Today's WaPost has two interesting articles that purport to tell the inside story of two important issues that Washington has grappled with lately. The first is about the genesis of the administration's enhanced surveillance program (often called "Warrentless Wiretapping") and the second is about the growth of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
On the surveillance front, I was happy to read of dedicated officials at Justice calling "BS" on the NSA program, forcing it to change in ways that made it consistent with the law. There are in fact, real issues at stake here, including the President's powers as Commander-in-Chief to prosecute a war. Ultimately, these sorts of things are either settled by the Supreme Court, or by the Senate (in an impeachment trial). But they (intrabranch constitutional issues) are always huge. That we could "spy" on international calls is a good thing; that we routinely do so when both ends of a call are international is also a good thing. What went awry here was that the Bush Administration improperly applied this standard to calls in which only one party was international...with the other being in the US (hence the cries of "domestic surveillance". This had civil libertarians up in arms, and folks like me a bit distressed. What is notable about this whole issue is that it was people in government who identified this and drove about the changes...this didn't change as a result of the New York Times scurrilously reporting about it; it changed because brave, honorable men who are as patriotic as anyone, decided to push to have the changes made.
In the second article on Fannie and Freddie, we see the perfect storm created by weak regulation these favorites of the Democratic Party under the Clinton Administration, followed by the loony "ownership society" pushed by President Clinton. Both organizations were there to help folks get mortgages, but the greed and lack of oversight turned both into engines of ridiculous mortgages peddled to people who had no right to enter into such a long term financial commitment.
Washington's an interesting place to live and work, and good reporting like this helps one understand the landscape a lot better.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Saturday, September 13, 2008
On Obama and Taxes (again)
Came across this little sleeper of an article while thumbing through my Weekly Standard this morning. It is worth reading in its entirety, but I will grab a few key sentences for this entry. The first few paragraphs are important:
"Thirty years of Republican tax policy have now completely eliminated federal income taxes on the poor and lower middle-income Americans, and almost eliminated them on middle America.
The latest data from the Congressional Budget Office and the Internal Revenue Service show that the lowest 40 percent of income earners as a group actually receive net payments from the federal income tax system. (They get 3.8 percent of total federal income tax revenues instead of paying any income taxes.) The middle 20 percent of income earners pay 4.4 percent of federal income taxes. Thus the bottom 60 percent of income earners together, on net, pay less than 1 percent of all federal income taxes. (These workers earn 26 percent of national income.)
The data show that the top 1 percent of income earners now pay 40 percent of all federal income taxes, which is almost double their share of the national income. The top 10 percent pay 71 percent of federal income taxes, though they earn just 39 percent of the nation's pretax income.
This is a result of the across the board income tax rate cuts adopted by Ronald Reagan and the current President Bush, plus the Earned Income Tax Credit first proposed by Reagan in the 1970s, and the child tax credit enacted into law as part of the 1994 Contract With America.
Now these kinds of statistics ought to be familiar to CW readers. The plain truth of the matter is that lower class and poor Americans just don't pay income tax, and middle income folks pay very little. Therefore, tax credits that are targeted at these folks' participation in the Federal Income Tax scheme are not tax credits at all, but are simply new entitlements that do not reduce a known tax liability. Or as our Gingrich and Ferrara put it:
What Obama is calling tax cuts for the middle class is really a slew of refundable federal income tax credits that would primarily go to those who are paying little or no federal income taxes now. Such credits would primarily not reduce tax liability, but instead be checks from the federal government for child care, education, housing, retirement, health care, even outright giveaways. These are not tax cuts. They are new federal spending programs hidden in the tax code.
Gingrich and Ferrara do more than just criticize Senator Obama's plans, they offer what I consider to be very constructive plans of their own, centered largely on unleashing capital by lowering corporate tax rates (the US has the second highest in the industrialized world, not to mention the added liability of funding worker healthcare) and lowering capital gains rates.
Interesting article here that I recommend taking a close look at.
"Thirty years of Republican tax policy have now completely eliminated federal income taxes on the poor and lower middle-income Americans, and almost eliminated them on middle America.
The latest data from the Congressional Budget Office and the Internal Revenue Service show that the lowest 40 percent of income earners as a group actually receive net payments from the federal income tax system. (They get 3.8 percent of total federal income tax revenues instead of paying any income taxes.) The middle 20 percent of income earners pay 4.4 percent of federal income taxes. Thus the bottom 60 percent of income earners together, on net, pay less than 1 percent of all federal income taxes. (These workers earn 26 percent of national income.)
The data show that the top 1 percent of income earners now pay 40 percent of all federal income taxes, which is almost double their share of the national income. The top 10 percent pay 71 percent of federal income taxes, though they earn just 39 percent of the nation's pretax income.
