 |
 |
   During a recession, should college presidents face the same pay cuts as CEOs?
 Forty years of writing from Taylor Branch, James Fallows, Katherine Boo, Marjorie Williams, Joshua Micah Marshall, and more.
 With help from Washington, the for-profit college industry is loading up millions of low-income students with debt they'll never pay off.
 The best recent memoir from republican Washington is a hoax. That should tell you something.
|
   |
|
|
November 28, 2006
By: HERE'S A NUMBER FOR YOU ... Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell's former chief of staff, tells me he's been trading emails with folks around town -- generals, colonels, Pentagon officials -- who have been looking carefully and analytically for the last two years at what it will cost to reconstitute the military after Iraq. In other words, the bill to bring Army and Navy battalions back to the status they were in before the invasion. That includes training, equipment, replacing Apache helicopters, humvees, tanks, rifles (we have burned them up in Iraq faster than life cycle projections), etc. The current estimate: $50 to $100 billion. "The next president will face a staggering bill," Wilkerson says, not even counting the costs of further efforts in Iraq. —Christina Larson 12:09 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (207)Comments
Perhaps Bill Clinton should not have cut the military so much then? Posted by: Bart on November 28, 2006 at 12:16 PM | PERMALINKIs that with or without price-gouging profiteers being added into the equation? Posted by: scarshapedstar on November 28, 2006 at 12:16 PM | PERMALINK"The cost of the war will be small. We can afford the war, and we'll put it behind us." --Treasury Secretary John W. Snow, New York Times, 3/9/03 Posted by: CFShep on November 28, 2006 at 12:17 PM | PERMALINKIt wouldn't be all this if all you LIEberals and the LIEberal media hadn't drug down the military so badly and created this quagmire in Iraq! If not for you traitors, the Middle East would be a flowering democracy! And it is Clinton's fault, of course. Posted by: Al's Mommy on November 28, 2006 at 12:18 PM | PERMALINKIs that with or without price-gouging profiteers being added into the equation? On their way out the door they'll propose new tax breaks for Halliburton. Posted by: CFShep on November 28, 2006 at 12:18 PM | PERMALINKIf the newly empowered D's had any sense, they'd put forth a bill to progressively raise taxes and pay for this now. Hard to argue against it ("what, you don't support the military? what, you are in favor of MORE deficit spending"). It won't get cheaper if we wait. Posted by: dr2chase on November 28, 2006 at 12:22 PM | PERMALINKPerhaps SecDef Cheney should not have cut the military so much then? Posted by: cailte on November 28, 2006 at 12:22 PM | PERMALINKDoes that count equipment that will be abandoned in Iraq when we leave? Or is that assuming the mountain of iron we have there now gets home? Perhaps Bill Clinton should not have cut the military so much then? In case that wasn't sarcasm: the cuts in the military under Clinton's watch were largely just implementations of the plan developed under G.H.W. Bush when Cheney was SecDef. And how much has Cheney made from defense industries since setting that in motion? Or Bush I? Posted by: Wapiti on November 28, 2006 at 12:22 PM | PERMALINK$50-100B seems low. We spend $8B a week in Iraq. Posted by: grytpype on November 28, 2006 at 12:25 PM | PERMALINKPerhaps Bill Clinton should not have cut the military so much then? Right... let's not balance the budget or raise taxes for what we want to spend let's just put the coming generations further in debt. Posted by: cyntax on November 28, 2006 at 12:25 PM | PERMALINKBut...but...but...I was sure that this war would pay for itself, and soon! Posted by: Wolfie on November 28, 2006 at 12:26 PM | PERMALINKOn second thought, me and the boys at the Bank will lend it to ya! Posted by: Wolfie on November 28, 2006 at 12:29 PM | PERMALINKThe military is useless and needs to be dismantled. Now is a good time to let the military die. After we hang the generals, we will be much better off. Posted by: Hostile on November 28, 2006 at 12:32 PM | PERMALINKI think most Americans would disagree with Hostile. Of course we expected a peace dividend after the end of the Cold War, but Clinton went too far (Cheney was not Secretary of Defense after 1992) and cut to the bone: US military spending as a percentage of GDP, 1988--2001 1988 5.8 Just a point, but the Navy doesn't have any battalions (except for a few Seabee units); it is the Marine Corps, along with the Army, that will have to be reconsitituted. Posted by: oofda on November 28, 2006 at 12:36 PM | PERMALINKWhat dr2chase said. Pass a special "cost of warfare" tax. On all income (earned and unearned) not subject to SS tax. Start at the retirement portion of SS (a hair under 6%, IIRC), and bump that up another 5% after 200,000 individual or 350,000 for couples. Earnings from dividends, capital gains, stock options, etc included. Mandate that the tax remain until the amount collected equals the total amount spent in Iraq, including interest on borrowed money. The tax vanishes the following year, as an incentive to wind things up. Make it very clear that the tax is to pay for the war, and prevent our emerging adversaries (China) from using our debt that they hold as a weapon against us. If you're not for the tax, you're for handing global dominance over to the Chinese Communisists. Posted by: OwnedByTwoCats on November 28, 2006 at 12:37 PM | PERMALINKWhy don't we disarm then? Cut the military by 90%. Since our only real enemy is armed with boxcutters, why is this a problem? We could use scissors and they would be outgunned. Posted by: Voice of Reason on November 28, 2006 at 12:37 PM | PERMALINKHow long will it take to replace and retrain the military's human capital? Posted by: Keith G on November 28, 2006 at 12:37 PM | PERMALINKHey Bart, Perhaps President Bush shouldn't have lied to the country about how much blood and treasure this would cost us? Or maybe he shouldn't have been so gullible as to believe Wolfowitz over General Shinseki? Either it was an intention to decieve or rank incompentence. Take your pick. Posted by: cyntax on November 28, 2006 at 12:37 PM | PERMALINKLet me guess: that does not include doing the same with the Reserve and the National Guard, both of which have been devastated by over-use. Want to bet that there are no plans to bring them back in the next ten years? Posted by: Scorpio on November 28, 2006 at 12:38 PM | PERMALINKHey, I just use 'em - I don't fix 'em. Besides, if Jimmy Carter would only repair humvees and the like, instead of wasting his energy on houses...........Hmm, Habitat for Humvees.......... Posted by: GWB on November 28, 2006 at 12:43 PM | PERMALINKcyntax, Bush never lied about the cost of war, as no one knew what the cost would be. He is the President, not Psychic, of the United States. I'd rather be on his side than Hostile's side (above) hoping for the destruction of all U.S. military forces by Thursday. Posted by: Bart on November 28, 2006 at 12:48 PM | PERMALINK'The collective net worth of the 400 wealthiest Americans -- who, by the way, benefited disproportionately from Bush's tax cuts -- is $1.13 trillion.' Andrew Leonard 10% surcharge. Problem solved. Or there's the mortgage interest deduction - that's currently running $80B a year... Posted by: CFShep on November 28, 2006 at 12:50 PM | PERMALINKYes, Bush has made us so much safer, fighting them there, building up the terrorist factions in the Mideast. Now we've got no decent miltary left to defend us here. I don't know what "El Grand Presidential Defiance" is going to do with the war in Iraq but I can't wait to see his next poll numbers, bet it's in the 20's, that's going to put Bush close to impeachment talk. I think Americans are ready for something beside monotonous and repetitive cycles of denial and same old do nothingness. It clear Bush doesn't know what to do. We need a new command and chief that isn't afraid to say "It's a civil war, and this is what must be done." That sure as hell ain't Bush. Posted by: Cheryl on November 28, 2006 at 12:54 PM | PERMALINK "The next president will face a staggering bill," Wilkerson says, not even counting the costs of further efforts in Iraq. I've said it before, but Bush's insistence on paying for his little adventure in Iraq with a tax cut is proof enough that he simply isn't serious about security. Couple that with the ongoing hiding the cost of the occupation with "emergency appropriations," and it's no wonder Americans won't trust Republicans with national security for a generation. Posted by: Gregory on November 28, 2006 at 12:56 PM | PERMALINK"as no one knew what the cost would be." Right, all those numbers being thrown around before Operation Clusterfuck were just "guesses". So, does anyone have a line on some of those "guesses", which ones were the most accurate, and who made them? Hint: The guys who made the most accurate (and even then, pretty optimistic) guesses got slapped down by Rummy and friends so fast their heads swam. A despicable crime, given the magnitude of the disaster that has now come to pass. Shorter Captain Goto: Bart, your lies play about as well here as they did at Glenn Greenwalds. You disgust me. Posted by: Captain Goto on November 28, 2006 at 12:59 PM | PERMALINKInteresting that in the years 1995-2001, Republicans were in charge of the House of Representatives - where spending bills originate. Guess there's culpability on both sides if you think the military was gutted from 1995 to 2001. Posted by: BC on November 28, 2006 at 1:00 PM | PERMALINKBart on November 28, 2006 at 12:48 PM: Bush never lied about the cost of war, as no one knew what the cost would be. IN FEBRUARY, Josh Bolten, President Bush's budget director, was asked by reporters if the White House would seek any more money in 2004 for the occupation of Iraq. Bolten answered, "We do not anticipate requesting supplemental funding during '04." Bolten also said, "Right now in Iraq and Afghanistan, we are projecting outlays in '04 that are well below $50 billion for the ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. So I think you should regard that as kind of the upper limit for what might be needed in '05." Before the war began, the White House turned the dogs loose on anyone who predicted that the war could cost just that much. When Bush's chief economic adviser, Larry Lindsey, said the war might cost between $100 billion and $200 billion, the White House decried that as "very, very high." Lindsey was out of a job a few months later. When the Army chief of staff, General Eric Shinseki, worried out loud before the war that several hundred thousand troops might be needed to win and keep the peace, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz bayed that Shinseki was "wildly off the mark." If Bush wasn't lying, then he and those he surrounded himself with were grossly incompetent. Posted by: grape_crush on November 28, 2006 at 1:01 PM | PERMALINKPerhaps Bill Clinton could volunteer his services right now. We need to draft a experienced president for Mideast crisies right now. Perhaps Bill Clinton would like to just step in, I'm sure he could get the ball rolling in the right direction. He is incredible talented at working with others. I think Bush is freaking everyone out too much. God help us, Iraq is imploding and Bush has no fu*king idea what the hell he is doing. It clear Bush doesn't know what to do. Not true. Bush knows precisely what he's going to do. He's going to stay in Iraq until the end of his term and then push the problem onto the shoulders of the next president. He's already said so. Posted by: Wonderin on November 28, 2006 at 1:03 PM | PERMALINKHeckuva job, Georgie. Heck. Uv. A. Job. Posted by: Stefan on November 28, 2006 at 1:05 PM | PERMALINKHostile's side (above) hoping for the destruction of all U.S. military forces by Thursday. I am hoping for the dissolution of our murderous military, but not by fighting Iraqis. I want the military abolished deliberately by our legislators. I predicted the destruction of our military in Iraq could happen by Thursday. It was not hope that made me make it, but despair and the gathering storm of Iraqi Shi'a. Our military cannot win a fight against an entire indigenous population intent on forcing us out of their country, and that moment may arrive at any time.
>>Perhaps Bill Clinton could volunteer his services right now. Send Bill to the UN. Really. Now. Posted by: CFShep on November 28, 2006 at 1:05 PM | PERMALINKBart, I don't share Hostile's point of view either, but that doesn't mean I trust someone like GWB who surrounds himself with sycophants and liars. When a three star general says you're going to need 300,000+ troops to do the job and you choose to ignore him because that makes it easier to sell your war to the American public, well that's pretty despicable in my opinion. Also, not sure that showing military spending as only a percent of GDP is accurate since GDP can go up or down. I've copied below a rough cut estimation of what was spent in billions from 1993 to 2000 (sorry, but couldn't find 2001). It appears that in actual dollars the military budget was flat for the period you're discussing.
