Did We Lose in Iraq? No, and Here’s Why.
Michael J. Totten
This article is an essay published in the The New Republic that I think is worth a read. As that The New Republic is liberal leaning you would expect the comments on the article to be all hostile towards the thesis of the article. Amazingly not all of the comments are hostile and I think as a whole they make for an interesting read.
Most commenter's believe the war was wrong mostly because Saddam didn't have the Weapons of Mass Destruction upon which much of the justification for the war was made. Saddam didn't have the weapons, therefore there was no threat, and so the whole thing was nothing but a huge mistake.
I have one question:
How do we know Saddam didn't have the weapons?
Answer: We know he didn't have the weapons, because we went to war and so the question was once and for all definitively answered. I think it is clear in the aftermath of the war that before the war we didn't have much of a clue as to the status of Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction and WMD programs. I think we were pretty certain Saddam was cheating, and there is no doubt at this point that he was in fact cheating on his obligations; We had no clue how much or how little.
One of the lessons of 9/11 that seems to have been forgotten at this point is that what we don't know can suddenly result in the death of a lot of people and do untold billions of dollars in damage. The burden of proof to show Saddam did not have WMD's was on Saddam and Saddam only. He most certainly did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he in fact didn't have WMD's. Saddam played games as if he was guilty of hiding things and we know he was hiding things but they just happened to be minor rather than major. In 20/20 hindsight critics claim Bush acted rashly and recklessly, but I see just the opposite. He erred on the side of caution because the risk of erring on the side of catastrophe was just to great as the lesson of 9/11 so violently showed
Saturday, October 29, 2011
Friday, May 20, 2011
A Thought I Had Today.
The immoral and criminals are all for deregulation in the same manner that the immoral and criminals are all for expansive civil liberties and civil liberties protections. Being pro-deregulation or pro-civil liberties doesn't make you immoral or a criminal, but you should be realistic about who some of your idealogical bedfellows are in reality.
(I suppose on the flip side of the coin those with vested interests or some kind of God complex are pro-regulation and anti expansive civil liberties)
(I suppose on the flip side of the coin those with vested interests or some kind of God complex are pro-regulation and anti expansive civil liberties)
Friday, January 07, 2011
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
It's a Deterrent!
I don't know what to make of the squeaky wheels complaining about full body scanners and invasive pat downs at airport security. Some argue that these measures are a humiliating indignity that trample on personal liberty treating the innocent as if they were guilty while doing little to enhance airline security.
I believe much of the belief that the security measures do little to enhance security is because terrorist's are not getting caught in the act. I think that point of view misses the point. The security measures are there for the most part to deter would be terrorists from even making an attempt at all. It's the hard target theory: you make the easiest way for terrorists to commit gross mass murder as difficult as possible to accomplish. When this is the case terrorists either won't even try or won't try very often. Deterrence is the main objective, not catching terrorists in the act. A lack of catching terrorists in the act is just as much a success as catching a terrorist in the act. As long as airline passengers are not getting killed we are winning.
As for the argument that these measures are a humiliating affront to personal liberty and we are treating the innocent like criminals. My simple question is, what alternative is there? There is an obvious need for for airline security to be as tight as possible because the consequences of failure are so huge. No one wants to die in a terrorist attack except the terrorist on a suicide mission. To me it makes no sense not to put the pedal to the floor on this, even though that means it makes some people uncomfortable. I personally don't find the measures being taken to be unreasonable because they accomplish the goal of making mass murder as difficult as possible.
I believe much of the belief that the security measures do little to enhance security is because terrorist's are not getting caught in the act. I think that point of view misses the point. The security measures are there for the most part to deter would be terrorists from even making an attempt at all. It's the hard target theory: you make the easiest way for terrorists to commit gross mass murder as difficult as possible to accomplish. When this is the case terrorists either won't even try or won't try very often. Deterrence is the main objective, not catching terrorists in the act. A lack of catching terrorists in the act is just as much a success as catching a terrorist in the act. As long as airline passengers are not getting killed we are winning.
As for the argument that these measures are a humiliating affront to personal liberty and we are treating the innocent like criminals. My simple question is, what alternative is there? There is an obvious need for for airline security to be as tight as possible because the consequences of failure are so huge. No one wants to die in a terrorist attack except the terrorist on a suicide mission. To me it makes no sense not to put the pedal to the floor on this, even though that means it makes some people uncomfortable. I personally don't find the measures being taken to be unreasonable because they accomplish the goal of making mass murder as difficult as possible.
Saturday, September 11, 2010
9/11 Has America Forgotten?
I am sad to say that I think in some important respects we have. The tragedy of 9/11 happened because of a failure to recognise and effectively preemptively stop our enemies. Much has been done to see that this kind of failure could not occur again, but I fear we have lost much of our vigilance at this point. The American people are flagging in regards to Afghanistan and for the most part completely abandoned ship in regards to what should have been our commitments in Iraq.
The leaders of Iran seek nuclear weapons and openly talk of destroying our ally Israel. In Afghanistan and Iraq the Iranian rulers have plotted and conspired to kill American soldiers and stood in the way of progress and peace.
I question the resolve of the United States populace and the wisdom of our present Commander and Chief. I fear dark days ahead because we have forgotten, we have become passive and I don't think we should be at all.
"There is an appointed time for everything. And there is a time for every event under heaven...A time for war, and a time for peace."
The enemies of America are not defeated, some of them have not even been engaged and made to pay for their treachery.
The leaders of Iran seek nuclear weapons and openly talk of destroying our ally Israel. In Afghanistan and Iraq the Iranian rulers have plotted and conspired to kill American soldiers and stood in the way of progress and peace.
I question the resolve of the United States populace and the wisdom of our present Commander and Chief. I fear dark days ahead because we have forgotten, we have become passive and I don't think we should be at all.
"There is an appointed time for everything. And there is a time for every event under heaven...A time for war, and a time for peace."