This is a result of the across the board income tax rate cuts adopted by Ronald Reagan and the current President Bush, plus the Earned Income Tax Credit first proposed by Reagan in the 1970s, and the child tax credit enacted into law as part of the 1994 Contract With America.
Now these kinds of statistics ought to be familiar to CW readers. The plain truth of the matter is that lower class and poor Americans just don't pay income tax, and middle income folks pay very little. Therefore, tax credits that are targeted at these folks' participation in the Federal Income Tax scheme are not tax credits at all, but are simply new entitlements that do not reduce a known tax liability. Or as our Gingrich and Ferrara put it:
What Obama is calling tax cuts for the middle class is really a slew of refundable federal income tax credits that would primarily go to those who are paying little or no federal income taxes now. Such credits would primarily not reduce tax liability, but instead be checks from the federal government for child care, education, housing, retirement, health care, even outright giveaways. These are not tax cuts. They are new federal spending programs hidden in the tax code.
Gingrich and Ferrara do more than just criticize Senator Obama's plans, they offer what I consider to be very constructive plans of their own, centered largely on unleashing capital by lowering corporate tax rates (the US has the second highest in the industrialized world, not to mention the added liability of funding worker healthcare) and lowering capital gains rates.
Interesting article here that I recommend taking a close look at.
On Censoring (again)
My friend from the Homophobia post is back, and this time I'll let his or her post stand for a bit so you can see the quality of the discourse.
Here's a link to the first post of this blog in which I laid down the rules. They are pretty simple: 1)keep it civil 2) keep it clean 3) keep it relevant and 4) keep it coherent.
Here's a link to the first post of this blog in which I laid down the rules. They are pretty simple: 1)keep it civil 2) keep it clean 3) keep it relevant and 4) keep it coherent.
Friday, September 12, 2008
On The Bush Doctrine
Sarah Palin's taking a lot of crap for her answer to Charlie Gibson's interview question...whether she agreed with the Bush Doctrine. He did not explain what he meant, so she sought clarification, which he was loathe to provide.
Many are looking at this as yet another sign of her foreign policy JV status. Nothing can be further from the truth.
As Charles Krauthammer reminds us, the Bush Doctrine has meant many things to many people through the years. Had I been asked that question this week, I would have spoken to the policy of encouraging democracy as the chief weapon against Islamic extremism.
Charlie Gibson's a good interviewer, but this "gotcha" was simply amateur hour.
Many are looking at this as yet another sign of her foreign policy JV status. Nothing can be further from the truth.
As Charles Krauthammer reminds us, the Bush Doctrine has meant many things to many people through the years. Had I been asked that question this week, I would have spoken to the policy of encouraging democracy as the chief weapon against Islamic extremism.
Charlie Gibson's a good interviewer, but this "gotcha" was simply amateur hour.
On Goldwater and Conservatism
As usual, David Brooks is making me think. His column today questions one of the bedrock notions of Golwater Conservatism, the veneration of the individual and the responsibility of the individual for his or her own lot in life (very Ayn Randish, also).
I still believe in these notions, and I feel they have a place in the pantheon of conservative ideas. But the way Brooks talks about the housing crisis is very convincing. I have been a relentless critic of not only many of the people who have been caught up in the issue, but also the hysteria surrounding it. I remain convinced that individual choices poorly made are at the root of this problem. That said, my brand of conservatism doesn't equip me to deal with the issue in an effective manner...politically. Yes, I can stand up and shout about responsibility and greed, but there is nothing in my ideology to equip me to SOLVE THE PROBLEM. Nothing our government is doing to solve this problem (much of which I support) can be considered "conservative" by even the most tortured definitions.
I guess I've got some thinking to do.
I still believe in these notions, and I feel they have a place in the pantheon of conservative ideas. But the way Brooks talks about the housing crisis is very convincing. I have been a relentless critic of not only many of the people who have been caught up in the issue, but also the hysteria surrounding it. I remain convinced that individual choices poorly made are at the root of this problem. That said, my brand of conservatism doesn't equip me to deal with the issue in an effective manner...politically. Yes, I can stand up and shout about responsibility and greed, but there is nothing in my ideology to equip me to SOLVE THE PROBLEM. Nothing our government is doing to solve this problem (much of which I support) can be considered "conservative" by even the most tortured definitions.
I guess I've got some thinking to do.
Palin, Iraq and the WaPost
The left has come to believe that not only did Saddam Hussein have nothing to do with 9-11 (which I believe), but that the thought of Saddam and Osama cooperating on other matters was beyond the pale of possibility (which I don't believe, and which has been very well documented by Steven Hayward of the Weekly Standard). There were too many ties between Iraqi intelligence and major figures in the emerging AQ movement for me not to believe that there could eventually have been cooperation. They had a common enemy (us), and all the reason in the world to get together.