Bart - you're right. We spend more on the military than the rest of the hemisphere combined. We can effectively eliminate all human life on the planet many times over. But we're still not "secure" enough. You think maybe security might be something attained through other than military means once in a while? Ya think? But no - let's do it your way. Hey - we only spend half a trillion a year on the military now. What would be reasonable to you? A trillion? A jillion? How many toy soldiers and and toy guns is enough? Oh - and finally - didn't Wolfowitz testify that this war and occupation would essentially pay for itself? Are you prepared to hold ANYONE responsible for these wildly optimistic assertions before the war? I'm curious. Posted by: Chuck on November 28, 2006 at 1:10 PM | PERMALINKCheryl, By all means, please try to impeach the "command and chief" (sic). Did they teach "Civics" where you came from? As a refresher, Vice President Cheney is next in line for the job, not Bill Clinton. Gregory and grape_crush, Even with the "emergency appropriations," the U.S. is still spending less, as a percentage of GDP, than in any other major war we've been in. Would you like to see those past numbers? As for future numbers, "projecting outlays" are just that, estimates, but not necessarily "lies." Captain Goto, I've never posted at Glenn Greenwald's. Sorry I disgust you, though. I'm not lying either. BC, If it weren't for Republicans holding the line, Clinton would have done what Hostile is suggesting. Hostile, I'm sure you realize the vast majority of Americans disagree with your opinions of the military. I have nothing more to say to you. Posted by: Bart on November 28, 2006 at 1:10 PM | PERMALINKSend Bill to the UN. Really. Now. If only. Folks, we can debate this all we want, but Bush ain't gonna budge. Have a look at the post at the link below; note that it is written by a researcher working for the ISG. Note also that the researcher suggests that a great big international conference, sponsored in good faith by the US, is about the only thing that could potentially stop this (looming regional) train wreck. Further note that the author implies that there's little chance of such a thing happening. I think that the author is right, but I really, really hope that s/he's not. http://noquarter.typepad.com/ It's gonna be katy-bar-the-fucking-door. >>We spend more on the military than the rest of the hemisphere combined. Close but no stogie. Our military budget is larger than the combined military spending of the entire rest of the planet combined. Posted by: CFShep on November 28, 2006 at 1:13 PM | PERMALINKEven with the "emergency appropriations," the U.S. is still spending less, as a percentage of GDP, than in any other major war we've been in. Yeah, and such a bargain we're getting. Of course, cyntax has already noted the inherent dishonesty of the "percentage of GDP" dodge. But the point remains that, by refusing to this very day to present a budget for the war to the US Congress, Bush is indeed lying about its costs. Sorry, Charlie. Posted by: Gregory on November 28, 2006 at 1:14 PM | PERMALINKI just can't seem to stick to a name. I only held onto "Cheney" for one lousy day! Posted by: Bart on November 28, 2006 at 1:16 PM | PERMALINKcyntax and Gregory, Fine. You guys think the standard GDP measure is a lie then. The rest of us realize that keeping military spending "flat" over a prolonged time results in a decline in personnel, equipment, and overall readiness, by every other reasonable measure. Plenty of generals were complaining the Clinton budgets were too lean. But, you guys only want to listen to those types when they help your argument. Kinda ironic you are complaining when Bush does that. Posted by: Bart on November 28, 2006 at 1:19 PM | PERMALINKPlenty of generals were complaining the Clinton budgets were too lean. Yeah - I heard my boss complain that his boss cut his department too lean to supply us all with ponies this quarter. Bastard. Posted by: impeach.remove.convict.punish.justice on November 28, 2006 at 1:24 PM | PERMALINKYou make a historic blunder of a military operation with the army you have, not the army you wish you had. Posted by: Rumsfeld on November 28, 2006 at 1:26 PM | PERMALINKBart, that's a nice line of argument you have going there: deflect from the actual issue at hand, which is that Bush's foreign policy has broken the military. It must go down well at the local pub. His domestic financial policy has created a situation where we dig ourselves deeper and deeper into debt in order to finance his failed foreign policy. Is it even remotely possible that you can discuss the issue at hand, without resorting to the "blame Clinton" dodge? Posted by: Wonderin on November 28, 2006 at 1:27 PM | PERMALINKBart on November 28, 2006 at 1:10 PM: As for future numbers, "projecting outlays" are just that, estimates, but not necessarily "lies." From the same link: Right after the war started, Wolfowitz proclaimed in a House hearing, "When it comes to reconstruction, before we turn to the American taxpayer, we will turn first to the resources of the Iraqi government and the international community...The oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 billion and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years." A month later, Andrew Natsios, the head of the US Agency for International Development, said American taxpayers would not pay more than $1.7 billion in reconstruction costs. "$1.7 billion is the limit," he said on ABC's "Nightline." Half a year and $18.4 billion later in federal reconstruction pledges, the White House was so embarrassed by the earlier claim by Natsios that it pulled the transcript of his interview off the USAID website. It's so bad that when Wolfowitz was asked last month in a congressional hearing what the "burn rate" was on the supplemental funds, his first answer was, "I can't tell you." When an aide slid him the number, which was $4.7 billion a month, a figure nearly on par in real dollars with the Vietnam War, he was asked what would be the cost of 20,000 more troops. He said, "I can't give you that number right now." This is the same Wolfowitz who a month before the war pooh-poohed a Washington Post story that quoted administration officials as admitting that the Pentagon's estimate of a $60 billion to $95 billion did not include billions more in reconstruction costs and humanitarian aid. Wolfowitz told a House hearing that the idea that the costs are "going to be eclipsed by these monstrous future costs ignores the nature of the country we're dealing with...There's a lot of money there." Again, this is in 2004. Parse it however you want, but when it comes to being straight with the American people about the cost of invading occupying Iraq, Dubya and his staff are both grossly incompetent and liars. Posted by: grape_crush on November 28, 2006 at 1:33 PM | PERMALINKDubya and his staff are both grossly incompetent and liars It's long past time all you spoiled American babies learned the difference between Want and Need. We give people the truth they Need, not the truth they Want. Posted by: Rumsfeld on November 28, 2006 at 1:36 PM | PERMALINKimpeach.remove.convict.punish.justice, Were you in the military during Clinton's terms? If so, please tell us what the private opinions of him were. Wonderin, Your very first line of argument was that Bush was going to push the problem onto the shoulders of the next president. Why can't you admit that it's at least possible then that Clinton also screwed the pooch on Osama / military just a little bit before January 20, 2001? If Clinton didn't exactly "break" it himself before pushing the problem onto Bush, he gave damn close. grape_crush, Was FDR "grossly incompetent" or "lying" when he underestimated WWII costs? Keep in mind those budget projection were for "total war" too. Posted by: Bart on November 28, 2006 at 1:36 PM | PERMALINKThe rest of us realize that keeping military spending "flat" over a prolonged time results in a decline in personnel, equipment, and overall readiness, by every other reasonable measure. Plenty of generals were complaining the Clinton budgets were too lean. Yeah, I'd love to hear what those generals have to say now. I'll bet you Clinton's tenure is being recalled fondly now that they see just how bad things can get. As to whether Clinton's budget was too lean, it's a question of priorities. The military is often loathe to sacrifice big ticket items, so other cutbacks are made, often around personnel and training. If you'd like to do more reading on that, I suggest you check out www.SFTT.org which is the site started by Colonel Hackworth. I'm not going to try and argue that all generals are purely objective all of the time, or that everything which passes their lips should be regarded as the gospel truth-- that would be naive to say the least. But when you try to suppress dissenting voices, as Bush did with Shinseki, you do the entire country a disservice. I've never seen this adminstration (or Republican poiticians in general) do more than pay lip service to the military. Posted by: cyntax on November 28, 2006 at 1:37 PM | PERMALINK>>Dubya and his staff are both grossly incompetent and liars. Why confine this to Iraq? I'd argue it's the MO right across the board. Right up there with his tax cuts payin' for themselves. Posted by: CFShep on November 28, 2006 at 1:39 PM | PERMALINKYou guys think the standard GDP measure is a lie then. The way you used it, yes. Pointing to military spending as a percentage of GDP during the Clinton boom is simply misleading, as cyntax spelled out to you. One does have to admire -- no, one doesn't, really -- your bluster at being called out on your deception. The rest of us realize that keeping military spending "flat" over a prolonged time results in a decline in personnel, equipment, and overall readiness, by every other reasonable measure. Wow, that's a stack of unsupported assertions in one sentence! I'll settle for addressing three: 1) Who is "the rest of us," apart from a dishonest rhetorical device intended to marginalize your opponent's opinion, and 2) do you have any citations for the assertion that "keeping military spending "flat" over a prolonged time results in a decline in personnel, equipment, and overall readiness," and 3) What do you define as a "reasonable meansure"? Plenty of generals were complaining the Clinton budgets were too lean. Then I'm sure you won't have trouble naming some. Thanks in advance. Posted by: Gregory on November 28, 2006 at 1:40 PM | PERMALINKBears reposting: "The cost of the war will be small. We can afford the war, and we'll put it behind us." --Treasury Secretary John W. Snow, New York Times, 3/9/03 Posted by: CFShep on November 28, 2006 at 1:40 PM | PERMALINKBart: "Bush never lied about the cost of war, as no one knew what the cost would be." Wow, that's your best defense of a shitheel who lied about everything else? Okay, he had Rumsfeld and Wolfewitz lie about it for him. They had us turning a profit in that hellhole, and indeed Halliburton hasthey even had their fines reversed after being caught doling out $10 hamburgers to our soldiers. Regardless of what shape our service was before this war, the war itself was not needed and will do deep damage to the remaining forces. Remember that Rummy wanted minimal bodies in uniform and that's what he, and we, got. So go ahead and blame Clinton; it's all you fools have left. Posted by: Kenji on November 28, 2006 at 1:42 PM | PERMALINKBart, You smell like Chuckles, the Political Animal shit shoveller and resident busybody troll... Posted by: Pale Rider on November 28, 2006 at 1:43 PM | PERMALINKWas FDR "grossly incompetent" or "lying" when he underestimated WWII costs? "Bart's" belligerence (the sinking ship of the Bush Presidency has the cultists conspicuously deranged, doesn't it?) somewhat masks the faux politeness that is one of Charlie's verbal tics, but that tears it -- "Bart" == Charlie. Posted by: Gregory on November 28, 2006 at 1:43 PM | PERMALINKWhy can't you admit that it's at least possible then that Clinton also screwed the pooch on Osama / military just a little bit before January 20, 2001? Here's what I "admit" in regards to Clinton and the threat posed by our terror-wielding enemies: He probably could have done more to take down bin Laden, but he at least attempted to close UBL down. Several times. Clinton was attuned to the threat; Bush ignored the threat until it was too late. Given the threat that UBL and his ilk posed, my take is that our military, at the time of Bush's inauguration, was more than sufficient for the task at hand (and this is because I firmly believe that military force is only one arrow in our quiver; yes, that means we also focus on intelligence gathering/sharing, muscular law enforcement, diplomacy, psy-ops, etc.). Instead, Bush throws our military into a major assault on a country that did not pose an existential threat to us. And, because Bush's key subordinates either ignored or did not understand the nature of the beast, Bush has now truly screwed the pooch. Posted by: Wonderin on November 28, 2006 at 1:47 PM | PERMALINKBart; I was in during Clinton's terms and I can tell you what the private opinions were, so listen up, Bub. They were pretty much the same as they have been forever, before this punk president broke my Army and is so incompetent that he now does not enjoy the endorsement of about 65% of the officer corps. This is as bad as I have ever seen it, and you armchair Generals sicken me. Always about half are happy and half are bitching. But the debate is more between the devotees of X-Box versus Play Station more than Republican versus Democrat. We enforce democracy, we don't practice it. Now you all keep speaking for us. We enjoy the chuckle. These be dark times and humor is all we have. Posted by: Lt.C., MFA 71, AOC 67-B on November 28, 2006 at 1:48 PM | PERMALINKWhen is the monthly going to put in a karma system into the comments so that we can vote down the trolls? Comment 1 Bart tries to blame Clinton? What universe is he in. That guy would have zero credibility in real life and yet I have to scroll past his idiocy to find where the conversation really starts. Stop wasting our time and get some real software running already. Posted by: patience on November 28, 2006 at 1:49 PM | PERMALINKThank you for your service, Lt.C., and your comments. Here's just one underestimated WWII budget for your review, grape_crush. I'm done now, so the rest of you can have your echo chamber back. Posted by: Bart on November 28, 2006 at 1:52 PM | PERMALINKPerhaps Bill Clinton should not have cut the military so much then? Learn to read! It says "back to the status they were in before the invasion", not "before the Clintin administration. Posted by: thersites on November 28, 2006 at 1:52 PM | PERMALINKOh, and Bart, About your contention that keeping military spending flat is bad, I think both you and President Bush would do well to heed another politician's cautions about how spending relates to the military and exactly what can and can't be accomplished by the military. I've gotta say Ike's point of view is a wee bit more persuasive than what you've espoused so far.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together. ...Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we -- you and I, and our government -- must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow. ...Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war -- as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years -- I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.