The enemies of America are not defeated, some of them have not even been engaged and made to pay for their treachery.
Friday, August 27, 2010
What I Really Wanna Know Is...
There has been a bunch of hoopla in the air over the past few days due to a Pew Research Poll that found 18% of Americans believe President Obama is a Muslim. Some are apoplectic over this result.
I am not that interested in what "the average American" thinks on this matter. What I really wanna know is what a representative sample of American Muslims would show in answer to this question and then beyond that the results of scientific polls of Muslims from around the globe on this same question. I think those results would be highly interesting.
I am not that interested in what "the average American" thinks on this matter. What I really wanna know is what a representative sample of American Muslims would show in answer to this question and then beyond that the results of scientific polls of Muslims from around the globe on this same question. I think those results would be highly interesting.
Thursday, July 01, 2010
Afghanistan
I have been paying more attention to the war in Afghanistan lately. There has been some stupid hullabaloo made by some about how this is now "the longest war in American History." Sorry but how long has "The war on poverty" or "The war on drugs" been going on? On a more related note the Korean War was really never resolved and our troops still "occupy" Germany and Japan.
Seriously, not until 2006 did the Taliban really start making this thing into an actual war and even then what was going on was a pretty low intensity conflict. Not until the Obama escalation of 2009 did this turn into something beyond a minor conflict in my mind.
Just recently independent journalist Michael Yon wrote on Facebook:
"July 2010 likely will become the deadliest month in the entire war -- that means Iraq or Afghanistan."
Now I highly respect Michael Yon, but I'm not sure about this prediction. This just past June was the deadliest month for both NATO and the US in Afghanistan. The thing is the Taliban have a mixed record when it comes to consistently increasing casualties from month to month. The Iraq insurgency was much the same.
Michael has also recently written on Facebook:
We've been at war for over a hundred months in Afghanistan. This is the deadliest month so far. I would not be surprised to see 2011 casualties double those of 2010.
There is no room for political correctness or bullshit. This war is on a collision course for something far worse than we ever saw in Ira...q.
I think this bit of speculation is even more incredible unless he meant to say 2010 casualties will double those of 2009, which is an outcome that is likely to happen thanks to the Obama escalation.
The Taliban have taken severe poundings in the past and are I'm sure taking a severe pounding right now. How well and how long they can hold up to a severe pounding is an open question.
Seriously, not until 2006 did the Taliban really start making this thing into an actual war and even then what was going on was a pretty low intensity conflict. Not until the Obama escalation of 2009 did this turn into something beyond a minor conflict in my mind.
Just recently independent journalist Michael Yon wrote on Facebook:
"July 2010 likely will become the deadliest month in the entire war -- that means Iraq or Afghanistan."
Now I highly respect Michael Yon, but I'm not sure about this prediction. This just past June was the deadliest month for both NATO and the US in Afghanistan. The thing is the Taliban have a mixed record when it comes to consistently increasing casualties from month to month. The Iraq insurgency was much the same.
Michael has also recently written on Facebook:
We've been at war for over a hundred months in Afghanistan. This is the deadliest month so far. I would not be surprised to see 2011 casualties double those of 2010.
There is no room for political correctness or bullshit. This war is on a collision course for something far worse than we ever saw in Ira...q.
I think this bit of speculation is even more incredible unless he meant to say 2010 casualties will double those of 2009, which is an outcome that is likely to happen thanks to the Obama escalation.
The Taliban have taken severe poundings in the past and are I'm sure taking a severe pounding right now. How well and how long they can hold up to a severe pounding is an open question.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Review: The Strongest Tribe: War, Politics, and the Endgame in Iraq by Bing West.
The Strongest Tribe is a book I bought around this time last year got about a quarter read and then stopped. Within the last week I picked it up again and finished the rest.
The book is essentially about the progression of the Iraq War from the end of major combat operations in 2003 through the success at the end of "The Surge" in the Summer of 2008. I suspect the book went to publisher in Sept. of 2008 and so it does not have details or analysis of the Status of Force Agreement that was put into place between Iraq and the United States later that Fall into Winter.
The books strong suit is Bing West's connection with the US military and his ability to tell their side of the story about what was going on both good and bad. The book is weaker in it's reporting and analysis of the political realms of both the US and Iraq. Mr. West does not seem to be particularly fond of politicians and bureaucrats and makes little to no attempt to explain or give their side of the story.
I think the book is certainly worth reading to find out how the military fought the Iraq war and prevailed when so many had written the war off as a "fiasco,"disaster, terrible mistake, etc.
One of the books biggest surprises comes at the end in the 25th Chapter "The Stongest Tribe" as Mr. West gives his analysis about certain aspects of the war. The surprise comes in a paragraph entitled: Myth About the Lack of U.S. Troops. West argues that had there been more troops at the beginning doing the same things that the troops in country were doing than that would have made matters worse not better. West doesn't say but obviously hints that had the troops that were there been used in a smarter more efficient way than the numbers of US troops in Iraq would have been sufficient.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Guantanamo and Jihadist Propaganda- The Biggest Problem.
Yesterday my law student older brother posted a MinnPost.com article headlined: Local lawyers representing detainees at Guantanamo see big changes. Apparently something about the legal machinations inherent in the legal issues brought out is of interest to my brother. He indicated he would like to work on these issues in the future, but I am not sure what that means because there are several avenues of possibility.
Anyway, this article got me thinking about the proficiency and competence of our legal system and the conduct of the lawyers up to this point. From where I am sitting the legal system and lawyers in it get a very low grade because they have made what I regard to be inexcusable mistakes.
What are the inexcusable mistakes?
We have released a multitude of detainees that ended up right back on the battlefield, sometimes in leadership positions.
Note: I see from my Google research that a do gooder over at Huffington Post disputes the numbers given; mostly on the basis that some of these guys being counted have only engaged in anti-US agitation propaganda and have not gone back to the blood and guts battlefield per se. OK suppose I grant that anti-US agitation propaganda in a time of war is fine and dandy and so these guys shouldn't be counted and just to be ultra conservative lets say only 5 of the people believed to have taken up arms, really have.
