accelerating. Riverbend gives us a view from one Iraqi citizen; are we winning her heart and mind? How do we convince the people shooting at the troops, recruiting "resistance fighters", that the war simply doesn't need to go on?

It will go on as long as there are people willing to fight and die against perceived occupation. When it comes to the Arab world, it seems that the supply of such people is almost limitless...and with population growth there, as fast as they can be killed (to put it bluntly), they are being replaced.

Is war and aggression truly the best path? Is there another way?

AP is reporting that in the third quarter, economic growth has jumped up to a 7.2% annual rate, more than double the not particularly anemic 3.3% growth rate of the previous quarter. This is the strongest single quarter gain since 1984.

The economy's recovery from the 2001 recession has resembled the side of a jagged cliff; a quarter of strength often has been followed by a quarter of weakness. But analysts are saying that pattern could be broken, considering increasing signs the economy finally has shaken its lethargy and is perking up.

Near rock-bottom short-term interest rates, along with President Bush's third round of tax cuts, have helped the economy shift into a higher gear during the summer, economists say. The next challenge is making sure the rebound is self-sustaining.

Job creation surged to a net increase of 57,000 in September, the first increase in eight months - though job creation is generally a lagging indicator of recovery. The article goes on to list improvements in other economic indicators - drops in unemployment claims, increases in wages and benefits, consumer spending, and business capital spending.

As for the government's role:

Federal government spending, which grew at a 1.4 percent rate, was only a minor contributor to GDP in the third quarter. Spending on national defense was flat. But in the second quarter, military spending on the Iraq war - which grew at a whopping 45.8 percent rate - helped to catapult economic growth.

The evidence suggests that businesses are still somewhat gunshy, and unwilling to trust in the economy's rebound just yet. But if, as economists predict, that the next quarter will show at least 4% growth, I think that we've turned the corner on the most recent cyclical recession.

Of course, one result of a growing economy will be the reduction in deficits as government tax revenue increases. If the typical pattern holds, we will enter a period of economic growth that will last another decade before the next recession. If this growth period is even half as potent as the last one, we should see deficits disappearing again so long as the increases in federal spending stays not to far ahead of inflation.

Of course, it would be better to see a reduction in federal spending. I have played with the budget simulator that Ross linked recently, too - and balancing the budget is simple. As long as you have your priorities straight. I balanced the budget by increasing defense spending and simply halting increases in social spending, while eliminating the department of education and farm subsidies.

And, in answer to one of Ross' claims in the previous post, what are you smoking? Defense spending, including the Iraq War and Veteran's Benefits, is $547.61 billion. Spending for social welfare (Education, Health, Medicare, Social Welfare, and Social Security) is $1.27 trillion. That's almost one and a half times more for welfare boondoggles, not an order of magnitude less.
Huge jails house people who commit crimes. Blacks are in prison because they commit more crimes - generally against other blacks. This is a sad situation, but you can make the argument that social policies dating back to the sixties are partly responsible. When you reduce everyone's taxes by, say 5%, of course the people who pay more taxes will get more money back in absolute terms. But that isn't what happened. After the tax cuts, the wealthiest among us are paying a larger fraction of the total tax collected than before. And it is semantically incorrect to refer to the government as spending money on a tax cut. People earned that money, the government takes it. If the government takes less, it is not spending money.

I agree with Ross that Agriculture subsidies are a travesty, and should go. Likewise with other subsidies. As far as the tax cut, Ross can feel free to give more money to the government, but I'd like to keep mine.

My general view on government spending is that as long as we have entitlement programs that consume vast portions of the federal budget, worrying about nickel-ante programs that cost only millions of dollars is pointless. I really have a hard time getting exercised over the (on the government scale) small expenditures on things like the NEA, NPR, and so on. If the liberals need NPR to get the word out, fine. They can have their All Things Considered and Lake Wobegon Days.

The most important things to spend money on, to me, are those things required by the constitution. Defense, Treasury, Justice and the Courts, the State Department. Once those are adequately funded, we can use leftover funds to do nice things like unemployment insurance, welfare, medicaid, scientific research and the like. (Though they should be reformed, and their budgets should never, ever be indexed to the inflation rate. Each budget should be approved by the Congress, not have built in automatic increases.) With the change the government finds under the couch, it can fund the smaller programs.

A friend of mine once had the idea that we should include a form on the Tax return that lists, to a reasonable amount of detail, the various departments and budget items in the gov't. You can then allocate your tax dollars to them however you like. Items that get no money from the taxpayers are eliminated. The gov't would be allowed discretionary control over tax revenue from businesses and excises, etc. It would be interesting to see what happens.