>>As we peer into society's future, we -- you and I, and our government -- must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. Indeed. Thanks, cyntax. Posted by: CFShep on November 28, 2006 at 1:58 PM | PERMALINKthis "Ike" sounds like a mushy liberal, to me. "militaryindustrial complex" ? grab your Reynolds Wrap ! Posted by: cleek on November 28, 2006 at 2:00 PM | PERMALINKWe cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. Someone should have told Reagan, not to mention Dubya. Posted by: Gregory on November 28, 2006 at 2:02 PM | PERMALINKWere you in the military during Clinton's terms? If so, please tell us what the private opinions of him were. Ah - the familliar stench of Charlie. . . No, I wasn't in the military during Clinton's terms. Though I am associated with the defense contractor business, and deal with people in the procurement area on a regular basis. People who don't have the fortitude to make hard choices often have those choices made for them by those that do. Those who have those choices made for them tend to be unhappy with the results, and tend to point fingers to displace blame. It's not at all surprising that fingers are being pointed at Clinton. The major criticisms of Clinton were the expense of the Bosnia conflict was not adequately backfilled by funding, which was ultimately the responsibility of the Republican Congress at the time. This had the same effect on career officers that the Bush War is having now. Of course, you talk to the rank-and-file troops, you find and they were told "it's all Clinton's fault" by those who actually had to do the chopping; mid-level commanders who were ROTC pukes and College-Republicans. Rank-and-file troops believe what they are TOLD to believe. Displacing blame is an old game. Posted by: impeach.remove.convict.punish.justice on November 28, 2006 at 2:02 PM | PERMALINKBut the debate is more between the devotees of X-Box versus Play Station more than Republican versus Democrat. I know, I'm in self-imposed exile and by voting myself off the island for a while, you have been relatively Charlie free - but I gotta say, I'm glad I snuck in before class just for that line. That's the kind of thinking in charge that lets me sleep well at night. The "rough men who stand ready to keep order" have a delicious sense of humor. (And if memory serves, Pale Rider said something similar once, I gotta give those props.) Posted by: Global Citizen on November 28, 2006 at 2:02 PM | PERMALINKBart, it's not an echo chamber. The people here are often, and vehemently, divided on how to fix the mess Dear Leader made. The only essential agreement is that he made it, and it's bad. Don't hate us because we're right about something so friggin' obvious! Posted by: Kenji on November 28, 2006 at 2:03 PM | PERMALINKIke's birthplace in OK should have a plaque: 'Last truly intelligent Republican.' Posted by: CFShep on November 28, 2006 at 2:03 PM | PERMALINKCharlie, when did you stop using "Cheney" and move onto "Bart"? Posted by: grh on November 28, 2006 at 2:04 PM | PERMALINKThis is as bad as I have ever seen it, and you armchair Generals sicken me. I wonder what your take is on the real Generals on, say, the JCS? Or perhaps on the civilians in charge at the Pentagon? The NSC? At least people on websites like this one debate issues related to the use of military force. From everything I've read to date, the decision to use military force in Iraq was based on a mythical faith-ideology, not on real debate. Posted by: Wonderin on November 28, 2006 at 2:05 PM | PERMALINKCFShep, my pleasure. And to the Lt.C: thanks Colonel. As a former Redleg, I gotta say us grunts do appreciate everything the Army Medical Corps does. Posted by: cyntax on November 28, 2006 at 2:08 PM | PERMALINKBut the debate is more between the devotees of X-Box versus Play Station more than Republican versus Democrat. Amen. I said something similar to that a while back; there was always a contingent that were, off on one side, the Dallas Cowboys' fans and then everyone else on the other side who was sane and well adjusted. Then there was the East Coast rap vs West Coast rap schism, Maxim vs FHM, oh and then there were the guys were into rims vs those who were into big muddin' tires. Then there was Madden NFL against NBA Jam or something like that... Posted by: Pale Rider on November 28, 2006 at 2:09 PM | PERMALINKBart on November 28, 2006 at 1:36 PM: Was FDR "grossly incompetent" or "lying" when he underestimated WWII costs? And how badly was FDR off? At least he outlined expenditures and didn't fire anyone who gave him the news he didn't want to hear. ...Has Dubya ever provided a budget estimate to Congress? Or did Dubya just say 'we need money' and let Congress pick a number out of thin air? Keep in mind those budget projection were for "total war" too. As opposed to Dubya's Iraq Adventure, which comes nowhere close to being considered a 'total war'. Posted by: grape_crush on November 28, 2006 at 2:21 PM | PERMALINKBear in mind, Bart, that however costs may or may not have been estimated in World War II, taxes were raised to help offset them. Posted by: Wombat on November 28, 2006 at 2:26 PM | PERMALINKShould read: ...provided a budget estimate for the invasion and occupation of Iraq to Congress.. Posted by: grape_crush on November 28, 2006 at 2:30 PM | PERMALINKWombat on November 28, 2006 at 2:26 PM: ..taxes were raised to help offset them. Not to mention price controls and the Office of Price Administration. Posted by: grape_crush on November 28, 2006 at 2:31 PM | PERMALINK$50 to $100 billion would eradicate extreme hunger and poverty in this world, according to the Borgen Project. So, we can buy more helicopters or we could change the world through the UN Millennium Development Goals. Posted by: Amy1022 on November 28, 2006 at 2:32 PM | PERMALINK>>Bear in mind, Bart, that however costs may or may not have been estimated in World War II, taxes were raised to help offset them. No. In point of fact the bulk of the costs were covered by war bonds sold directly to the populace. There's a very nice piece over on http://www.democracyjournal.org/ dealing with this very issue. Posted by: CFShep on November 28, 2006 at 2:34 PM | PERMALINKTrue, grape_crush, prices controls, taxes, and other severe measures, from the link Bart provided: "FINANCING TOTAL WAR THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDS. Financing expenditures which will exceed 100 billion dollars is a task of tremendous magnitude. By meeting this task squarely we will contribute substantially to the war effort and clear the ground for successful reconstruction after the war. An adequate financial program is essential both for winning the war and for winning the peace. Financing total war involves two main fiscal problems. One problem is to supply the funds currently required to pay for the war and, to keep the increase in Federal debt within bounds. The second problem is caused by the disbursement of 100 billion dollars a year to contractors, war workers, farmers, soldiers, and their families, thus adding many billions to the people's buying power, at a time when the amount of goods to be bought is declining steadily. A large portion of this excess buying power must be recovered into the Treasury to prevent the excess from being used to bid up the price of. scarce goods and thus undermine the stabilization program by breaking price ceilings, creating black markets, and increasing the cost of living. We cannot hope to increase tax collections as fast as we step up war expenditures or to absorb by fiscal measures alone all excess purchasing power created by these expenditures. We must, therefore, provide a substantial portion of the needed funds by additional borrowing, and we must also use direct controls, such as price ceilings and rationing, for the protection of the consumer. Nevertheless, the more nearly increases in tax receipts follow in creases in expenditures, the better we safeguard our financial integrity and the easier the administration of price control and rationing. All of these measures are interrelated. Each increase in taxes and each increase in savings will lessen the upward pressure on prices and reduce the amount of rationing and other direct controls we shall need." Posted by: Wombat on November 28, 2006 at 2:35 PM | PERMALINKAmy1022: 6 billion people is already too many on the planet. Posted by: Wombat on November 28, 2006 at 2:37 PM | PERMALINKOK, enough. Right-wing fucktards wanna toss out horseshit, they'd better learn to expect scorn and flames back. So Bart -- shut the fuck up already. Your "military spending as a fraction of GDP" table means nothing, given that GDP was hardly static in the years you cite. (Or at least it sure doesn't support the point that you think you're making.) If you're too stupid to realize that, you shouldn't be near a keyboard. If the Pentagon is really so short of cash, maybe it needs to set some priorities that correspond, however tangentially, to the reality that we inhabit. In that reality, neither the F-22 nor "missile defense" nor yet another nuclear supercarrier serve any useful role other than keeping some well-connected constituencies happy. In fact, rather than making half-assed assertions about how this president or that one cut some supposedly crucial program or budget, maybe it makes more sense to question why the services maintain the same 1/3-1/3-1/3 funding rules that they had during the Cold War. Perhaps, for instance, the Air Force is now a service without a mission. Maybe possibly barnacle-like government and corporate bureacracies have at least as much to do with squandered "defense" dollars as any single politician. Posted by: sglover on November 28, 2006 at 2:40 PM | PERMALINKI welcome GC back. Thank you so much, CFShep, but I'm not staying long. No offense, but the Major and I decided that would be best for now. Posted by: Global Citizen on November 28, 2006 at 2:41 PM | PERMALINKPresident Eisenhower warned of the unholy alliance between the Pentagon and private industry in his Farewell Address to the Nation. Two paragraphs are particularly poignant: In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together. We clearly no longer have an alert and knowledgeable citizenry, as most Americans have been frightened out of what little wits they have, by a mythical enemy that is surely smaller than we imagine. As a result, vast amounts of resources are squandered on nuclear submarines we dont need and missile defense systems that dont work and enough WMDs to annihilate human civilization many times over. What ill-informed fools we have become! Was Ike posted over on Daily Kos? That's the third person to bring him up today. Posted by: Wombat on November 28, 2006 at 2:47 PM | PERMALINK"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." >>6 billion people is already too many on the planet. Um...it's currently 6.3B. Clock just keeps spinning. Posted by: CFShep on November 28, 2006 at 3:11 PM | PERMALINKWas Ike posted over on Daily Kos? That's the third person to bring him up today. Don't think so. It was Bart's assumption that flat spending on the military is necessarily a bad thing that made me think of Ike's caution about the military industrial complex. Just shows to what degree people's thoughts on the subject are unexamined. Posted by: cyntax on November 28, 2006 at 3:12 PM | PERMALINK"The next president will face a staggering bill," Why not present the bill to all those who supported and benefitted from aWol's bogus war? Posted by: Hedley Lamarr on November 28, 2006 at 3:12 PM | PERMALINKBut, cyntax, when it comes to social programs our side likes, then flat spending IS a bad thing. Posted by: Wombat on November 28, 2006 at 3:15 PM | PERMALINKWhy not present the bill to all those who supported and benefitted from aWol's bogus war? Just so. But since the Current Occupant's family is conspicuously among that number, I'd say the odds are pretty slight. Posted by: CFShep on November 28, 2006 at 3:18 PM | PERMALINK"Perhaps Bill Clinton should not have cut the military so much then?" Most of the hard decisions about force reductions were made during the first Bush Administration. President Clinton was responsible for any additional cuts added to the five year POM published in 1992 and all of the cuts after 1997. It's hard to say without some research which cuts were the most difficult to absorb or were otherwise unwise. It would be nice to say that we devise the required National Defense Strategy and then fund the military needed to accomplish it, but it would be a lie. Generally speaking, we fund the military we think we can afford and then adjust the National Defense Strategy to fit. Posted by: Trashhauler on November 28, 2006 at 3:29 PM | PERMALINKShorter Bart: Il Duce ha sempre ragione! Posted by: Davis X. Machina on November 28, 2006 at 3:37 PM | PERMALINKCould you, Trashhauler, point to the last time a bullet was fired in the name of "National Defense?" As Im looking over the history, the last time anyone declared war on the United States was 1941 and that conflict was over in 1945. Maybe the reason why the budget comes first and the strategy second is that we have no threats large enough to warrant the available budget. Posted by: heavy on November 28, 2006 at 3:39 PM | PERMALINKThe only message posted by the real Wombat was posted at 2:26 PM. Accept no substitutes. Posted by: Wombat on November 28, 2006 at 3:40 PM | PERMALINKTrashhauler, For a slightly different take on the issue of how military funding operates, check out this link: http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2006/11/index.html Scroll down about 10 or 15 posts to one entitled "The Honor Guard." Then, click on the comments and read the first one. You might find it interesting. Posted by: Wonderin on November 28, 2006 at 3:43 PM | PERMALINKTherefore, the post by Wombat at 3:40 PM (and this one) is not real. Accept no substitutes. Posted by: Wombat on November 28, 2006 at 3:46 PM | PERMALINKThank you so much, CFShep, but I'm not staying long. No offense, but the Major and I decided that would be best for now. We'll miss you Global Citizen. Give our best to the Major. Posted by: Edo on November 28, 2006 at 3:52 PM | PERMALINKThank you so much, CFShep, but I'm not staying long. No offense, but the Major and I decided that would be best for now. Posted by: Global Citizen on November 28, 2006 at 2:41 PM | PERMALINK That wasn't me, but the fucktard uses my real email. This kind of shit is why I voluntarily left. THis chucklehead