Even if the number is only 5 that is a disaster of epic proportions and here's why?
These 5 will exist as a propaganda and recruiting bonanza orders of magnitude worse than the humane (or inhumane for that matter) detention of a few hundred possibly innocent Muslims. With those that are detained and suspected of being no threat we can always take steps to make the situation more palatable and pleasant to those detained; These efforts can be showcased to counter the jihadist propaganda that we are Christian ogres that eat Muslims for breakfast. In contrast the 5 that go back to fighting get to tell tall tails about how we are Christian ogres that eat Muslims for breakfast and their accusations are sure to be spread as far and wide as jihadist propagandists can distribute them. With them free we totally lose control of the message.
Worse than this the jihadists get to tell their "true story's" about how Allah delivered the faithful mujaheddin from the hand of the infidel. Make no mistake the narrative that invokes the guidance, protection, and intervention of Allah is the most potent arrow in the jihadist propaganda quiver. It is a morale booster for those putting their lives on the line and it is "sign and wonder" that points directly in the direction of the righteousness of the jihadist cause. As far as it is possible to us we cannot and must not give jihadists grounds for claiming miracles that can plausibly be believed as such.
From a distance we can let the hardcore lie all they want, but when that hardcore jihadist lies in the flesh and blood, we have a big problem.
So what to do with those that might be innocent?
This is war, collateral damage is an unfortunate consequence that should be managed with wisdom and a bigger picture in mind. Unfortunately, I don't think very many of our legal minds and absolutely not a single one of the "progressive" ACLU types understands the bigger picture.
Anyway, this article got me thinking about the proficiency and competence of our legal system and the conduct of the lawyers up to this point. From where I am sitting the legal system and lawyers in it get a very low grade because they have made what I regard to be inexcusable mistakes.
What are the inexcusable mistakes?
We have released a multitude of detainees that ended up right back on the battlefield, sometimes in leadership positions.
Note: I see from my Google research that a do gooder over at Huffington Post disputes the numbers given; mostly on the basis that some of these guys being counted have only engaged in anti-US agitation propaganda and have not gone back to the blood and guts battlefield per se. OK suppose I grant that anti-US agitation propaganda in a time of war is fine and dandy and so these guys shouldn't be counted and just to be ultra conservative lets say only 5 of the people believed to have taken up arms, really have.
Even if the number is only 5 that is a disaster of epic proportions and here's why?
These 5 will exist as a propaganda and recruiting bonanza orders of magnitude worse than the humane (or inhumane for that matter) detention of a few hundred possibly innocent Muslims. With those that are detained and suspected of being no threat we can always take steps to make the situation more palatable and pleasant to those detained; These efforts can be showcased to counter the jihadist propaganda that we are Christian ogres that eat Muslims for breakfast. In contrast the 5 that go back to fighting get to tell tall tails about how we are Christian ogres that eat Muslims for breakfast and their accusations are sure to be spread as far and wide as jihadist propagandists can distribute them. With them free we totally lose control of the message.
Worse than this the jihadists get to tell their "true story's" about how Allah delivered the faithful mujaheddin from the hand of the infidel. Make no mistake the narrative that invokes the guidance, protection, and intervention of Allah is the most potent arrow in the jihadist propaganda quiver. It is a morale booster for those putting their lives on the line and it is "sign and wonder" that points directly in the direction of the righteousness of the jihadist cause. As far as it is possible to us we cannot and must not give jihadists grounds for claiming miracles that can plausibly be believed as such.
From a distance we can let the hardcore lie all they want, but when that hardcore jihadist lies in the flesh and blood, we have a big problem.
So what to do with those that might be innocent?
This is war, collateral damage is an unfortunate consequence that should be managed with wisdom and a bigger picture in mind. Unfortunately, I don't think very many of our legal minds and absolutely not a single one of the "progressive" ACLU types understands the bigger picture.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Some Wisdom from Michael Yon
"Some places like Afghanistan tend to blame history for their problems. And history certainly is part of the problem. But Poland could make the same excuse and does not. Poland is doing great. Germany and Japan were nearly destroyed during current memory of many living people, yet today those are great countries. Sometimes history is not the problem, but the society."
I think this is a brilliant observation that applies to a great many many countries. Haiti comes to mind.
I think this is a brilliant observation that applies to a great many many countries. Haiti comes to mind.
Tuesday, January 05, 2010
The Hype of An Illegitimate Grievance- Guantanamo Bay
I was struck by President Obama's remark today about how supposidly the terrorists prison at Guantanamo Bay is a national security liability and recruiting boon for the jihadists. I think it quite pathetic that some people in the West have gotten it stuck in their craw that the prison at Guantanamo represents some kind of special human rights scandal and grand injustice. I maintain that this hype about Guantanmo is simply nothing more than misguided self-righteousness run amok.
It's misguided because as long as Muslims, whether they are terrorist jihadists or not, are held in any Western nation prisons those Muslims will serve as a Raison d'être and major recruiting talking point for jihadists. The fact that some self-righteous baffoons here in the West have raised a stink served only to amplify something that is going to be a terrorist complaint no matter what we did.
I throughly believe Obama and the rest of you Guantanamo hype haters have been nothing but extremely useful idiots. Good Job Fools!
It's misguided because as long as Muslims, whether they are terrorist jihadists or not, are held in any Western nation prisons those Muslims will serve as a Raison d'être and major recruiting talking point for jihadists. The fact that some self-righteous baffoons here in the West have raised a stink served only to amplify something that is going to be a terrorist complaint no matter what we did.
I throughly believe Obama and the rest of you Guantanamo hype haters have been nothing but extremely useful idiots. Good Job Fools!