I've talked about this before, but progressive taxation is an offense to fairness. We are supposed to receive equal protection of the laws, it's in the constitution. Tax brackets are discrimination. There is no reason why if I earn $5000 more in a year, I am affected by a different set of standards than I am now. Everyone should have the same, exactly the same rules to live by.

According to Bill Moyers, it may be at hand. I haven't seen much lately that leads me to believe otherwise. There are still a few signs of life out there, where ethics haven't been bent and folded enough times to disappear entirely...It's a sobering interview.

Everything involving television is for sale. I wonder how long even NPR can last; its ad content has slowly been creeping upwards too.

It occurs to me that I have heard entirely too many times that we "shouldn't be spending public money on NPR". Here's the thing, for those of you on the right. There are things that you think government should spend money, and there are things that I think government should spend money on. On your side, we've got big guns and a military, invasions of other countries, huge jails for mostly black people who can't afford Rush Limbaugh's lawyers, corporate welfare, tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy, and government funding of religions. I think it's worth noting that we're actually spending money on all that stuff.

On my side there's an R+D budget, health care, serious funding for educational institutions, we keep our progressive taxation system progressive, taxes can certainly go higher, and we keep important programs like NPR and NASA and yes, even the NEA.

Here's the thing: The right's pet expenditures are an order of magnitude higher than the left's. The old canard about "free-spending liberals" just doesn't hold water any more. We all know exactly who the free spenders are now. So the next time you want to knock off the NEA, maybe I get to pick one out of your list.

You too can play amusing budget games! Try this budget simulator. I pretty much balanced the budget on the first try. It's not even hard to do. You just have to have your priorities straight...and get rid of the stupid tax cut that got us into this deficit mess in the first place. Plus nuke agricultural subsidies. I can't for the life of me figure out why a single mom struggling to make ends meet in the inner city should be forced to give part of her income to Archer Daniels Midland.

Old budget was $3274.734 billion
($2292.807 billion in spending, $981.927 billion in tax expenditures and cuts).

New budget is $2914.09 billion

($2253.16 billion in spending, $660.93 billion in tax expenditures and cuts).

You have cut the deficit by $360.64 billion.

Your new deficit is $-3.63 billion.

It's Wednesday! Time for music blogging!

My blogcritics colleague Rodney Welch has found this screedly little list of 100 albums that everyone must purge from their collections immediately. I can't say as that I agree with many of the choices, but it's a well-argued and provocative piece nonetheless.

I mean, I can see why The Replacement's "Tim" is on the list, when "Let it Be" is much better, and why Tom Waits' "The Mule Variations" is called a remake of the far better "Swordfishtrombones" and "Rain Dogs," but... "Giant Steps"? "Blood Sugar Sex Magic"? "Combat Rock"? "The Soft Bulletin"? "Bitches Brew"? "Daydream fucking Nation?" "Nothing's Shocking"?

Please.

Shoots straight past "the emperor has no clothes" to reveal a buncha half-Neanderthal Philistines pissed off that they don't get it. Cry me a river and go buy the new Cave-In record, ok?

Blogcritics is hosting a Halloween blog blowout this week-- I suggest you go check it out, not least because I'm a member in good standing of that august body.

Gregg Easterbrook regains his footing after a disastrous couple weeks (ontology, rectocranial disease) with this post on NASA's latest genius plan: build a space plane!

NASA last wanted to build a space plane in the 1960s, and abandoned the project when ICBMs rendered negligible their strategic worth. It's well documented that podlike vehicles do better upon reentry than winged vehicles, and at this point the spaceplane is nothing but a decades-old dream. Furthermore, a space plane would do nothing to NASA's advantage-- it would still be expensive, dangerous, of limited use, and packed with Senate pork. From braindrizzles like this it's clear that NASA is not just useless, but actually harmful to the advance of engineering, science, and space exploration in the United States.

And these are the dudes in charge of space. /*covers face with hands

I would encourage anyone with a passing interest in space and space policy to pick up the most recent edition of the Atlantic, which features William Langeweische's killer cover story on the Columbia disaster and NASA's bumbling, fumbling, and institutional dead weight. Easterbrook covers the main point on Easterblogg so I won't belabor them here; I will only say that that X-Prize better be won, and soon.

Private Space Exploration Now!

[wik] Buckethead has kindly reminded me that he covered this NASA spaceplane garbage a while back.

[alsø wik] And don't forget to choose "That Buck Rogers Stuff" from the categories list at left for some of the darned-tootenist, bestest, pithiest, and altogether smartestest space bloviation anywhere!