But again, I don't believe Iraq had anything to do with 9-11. I don't believe Sarah Palin believes that either. But you'd never get that from the scurrilous headline in today's paper, "Palin Links Iraq to Sept. 11 in Talk to Troops in Alaska". Not really. What she said was her son and the others assembled would "defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans." While I'm sure it plays nicely into the left's narrative that Palin is one of the looney-tunes who think Saddam carried out 9-11, what she actually said was that the soldiers would be fighting enemies who planned and carried out the attacks on 9-11. Is there anyone who questions the extent to which Al Zawahiri (AQ #2) has pulled the strings in Iraq? Is there anyone who questions the extent to which AQ has created supply lines to the Sunni insurgents to provide arms, men, and explosives? The US is INDEED fighting against the people who pulled off 911 in Iraq, but that's because AQ chose to meet us there. Palin didn't say that Saddam had anything to do with 911; her words were well chosen and reflect the situation on the ground.
But again, I don't believe Iraq had anything to do with 9-11. I don't believe Sarah Palin believes that either. But you'd never get that from the scurrilous headline in today's paper, "Palin Links Iraq to Sept. 11 in Talk to Troops in Alaska". Not really. What she said was her son and the others assembled would "defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans." While I'm sure it plays nicely into the left's narrative that Palin is one of the looney-tunes who think Saddam carried out 9-11, what she actually said was that the soldiers would be fighting enemies who planned and carried out the attacks on 9-11. Is there anyone who questions the extent to which Al Zawahiri (AQ #2) has pulled the strings in Iraq? Is there anyone who questions the extent to which AQ has created supply lines to the Sunni insurgents to provide arms, men, and explosives? The US is INDEED fighting against the people who pulled off 911 in Iraq, but that's because AQ chose to meet us there. Palin didn't say that Saddam had anything to do with 911; her words were well chosen and reflect the situation on the ground.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
September 11
Today is the anniversary of the worst day of my life, maybe the worst day of yours, the day that my country was attacked and 3000 people died. I woke to the news after a flight to
It is now seven years later and our nation is still fighting the war that this event precipitated. We will be fighting it for many years to come. It is our generation’s Cold War, and like the Cold War, we will eventually win.
That day will come, probably after more horrific days of death. The Bush Administration does not get enough credit for all it has done to avert further attacks here, but pulling something off is just too easy for it not to happen someday. We all hope that our first responders have taken the lessons they needed from 9-11, and that we will manage the consequences of the next attack better than the last. I think they will.
We are at war with radical Islam, just as we were at war with Marxist totalitarianism. During a foreign policy seminar I took a couple of years ago, I was challenged by an Islamic professor from
Radical Islam is not just a few bad apples spoiling it for the rest of the bunch. Radical Islam exists because of the support, tacit and explicit, of a great many “moderate” Muslims who fund their activities and give a pass for their extremism with words like, “we don’t support what they have done, but we understand why they do it”. Radical Islam could not exist without this great heat sink of support, this financial and emotional support base from which its adherents largely emanate.
We are at war with radical Islam, and we are in conflict with Islam. Islam is anti-modern. Islam is inconsistent with Western civilization’s view of
We will win this war when we have killed and captured as many of the extremists as we can, and when we have won the conflict of ideas and values we have with the Islamic world.
Either Islam or Western Civilization will endure with its values intact. I prefer the latter.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
New Job Impacting the Blog Time
Sorry folks; going back to work is putting a little crimp in the blog. Will try to keep up. Thanks for your time and attention.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Censorship on this Blog? You Bet!
I just censored the comments of someone responding to my 1 September post on Homophobia. The correspondent and I had an earlier exchange during which I was referred to as ignorant. That's surely not a problem, because on many subjects, I am ignorant.
But the rebound exchange got to be outside the bounds of civil discourse, so I canned the comment. You get to do that kind of thing when it is your blog.
But the rebound exchange got to be outside the bounds of civil discourse, so I canned the comment. You get to do that kind of thing when it is your blog.
Woodward and Bush (Part 3)
It is clear that to me that Bob Woodward gets incredible access to the top officials in DC for two reasons. The first is that he's a good reporter with a solid reputation for fairness and accuracy. The second, and probably most important, is that senior officials in DC know that he is going to get other senior officials to talk...so they damn sure better get their side of the story in.
We see some of that at work in today's installment of the WaPost serialization of Woodward's next book. General Jack Keane was a former Army Vice Chief of Staff. Very well respected guy, and along with a fellow named Fred Kagan at the American Enterprise Institute, basically cooked up the surge strategy. Reading the article, it is clear that Keane shared freely with Woodward, just as it appears that General Casey (the Army Chief of Staff mentioned in the installment who had been General Petreaus' predecessor in Iraq) also freely shared. I can't imagine that Casey was the source for the meeting at Walter Reed (where Casey is said to have abruptly turned from Keane as if not recognizing him....doesn't exactly put Casey in a good light, does it?). And I can't can't imagine Mike Mullen (Chairman, JCS) was the source of the quotes from the meeting with Keane. In this kind of atmosphere, you get your story in, or you get painted by the others in the scenario in a way that makes you look bad. This is ultimately the secret to Woodward's reporting.