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Iraq War: Zero
It looks like 2009 closes out with the lowest possible number there can be for US soldier hostile-fire fatalities in a month: The big ZERO!
There were 4 non-hostile fire US soldier fatalities in Iraq this December, so December 2009 will go down as the new record low for US soldier fatalities in a month.
The last Iraq War US soldier hostile-fire fatality came on November 22nd, which is obviously a record span of time between incidents. The last Iraq War US soldier non-hostile fire fatality came on December 11th and this also sets a new record span of time in the Iraq War without a US soldier fatality.
For the year there were 75 US soldier hostile-fire fatalities and 75 US soldier non-hostile fire fatalities making this the least deadly year of the conflict.
Update: It turns out there were 74 US soldier hostile-fire fatalities, not 75.
There were 4 non-hostile fire US soldier fatalities in Iraq this December, so December 2009 will go down as the new record low for US soldier fatalities in a month.
The last Iraq War US soldier hostile-fire fatality came on November 22nd, which is obviously a record span of time between incidents. The last Iraq War US soldier non-hostile fire fatality came on December 11th and this also sets a new record span of time in the Iraq War without a US soldier fatality.
For the year there were 75 US soldier hostile-fire fatalities and 75 US soldier non-hostile fire fatalities making this the least deadly year of the conflict.
Update: It turns out there were 74 US soldier hostile-fire fatalities, not 75.
Monday, December 28, 2009
New Years Resolution for Obama to Consider
I wonder if some time into the new year we can spare a Marine Expeditionary Unit or two for a little whack, stack, and scatter a mole in Yemen. I bet with the right prep we could quickly go in, kill and capture a bunch of bad guys and steal intel then get right back out. Surprise attack, minimal losses.
Update: I was under the impression that Yemen was a fairly small country. In reality it is not with a population of 24 Million and an area bigger than Iraq. So it's not exactly Panama.
Update: I was under the impression that Yemen was a fairly small country. In reality it is not with a population of 24 Million and an area bigger than Iraq. So it's not exactly Panama.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
31 Straight Days
Today marks the 31st day in a row without a hostile fire US soldier fatality in Iraq.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Double Awesomes
False Memory Syndrome by The Dignified Rant. Just another example of Obama's selective history. Money Quote:
The consensus of the world? The "world" did indeed decide to confront Saddam over Kuwait, as expressed with a Security Council resolution approving war.
But somebody forgot to tell the president that his party shouted "stop the world, we want to get off!"
Follow the link for the real history.
No new troops: Germany admits, it wasn’t Bush, we just don’t do hard stuff by Free Frank Warner on Germany/Europes shameful wankerishness.
Money Quote:
"Help US"? This battle is to help Afghanistan
The consensus of the world? The "world" did indeed decide to confront Saddam over Kuwait, as expressed with a Security Council resolution approving war.
But somebody forgot to tell the president that his party shouted "stop the world, we want to get off!"
Follow the link for the real history.
No new troops: Germany admits, it wasn’t Bush, we just don’t do hard stuff by Free Frank Warner on Germany/Europes shameful wankerishness.
Money Quote:
"Help US"? This battle is to help Afghanistan
Monday, December 14, 2009
Is it War?
My oldest brother Jeff and the rest of my family have very different worldviews. My family really isn't big in talking politics, so I don't know any of my 3 brothers political views in detail but to give you an idea Jeff lists his Political views on Facebook as Green Party/Progressive. Another thing I should note about Jeff is that he is in his final year of law school.
Tonight one of my nieces had a pre-school Christmas program and the Minnesocold branch of the family got together beforehand to have dinner. At the end of dinner my mom and brother Jeff actually did get into politics. I tried to stay out of the conversation as it started out revolving around Sarah Palin and I am no Palinite like my mom.
Somewhere along the way they got off of Palin and onto Obama and Jeff made a comment about supporting the closing of Gitmo. At that point my Dad jumped in asking him if he thought our enemies in this war should be tried in US courts. My brother went right to one of my Dad's premises and questioned whether or not the situation we are in is war. And then he made the statement that he did not believe our position vis a vis Al Qaeda was war because "wars are between nations and in this instance we are not fighting a nation." The nuance of that blinded me and I didn't catch what he said next and it was time to leave so the discussion ended there.
So is my brother right or is it war?
I just have to shake my head at my brothers dubious philosophical and legal distinctions which are precisely that because Al Qaeda doesn't recognise such conceits. Al Qaeda in their own conceit does not recognise our Western institutions, jurisprudence, or conventions. I suppose there is a touch of irony in that in my brother with his post-modern and multiculturally tinted worldview can't see or understand this forest from the trees.
I can best sum it up this way. You may not want to recognise them as a real "nation" but that isn't gonna stop them from having a real Army full of militias that kill people and break things, therefore we better get our heads in their game.
US and International law may not define Al Qaeda as a government of a "nation" or "state" but Al Qaeda very much views themselves as the guiding force of a real nation responsible for real geographic territory. In their capacity as the guiding force of their nation they raise, train, and field a real Army for the defence of that territory and for the conquest of additional territories. In the capacity as a guiding force of their nation they have indeed declared real war on the United States of America and the governments and populations of many other nations. I think it is silly to argue this isn't war, when clearly their cat hunts as if it were a dog.
Their militia is an Army, and their Army from cannon fodder to commanders are war criminals if ever there was such a category of criminals. Maybe my brother, along with US and International Law need to get up to speed and keep up with reality on this one.
Tonight one of my nieces had a pre-school Christmas program and the Minnesocold branch of the family got together beforehand to have dinner. At the end of dinner my mom and brother Jeff actually did get into politics. I tried to stay out of the conversation as it started out revolving around Sarah Palin and I am no Palinite like my mom.