is so fucking obsessed with a hatred for me he derails every thread. I respect Kevin's blog too much to be a part of this moron's pathology. By the way, thanks for proving my point there, chuch-head. See you when Kevin gets new software. Damn! Now I have given away who I was hiding as for a minute! Happy holidays! Posted by: pissed-off, armed, and pre-menopausal (you were saying?) on November 28, 2006 at 3:57 PM | PERMALINKBC wrote: "Interesting that in the years 1995-2001, Republicans were in charge of the House of Representatives - where spending bills originate. Guess there's culpability on both sides if you think the military was gutted from 1995 to 2001." Actually, that's not true. In every Administration, the Pentagon produces an exacting annual budget, based on five year plans, reflecting priorities okayed by the President. The budget is vetted by OMB and presented to Congress. Congress seldom adds significantly to the President's budget, though they are all guilty of inserting markups in the Defense Authorization Bill. In the late 90s, Congress routinely inserted money to buy Lockheed C-130Js, even though the Air Force had not included it in their budget. Congress got around that by giving the C-130Js to the Air National Guard, rather then the active component. One could have labeled this unilateral Congressional action as pure pork, since the C-130J was and is built in Newt Gingrich's district. However, it turns out we were lucky to get those aircraft - they've served well in Iraq and the Air Force now wants to buy many more, replacing the clapped out C-130Es and older C-130H models. But such large insertions by Congress are pretty rare. Posted by: Trashhauler on November 28, 2006 at 4:01 PM | PERMALINKIn no way were we lucky to get Gingrichs pork. That it has served well in a nation we invaded without justification doesnt mean that we needed it. Waste on top of waste is generally called a dung heap. Posted by: heavy on November 28, 2006 at 4:08 PM | PERMALINKBut such large insertions by Congress are pretty rare. And to a large extent beside the point. As a commenter on Pat Lang's site recently wrote: "The Pentagon is a giant, incredibly complex establishment,budgeted in excess of $500B per year. The Rumsfelds, the Adminisitrations and the Congressmen come and go but the real machinery of policy and procurement keeps grinding away, presenting the politicos who arrive with detail and alternatives slanted to perpetuate itself. [Politicos and appointees] therefore...accepts the alternatives provided by the career establishment that never goes away and he hopes he makes the right choices. Or he is influenced by a lobbyist or two representing companies in his district or special interest groups. From a practical standpoint, policy and war decisions are made far below the levels of the talking heads who take the heat or the credit for the results." Procurement is politics, baby. I wonder to what extent our military budget reflects actual threats that we face?? Posted by: Wonderin on November 28, 2006 at 4:12 PM | PERMALINKGlobal Citizen: At least you won't be posting until then. I will note that you weren't nearly as upset about someone stealing MY handle though, were you? http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_01/008003.php#799389 Posted by: tbrosz on November 28, 2006 at 4:14 PM | PERMALINKheavy wrote: "Could you, Trashhauler, point to the last time a bullet was fired in the name of 'National Defense?'" Depends how you define "National Defense," heavy. We define national defense as including our vital interests and allies. The military we've used to fight all these wars has always been shaped to fight theoretical wars against our greatest threats. We entered Vietnam with an Army and Air Force equipped for fighting the Soviet Union in a nuclear battlefield. We fought DESERT STORM with a military shaped by the AIR-LAND BATTLE theory and sized to fight two major theater wars (Europe and Korea). The Two MTW strategy hung around until the current Administration when it was thrown over for the 1-4-2-1 strategy. The military of the future will be shaped to some other theoretical threat. Posted by: Trashhauler on November 28, 2006 at 4:14 PM | PERMALINKBush said today in Latvia: There is one thing Im not going to do. I am not going to pull our troops off the battlefield before the mission is complete. Well, let's hope that we've got the right military to fight George's theoretical mission. Posted by: Wonderin on November 28, 2006 at 4:18 PM | PERMALINKThat wasn't me, but the fucktard uses my real email. And with Wombat as well, I'd wager. Frankly, the protestations of helplessness in the face of spammers, let alone trolls, don't really sit well. I'd settle for formatting comments so the poster's name appears first. But the fact is that the quality of discussions here -- the real value of this site, in my opinion, given Kevin's too-frequent forays into embracing Republican straw men -- has been degraded for some time. I've long held that hijacking handles is the L4m3n3ss, even when tbrosz was getting some well-deserved skewering, and Charlie -- whatever his current guise -- posting every other comment is just too much. Make no mistake: These drooling mouth-breathers are ruining this site. Even Blogger has a better system, for pity's sake. Not ponying up for a decent comment system is the epitome of penny wise and pound foolish. Posted by: Gregory on November 28, 2006 at 4:20 PM | PERMALINKYou didn't answer the question. When was the last time a bullet was fired in the name of National Defense? Was Vietnam a threat to our allies? Was it a threat to our "vital interests" (I assume here you are suggesting that the business interests of the nation are to be propped up by our military might - a rather fascist notion and one that makes the aversion to taxing the elite even more loathsome)? In what way did slaughtering the people of Vietnam aid in our National Defense? In what way does slaughtering the people of Iraq aid our National Defense? In other words: When was the last time a bullet was fired in the name of National Defense? Posted by: heavy on November 28, 2006 at 4:20 PM | PERMALINK"Fake tbrosz," Yeah, Chuckles. Still not dead yet? Damn...guess I have to pray harder to my vengeful God. What's it like knowing he won't accept you into his Kingdom because of your ways? Think you can deal with all those abortion doctors getting into Heaven way, way ahead of you? Posted by: Pale Rider on November 28, 2006 at 4:22 PM | PERMALINKYou didn't answer the question. Completely unintentional, I'm sure. Not. Posted by: Gregory on November 28, 2006 at 4:23 PM | PERMALINKProcurement is politics, baby. I wonder to what extent our military budget reflects actual threats that we face?? I refer you to Fred Kaplan's 'War Stories' over on Slate. Go to archives and let your mouse do the walkin'. Posted by: CFShep on November 28, 2006 at 4:25 PM | PERMALINKMake no mistake: These drooling mouth-breathers are ruining this site. Even Blogger has a better system, for pity's sake. Not ponying up for a decent comment system is the epitome of penny wise and pound foolish. I'm thinking Washington Monthly is looking for an excuse to get out of this business; otherwise, you'd think they'd be investing in something here. Hey, I ponied up a donation last go-round. Did that go to the magazine (such a 19th century thing, printing something on paper!) or did that go to help keep Drum up on the web? Start publishing entirely on line (save the overhead) and start putting some money into this thing we call Political Animal, okay guys? Oh, wait. They don't bother to read the comments. Guess I'll have to write a letter and put it in an envelope and let the mailman take it to downtown DC...yawn... Posted by: Pale Rider on November 28, 2006 at 4:26 PM | PERMALINKheavy: When was the last time a bullet was fired in the name of National Defense? Since we are obviously not going to agree about Iraq / Afghanistan, I'll have to go with 9/11/01 near Shanksville, Pennsylvania. Posted by: Nathan on November 28, 2006 at 4:32 PM | PERMALINKUm...what? Obviously if you think murdering the citizens of Iraq was "defense" you have a rather bizarre notion of the word. But aside from that, who exactly fired on whom in Pennsylvania? Or are you some kind of nut who thinks that the passengers taking down that plane had some kind of National Security backing? This is about spending on the military. Try to keep up. How about military spending as a percentage of the national budget? Whether 24 percent or 42 percent (when including nukes at Energy and servicing of past military-incurred debt) it dwarfs all other world spending, and our debt continues to spiral. There were pieces of Flight 93 found three miles and eight miles away from the crash site, which is evidence of a shoot down. There is also a three-minute discrepancy in the cockpit voice recording immediately prior to the flight's crash. The cockpit voice recorder transcripts end at 10:03 a.m., but Cleveland Air Traffic Control reported that Flight 93 went out of radar contact at 10:06 a.m., which is confirmed by FAA radar records. Seismologists detected an impact at 10:06:05 a.m., +/- a couple of seconds. I do believe fighter jets were closer to Flight 93 than what is stated in the official record. In fact, witnesses reported a small white jet near the impact site immediately after the crash. Although we may never know if it was an armed military jet. If it was, though, that's at least "a bullet". Posted by: Nathan on November 28, 2006 at 4:50 PM | PERMALINKDALLAS JUST ARMED ITS POLICE FORCE WITH AR-15'S AS HAS MANY OTHER TOWNS IN TEXAS . ALL WE NEED NOW IS THE RPG AND AND THE SHOULDER FIRED MISSILE. WELL , MAYBE A FEW .50 CALS. DON'T FUCK ---ER MESS WITH TEXAS Posted by: TEXAS ARMY on November 28, 2006 at 4:59 PM | PERMALINKIn other words, only in the minds of conspiracy theorists was there any military involvement. Even if I granted you your tin-foil-hat based answer that still leaves you with 35+ years of military spending without a single bullet fired in the cause of National Defense. How many billions in waste does that single (imaginary) takedown represent? Posted by: heavy on November 28, 2006 at 5:04 PM | PERMALINKwonderin posted: "The Pentagon is a giant, incredibly complex establishment,budgeted in excess of $500B per year. The Rumsfelds, the Adminisitrations and the Congressmen come and go but the real machinery of policy and procurement keeps grinding away, presenting the politicos who arrive with detail and alternatives slanted to perpetuate itself." This is at least partially true, if a bit simplified. The politicians do make a difference, sometimes a large difference, as is when they cancel large programs. By and large, however, the acquisition cycle is so long that the decisions usually come down to "do we continue this program or reduce it?" The choices are largely limited to the existing programs. It almost always takes a real hard ass to make substantial changes. Rumsfeld was such a SECDEF and his dictates were a sea change in direction. Lighter armor, more high tech, fewer troops. Too bad his tactical situation overcame his strategic vision. Posted by: Trashhauler on November 28, 2006 at 5:07 PM | PERMALINKRe Trashhauler's last post: Just for clarity's sake, the quote I posted was not my own, but by a commenter on another site who says that he is: "...a 2 tour Vietnam Veteran who recently retired after 36 years of working in the Defense Industrial Complex on many of the weapons systems being usedby our forces as we speak." Credit where it's due and all that. Posted by: Wonderin on November 28, 2006 at 5:11 PM | PERMALINKtactical situation What a nice euphemism for massive fuckup. Rumsfeld was the architect of the invasion of a nation that was no threat to our national security. His tactical situation was that he was an incompetent who thought he could go to war against a tiny nation and there would be no consequences. He is the worst Secretary of War since Cheney and Cheney thought he could go to war without Congressional approval. Rumsfeld was the architect of the invasion of a nation that was no threat to our national security. Let's also not forget that Rumsfeld, along with loads of other ideological idiots, was pushing for a war with Saddam long before 9/11. Posted by: Wonderin on November 28, 2006 at 5:14 PM | PERMALINKLet's also not forget that Rumsfeldwas pushing for a war with Saddam long before 9/11 Thats because Rumsfeld, like the rest of the Republican leadership, is not serious about National Security. Posted by: heavy on November 28, 2006 at 5:19 PM | PERMALINKheavy: The best defense is a strong offense, I always say. The billions were worth it IMO. Also, I said that I don't "know" if Flight 93 was shot down, but then again, we may never "know" that. As for Iraq being "no threat" or "no consequences", we'll have to disagree. What if Saddam had obtained a nuke and got it into the U.S. American casualties so far have been remarkably low. I have minor disagreements with Rumsfeld, especially with perfect 20/20 hindsight, but overall he did a great job. Posted by: Nathan on November 28, 2006 at 5:23 PM | PERMALINK. . . and the Right Wing Lemmingdompubbiehood claimed that President Clinton decimated the military . . . yet another Right Wing perpetuated myth that goes to show how inept Republicans are. Why do they hate America? Haven't read the article - do Wilkerson's estimates include the costs of increasing incentives to maintain enlistment goals? Fewer & fewer potential enlistees are willing to assume such as risk (fighting in another country's civil war) unless the military sweetens the pot, and that isn't even working out well, given how they've increased the age of enlistment, and how they are taking people without high school diplomas. Goodness, the Right Wingers in this country don't have a clue as to what GeeDubya has done to the military. But they'll support the troops, by golly . . . What idiots. Posted by: KG on November 28, 2006 at 5:30 PM | PERMALINKheavy wrote: You didn't answer the question. When was the last time a bullet was fired in the name of National Defense? Was Vietnam a threat to our allies? Was it a threat to our "vital interests" (I assume here you are suggesting that the business interests of the nation are to be propped up by our military might - a rather fascist notion and one that makes the aversion to taxing the elite even more loathsome)? In what way did slaughtering the people of Vietnam