I've been a supporter of the War in Iraq from the beginning. I thought we were right to go in, I thought the President (and President Clinton) had been criticized after 9-11 for "not connecting the dots", and they weren't going to wait for the Iraq dot to connect with the Osama dot. Yes, I understand that there were all sorts of impediments to this liaison...but there were enough intelligence reports about contacts between AQ and Iraq to give a country recently scarred by terrorism all the justification it needed.
I also thought we went in dumb and undermanned. I was (like everyone else) awed by the land force's stunning victory...the tactics were superb, and our magnificent Army and Marine Corps could not have performed better. It was the planners who screwed up by not thinking about what comes next. General Shinseki (former Army Chief of Staff) had been pilloried for suggesting before Congress that some 300,000 troops would be needed to stabilize Iraq. Guess what...add our troop numbers and the Iraqi troops we've trained and what do we have today?
That said, once we went in, we had to win. I am so grateful to President Bush for the support he gave General Petreaus in this. I wish he had done so more publicly, but that was a political calculation that I understand. I'm sorry that Jack Keane had to put up with the kind of protests that he got from General Casey and Admiral Mullen, but like Keane said, this is Washington. Suck it up. Mullen and Casey had jobs to do and Keane was undercutting them. Don't get me wrong...I like what Keane was doing, I just think he knew what he was getting into when he went against the Joint Chiefs.
A bit about Admiral Mullen. I worked very closely with him in the Maritime Strategy effort. He called for its development, he provided the broad executive guidance, and he kept his nose in it all along the way. The man is a proven strategic thinker, a gentleman, and a fierce Washington player. It doesn't surprise me that he brought Keane in for a come-around. Keane was weakening the office of the Chairman and the other Chiefs (again...I agree with what Keane was doing). But I also agree with Mullen. There were other issues out there...North Korea, Afghanistan, Iran, Chavez in Venezuela...his job was to think about all of those and to make sure the military was prepared. But the decision to put it all on the line in Iraq was George Bush's decision, and he made it. Doesn't mean the Chiefs liked it, but they implemented it. Now, I don't think the President said to the Chiefs, "Boys, forget about the rest of the world and win Iraq". But he did promise Petreaus all he needed. So there was an inevitable tension between the mandate to win in Iraq and the mandate to stay watchful around the rest of the world. George Bush didn't need to openly confront the Chiefs...even the most powerful man in the world understands that they need to have their spheres of influence too...his private notes got the job done.
Another word about the American Enterprise Institute. I conducted a little "Maritime Strategy" road show in DC last Fall, hitting all the major think tanks in town. In every case but one, I had incredibly enlightening and intellectually stimulating discussions with folks who genuinely wanted to understand what we were advocating. When I went over to AEI, Fred Kagan (father of the surge) was in the room. He started out our session by proclaiming that he hadn't read the strategy, then he proceeded to rip it apart. Why? Because it wasn't completely devoted to winning the war in Iraq. He maintained that the Sea Services were in danger of becoming irrelevant because their strategy had not completely commited themselves to eradicating terrorism and winning the war in Iraq. When I asked about some of the other things Navies do (you know, providing stability in the Far East as a balance to a rising China, the force of choice for keeping Iran in the box, you know, little things like that) he had no time for it. Our exchange actually became heated...and at one point, he said, "Look, you're hear obviously looking for my support as you roll out this strategy, and you're not going to obtain it" to which I answered, "sir, I don't think your support was obtainable. You are so completely and personally invested in the success of the surge strategy in Iraq that you are unable to support anything that does not similarly devote itself to that effort." End of meeting.
Was he right? Hell no. But then again, he might have known that if he had read the strategy. (Side note: there was a DJ team here in DC called Don and Mike. They used to do "Movie reviews of movies we haven't seen yet. I accused Kagan of that, and got a laugh from the whole room). While we weren't in a mind to raise counterterrorism to the top of the heap (as in, we should build our Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard around counterterror and the war in Iraq), we thoroughly discussed how to change those services and how to capitalize on their strengths as methods of attacking root causes of terrorism. But Navies have a lot of other big jobs to do too.
Sorry bout this long winded post, but I thought I had something to offer.