Somewhere along the way they got off of Palin and onto Obama and Jeff made a comment about supporting the closing of Gitmo. At that point my Dad jumped in asking him if he thought our enemies in this war should be tried in US courts. My brother went right to one of my Dad's premises and questioned whether or not the situation we are in is war. And then he made the statement that he did not believe our position vis a vis Al Qaeda was war because "wars are between nations and in this instance we are not fighting a nation." The nuance of that blinded me and I didn't catch what he said next and it was time to leave so the discussion ended there.
So is my brother right or is it war?
I just have to shake my head at my brothers dubious philosophical and legal distinctions which are precisely that because Al Qaeda doesn't recognise such conceits. Al Qaeda in their own conceit does not recognise our Western institutions, jurisprudence, or conventions. I suppose there is a touch of irony in that in my brother with his post-modern and multiculturally tinted worldview can't see or understand this forest from the trees.
I can best sum it up this way. You may not want to recognise them as a real "nation" but that isn't gonna stop them from having a real Army full of militias that kill people and break things, therefore we better get our heads in their game.
US and International law may not define Al Qaeda as a government of a "nation" or "state" but Al Qaeda very much views themselves as the guiding force of a real nation responsible for real geographic territory. In their capacity as the guiding force of their nation they raise, train, and field a real Army for the defence of that territory and for the conquest of additional territories. In the capacity as a guiding force of their nation they have indeed declared real war on the United States of America and the governments and populations of many other nations. I think it is silly to argue this isn't war, when clearly their cat hunts as if it were a dog.
Their militia is an Army, and their Army from cannon fodder to commanders are war criminals if ever there was such a category of criminals. Maybe my brother, along with US and International Law need to get up to speed and keep up with reality on this one.
Saturday, December 12, 2009
A Very Good Speech
Remarks by the President at the Acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize
December 10, 2009
Here are the highlights from my perspective:
But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism -- it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.
------------------------------------------------------
But the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions -- not just treaties and declarations -- that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest -- because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if others' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.
--------------------------------------------------------
I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That's why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace.
America's commitment to global security will never waver. But in a world in which threats are more diffuse, and missions more complex, America cannot act alone. America alone cannot secure the peace. This is true in Afghanistan. This is true in failed states like Somalia, where terrorism and piracy is joined by famine and human suffering. And sadly, it will continue to be true in unstable regions for years to come.
The leaders and soldiers of NATO countries, and other friends and allies, demonstrate this truth through the capacity and courage they've shown in Afghanistan. But in many countries, there is a disconnect between the efforts of those who serve and the ambivalence of the broader public. I understand why war is not popular, but I also know this: The belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it. Peace requires responsibility. Peace entails sacrifice. That's why NATO continues to be indispensable. That's why we must strengthen U.N. and regional peacekeeping, and not leave the task to a few countries. That's why we honor those who return home from peacekeeping and training abroad to Oslo and Rome; to Ottawa and Sydney; to Dhaka and Kigali -- we honor them not as makers of war, but of wagers -- but as wagers of peace.
--------------------------------------------------------------
First, in dealing with those nations that break rules and laws, I believe that we must develop alternatives to violence that are tough enough to actually change behavior -- for if we want a lasting peace, then the words of the international community must mean something. Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable. Sanctions must exact a real price. Intransigence must be met with increased pressure -- and such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one.
(Let us remember that in no small measure the regime of Saddam Hussein stood because of corruption of the United Nations and nations like France, Germany, Russia, and China that did business both legal and illicit with Saddam.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
December 10, 2009
Here are the highlights from my perspective:
But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism -- it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.
------------------------------------------------------
But the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions -- not just treaties and declarations -- that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest -- because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if others' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.
--------------------------------------------------------
I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That's why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace.
America's commitment to global security will never waver. But in a world in which threats are more diffuse, and missions more complex, America cannot act alone. America alone cannot secure the peace. This is true in Afghanistan. This is true in failed states like Somalia, where terrorism and piracy is joined by famine and human suffering. And sadly, it will continue to be true in unstable regions for years to come.
The leaders and soldiers of NATO countries, and other friends and allies, demonstrate this truth through the capacity and courage they've shown in Afghanistan. But in many countries, there is a disconnect between the efforts of those who serve and the ambivalence of the broader public. I understand why war is not popular, but I also know this: The belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it. Peace requires responsibility. Peace entails sacrifice. That's why NATO continues to be indispensable. That's why we must strengthen U.N. and regional peacekeeping, and not leave the task to a few countries. That's why we honor those who return home from peacekeeping and training abroad to Oslo and Rome; to Ottawa and Sydney; to Dhaka and Kigali -- we honor them not as makers of war, but of wagers -- but as wagers of peace.
--------------------------------------------------------------
First, in dealing with those nations that break rules and laws, I believe that we must develop alternatives to violence that are tough enough to actually change behavior -- for if we want a lasting peace, then the words of the international community must mean something. Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable. Sanctions must exact a real price. Intransigence must be met with increased pressure -- and such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one.
(Let us remember that in no small measure the regime of Saddam Hussein stood because of corruption of the United Nations and nations like France, Germany, Russia, and China that did business both legal and illicit with Saddam.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wednesday, December 02, 2009
Two Important War Questions
How lethal can your enemy get?
How long can your enemy sustain it's highest levels of lethality?
I think these two questions are important to consider when thinking about the wars which we are waging. To be successful in waging a war you have to be able to take the best shot your enemy can give for as long as they can give it without a collapse of will on your sides part. When asking these these questions you are trying to figure out just how much sacrifice in "blood" a conflict will require. It is the most cold calculation of war and I think trying to answer it objectively is an important moral dimension if one is to support a war effort. Obviously during the various stages of the conflict seeking the answers is conjecture and only in retrospect can you know the awful truth.
In the Iraq War it now seems pretty clear that our enemies maximum level of lethality was to kill about 1000 US soldiers in a 12 month period and for 5 years they could sustain a level of lethality towards US soldiers that would take a toll of around 700 soldiers per year. In the 6th and 7th year of the Iraq conflict US soldier fatalities have plumeted and for our part it would appear that a military victory has been achieved at a very modest to low cost when the historty and scope of modern conflicts are considered. The damage done to Iraqi patriots and civilians has been much more considerable, but the blame for this lies squarely at the feet of insurgents who's strategy for victory was to cause as much murder and mayhem as they possibly could in order to sour US politicians in the hope that the politicians would call for retreat.
