Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

I'm making this my motto:

"The left confirms the right's sense that the appeasement of the 1930s is the best historical precedent for the current era"

Posted by Cecil Trotter at August 11, 2006 10:00 AM

Once again, National Review proves itself the leading publication for necrophiliacs and Halliburton investors--the only two people who benefit from taking its advice.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at August 11, 2006 12:01 PM

And once again, Brian demonstrates his inability to pull his head out of his nether regions.

You're exactly the kind of denialist that is being referred to, but of course you won't recognize it.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 11, 2006 12:07 PM

Brian, did you have anything useful to say? Any intelligent thoughts to refute the article?

Didn't think so.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at August 11, 2006 12:12 PM

It seems to me that if you change an n to a q, and swap some names around, this sounds like the same claptrap that got us into Iraq. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big believer that once you break the eggs, you gotta cook the omelet. But I must question if we really need to be stoking the fires for the next round of egg breaking when we are already fighting two wars, are eyeball to eyeball with North Korea, and oh by the way, China is not using all of their new found wealth to enrich their people. If Iran starts operating under the influence of profoundly stupid, we will need to respond. But for now, let Israel deal with Iran, we'll supply the weapons, they'll supply the blood.

Posted by Brad at August 11, 2006 12:22 PM

C'mon Cecil,

You know he didn't actually take the time to read the article, he just stopped in to vomit his "DU: mind numbed robot" talking points for the day.

Posted by Mike Puckett at August 11, 2006 12:23 PM

Let's back up a second and ask ourselves why a "war is inevitable" meme is so popular, and with whom. (Note that I agree that war is both very likely and probably necessary.) There is, however, the question of what motivates American baby boomers, who unlike every previous Idealist generation have not only the notion of apocalypse, but the methods to bring it about at their disposal. Some of the risks we need to manage are within ourselves.

Posted by Jay Manifold at August 11, 2006 12:50 PM

Are we ready if they cross the border into Iraq in order to practice against us directly? Would they?

Posted by Alfred Differ at August 11, 2006 01:06 PM

Are we ready if they cross the border into Iraq in order to practice against us directly?

I'd like to think so, but don't know.

Would they?

Who knows?

I share Bill Quick's frustration with this inconstant administration. It seems to be blowing one of the primary reasons for removing Saddam and going into Iraq.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 11, 2006 01:17 PM

Let's back up a second and ask ourselves why a "war is inevitable" meme is so popular, and with whom.

The war boosters are tired of self-inflicted loss in Iraq, so they fantasize about war with Iran. But Bush isn't going to fight Iran. He is spending the store on the narrow goal of kicking the Iraq barrel down the road, to January 2009. Everything else is window dressing.

For one reason, if war between the US and Iran did break out, Iraqi leaders would side with Iran, just like they already side with Hezbollah. Bush has no intention of overthrowing the Iraqi government twice.

He also has no intention of sustaining the fight with either a draft or with tax money.

Posted by Mike Johnson at August 11, 2006 01:34 PM

Let us hope (if war must come, as I most sadly think is inevitable) that the Iranians are as foolish as Hitler was in starting it openly and forcing the hand of the Western democracies (read: the US and a few others in the Anglosphere), rather than simply 'boiling the frog' with a series of increasingly provocative, but deniable acts of terror. Hitler started a war well before his economy or his military (most especially the Kriegsmarine and particularly the U-boat force) was ready for it. Had he waited even a few years, the results might have been quite different indeed. In a similar fashion, if Iran waits till they have a bomb (or better, a clutch of them, and an operational factory to make more) this could become far more than a debate about which policy choice is better, it could be about how we survive and at what cost.