We see some of that at work in today's installment of the WaPost serialization of Woodward's next book. General Jack Keane was a former Army Vice Chief of Staff. Very well respected guy, and along with a fellow named Fred Kagan at the American Enterprise Institute, basically cooked up the surge strategy. Reading the article, it is clear that Keane shared freely with Woodward, just as it appears that General Casey (the Army Chief of Staff mentioned in the installment who had been General Petreaus' predecessor in Iraq) also freely shared. I can't imagine that Casey was the source for the meeting at Walter Reed (where Casey is said to have abruptly turned from Keane as if not recognizing him....doesn't exactly put Casey in a good light, does it?). And I can't can't imagine Mike Mullen (Chairman, JCS) was the source of the quotes from the meeting with Keane. In this kind of atmosphere, you get your story in, or you get painted by the others in the scenario in a way that makes you look bad. This is ultimately the secret to Woodward's reporting.
I've been a supporter of the War in Iraq from the beginning. I thought we were right to go in, I thought the President (and President Clinton) had been criticized after 9-11 for "not connecting the dots", and they weren't going to wait for the Iraq dot to connect with the Osama dot. Yes, I understand that there were all sorts of impediments to this liaison...but there were enough intelligence reports about contacts between AQ and Iraq to give a country recently scarred by terrorism all the justification it needed.
I also thought we went in dumb and undermanned. I was (like everyone else) awed by the land force's stunning victory...the tactics were superb, and our magnificent Army and Marine Corps could not have performed better. It was the planners who screwed up by not thinking about what comes next. General Shinseki (former Army Chief of Staff) had been pilloried for suggesting before Congress that some 300,000 troops would be needed to stabilize Iraq. Guess what...add our troop numbers and the Iraqi troops we've trained and what do we have today?
That said, once we went in, we had to win. I am so grateful to President Bush for the support he gave General Petreaus in this. I wish he had done so more publicly, but that was a political calculation that I understand. I'm sorry that Jack Keane had to put up with the kind of protests that he got from General Casey and Admiral Mullen, but like Keane said, this is Washington. Suck it up. Mullen and Casey had jobs to do and Keane was undercutting them. Don't get me wrong...I like what Keane was doing, I just think he knew what he was getting into when he went against the Joint Chiefs.
A bit about Admiral Mullen. I worked very closely with him in the Maritime Strategy effort. He called for its development, he provided the broad executive guidance, and he kept his nose in it all along the way. The man is a proven strategic thinker, a gentleman, and a fierce Washington player. It doesn't surprise me that he brought Keane in for a come-around. Keane was weakening the office of the Chairman and the other Chiefs (again...I agree with what Keane was doing). But I also agree with Mullen. There were other issues out there...North Korea, Afghanistan, Iran, Chavez in Venezuela...his job was to think about all of those and to make sure the military was prepared. But the decision to put it all on the line in Iraq was George Bush's decision, and he made it. Doesn't mean the Chiefs liked it, but they implemented it. Now, I don't think the President said to the Chiefs, "Boys, forget about the rest of the world and win Iraq". But he did promise Petreaus all he needed. So there was an inevitable tension between the mandate to win in Iraq and the mandate to stay watchful around the rest of the world. George Bush didn't need to openly confront the Chiefs...even the most powerful man in the world understands that they need to have their spheres of influence too...his private notes got the job done.
Another word about the American Enterprise Institute. I conducted a little "Maritime Strategy" road show in DC last Fall, hitting all the major think tanks in town. In every case but one, I had incredibly enlightening and intellectually stimulating discussions with folks who genuinely wanted to understand what we were advocating. When I went over to AEI, Fred Kagan (father of the surge) was in the room. He started out our session by proclaiming that he hadn't read the strategy, then he proceeded to rip it apart. Why? Because it wasn't completely devoted to winning the war in Iraq. He maintained that the Sea Services were in danger of becoming irrelevant because their strategy had not completely commited themselves to eradicating terrorism and winning the war in Iraq. When I asked about some of the other things Navies do (you know, providing stability in the Far East as a balance to a rising China, the force of choice for keeping Iran in the box, you know, little things like that) he had no time for it. Our exchange actually became heated...and at one point, he said, "Look, you're hear obviously looking for my support as you roll out this strategy, and you're not going to obtain it" to which I answered, "sir, I don't think your support was obtainable. You are so completely and personally invested in the success of the surge strategy in Iraq that you are unable to support anything that does not similarly devote itself to that effort." End of meeting.
Was he right? Hell no. But then again, he might have known that if he had read the strategy. (Side note: there was a DJ team here in DC called Don and Mike. They used to do "Movie reviews of movies we haven't seen yet. I accused Kagan of that, and got a laugh from the whole room). While we weren't in a mind to raise counterterrorism to the top of the heap (as in, we should build our Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard around counterterror and the war in Iraq), we thoroughly discussed how to change those services and how to capitalize on their strengths as methods of attacking root causes of terrorism. But Navies have a lot of other big jobs to do too.
Sorry bout this long winded post, but I thought I had something to offer.