aid in our National Defense? In what way does slaughtering the people of Iraq aid our National Defense? Oh, you wanted an ideological answer. Sorry, I misunderstood. As far as Vietnam goes, the test of whether the fighting there served the National Defense might be measured against the then existing strategy of containment. In the global context, the United States could fight an eventually losing war while still defending our other allies. We don't know how the war affected the Soviet Union's and China's plans - perhaps minimally or perhaps they thought that as long as they were fighting us in Vietnam through proxies they didn't have to fight us in Europe or elsewhere. A good historian might be able to tell you, but I cannot. In Iraq, the National Interests were somewhat more clear - removal of Saddam was supposed to eliminate a threat to the region's oil supply (and our allies) and enhance our position in opposition to jihadism. The jury is still out on the long term effects, but we're certainly paying a high price in the effort. How about a more philosophical answer: Every time a bullet is fired in obedience to the lawful orders of our duly elected or appointed leaders, it is fired in support of our National Defense, since it is their duty to determine what constitutes that interest. After all, success or failure shouldn't really be a factor in judging intent. Posted by: Trashhauler on November 28, 2006 at 5:37 PM | PERMALINKThe hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis might have a question for you Nathan. And really, what if you were a terrorist? You havent shown much concern for human life and are remarkably prone to support violence. The only real answer is to murder you in your sleep to prevent you from attaining a nuclear weapon and harming children in my neighborhood. Theres no need for hindsight. There is only the question of whether this monster invaded without sufficient evidence that there was a real threat. Get it, he invaded, there was no threat. There was insufficient evidence that Hussein was a threat as must be the case because nothing was found after the fact. There were suppositions, but those suppositions dont constitute evidence. If they did there would be some in hindsight. But, again, nothing. If the starting of unprovoked wars of aggression isnt a sign of a monstrously bad Secretary of War, you have an incredibly weak sense of morality. He didnt do a "great job" he committed butchery. We obviously disagree one everything ranging from whether there was sufficient evidence that Saddam was enough of a threat or not to whether dead Iraqis might have a question for me or not. I think we've each said our peace at least. Posted by: Nathan on November 28, 2006 at 5:43 PM | PERMALINKThe picture of Rumdumb shaking hands with Saddam in the 80s have been widely shown. What has not been available was the shot of Saddam beating Donald in arm wrestling. Geez, no wonder the boy was pissed. Posted by: thethirdPaul on November 28, 2006 at 5:49 PM | PERMALINKNo Trashhauler, what I wanted was an answer that reflected reality. Neither Iraq nor Vietnam posed a threat to our national security. In talking about failure and success as benchmarks you have wildly misunderstood my point (not surprising, your laughable rationalizations demonstrate a commitment to warmongering over rational thought). The question of Vietnam and Iraq is what threat they posed to our nation. The answer is, plainly, none. As to your philosophical answer the less said the better. The notion that every order to kill aids our National Defense is not only monstrous it is the kind of blind obedience that leads to genocide. Were our elected leaders to demand the military invade some sovereign nation purely to distract from their failed domestic agenda you would argue it was for the good of the nation. A patriot would argue that it was the act of dangerous men who should not be allowed near the levers of power. Nathan wrote: We obviously disagree one everything ranging from whether... Indeed...in that case, I simply ask, who on these threads has credibility, and who has been exposed as a charlatan and a liar time and again, when evaluating whose opinion to value. Whoops...you lose again, Nathan. Posted by: Gregory on November 28, 2006 at 5:58 PM | PERMALINKNathan you cant demonstrate Saddam was a threat. You know why you cant? Because we have toppled him and the whole board has been revealed. The hints we had pointed in the wrong direction, partly because the people in charge of interpreting them had a specific goal in mind. That goal was the use of the military to ensure the domestic political success of the Republican Party. It succeeded. Unfortunately the American people eventually discovered what a corrupt bargain they had struck and have removed the Republicans from power. But that doesnt mean that the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed for Republican dominance in the halls of power will come back. And it doesnt mean that your selective reading of the facts will ever have any connection with reality. Posted by: heavy on November 28, 2006 at 5:58 PM | PERMALINKheavy: Bush remains Commander-in-Chief during this war. Is that "connected" with reality enough for you? I suppose you could also argue that Germany and Japan were "no threat to our national security" but then again, that President happened to be of your political party, so you wouldn't dare argue that. As I stated above, we will have to disagree whether Saddam was a threat or not. Posted by: Nathan on November 28, 2006 at 6:08 PM | PERMALINKOne final comment on Nathan. In 2003 his defense of the notion of Saddam Hussein as a threat would have merely marked him as someone not competent to look at the totality of the evidence and come to the right conclusion. Like a Kevin Drum. In 2006 his defense of that laughable position marks him as a psychotic clinging to delusions he knows the medications will eliminate but finding comfort in those delusions and fearful of the harshness of reality without those comforting delusions (you know, like answering to the Iraqis why hundreds of thousands of them had to die). heavy (inevitably) wrote: "In talking about failure and success as benchmarks you have wildly misunderstood my point (not surprising, your laughable rationalizations demonstrate a commitment to warmongering over rational thought). The question of Vietnam and Iraq is what threat they posed to our nation. The answer is, plainly, none. As to your philosophical answer the less said the better. The notion that every order to kill aids our National Defense is not only monstrous it is the kind of blind obedience that leads to genocide." And like I couldn't see where you were going from the first line of your first post, heavy. I don't know what you expected to hear from a military professional, but my answers are neither an endorsement of warmongering nor blind obedience. And I specifically ruled out using success or failure as a benchmark - the measure was, and remains, whether the military actions arein support of the national defense strategy, no matter where that strategy is implemented. Tell you what, if you don't like my philosophical answer, try writing what you think should be a properly worded professional military ethic that will stand the test of time regardless of who is in power. Then we can poke a few holes in it and see if it's filled with hot air. Posted by: Trashhauler on November 28, 2006 at 6:15 PM | PERMALINKAs usual, the peanut gallery wants to blame everything on Clinton. He drained the military and that's why we're mucked up now. Wrong. The military that made such short work of Saddam's feeble forces was not a GWB creation. This was the military left to him by Clinton: well armed, well trained, educated, and motivated. The Bush team is totally responsible for the mess our military is in now. Who the hell starts a war and cuts taxes at the same time--only an idiot. Posted by: sparky on November 28, 2006 at 6:16 PM | PERMALINKHmafter insinuating that he was running away Nathan comes back with an even more delusional rant equating nations that a) attacked, and b) declared war on the United States with a nation that did neither and falsely claiming my support for defending our nation comes from partisanship rather than patriotism based merely on his misunderstanding ofwell, as near as I can tell, the English language. No one with a modicum of understanding of the words and phrases national defense, attack, declaration of war, threat, patriotism, or put some semblance of thought into what kind of an idiot you will look like when you compare being attacked to making an unprovoked attack, could have made Nathans post. Posted by: heavy on November 28, 2006 at 6:19 PM | PERMALINKI THOUGHT we had each said our peace, heavy, but I guess not. I will now let you have the last word. I'm not willing to get into the same fight about this all over again. In the past, I've admitted that Iraq turned out less than perfect, but at no tactical military level are we "losing"...unlike Vietnam we are not losing small unit engagements (none actually), losing thousands of aircraft, etc., except for IEDs, virtually all "insurgent" attacks today are against soft-targets, not us. The problem is that barring an occupation of 300,000-400,000 troops (or more), the only solution to Sunni/Shiite conflict is political. I agree that there is no military solution for that. Of course, we did eliminate any possibility of Hussein giving WMD to terrorists in the future (or posing a danger to his neighbors). It's possible that the consequences of that victory could be worse than if we had not acted at all. I've already admitted that in the past. But, considering Hussein's support for some terrorist groups, his intent to pursue WMD, and his control of some oil in the region, it's clear that he presented SOME threat to the U.S....perhaps just not a threat sufficient to justify the invasion. Posted by: Wombat on November 28, 2006 at 6:29 PM | PERMALINKTrashhauler: [With the Iraq War,] the National Interests were somewhat more clear - removal of Saddam was supposed to eliminate a threat to the region's oil supply (and our allies) and enhance our position in opposition to jihadism. Well, Trashhauler, at least you're being honest about a couple of the actual objectives of Bush's war of choice in Iraq. Funny, though, most Americans thought it was because of WMDs and Saddam's "involvement" in 9/11. Good thing at least someone was on to the inside dope. Posted by: Wonderin on November 28, 2006 at 6:30 PM | PERMALINKheavy has already done the heavy lifting with the proven liar Nathan, but what the hell: Bush remains Commander-in-Chief during this war. Is that "connected" with reality enough for you? Given that Bush just declared the United States will not withdraw its forces from Iraq before its mission of building a stable democracy is complete, there's abundant evidence that Bush is not connected with reality. There's also abundant evidence that Nathan isn't either, of course. I suppose you could also argue that Germany and Japan were "no threat to our national security" Or better yet, you could just make up a ridiculous straw man argument about nations that declared war on us. Oh, wait, Nathan just did. Here's a hint, Nathan: The fact that Germany and Japan were threats != Iraq being a threat. I see Nathan is projecting his partisan dishonesty again. As I stated above, we will have to disagree whether Saddam was a threat or not. And as stated above, the objective facts prove Iraq was not, in fact, a threat. That you hold an opinion at odds with the objective facts says more about you, Nathan, than your betters here. Good Ford, man, I pity your clients. Posted by: Gregory on November 28, 2006 at 6:35 PM | PERMALINKTrashhauler you suggested that my answer was based on failure and success, an inept and inapt description of my point. Why is it that you think I need to provide a better answer than you have? Yours, as I pointed out, is the answer of blind obedience. Your answer blithely mentions lawful orders, but ends up supporting the unlawful invasion of a nation that was clearly not a threat. Your answer is a giant step down the path to empire. You, like Nathan, imagine you have some handle on my thinking. You do not. Mine is neither an isolationist nor a pacifistic thinking. It is a recognition that the standing military has acted as an attractive nuisance for the leaders of this nation and as a source of profit for them. You cannot justify the invasion of Iraq without pretending that there was some sort of threat there and we know there was not. You cannot justify the slaughter of the Vietnamese people without resorting to (as you did) might have been. In other words, the National Security goals of these wars are demonstrably empty. Worse, theres no evidence that you can ever come to understand why. Nathan, you cant keep talking about Hussein giving away WMDs he didnt have. The board has been revealed, the cards are on the table, the jig is up, and the mouse has run down the clock. What does it take for you to get that there were no weapons to give. There were no serious WMDs of any description in Iraq. The sanctions worked. It is no longer funny for you to trot out this discredited nonsense. Take your meds. Read a newspaper from 2006. Stop lying about the past, its too easy for us to check. Oh, and try to stick to one handle per thread per day. Posted by: heavy on November 28, 2006 at 6:50 PM | PERMALINKI see that Charlie/Cheney/Bart/Thomas1/Jeffery etc. is now posting as Nathan. Well, whatever the name, the posts are still boring as hell. Posted by: Stefan on November 28, 2006 at 7:11 PM | PERMALINKIm sorry; if Id realized I was talking to a complete moron I would never have engaged Nathan. That explains the Wombat post. Posted by: heavy on November 28, 2006 at 7:23 PM | PERMALINKheavy (predictably) wrote: "Trashhauler you suggested that my answer was based on failure and success, an inept and inapt description of my point. Why is it that you think I need to provide a better answer than you have? Yours, as I pointed out, is the answer of blind obedience. Your answer blithely mentions lawful orders, but ends up supporting the unlawful invasion of a nation that was clearly not a threat. Your answer is a giant step down the path to empire." Actually, heavy, it was you who suggested that my answer depended upon success or failure. To wit: "In talking about failure and success as benchmarks you have wildly misunderstood my