I am somewhat more patient with the president's policy choices than some here, though I will concede that reasonable people (this doesn't include Brian, for reasons that I assume are obvious) can differ. The fact is that we are in a democracy where political realities limit how belligerent we can be, however much I might wish otherwise. Iraq was an excellent idea, and while the execution has had its failures (and successes too...on the whole, I see it as a positive), strategically we are better placed for a conflict if one comes. With that said, our intervention has also passed it's 'sell by date' (Americans tire of ANY war, no matter how virtuous or well-executed in 3 - 3 1/2 years), and it is simple political reality to acknowlege that unless the Iranians help us out with some overt act that we cannot deny, we are forced into a largely reactive mode.

The damage from the MSM and the left's endless campaign of negativity has corroded any chance that the policies begun with high hopes by Bush in 2001 can be continued with the same intensity or as completely as many of us on the right would like to see, but again that is reality, and likely a goal of many on the left. If we are less than enthralled with the president's choices, perhaps it is because we are free of the constraints under which he must operate.

Just saying....

Posted by Scott at August 11, 2006 01:39 PM

It seems to be blowing one of the primary reasons for removing Saddam and going into Iraq.

I can agree with this. Unless Iraq is leveraged into some variation of domino theory to remake the ME, what was the point in the first place?

Ideally, Iraq would become a stable prosperous free society that will attract people from Iran, Syria Saudi Arabia, etc . . .

Once you break the eggs, you gotta cook the omelet.

Olmert faces the same issue. Once he bombed Beirut, leaving Hezbollah intact ceased to be an option. Tell Condi to slow down on that UN resolution and tell the IDF to speed up.

= = =

My fear for Iraq is that Hezbollah and Hamas and Iranian revolutionary guards have completely infiltrated all of Shia Iraq. Remember blogger Vincent and Basra?

Right now, the Shia are not interfering much with truck traffic from Kuwait to Baghdad. But they could and that would place 140,000 US troops at the end of a very long supply and potentially contested line.

Posted by Bill White at August 11, 2006 01:40 PM

A very long and potentially contested supply line. Heh.

Posted by Bill White at August 11, 2006 01:41 PM

He also has no intention of sustaining the fight with either a draft or with tax money.

Clueless comments like this are why no one here takes you seriously. Even the Pentagon has no interest in a draft. Draftees will be of little value in a high-tech war. Unless, of course, you, like many leftists, thinks that the purpose of soldiers is simply cannon fodder (though in a good cause, like the spread of collectivism, not the defense of freedom).

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 11, 2006 01:42 PM

They want a draft because they see it as a recruiting tool. Another sign of Vietnam nostalgia is their primary motivator.

Posted by Raoul Ortega at August 11, 2006 01:49 PM

I had not read Bill Quick's piece when I wrote the last post. I see some striking points of agreement with what I did write. Quick says, "I don't believe Bush has any intention of keeping an effective US military force in the region capable of giving pause to Iran, or to Saudi Arabia." That's not far off the mark! Some of his other comments ring true as well.

What Quick overlooks is that the inadequate little bit that Bush is doing already costs $100 billion per year. All of it borrowed. He may like the idea of a much larger American response, but if it were $1 trillion per year, I doubt that the Bill Quicks or the Rand Simbergs of America would want to pay for it with their taxes. Conceivably those two are ready to fork it over, but not many are. Bush doesn't intend to do it because even his backers don't intend to pay for it.

It is just possible is that Bush would start a direct war with Iran. He just might launch some missiles. What is really impossible in the current political climate is follow-through.

Posted by Mike Johnson at August 11, 2006 01:53 PM

MJ: "He also has no intention of sustaining the fight ... or with tax money."

Psssttt.. tax revenue is up, the projected deficit has been halved from what it was predicted to be at the first of the year. At the current rate we'll be back in the black by this time next year. Even with a war on.

Tax cuts grow the economy; JFK proved, Reagan proved it, Bush is proving it.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at August 11, 2006 01:55 PM

I'm wondering how long it will be before the Left starts rewriting the history of 1938-1940.

Well, actually, they've already done that, haven't they?