Monday, September 8, 2008
UVA 16 Richmond 0
Tropical Storm Hanna kept me and my homeboys from making the pilgrimage to Charlottesville for the game Saturday (I know, I know. Weak).
Judging from the play by play, I'm glad I didn't go. The Hoos offense is offensive. No real running game yet. Very little passing. Now Richmond isn't a bunch of patsies, mind you. They just shouldn't be able to hang with a good program for as long as they did.
Helping to prove once again that UVA is not a good program. Yet.
Judging from the play by play, I'm glad I didn't go. The Hoos offense is offensive. No real running game yet. Very little passing. Now Richmond isn't a bunch of patsies, mind you. They just shouldn't be able to hang with a good program for as long as they did.
Helping to prove once again that UVA is not a good program. Yet.
Woodward and Bush (Part 2)
Part II of the WaPost serialization of Bob Woodward's new book is out today. Fascinating stuff, especially the inner machinations of the Joint Chiefs. It is obvious that Pete Pace simply ran out of steam at some point, as we saw in the summer of 2007 when he was replaced by Mike Mullen.
A couple of things to think about.
One of the beauties of this republic is civilian control of the military, and this series is showing just how beautiful that concept is (just as LBJ's target selection meetings showed how faulty it can also be). George Bush has assiduously avoided meddling in "the situation on the ground". He relied on the advice and counsel of his senior DOD and military advisers, he gave them what they asked for, and they made a mess of it. We hired him to lead, and so he did. He sought other opinions, asked probing questions...but more than anything else, he refused to lose. Professor Eliot Cohen has a great book called "Supreme Command" in which he details the relationships between Commanders in Chief and their subordinate military leaders. He concludes (among other things) that war is too important to be left solely to the generals (and admirals). Clausewitz had it right...war is a continuation of policy (politics). It is an inherently political act.
So when the Joint Chiefs got their panties in an uproar about "surging" and "breaking the force", because it was going to use up the "strategic reserve", the President made a political decision: that the use of the strategic reserve was called for in a situation in which we were about to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. The Chiefs just never got this...they never understood the political dimension of losing in Iraq. Why did it have to take the President pointing out the chaos in a capital undercuts ANY real sense of progress elsewhere?
I'm also glad that it this book (again, a first draft of history), shows that there WAS disagreement between the JCS and the President, and that that disagreement was aired. The Chiefs didn't just sit in their offices and grouse. They disagreed with the President, and they told him so. Any public view of these guys as sycophants should be undercut by these revelations. Their job is to make their reservations known, to as articulately and forcefully advocate for their positions as they can, and then salute the flag and carry out the mission they are given. That's how our system works. Yes, they disagreed with the President. But there was no coup d'etat. We are not now ruled by a military junta. They went back to the drawing board and figured out how to implement the POLITICAL direction they were given by the Commander-in-Chief.
I hope you are all proud of how this process works. Again, you might not like the political objective chosen by the President, but the process is a damn sight better than anything else in the world.
A couple of things to think about.
One of the beauties of this republic is civilian control of the military, and this series is showing just how beautiful that concept is (just as LBJ's target selection meetings showed how faulty it can also be). George Bush has assiduously avoided meddling in "the situation on the ground". He relied on the advice and counsel of his senior DOD and military advisers, he gave them what they asked for, and they made a mess of it. We hired him to lead, and so he did. He sought other opinions, asked probing questions...but more than anything else, he refused to lose. Professor Eliot Cohen has a great book called "Supreme Command" in which he details the relationships between Commanders in Chief and their subordinate military leaders. He concludes (among other things) that war is too important to be left solely to the generals (and admirals). Clausewitz had it right...war is a continuation of policy (politics). It is an inherently political act.
So when the Joint Chiefs got their panties in an uproar about "surging" and "breaking the force", because it was going to use up the "strategic reserve", the President made a political decision: that the use of the strategic reserve was called for in a situation in which we were about to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. The Chiefs just never got this...they never understood the political dimension of losing in Iraq. Why did it have to take the President pointing out the chaos in a capital undercuts ANY real sense of progress elsewhere?
I'm also glad that it this book (again, a first draft of history), shows that there WAS disagreement between the JCS and the President, and that that disagreement was aired. The Chiefs didn't just sit in their offices and grouse. They disagreed with the President, and they told him so. Any public view of these guys as sycophants should be undercut by these revelations. Their job is to make their reservations known, to as articulately and forcefully advocate for their positions as they can, and then salute the flag and carry out the mission they are given. That's how our system works. Yes, they disagreed with the President. But there was no coup d'etat. We are not now ruled by a military junta. They went back to the drawing board and figured out how to implement the POLITICAL direction they were given by the Commander-in-Chief.
I hope you are all proud of how this process works. Again, you might not like the political objective chosen by the President, but the process is a damn sight better than anything else in the world.