point...." I did not say you had to provide a better answer than mine. I only invited you to do so. Frankly, I didn't think you'd attempt it - it would be very hard to do. There was nothing casual in the use of the word "lawful," of course. Equally, my answer was not a justification of "supporting the unlawful invasion of a nation that was clearly not a threat." Those qualifiers are your judgement, not that of competent authority (meaning authority to which we are legally or morally obliged to submit.) Look, heavy, it is quite simple. If you want a military that is obedient to lawful authority and steadfast in the performance of their duty, then you should respect their adherence to a strong code of ethics. If you want some pseudo-military that bends with whatever prevailing popular wind is blowing, then you should rely on militias. But don't expect them to be very successful, except in performing palace coups. We are soon very likely to be under the command of civilians who are more to your political taste. And we will follow their orders just as rigorously. Get used to it. Posted by: Trashhauler on November 28, 2006 at 8:16 PM | PERMALINKif a criminal suspect pulls a gun on the police, who shoot in justified self-defense, it's the fault of the police if it turns out the suspect's gun was unloaded? What is this, an entry in the "stupidest analogy" contest? In what way does this scenario describe the US invasion of Iraq? In terms of this analogy, we knew the gun was unloaded. Posted by: Gregory on November 28, 2006 at 8:35 PM | PERMALINKwonderin wrote: "Well, Trashhauler, at least you're being honest about a couple of the actual objectives of Bush's war of choice in Iraq. Funny, though, most Americans thought it was because of WMDs and Saddam's "involvement" in 9/11. Good thing at least someone was on to the inside dope." There was no secret that our objective was to get rid of Saddam Hussein, who was a threat to the region's oil and our allies there. The issue of WMD was something that made Saddam potentially more dangerous, it wasn't our sole reason for removing him. We in the military certainly thought he had WMD, else our troops would not have baked in those suits all the way to Bagdad. We wouldn't have gone to the trouble of issuing chem/bio suits to our airlift crews, including civilian charters. However, I doubt many military leaders believed he had nuclear weapons ready for use. For our military, it was enough that we had sufficient casus belli to invade. Posted by: Trashhauler on November 28, 2006 at 8:36 PM | PERMALINKTrashhauler you should read your own posts before attempting to credit me with your mistakes: After all, success or failure shouldn't really be a factor in judging intent. Now, as to the lack of substance in your post. You have consistently avoided answering the question of what constitutes National Defense except to answer that any time you are asked to kill, you kill. But this isnt an answer it is an answer to a question (I didnt ask) about submitting to authority. National Defense isnt a question of following orders it is a question of threats to the nation. You dont appear to understand the difference and I assume thats why you keep trying to talk about the wrong one. Im talking about National Security and you are talking about just following orders. A military that allows itself to be used by a competent authority to commit war crimes is a military that is a danger to world peace. Invading a nation that is demonstrably not a threat is a war crime. Were you to mean lawful orders to mean in compliance with the laws of the land you would not allow yourself to commit war crimes. That you do means that you dont take the lawful in lawful orders to mean anything but given by my chain of command. This isnt the same as your bleating about militias. This is about taking your oath seriously. In the end we have learned this, you are not serious about National Security. To you it merely means following orders. Sad. Posted by: heavy on November 28, 2006 at 8:54 PM | PERMALINKFor our military, it was enough that we had sufficient casus belli to invade. No, as weve seen, for the Trashhauler it was merely enough that he was told by his superiors that he was going to Iraq. No reasons were really necessary. Go, fight, kill and Trashhauler goes because a competent authority said so. Try not to pretend you ever cared about the rationalizations given for you to kill. It undermines everything youve already said. On the other hand, now that you know for certain that there was no threat how do you justify this as an exercise in National Defense? Posted by: heavy on November 28, 2006 at 8:58 PM | PERMALINKheavy wrote: "Trashhauler you should read your own posts before attempting to credit me with your mistakes: 'After all, success or failure shouldn't really be a factor in judging intent.'" Yes, I wrote that. Note the use of the negative. I said success or failure should not, repeat, not, be a factor. But, hell, let it go as a misunderstanding. heavy also wrote: "A military that allows itself to be used by a competent authority to commit war crimes is a military that is a danger to world peace. Invading a nation that is demonstrably not a threat is a war crime." I couldn't agree more, which is why it is important to be careful about defining one's terms. Iraq was a standing threat to our vital national interests, else we would not have remained deployed against them. Iraq was in violation of several agreements attendant to the 1991 ceasefire, giving us sufficient casus belli to resume hostilities. No competent authority disputes these facts or has declared our subsequent actions to be illegal. That you judge our acts to be war crimes is not relevant to our duty or to my oath of office. In the end, I think you are terribly and willfully ignorant about National Security beyond the narrow scope of your own prejudices. And that's not sad, it's just stupid.
heavy wrote: "No, as weve seen, for the Trashhauler it was merely enough that he was told by his superiors that he was going to Iraq. No reasons were really necessary. Go, fight, kill and Trashhauler goes because a competent authority said so." Demonstrably false, of course, since no such idea is expressed in any of my posts. Heavy hasn't even had the wit to ask what the term, "competent authority" means. It being the National Command Authority (NCA), except in cases where the Legislative Branch or the Judicial Branch has taken affirmative action to overrule the Executive. Heavy, if you haven't noticed, you aren't doing too well in this little discussion. The first clue is when your posts subside into mostly personal insults. I suggest we call pax and leave it at that. Folks, that was Charlie posting as Nathan. He started out as Bart, did a quick flip as tbrozs and then scammed back in as "Nathan." Posted by: obscure on November 28, 2006 at 9:31 PM | PERMALINKThe next president will face a staggering bill Damn! I thought Hillary was going to keep him fron drinkin' Posted by: crazy bear on November 28, 2006 at 9:45 PM | PERMALINKThe next president will face a staggering bill Damn! I thought Hillary was going to keep him fron drinkin' Funniest thing ever. I bow to your superior comedic timing I am humbled and in awe. Thank you. Trashhauler: There was no secret that our objective was to get rid of Saddam Hussein, who was a threat to the region's oil and our allies there. The issue of WMD was something that made Saddam potentially more dangerous, it wasn't our sole reason for removing him. It was in fact a "secret" that a major objective of the Bush Administration was to protect/influence "the region's oil." The oil issue was not mentioned explicitly in Administration pronouncements in the lead-up to war. If I am wrong, I would love to see precise cites of Admin statements to that effect prior to March 19, 2003. (Incidentally, I remember debating war proponents prior to the war, in which I was roundly derided for suggesting that oil was a factor in the Admin's decision to wage its war of choice.) No kidding that WMDs were not "the sole reason" for removing Saddam. However, "WMDs" - and the practice of conflating chem/bio weapons and nukes into the all-encompassing "WMD" label - was constantly hammered into the public's collective head in the lead-up. I would also love to see cites by Admin officials, again prior to the war, that describe protecting our allies in the region as a major reason for war. Posted by: Wonderin on November 28, 2006 at 10:03 PM | PERMALINKBart\Whoever - I've never really understood the idea that six years (think about that - six years) after the Clinton Administration left office, he's still on the hook for everything. I didn't much care for Bill Clinton. But he wasn't the damn AntiChrist. In terms of force structure, the major change in ground forces was a drop from 12 Army divisions on the Bush41\Cheney watch (down from 16-18 during the Reagan era), to 10 during Les Aspens' tenure. There are a couple of factors that complicate the analysis, but that was basically it. There were some relatively small, but painful losses in procurement, notably the M-8 Ridgeway, which would could have provided some of the light armor we could really use right now. There were also some smaller impacts in terms of training budgets, recruiting, personnel retention, morale, intellectual drift, etc. Alot of the latter were second order effects. That's mostly it for ground forces (the key to our current operations). This is oversimplified, but I think it's a fair summary. I'm not going to say that those things didn't hurt - it sure would be nice to have 7th ID and 2nd AD right now. But Bush has been on watch for six years. He could have chosen to make changes. Instead we got a President that sneered that the days of massed armies were over. That's either a quote or close paraphrase from a recent public speech. Maybe I'll try and find a link. Moreover, whenever Congress made noise about increasing force structure, a veto threat was dangled. It might have been political theater, but it's an accurate revelation of this Administration's priorities, and theories about warfare. The bigger point is - on what basis do you try and pin this all on Clinton? Do you understand - do you have any idea - how poisonous a lack of accountability is to a military endeavour? If not, keep watching, because the effects are starting to show. Once you understand how the Bushies\Rumsfeld view of the military\warfare - tech heavy transformation, fires heavy, effects based operations, etc etc, alot of what they do makes sense. Their theories are smart, rational, intellectually sound, and often well thought out. They just don't work (for the most part). And everyone, from the Wall Street Journal editorial board, to, well, you, that sings their praises without a day spent with a ruck on their back, or more importantly, any connection to reality or accountabiliy, enables their disasterous lunacy. Furthermore, hack troll or not - are you really sitting there saying - "Yes, it's all going according to plan! Iraq is great - the media just isn't reporting the good news. The military is doing fine - problems are either Clinton's fault, or the carping of Clinton's generals. The federal government - pretty much all of it - isn't dysfunctional. The unitary executive is just asserting its rightful authority. Etc, etc etc." If that's your idea - look around. People, even people who haven't reached the same conclusions I have re: this administration, are starting to accept that something has gone wrong - in a way beyond the normal disillusionment with the political process, etc. I'm currently consulting at a large, conservative, military influenced business in Texas. Rumsfeld in particular was openly mocked - before his replacement. Anecdotal, sure, but just... look around. The budget "debates" upthread took a little bit of a winding path. I'll say this - the lowball numbers for the Iraq war that were pitched by the Administration induced eyerolling even at the time, even among supporters of the war. Sure, no one knows exactly, but I don't think you can credibly make the case that the Administration gave an honorable best guess, instead of something intended to head off political\public doubts. Though I do think this reflects the strategic confusion in the administration, with the President wanting an ambitious campaign of national transformation, while the SecDef (worst ever, Heavy) wanted a cheap campaign to get in and get out, to finally teach the world and the Army a lesson. The larger administration didn't have a clue how to bridge the gap. Whether any of them would understand the divide, even now, is a seperate issue. Another post to follow. I keep hearing Bush use the rationalization that "the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein", as an ex post facto justification for invading Iraq. Well, the world would be a much better place without George W. Bush too, but that doesn't give France the right to invade the United States! Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on November 28, 2006 at 10:15 PM | PERMALINK Well, the world would be a much better place without George W. Bush too, but that doesn't give France the right to invade the United States! Ironically, under the so-called "Bush Doctrine" I believe it does. Posted by: trex on November 28, 2006 at 10:27 PM | PERMALINKBesides, they might bring us "democracy, existentialism, and the menage-a-trois". The bigger point is - on what basis do you try and pin this all on Clinton? They can't pin it on Clinton. That's why they keep trying. They keep trying to make it about Clinton and it all falls apart when you shine a little light on it--a few facts are all you need and poof! Their little Powerline, Free Republic, The Corner, Little Green Footballs-inspired rants and lies shrivel up and die. They're fucking wingnuts--it's what they do. Posted by: Pale Rider on November 28, 2006 at 10:56 PM | PERMALINKSomeone name of Trashhauler
Captain Sensible notices that you are a serial liar, trashhauler. In a previous exchange, I posited that the war in Iraq was about oil. Captain Sensible said that wheresoever you find oil, you will find the boot of the soldier. You took exception to that and insisted the war in Iraq was not about oil. You now say:
And that is the most blatant example of how you were previously denying reality. The war in Iraq was always about oil, and when it fits your purposes, you deny that. When it suits your purposes, you admit that. You change with the weather, and the weather changes frequently. Trashhauler, on 24 November 2006:
Tell us, when your blowhard wind changes direction, will there be anyone around to notice the hypocrisy and the contradictions? Clarify please--was the war about oil? Or not about oil? Or do you change your answers to suit an argument you cannot win? Posted by: Captain Sensible on November 28, 2006 at 11:13 PM | PERMALINKBesides, they might bring us "democracy, existentialism, and the menage-a-trois". Could only be Woody Allen. Posted by: Trashhauler on November 28, 2006 at 11:13 PM | PERMALINKThat source would be Talladega Nights. I didn't Google. I live in a small town in Iowa that has one movie screen. Posted by: Perpetually Inquisitive on November 28, 2006 at 11:20 PM | PERMALINKCaptain Sensible wrote: "Clarify please--was the war about oil? Or not about oil? Or do you change your answers to suit an argument you cannot win?" Try to concentrate, Captain, and the seeming inconsistency will be shown as no such thing. It really isn't to hard to understand. Our national interest is the free flow of Gulf oil to the world's markets. We had already established by our actions in the so-called tanker war that we were willing to take military action to ensure its unimpeded flow. That is entirely different from having as a specific objective the direct control or ownership of Iraq oil. The first is a legitimately recognized national, indeed, international interest, while the second would be not be. We shouldn't care who owns or profits from the Iraqi oil, so long as it is available to the oil market at large. You see, no inconsistency at all. Posted by: Trashhauler on November 28, 2006 at 11:25 PM | PERMALINKBy the way, Sacha Baron Cohen delivering that line in Talladega Nights is why I can't wait for Borat to get to town. Posted by: Perpetually Inquisitive on November 28, 2006 at 11:28 PM | PERMALINKSomeone name of trashhauler>
Ah, so long as they are under our heel. Tell us again why we have: 1. Occupied the country since 2003 And so on and so forth. Really now, is it about oil or not? Posted by: Captain Sensible on November 28, 2006 at 11:34 PM | PERMALINKI'm starting to get students snarling at me when I try to motivate them through the tough units that they are just going to die in Iraq anyway, so why should they care about geology. So I point out geologists discover oil deposits and they get fired up. They may be 13, but they know the score. Posted by: Perpetually Inquisitive on November 28, 2006 at 11:41 PM | PERMALINKNo Trashhauler (who imagines that he is - in spite of having his ass kicked by all and sundry - getting the best part of this argument) it is only you who sees no contradiction. Iraq was not, is not, and could not be a threat to our national security given the reality at the time of George W. Bushs unprovoked invasion. Unless you define national security so broadly as to be about controlling the resources of sovereign nations. There is zero evidence that Iraq was a threat to our national security. There is plenty of evidence that the Bush team wanted a war for domestic political gain. There is a bit of evidence that the oil companies didn't like the direction that Saddam Hussein was taking Iraq. None of this is the definition of threat to national security. That we continued to bomb them demonstrates only that we were continuing to bomb them it may be what prevented them from being a threat but it doesnt demonstrate that they were a threat unless you believe in circular reasoning (its a fallacy, look it up). By the way, defining competent authority as the National Command Authority does nothing to demonstrate anything but your fetishization of the chain of command. I didnt ask because what you consider competent authority isnt important. After all, you are merely an order following drone unwilling to examine the import of your actions. You arent interested in their effect on the local populace (mass murder), you arent interested in their effect on National Security (undermining by creating wars where there previously were none and by making it obvious the United States no longer has any power to project except nuclear), and you arent interested in how they appear to the civilized world (war crimes). You arent really interested and have revealed yourself to be uninteresting. No need to bother with your boring and falsehood laden reply it will only misrepresent the threat of Iraq, harp on this childish notion that because someone else said it was okay you have a moral obligation to assist in mass murder, and have some pathetic insult that further demonstrates your inability to read or reason. Someone name of trashhauler> Poor fool thinks no one can read...
( s n i p )
( s n i p )
Is it about oil? Yes, no, possibly, maybe, well...? As for ongoing budgeting, % of GNP, national comparisons, etc seem to be of limited utility. For example, though we probably overemphasize China in our budgeting, is a straight comparison of expenditures really useful if we're talking about, in the case of China, a hybrid command-capitalist economy, with substantial military ownership of private industry? Strategy should drive budget, though as Trashhauler points out, that's at best imperfect. Given our present situation, we're overspending on air-superiority, nukes, some naval missions, and a few other areas, and underspending on ground forces, and a few other missions. An honest process would probably fix this. Don't hold your breath, at least with this bunch. I'm prepared to give Gates a chance, but in reality, probably nothing changes until we get a new administration. The good news is that all of the likely candidates would almost certainly do a dramatically better job. Though my gut reaction is that you could properly fund the Army and Marines while hedging on those other missions for about the same overall dollar expenditures, I'm not close enough to the process or smart enough to say that for sure. Reconstituting the current force, will, in fact, take years. It's not just troop count. Equipment is damaged and strewn accross the globe, training requirements have been sidestepped, professional development waived, etc etc etc. Posted by: hotrod on November 28, 2006 at 11:54 PM | PERMALINKWell, shoot, let me take them in order, Captain. 1. Occupied the country since 2003 Answer: The security situation being what it was, we could not in good conscience leave the country to be a) reconquered by the Baathists, b) used as a safe haven for Al Qaeda. 2. Blocked France, Russia and a host of other nations from participating in the rebuilding of Iraq Answer: We don't. Check out this: http://www.export.gov/iraq/bus_climate/foreign_reg_guide.html A Guide to Registering Foreign Companies' Branches Prepared by: Ans: Through Diebold, no doubt. The elections, however, were certified by international experts and the al Maliki coalition holds a majority in the Iraqi legislature. 4. Propped it up with force Ans: Yep, just as we did for Korea, Germany, Japan, and a host of others. 5. Allowed the Shia to control the oil ministry Ans: The Iraqis divided the ministries themselves. I think the Sunnis got Ministry of Funny Walks. Whatever. 6. Allowed a host of American companies no-bid contracts Ans: I don't know. Name a few. If you are talking about Kellogg, Brown, and Root, the LOGCAP was competed before the war. The history of LOGCAP goes back to the end of the Vietnam War and the subsequent reductions in force. By 1983, Public Law had mandated that the Army establish a contingency contract capability to provide rapid support of deployments. Here, read it for yourself: http://www.amc.army.mil/amc/ho/pdf/History%20Paper_LOGCAP3.pdf Anyway, the basic reason for no bid contracts is normally speed. FAR Part 15 contracts can take months to process, compete, and award. LOGCAP and similar contracts are IDIQ (indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity) standby contracts intended to get things moving fast. I'm not a contract officer, so I won't comment farther. You realize, of course, Captain, that this is essentially meaningless. Whatever I say, you'll refute or dismiss or whatever. I've got some writing to do, don't you have homework or something? Posted by: Trashhauler on November 29, 2006 at 12:06 AM | PERMALINKGod, I love this site. Great insight and wit, people. Posted by: Captain on November 29, 2006 at 12:21 AM | PERMALINKUnfortunate that my handle coincides with the term used by TH in his most recent post. Carry on. Posted by: Captain on November 29, 2006 at 12:26 AM | PERMALINKCaptain Sensible quoted: "In December 2003, the framework was set out in more detail when USAID commissioned a report by the privatisation specialists BearingPoint entitled "Options for developing a sustainable, long-term Iraqi oil industry." The report reinforced the "Future of Iraq's" report, recommending long-term contracts with foreign companies...." Let us know when you find evidence of a crime or something in there, will ya, Captain? I mean, other than the "it's the US government, so of course this is criminal" kind of thing. Even better, find some proof that a study was ever translated into a war aim. Posted by: Trashhauler on November 29, 2006 at 12:28 AM | PERMALINKI'm not comin' out and calling anyone anything yet, but I'm damned glad Henry Waxman has subpoena power and let those chips fall where they may. Dot the i's, cross the t's and hang the guilty bastards. Posted by: Perpetually Inquisitive on November 29, 2006 at 12:31 AM | PERMALINKUnfortunate that my handle coincides with the term used by TH in his most recent post. Carry on. My apologies, Captain. Quite inadvertent, I assure you. Posted by: Trashhaulerd on November 29, 2006 at 12:35 AM | PERMALINKHeavy, I'm trying not to hold you in the contempt I hold someone like Hostile, but it's hard to take someone who refers to worrying about the chain of command as a fetish very seriously. In any case, you're way off base. And yeah, if you want to change a system of ethics, the burden is on you to explain it. You think you're advocating simply a more thoughtful interpretation of the oath Trashhauler and I took, but in reality you propose to turn the Anglo civil-military tradition, which the US has had a handle on since George Washington, on its head. Servicemen are sworn to follow all lawful orders. I would agree that it's theoretically possible to be issued orders so immoral that they must be disobeyed, but the burden for that is, must be, very, very, very high. Moreover, you're not just talking about simply an order from higher, but rejection of civilian chain of command. So what's the plan, a military that decides which wars to fight? Have you really thought that through? We've had a few orders from civilians in this conflict that arguably rise to that level - notably relating to detainees, interogations, etc. The overall question of Iraq, though, doesn't come close. You say you're not a pacifist\isolationist, but imply the last just war was WWII, and explicitly call Iraq and Vietnam illegal acts of mass murder. Who decides that? You? Me? Generals? Colonels? "Every Captain that finds a legitimite causus belli and is willing to take his company to war, take two steps forward." Was Korea just? Would the world be better or the butcher's bill lower if we hadn't successfully defended South Korea? If it was just, then even if Vietnam was a mistake, couldn't the defense of South Vietnam be defended on the same moral grounds? Same question for the Gulf War. Again, even if you find the question laughable - the point is, do you want a large group of disciplined people with lots of guns, but who often feel somewhat ostrascized from the larger society, making the decision? Iraq may have been a terrible error - but things were hardly rosy before hand. We were engaged in containment, which required a blockade (itself an act of war) and ongoing bombing, and ultimately massive ongoing suffering. You're arguing not just that we should have kept that up, but that it wasn't civilian leadership's right to make a decision. Whether you realize it or not, your message isn't an anti-war one, but an anti-democratic one. Posted by: hotrod on November 29, 2006 at 12:39 AM | PERMALINK"I'm not comin' out and calling anyone anything yet, but I'm damned glad Henry Waxman has subpoena power and let those chips fall where they may. Dot the i's, cross the t's and hang the guilty bastards." A very legitimate function. Should make for some interesting television. Once they find something substantive to investigate that hasn't been so hyped that legend has overtaken fact. Posted by: Trashhauler on November 29, 2006 at 12:40 AM | PERMALINKSend Bill to the UN. Really. Now. I will vote for anyone in 2008 who promises to make WJC his/her SoState. we could not in good conscience leave the country to be a) reconquered by the Baathists, b) used as a safe haven for Al Qaeda Trashhauler at 12:06 AM Answer: We don't. Check out this: Trashhauler at 12:06 AM Ans: Yep, just as we did for Korea, Germany, Japan, and a host of others. Trashhauler at 12:06 AM Ans: The Iraqis divided the ministries themselves. I think the Sunnis got Ministry of Funny Walks. Whatever. Trashhauler at 12:06 AM no-bid contracts Ans: I don't know. Name a few. Trashhauler at 12:06 AM I've got some writing to do Trashhauler at 12:06 AM The security situation being what it was, we could not in good conscience leave the country to be a) reconquered by the Baathists, b) used as a safe haven for Al Qaeda. Replace "Baathists" with "Taliban", and that is precisely what we have done in Afganistan. Please explain why Iraq should be any different. Posted by: reina on November 29, 2006 at 12:51 AM | PERMALINKheavy wrote: "By the way, defining 'competent authority' as the National Command Authority does nothing to demonstrate anything but your fetishization of the 'chain of command.'" Now, see, heavy, you forgot the important part as far as this discussion goes, where the Legislative Branch or the Judicial Branch has the responsibility to take affirmative action to overrule the Executive in the event of wrongdoing. It's called checks and balances and we rely upon it as the ultimate safeguard against the misuse of Executive Power. The other Branches are therefore also part of competent authority and there is no higher authority in the world. Posted by: Trashhauler on November 29, 2006 at 1:03 AM | PERMALINKI will vote for anyone in 2008 who promises to make WJC his/her SoState. You know, that's a great idea. I am behind it a hundred percent.