The Russo-German Non-Aggression Pact (really, an alliance), has long been forgotten, especially by those idjits bleating "ideological opponents would never ally!"

The Left's support of Hitler during the "Phony War," including opposing rearmament and conscription in Europe, and opposing US aid to Britain here in the US, also forgotten.

But, pretty soon, we're going to be seeing academic questions of whether Hitler might not have been satisfied by a Franco-British concession of Poland. (One variant floating around for years has been that if only Poland had been willing to be absorbed by the USSR, then the USSR would've opposed Hitler in '39.)

Thus, WWII was avoidable, and appeasement really wasn't necessarily a bad idea.

I figure in a few months either Brian or MJ or both will start sounding out this idea.

Posted by Lurking Observer at August 11, 2006 01:55 PM

Even the Pentagon has no interest in a draft. Draftees will be of little value in a high-tech war.

Fine, then, they want to replace men with money. I never said that they needed both a draft AND taxes. It's either-or and neither-nor. They are up to the credit limit just like they are up to the manpower limit. No draft + no new taxes = no war with Iran.

Posted by Mike Johnson at August 11, 2006 01:58 PM

the projected deficit has been halved from what it was predicted to be at the first of the year.

The correct statement is that the projected deficit could drop to half of what Bush himself predicted years ago. He predicted a GIANT deficit, while the actual deficit is merely Large.

But that is without a war with Iran.

Posted by Mike Johnson at August 11, 2006 02:01 PM

Credit limit? Rudman-Hart expired quite a while ago. There is no limit on the debt.

And as for manpower, it's amazing to me how much the Left forgets.

In 1991, the US Army had eighteen divisions. The US Navy fielded fifteen carrier battlegroups. There were something like 50% more air force wings.

The only thing that's dropped has been the budget. Manpower has NOT declined, except by choice. The idea that the US military cannot expand except by a draft is nonsensical.

If the size ceiling voluntarily imposed on the US military were to be expanded simply to that of 1991, you'd have a substantially larger military, and one that would likely be able to handle a war in Iran while handling Iraq.

Posted by Lurking Observer at August 11, 2006 02:17 PM

Air power cannot control territory but is can damn sure defend it.

If Iran moves toward Iraq, its forces will be incredibly vulnerable to air power.

Anyone here remember the "Highway of Death"?

That is what is in store for Iran if it attempts to move heavy forces on Iraq.

Iran moving on Iraq overtly would be like a Christmas present.

Posted by Mike Puckett at August 11, 2006 02:26 PM

Mike, Iranian regulars have no little or need to enter Iraq. Iraqi citizens with Shia loyalties belong to militias. Sadr's for example. Or Iranian regulars wearing civilian clothing and travelling to Najaf for pilgrimage. Much like the rather surprising number of Iranian "tourists" who had been flying into Beirut over the past several years, until Israel closed the airport.

We will face serious headaches if they decide to IED the highways from Kuwait to Baghdad. Right now its the Sunnis who are the IED purveyors and Sunnis do not live in southern Iraq.

Or if they deploy anti-tack rocket nests along those same highways as is being done in southern Lebanon.

You cannot fight IEDs with F-16s.

Posted by Bill White at August 11, 2006 02:40 PM

Credit limit? Rudman-Hart expired quite a while ago. There is no limit on the debt.

Credit is like oil. There is no LAW that prevents us from importing as much oil or as much credit as we please. It just comes at a price. The price may be low for a long time, until finally you burn it up on such a colossal scale that demand exceeds supply.

For further reference, here is an interesting list from the CIA factbook of current account balances: https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2187rank.html

The idea that the US military cannot expand except by a draft is nonsensical.

They need to either force people to serve, or they need to pay them, or both. Otherwise, a lot of people will bang the drums of world war and wonder why it doesn't happen.

If Iran moves toward Iraq, its forces will be incredibly vulnerable to air power.

What you are proposing, Mike, although you may not quite realize it, is that the US should bomb the Iraqi parliament.