Sunday, September 7, 2008
New Blog Link
I've added a link to the History News Network, after discovering the editor by reading an editorial of his this morning.
Looks like a smart, timely and interesting site. Enjoy.
Looks like a smart, timely and interesting site. Enjoy.
Woodward and Bush
Bob Woodward has written another book on the Bush Administration (I think his fourth), and it is something I will definitely read. The Post is serializing it this week, with part 1 in this morning's paper.
Woodward's previous books about the Bush Administration were remarkable for the access he had and the people he got to talk to him. His stature as the best investigative reporter in the country is well earned, and it helps him get the sources he wants.
Few of the revelations in his books have been favorable to George Bush. One consistent theme in the books I've read however (which are in fact, first drafts of history) is how smart and engaged the President REALLY is. Read this article. You might disagree vehemently with George Bush's policies, you might think our entry into the War in Iraq was misguided and poorly executed...but if you continue to believe George Bush is stupid, incurious, walled off, unengaged or not up to the job...you have simply decided to ignore the growing body of evidence to the contrary.
On another note, General Petreaus' predecessor as Viceroy of Iraq is a guy named General George Casey. Casey apparently sang like a canary for Woodward in this book. After strategically misinterpreting Iraq throughout his two year tour there, he has decided to ensure his version of events make their way into the record. Oh...in case you're wondering what happened to General Casey? He was promoted to Army Chief of Staff. President Bush, like they say...if you want a friend in Washington, get a dog.
Woodward's previous books about the Bush Administration were remarkable for the access he had and the people he got to talk to him. His stature as the best investigative reporter in the country is well earned, and it helps him get the sources he wants.
Few of the revelations in his books have been favorable to George Bush. One consistent theme in the books I've read however (which are in fact, first drafts of history) is how smart and engaged the President REALLY is. Read this article. You might disagree vehemently with George Bush's policies, you might think our entry into the War in Iraq was misguided and poorly executed...but if you continue to believe George Bush is stupid, incurious, walled off, unengaged or not up to the job...you have simply decided to ignore the growing body of evidence to the contrary.
On another note, General Petreaus' predecessor as Viceroy of Iraq is a guy named General George Casey. Casey apparently sang like a canary for Woodward in this book. After strategically misinterpreting Iraq throughout his two year tour there, he has decided to ensure his version of events make their way into the record. Oh...in case you're wondering what happened to General Casey? He was promoted to Army Chief of Staff. President Bush, like they say...if you want a friend in Washington, get a dog.
On Sprawl
They say the states are laboratories of democracy, and I believe it. I'm still studying this proposal, but it seems that the State of California is considering legislation that would give infrastructure and transportation improvement precedence to existing "high-density" areas where people already live and work (rather than fueling sprawl by providing easy access to outlying areas).
This is an effort to reduce greenhouse emissions by creating less of a need for people to drive to the places they need to go. I look forward to seeing how this turns out, but on the face of it, it looks like enlightened policy using market forces (yes, the government is a player in the market) to combat sprawl and greenhouse gas emissions.
This is an effort to reduce greenhouse emissions by creating less of a need for people to drive to the places they need to go. I look forward to seeing how this turns out, but on the face of it, it looks like enlightened policy using market forces (yes, the government is a player in the market) to combat sprawl and greenhouse gas emissions.
On the American Voter
Interesting article this morning in the Post about American voters. Citing "5 Myths", the author does a good job of skewering the romantic (and widely held) view of American voters as somehow knowledgeable and informed. It was nice to see that Rush Limbaugh listeners were (on the average) more knowledgeable about politics and social issues than the average American. I'm not a Rush listener, but most of the callers I hear when I do tune in (rare) are generally up to speed on the issues (after they impoverish themselves by saying "mega dittoes" or whatever it is they say).
O'Reilly on the other hand is a different story. Again, I'm not surprised that his viewers are at least as knowledgeable as those who watch the Daily Show (aim high, huh?). I'm just can't stand O'Reilly. He should never be considered conservative. He's a classic populist, and I just don't like populists (grandstanders, least common denominator, you know the type).
I'm also heartened by the myth of young voters--they tend to be energetic, emotional, involved....and I think they give off a sense that there are more of them because of this.
O'Reilly on the other hand is a different story. Again, I'm not surprised that his viewers are at least as knowledgeable as those who watch the Daily Show (aim high, huh?). I'm just can't stand O'Reilly. He should never be considered conservative. He's a classic populist, and I just don't like populists (grandstanders, least common denominator, you know the type).
I'm also heartened by the myth of young voters--they tend to be energetic, emotional, involved....and I think they give off a sense that there are more of them because of this.
On a Coalition of Denial
News this morning of a planned naval exercise between the Venezuelans and the Russians (hat tip to Mudge) to take place later this year. We're probably going to have to get used to the machinations of this "Coalition of Denial" as time goes by.