Was Korea just? South Vietnam? the Gulf War?.Iraq? hotrod at 12:39 AM I don't want to do a tit for tat with you, Mike, though I suspect we agree on some things, disagree on others. My point was - should the military be the body to make the decision? Particularly since all of these decisions were at least somewhat fuzzy\shades of grey. Posted by: hotrod on November 29, 2006 at 1:10 AM | PERMALINKMike wrote: "Silly comments about silly walks are worthy of contempt." Geez, I'm crushed, Mike. I thought it was pretty cute. Monty Python did, too. You know, it seems the farther away from the action you non-participants are, the less humor is evident. I swear, I've seen people getting shot at who had more laughs. When Cleese did it with Monty Python, it was funny; when you use it for snark, it's merely pompous and silly as was the remainder of your remark. Perhaps it's the difference between TV skit comedy and actual people being blown to bits. Dude - I teach eighth grade. I face combat every day, with the possibility in the back of my mind that it might get literal. Posted by: Perpetually Inquisitive on November 29, 2006 at 1:22 AM | PERMALINKshould the military be the body to make the decision? hotrod 1:10 AMThen it would depend on the Constitution and legally decided interpretations of the appropriate clauses. That makes your point trivial. Posted by: Mike on November 29, 2006 at 1:26 AM | PERMALINK Dude - I teach eighth grade. I face combat every day, with the possibility in the back of my mind that it might get literal. And I'll bet you could tell a million of 'em. Posted by: Trashhauler on November 29, 2006 at 1:47 AM | PERMALINKI do tell em - every Wednesday night over $12.00 Margaritas. Posted by: Perpetually Inquisitive on November 29, 2006 at 1:55 AM | PERMALINKOh God! That was a typo! $2.00 Margaritas. I teach public school for Christ's sake. Posted by: Perpetually Inquisitive on November 29, 2006 at 1:56 AM | PERMALINKWhen Cleese did it with Monty Python, it was funny; when you use it for snark, it's merely pompous and silly as was the remainder of your remark. Perhaps it's the difference between TV skit comedy and actual people being blown to bits. Well, I apologize, Mike, if I've offended you. Perhaps it's the difference between being a tight ass who doesn't realize that humor won't hurt anything and might help ease the tension and being a wise ass who's getting a little shellshocked from this tagteam affair. Good night, ladies. Please keep the Republic safe.
Fuck that. I'm fomenting rebellion. I want the next generation to be able to think critically and avoid this shit in the future. Hell, they are going to have to bail our tired old asses out in a few years. Every day I have to look into the faces of the generation that is going to inherit this mess and I have a moral obligation to prepare them as best i can for the task they are going to face. Part of that means i have to teach them to question authority - while not losing control of my classroom. Try walking that tightrope. Posted by: Perpetually Inquisitive on November 29, 2006 at 2:03 AM | PERMALINKOh good lord - it's 1:00 a.m. See, DSL just came to town. I didn't bother commenting when I had dial-up, it was too slow and Iffy, so i just lurked, and well, it's like being grounded during recess; you don't mind going back to class. I can see this could be a problem tho. I can't stay up this late on school nights! Goodnight. Posted by: Perpetually Inquisitive on November 29, 2006 at 2:18 AM | PERMALINK裸体图片 美女自拍 激情图片 激情小电影 性感图片 性交图片 做爱图片 成人小说 偷拍走光 美眉图片 人体写真 性虐待电影 写真集 激情电影 免费影院 日本av电影 美少女贴图 性感美女图片 美女写真 漂亮妹妹图片 同志电影 性交姿势 美女走光 A片下载 毛片 偷窥图片 裸体视频聊天室 成人网站 成人论坛 性爱论坛 性变态图片 淫女 女大学生 美女下阴图 女性生殖器 操逼图片 激情论坛 两性生活 性教育片 两性知识 美腿图片 三级片 成人性爱电影 写真电影 美女阴图 美女乳房 性电影 成人电影下载 性爱视频 偷拍图片 泳装图片 性感内衣 性爱贴图 性生活图片 作爱图片 性交电影 做爱电影 性福 人体摄影 裸女图片 免费小电影 免费电影在线 免费影片 最新大片 看免费电影 情色电影 激情视频下载 明星露点图片 两性写真 阴部图片 乳房图片 全裸美女 美女脱衣电影 裸体美女 手淫图片 波霸美女 淫水图片 阴户阴毛图片 美女图库 美女口交图片 韩国电影 性知识 最新电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 人体艺术 美女图片 强奸图片 色情图片 黄色小说 黄色电影 强暴电影 乱伦图片 轮奸电影 迷奸电影 夜曲 为什么相爱的人不能在一起 约定 不得不爱 触电 Posted by: 手机图片 on November 29, 2006 at 2:27 AM | PERMALINKIt will be a great day when our schools get all the money they need and the Air Force has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber. They burned through $350 Billion in Iraq. The Pentagon budget is $450 Billion a year. The US spends more on military then the rest of the world combined. F* them. They don't get any damn sympathy from me. Posted by: Jay in Oregon on November 29, 2006 at 2:49 AM | PERMALINKI'm not a person who agrees with Trashhauler all the time. However, the is Heavy ever going to answer the questions that Trashhauler asked? If he isn't then he should just shut up and back off, or admit that under no circumstances ever would they accept that there is a need for the military and again back off. Heavy, you are not going to convince a man who serves in the military that his life is pointless. Nor are you going to convince anyone else that an army should decide by itself who when and how it goes to war with. The last country where that happened was Japan and that ended up with the only use of WMD's in anger against another country. Frankly your debating stance makes you come across like a agent provocateur for Turdblossom. If you are then fine, if you aren't read what you say with an objective eye and rephrase. Posted by: Bad Rabbit on November 29, 2006 at 4:42 AM | PERMALINKif a criminal suspect pulls a gun on the police, who shoot in justified self-defense, it's the fault of the police if it turns out the suspect's gun was unloaded? Of course not. But as Gregory already pointed out, Bush KNEW that Saddam's gun was unloaded. Just like Bush planted those demolition charges at the World Trade Center. Impeach the bastard! But as Gregory already pointed out, Bush KNEW that Saddam's gun was unloaded. Just like Bush planted those demolition charges at the World Trade Center. Sorry, but comparing the reports of the inspectors on the ground in Iraq -- who kept going to sites where Cheney's stovepiped intelligence insisted the weapons were, only to find nothing, and who spiked once and for all the myth that Iraq had a nuclear program outside of Saddam's fantasies -- to tinfoil hat conspiracy theories about 9/11 is a dog that just won't hunt. (By the by, Bush's fecklessness and failure speaks for itself without concocting conspiracy theories to make his manifest failure to defend the nation seem mild by comparison.) Yes, we did know that Saddam had no WMDs. We had inspectors there, and over and over the answer was the same -- again, going to where our so-called "intelligence sources" (*cough*Chalabi*cough*) insisted there were weapons -- nothing. Nothing. Just like what Bush's defenders have. How fitting! Posted by: Gregory on November 29, 2006 at 8:42 AM | PERMALINKPerhaps it's the difference between being a tight ass who doesn't realize that humor won't hurt anything and might help ease the tension and being a wise ass who's getting a little shellshocked from this tagteam affair. Humor won't hurt anything? Bush on his hands and knees under the Oval Office desk, joking about looking for the Iraqi WMDs, well, sorry--that's not funny, either. Maybe using the humor the correct way would clear up the issue. There really isn't anything funny about fucking up Iraq and leaving us bled dry, at least in my humble opinion. Posted by: Pale Rider on November 29, 2006 at 9:20 AM | PERMALINKif a criminal suspect pulls a gun on the police, who shoot in justified self-defense, it's the fault of the police if it turns out the suspect's gun was unloaded? The analogy is incorrect, since Saddam was not brandishing weapons. The correct analogy would be "if a suspect hints that he might have a gun in his house, but when questioned denies it, and allows his house to be searched and the search turns up nothing, and the police then break into his house without a warrant and shoot him, it's the fault of the police if the suspect didn't actually have a gun?" And the answer to that is yes, it is. Posted by: Stefan on November 29, 2006 at 10:48 AM | PERMALINKIraq was in violation of several agreements attendant to the 1991 ceasefire, giving us sufficient casus belli to resume hostilities. No. Only the UN Security Council, not an individual member state, had legal authority to authorize action against Iraq. No competent authority disputes these facts or has declared our subsequent actions to be illegal. BBC News Iraq war illegal, says Annan He said he believed there should have been a second UN resolution following Iraq's failure to comply over weapons inspections. And it should have been up to the Security Council to approve or determine the consequences, he added. When pressed on whether he viewed the invasion of Iraq as illegal, he said: "Yes, if you wish. I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal." news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm Stefan, Hey, watch that airtight, waterproof logic. That doesn't fly with the wingnuts. You need to add in, after six months of having the police search the house to verify that there is no gun, we'll know how successful the search really was in keeping the homeowner safe. Posted by: Pale Rider on November 29, 2006 at 10:57 AM | PERMALINKOrder Generic drugs Buy Generic drugs without prescription You could get the following medicines at cheapest prices: attract women pheromones
attract women pheromones 
November 2009
October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 |
|
|
    |
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