In regards to the War in Afghanistan it does not appear that we have yet seen how lethal the Taliban can be. Since 2005 the Taliban have progressively been showing more lethality each year with a significant jump in Coalition fatalities this year. With the additional escalation of Coalition forces planned for 2010 it would seem we will get a indication sooner rather than later about just how lethal the Taliban can be. Right now the conventional wisdom says that Coalition fatalities will continue to spike in 2010 with the "surge" and on the surface that makes sense as more boots on the ground means more targets of opportunity.
However, I have my doubts about just how strong the Taliban is and can be. The insurgents in Iraq proved they could bring a consistant level of resistance 24/7/365. The Taliban has no such capability with the Afghan terrain and weather being what they are. Also I think a big reason the Taliban has been able to show increasing lethality over the last few years is because the baselines have been kind of low to begin with each year until now.
I do think the Taliban may be able to maintain current to slightly higher levels of lethality for at least the next couple of years but I'm hoping that won't be enough to convince us to bug out.
Update: Now that the January 2010 Coalition fatality numbers are in. I have to admit I am on the surprised side on just how many casualties the Taliban were able to inflict this past month. However, I did hear a report that it has been a rather mild winter and that along with the increased troop pressence now in country explain the hike in fatalities in Jan..
How long can your enemy sustain it's highest levels of lethality?
I think these two questions are important to consider when thinking about the wars which we are waging. To be successful in waging a war you have to be able to take the best shot your enemy can give for as long as they can give it without a collapse of will on your sides part. When asking these these questions you are trying to figure out just how much sacrifice in "blood" a conflict will require. It is the most cold calculation of war and I think trying to answer it objectively is an important moral dimension if one is to support a war effort. Obviously during the various stages of the conflict seeking the answers is conjecture and only in retrospect can you know the awful truth.
In the Iraq War it now seems pretty clear that our enemies maximum level of lethality was to kill about 1000 US soldiers in a 12 month period and for 5 years they could sustain a level of lethality towards US soldiers that would take a toll of around 700 soldiers per year. In the 6th and 7th year of the Iraq conflict US soldier fatalities have plumeted and for our part it would appear that a military victory has been achieved at a very modest to low cost when the historty and scope of modern conflicts are considered. The damage done to Iraqi patriots and civilians has been much more considerable, but the blame for this lies squarely at the feet of insurgents who's strategy for victory was to cause as much murder and mayhem as they possibly could in order to sour US politicians in the hope that the politicians would call for retreat.
In regards to the War in Afghanistan it does not appear that we have yet seen how lethal the Taliban can be. Since 2005 the Taliban have progressively been showing more lethality each year with a significant jump in Coalition fatalities this year. With the additional escalation of Coalition forces planned for 2010 it would seem we will get a indication sooner rather than later about just how lethal the Taliban can be. Right now the conventional wisdom says that Coalition fatalities will continue to spike in 2010 with the "surge" and on the surface that makes sense as more boots on the ground means more targets of opportunity.
However, I have my doubts about just how strong the Taliban is and can be. The insurgents in Iraq proved they could bring a consistant level of resistance 24/7/365. The Taliban has no such capability with the Afghan terrain and weather being what they are. Also I think a big reason the Taliban has been able to show increasing lethality over the last few years is because the baselines have been kind of low to begin with each year until now.
I do think the Taliban may be able to maintain current to slightly higher levels of lethality for at least the next couple of years but I'm hoping that won't be enough to convince us to bug out.
Update: Now that the January 2010 Coalition fatality numbers are in. I have to admit I am on the surprised side on just how many casualties the Taliban were able to inflict this past month. However, I did hear a report that it has been a rather mild winter and that along with the increased troop pressence now in country explain the hike in fatalities in Jan..
Obama's Escalation Speech
It seems to me that he is not sending all the right messages with such a quick timetable for surge and withdrawal. On the one hand it does send the message to our Afghan allies that they must get their act together sooner rather than later, but What? about the messages this sends to the more neutral or negatively lined against us. I think it would have been much wiser to sketch a 5 to 6 year commitment verses one that for practical purposes lasts a year to a year in a half. If the Taliban are smart they will use the next year to do a lot of intimidation and not very much fighting.
Update: I've thought about it some more and think publicly announcing a date for deescalation is messed up, and just plain stupid. If you are going to put a timetable on this surge it would be far wiser to keep that information top secret and only share it with a small number of the most important Afghan officials. That way they get the message, but the Taliban and the neutrals don't. I think Obama took a huge and unnecessary risk by his public comments committing to a timetable for withdrawal.
Update: This is What? I regard as the best part of the speech:
Since the days of Franklin Roosevelt, and the service and sacrifice of our grandparents, our country has borne a special burden in global affairs. We have spilled American blood in many countries on multiple continents. We have spent our revenue to help others rebuild from rubble and develop their own economies. We have joined with others to develop an architecture of institutions – from the United Nations to NATO to the World Bank – that provide for the common security and prosperity of human beings.
We have not always been thanked for these efforts, and we have at times made mistakes. But more than any other nation, the United States of America has underwritten global security for over six decades – a time that, for all its problems, has seen walls come down, markets open, billions lifted from poverty, unparalleled scientific progress, and advancing frontiers of human liberty.
For unlike the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination. Our union was founded in resistance to oppression. We do not seek to occupy other nations. We will not claim another nation’s resources or target other peoples because their faith or ethnicity is different from ours. What we have fought for – and what we continue to fight for – is a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and access opportunity.
This said I think there was too many gratuitous moments and I find Obama's self reverential personal regard obnoxious.