What do I mean by this? Well, the basic thrust is this (flows from a lot of the work we did on the maritime strategy and a the work of a number of international relations theorists): the global economy and the global system works largely to the benefit of the nations who participate in it. The degree to which ones economy is integrated in that system is a sign of that nation's support for and investment in that economy.
There are plenty of nations out there who look at this global system as a cafeteria if you will, one in which they walk down the line of markets and fully participate in some, partially participate in others, and choose not to participate in still others. We are not one of these nations, nor is Europe, much of South and Central America, much of Asia and increasingly, China. The prosperous (and increasingly free) portions of the earth generally tend to be more fully vested in the global system.
There are nations out there who for whatever reason, haven't gotten fully in the game. In some cases, it is because they are simply economic basket cases, and they cannot muster the table stakes to meaningfully participate in the game. In others, domestic politics drive a sense of aloofness from (or more malignantly, superiority to) the system. As we sought to lay out a series of alternative futures into which our emerging Maritime Strategy would fit, we looked very closely at just such a dynamic, one in which a "coalition of denial" emerges. More specifically, nations without as much investment in a cooperative and interdependent global system would tend to form alliances and relationships designed largely to exercise power in spite of the larger system. Take to an extreme, these countries would cooperate in order to subvert the system.
Who are the likely participants in this growing club? Well, Russia and Venezuela for instance. And Iran. And Cuba (though I honestly think Fidel's death WILL bring them closer to the global system). And a host of Central and South American nations who have turned to elected socialism in reaction to globalization. And some nations in Africa who are resource rich but liberty poor.
What does this mean for the US? It means a continued important and dominant role of leadership in the globalized economy and the global political order. I know, I know, I sound a little like a "citizen of the world" type. That's not what I'm saying. We are a sovereign nation with our own interests. Our interests are however, very closely aligned with others for whom the global economy brings prosperity and freedom. Our relationship with these other nations is in our national interest--as is our continued leadership within that system.
What do I mean by this? Well, the basic thrust is this (flows from a lot of the work we did on the maritime strategy and a the work of a number of international relations theorists): the global economy and the global system works largely to the benefit of the nations who participate in it. The degree to which ones economy is integrated in that system is a sign of that nation's support for and investment in that economy.
There are plenty of nations out there who look at this global system as a cafeteria if you will, one in which they walk down the line of markets and fully participate in some, partially participate in others, and choose not to participate in still others. We are not one of these nations, nor is Europe, much of South and Central America, much of Asia and increasingly, China. The prosperous (and increasingly free) portions of the earth generally tend to be more fully vested in the global system.
There are nations out there who for whatever reason, haven't gotten fully in the game. In some cases, it is because they are simply economic basket cases, and they cannot muster the table stakes to meaningfully participate in the game. In others, domestic politics drive a sense of aloofness from (or more malignantly, superiority to) the system. As we sought to lay out a series of alternative futures into which our emerging Maritime Strategy would fit, we looked very closely at just such a dynamic, one in which a "coalition of denial" emerges. More specifically, nations without as much investment in a cooperative and interdependent global system would tend to form alliances and relationships designed largely to exercise power in spite of the larger system. Take to an extreme, these countries would cooperate in order to subvert the system.
Who are the likely participants in this growing club? Well, Russia and Venezuela for instance. And Iran. And Cuba (though I honestly think Fidel's death WILL bring them closer to the global system). And a host of Central and South American nations who have turned to elected socialism in reaction to globalization. And some nations in Africa who are resource rich but liberty poor.
What does this mean for the US? It means a continued important and dominant role of leadership in the globalized economy and the global political order. I know, I know, I sound a little like a "citizen of the world" type. That's not what I'm saying. We are a sovereign nation with our own interests. Our interests are however, very closely aligned with others for whom the global economy brings prosperity and freedom. Our relationship with these other nations is in our national interest--as is our continued leadership within that system.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
Looks like Uncle Sugar is going to ride in to the rescue of these anomalous institutions. Word is they are going into "conservatorship" rather than "receivership". The distinction here is beyond me, but as defined in the article, conservatorship sets the business up to return to private operation, and receivership sets it up to be dismantled.
The problem though, is that these are NOT private operations. They are quasi-private, with the US Government still acting as an oversight authority.
What is needed is a temporary state in which the US government exercises increased control, prior to completely privatizing them. Both are huge Democratic Party hobby-horses, but the time has come for them to sink or swim in the market.
The problem though, is that these are NOT private operations. They are quasi-private, with the US Government still acting as an oversight authority.
What is needed is a temporary state in which the US government exercises increased control, prior to completely privatizing them. Both are huge Democratic Party hobby-horses, but the time has come for them to sink or swim in the market.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