The speech could have been a whole lot better, I give it a C.
Update: I've thought about it some more and think publicly announcing a date for deescalation is messed up, and just plain stupid. If you are going to put a timetable on this surge it would be far wiser to keep that information top secret and only share it with a small number of the most important Afghan officials. That way they get the message, but the Taliban and the neutrals don't. I think Obama took a huge and unnecessary risk by his public comments committing to a timetable for withdrawal.
Update: This is What? I regard as the best part of the speech:
Since the days of Franklin Roosevelt, and the service and sacrifice of our grandparents, our country has borne a special burden in global affairs. We have spilled American blood in many countries on multiple continents. We have spent our revenue to help others rebuild from rubble and develop their own economies. We have joined with others to develop an architecture of institutions – from the United Nations to NATO to the World Bank – that provide for the common security and prosperity of human beings.
We have not always been thanked for these efforts, and we have at times made mistakes. But more than any other nation, the United States of America has underwritten global security for over six decades – a time that, for all its problems, has seen walls come down, markets open, billions lifted from poverty, unparalleled scientific progress, and advancing frontiers of human liberty.
For unlike the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination. Our union was founded in resistance to oppression. We do not seek to occupy other nations. We will not claim another nation’s resources or target other peoples because their faith or ethnicity is different from ours. What we have fought for – and what we continue to fight for – is a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and access opportunity.
This said I think there was too many gratuitous moments and I find Obama's self reverential personal regard obnoxious.
The speech could have been a whole lot better, I give it a C.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Barney Frank Regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
I have been doing some research into the origins of the financial crisis and one of the figures that pops up is Barney Frank. I was already familiar with a line of argument that claimed Barney was a stalwart opponent of regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that the GOP wanted to use to reign in the Government Sponsored Enterprise's and that might have helped to avert the financial meltdown. However in doing my research I came across a Barney Frank hagiography done by the New Yorker that claimed just the opposite to be the case.
Here is the relevant passage:
In 2005, while the Democrats were still in the minority, Frank contributed to a bipartisan effort to put his objectives—tighter regulation of Fannie and Freddie and new funds for rental housing—into law. At the time, Fannie and Freddie were regulated by a small agency within the Department of Housing and Urban Development; the bill proposed to create an independent agency to monitor their operations. Frank and Michael Oxley, who was then chairman of the Financial Services Committee, achieved broad bipartisan support for the bill in the committee, and it passed the House. But the Senate never voted on the measure, in part because President Bush was likely to veto it.
So what is the truth?
This is where I think things get interesting.
The argument that he was against stricter regulation of Fannie and Freddie stems from the s.190, the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act Of 2005. This was a Senate bill sponsored by Chuck Hagel and Co-Sponsored by Libby Dole, John Sunnunu and John McCain, all of which are Republican Senators. From what I understand this bill never made it out of committee because Democrats were in lock step against it and few Republicans opposed it as well so it couldn't move out of committee. It could very well be that the Bill could not get the 60 votes needed for cloture and that is why it died in committee. Also from what I understand the Bush administration was fully in support of s.190.
The Frank/Oxley bill referred to in the New Yorker article is in fact H.R. 1461 The Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005. What I don't know but strongly suspect (and seems to be confirmed by a Google Search) is that this H.R. 1461 was the companion House bill to s.190. Here is the thing, Oxley was only a Co-Sponsor and Frank was not a Co-Sponsor as the New Yorker Article seems to hint. In fact the Sponsor and all Co-Sponsors of H.R. 1461 were in fact Republicans. Barney apparently did vote the bill out of his committee, but when it came up for a vote in the House HE VOTED NAY. Funny that the New Yorker didn't mention that little detail.
Before the New Yorker article peddles the notion of Barney the regulator that I quoted it does talk about a Republican attack on Barney as obstructionist and in which we get this incredible leap into cynicism and lies on Frank and the hagiographers part:
“Before we are able to go forward with new and important changes to the over-all regulatory structure for our financial-services industry, I do believe that it is essential that we better understand just how we got into this problem,” Garrett said. “Now, one of the main parts of the problem was poor regulation in the past, specifically in the area of Fannie and Freddie.” According to Garrett, “our distinguished chairman” had no right “to claim the mantle of being a champion of reform with Fannie and Freddie.” On the contrary, Garrett argued, he and other Republicans had wanted to “raise the capital levels, to reduce the retained portfolios, to lower the conforming loan limits.”
Garrett’s accusations were genteel compared with those made by Bill O’Reilly, a few weeks earlier, when Frank appeared on his show on Fox News. “You blame everybody else! You’re a coward!” O’Reilly bellowed. “In any private concern, you’re out on your butt! But not here in the federal government!” Frank, in turn, berated O’Reilly for his “ranting” and “stupidity.” (The confrontation has been viewed more than a million times on YouTube.)
At the hearing, Frank responded testily to Garrett. “The purpose of this hearing was to be forward-looking,” he began. “And I had hoped we could focus on that. But, after the gentleman from New Jersey’s comments in having decried partisanship, he then practiced it. It does seem to me to be important to set the record clearly before us.” Frank pointed out that when Garrett had attempted to tighten regulations on Fannie and Freddie, Republicans had controlled the House. “Had a Republican majority been in favor of passing that bill, they would have done it,” Frank said. “Now he has claimed that it was we Democrats—myself—who blocked things. The number of occasions on which either Newt Gingrich or Tom DeLay consulted me about the specifics of legislation are far fewer than the gentleman from New Jersey seems to think.
“I will acknowledge that during the twelve years of Republican rule I was unable to stop them from impeaching Bill Clinton,” Frank went on. “I was unable to stop them from interfering in Terri Schiavo’s husband’s affairs. I was unable to stop their irresponsible tax cuts, the war in Iraq, and a Patriot Act that did not include civil liberties.” In other words, Frank insisted, if the Republicans had wanted to try to prevent the mortgage crisis, they would have had plenty of opportunities to do so.
The suggestion in the New Yorker that Bush would have vetoed the Bill H.R. 1461 had it gotten to him is ludicrous. It is however highly likely that s.190 could not get the needed 60 votes in the Senate because of Democratic opposition and that is why it was killed in committee. The notion that the Republicans could have brought it up for a vote without Democratic Party support is a lie and Frank isn't stupid.
Update: I have just now found out that Bush preferred s. 190 to H.R. 1461 and made this known. Apparently Oxley wasn't happy about this. But the reason why Bush took that position was because s. 190 was quite a bit tougher than H.R. 1461 which had been watered down to gain bi-partisan support in the House. Would Bush have vetoed H.R. 1461 had it come to his desk? That is highly doubtful seeing how Bush signed the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, which was a Democratic party sponsored intiative that featured the same idea's as H.R. 1461. The problem with Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 is that it was too little and too late as far as reigning in Fannie and Freddie, the damage was done.
Here is the relevant passage:
In 2005, while the Democrats were still in the minority, Frank contributed to a bipartisan effort to put his objectives—tighter regulation of Fannie and Freddie and new funds for rental housing—into law. At the time, Fannie and Freddie were regulated by a small agency within the Department of Housing and Urban Development; the bill proposed to create an independent agency to monitor their operations. Frank and Michael Oxley, who was then chairman of the Financial Services Committee, achieved broad bipartisan support for the bill in the committee, and it passed the House. But the Senate never voted on the measure, in part because President Bush was likely to veto it.
So what is the truth?
This is where I think things get interesting.
The argument that he was against stricter regulation of Fannie and Freddie stems from the s.190, the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act Of 2005. This was a Senate bill sponsored by Chuck Hagel and Co-Sponsored by Libby Dole, John Sunnunu and John McCain, all of which are Republican Senators. From what I understand this bill never made it out of committee because Democrats were in lock step against it and few Republicans opposed it as well so it couldn't move out of committee. It could very well be that the Bill could not get the 60 votes needed for cloture and that is why it died in committee. Also from what I understand the Bush administration was fully in support of s.190.
The Frank/Oxley bill referred to in the New Yorker article is in fact H.R. 1461 The Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005. What I don't know but strongly suspect (and seems to be confirmed by a Google Search) is that this H.R. 1461 was the companion House bill to s.190. Here is the thing, Oxley was only a Co-Sponsor and Frank was not a Co-Sponsor as the New Yorker Article seems to hint. In fact the Sponsor and all Co-Sponsors of H.R. 1461 were in fact Republicans. Barney apparently did vote the bill out of his committee, but when it came up for a vote in the House HE VOTED NAY. Funny that the New Yorker didn't mention that little detail.
Before the New Yorker article peddles the notion of Barney the regulator that I quoted it does talk about a Republican attack on Barney as obstructionist and in which we get this incredible leap into cynicism and lies on Frank and the hagiographers part:
“Before we are able to go forward with new and important changes to the over-all regulatory structure for our financial-services industry, I do believe that it is essential that we better understand just how we got into this problem,” Garrett said. “Now, one of the main parts of the problem was poor regulation in the past, specifically in the area of Fannie and Freddie.” According to Garrett, “our distinguished chairman” had no right “to claim the mantle of being a champion of reform with Fannie and Freddie.” On the contrary, Garrett argued, he and other Republicans had wanted to “raise the capital levels, to reduce the retained portfolios, to lower the conforming loan limits.”
Garrett’s accusations were genteel compared with those made by Bill O’Reilly, a few weeks earlier, when Frank appeared on his show on Fox News. “You blame everybody else! You’re a coward!” O’Reilly bellowed. “In any private concern, you’re out on your butt! But not here in the federal government!” Frank, in turn, berated O’Reilly for his “ranting” and “stupidity.” (The confrontation has been viewed more than a million times on YouTube.)
At the hearing, Frank responded testily to Garrett. “The purpose of this hearing was to be forward-looking,” he began. “And I had hoped we could focus on that. But, after the gentleman from New Jersey’s comments in having decried partisanship, he then practiced it. It does seem to me to be important to set the record clearly before us.” Frank pointed out that when Garrett had attempted to tighten regulations on Fannie and Freddie, Republicans had controlled the House. “Had a Republican majority been in favor of passing that bill, they would have done it,” Frank said. “Now he has claimed that it was we Democrats—myself—who blocked things. The number of occasions on which either Newt Gingrich or Tom DeLay consulted me about the specifics of legislation are far fewer than the gentleman from New Jersey seems to think.
“I will acknowledge that during the twelve years of Republican rule I was unable to stop them from impeaching Bill Clinton,” Frank went on. “I was unable to stop them from interfering in Terri Schiavo’s husband’s affairs. I was unable to stop their irresponsible tax cuts, the war in Iraq, and a Patriot Act that did not include civil liberties.” In other words, Frank insisted, if the Republicans had wanted to try to prevent the mortgage crisis, they would have had plenty of opportunities to do so.
The suggestion in the New Yorker that Bush would have vetoed the Bill H.R. 1461 had it gotten to him is ludicrous. It is however highly likely that s.190 could not get the needed 60 votes in the Senate because of Democratic opposition and that is why it was killed in committee. The notion that the Republicans could have brought it up for a vote without Democratic Party support is a lie and Frank isn't stupid.
Update: I have just now found out that Bush preferred s. 190 to H.R. 1461 and made this known. Apparently Oxley wasn't happy about this. But the reason why Bush took that position was because s. 190 was quite a bit tougher than H.R. 1461 which had been watered down to gain bi-partisan support in the House. Would Bush have vetoed H.R. 1461 had it come to his desk? That is highly doubtful seeing how Bush signed the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, which was a Democratic party sponsored intiative that featured the same idea's as H.R. 1461. The problem with Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 is that it was too little and too late as far as reigning in Fannie and Freddie, the damage was done.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)