Posted by Mike Johnson at August 11, 2006 02:48 PM

The whole 'let's show our willingness to sacrifice for war with higher taxes (and/or a draft)' is yet another of the left's tiresome bleats. The draft satisfies (as another poster pointed out) their nostalgia for 60's style protests (and protests there would be), yet would have no positive impact on the military, while any putative tax increases would no doubt be sucked up by an unending series of 'compassionate' spending measures (sadly the GOP is just as guilty as the Dems in this...), but the higher taxes would satisfy the left's goal of greater control by govt.

The US military is hardly overstretched at this point, as most of our potential conflicts are likely to be of relatively short duration, and the forces necessary to deal with them are typically already in place. In any potential fight with Iran, for instance, the troops, aircraft, etc. are in place, and if the supply lines are long, they are hardly as vulnerable as some here make them out to be. Note, I am NOT saying that they are immune from interference, and Iranian mischief would certainly make things unpleasant, but there are numerous ways around that problem, all well within the capacity of troops on the scene.

None of this suggests that we should go looking for more trouble (I still believe that it is the political, not military climate that militates against this), but if trouble should find us, any sober analysis shows that we are in a good position to cope.

Posted by Scott at August 11, 2006 02:49 PM

"You cannot fight IEDs with F-16s."

Actually Bill, you can:

http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/articles/military_photos_2006810232251.asp

Posted by Mike Puckett at August 11, 2006 03:08 PM

LOL. Good one Mike!

I laughed my butt off when I watched the video this morning, am I the only one to find it humerous?

Posted by Cecil Trotter at August 11, 2006 03:23 PM

Cool Picture! No argument.

1 IED down.

9759892459 to go!

Cheers! :-)

Posted by Bill White at August 11, 2006 03:44 PM

Remember Bill,

Its one thing to place an IED inside a clustered urban area, its another to place one out on an open desert road between Central Iraq and Kuwait where you are under constant survelance.

Posted by Mike Puckett at August 11, 2006 03:50 PM

BTW,

Click on the picture and a video will play.

Posted by Mike Puckett at August 11, 2006 03:51 PM

LO wrote: If the size ceiling voluntarily imposed on the US military were to be expanded simply to that of 1991, you'd have a substantially larger military, and one that would likely be able to handle a war in Iran while handling Iraq.

That's a very accurate statement. The US military reduced personnel levels by simply raising the bar on physical and intellectual requirements. The physical pushed out people with issues like bad vision or asthma, regardless of how well these issues can be treated. The intellectual bar was set even above many college entrance levels.

Modify the physical requirements to what people are proven capable of doing, and simply require a High School degree, and the US military would grow pretty fast.

MJ, don't sweat it. The military requires its personnel to be able to handle complex things like analogies. You're safe on the couch.

Posted by Leland at August 11, 2006 04:02 PM

The war boosters are tired of self-inflicted loss in Iraq, so they fantasize about war with Iran.

Unfortunately, that's exactly the kind of shallow "analysis" that passes amongst the anti-war types.

Iraq was, and is, the easiest walkover since the Spanish-American War. Our casualties are negligible, and the ongoing sectarian violence is killing perhaps one-tenth as many people per unit time that Saddam's regime did. Compared to DOD spending on, say, NATO circa 1985, the Iraq "war" is cheap, too.

Nonetheless, some of the thoughts about war with Iran are of the fantastic variety. I perceive a desire for revenge for the events of 1979, and, more sinister, a bit of misdirection away from the source of far more trouble in the world, which is the incredibly interventionist foreign policy of Saudi Arabia.

But most of all, support for drastic action among the baby-boom generation could end in some kind of lashing out against almost anyone -- and it is every bit as likely to occur under a Democratic administration. Perhaps a bit more so, since so many "anti-war" people would refuse to see what was happening.

Posted by Jay Manifold at August 11, 2006 04:25 PM

Iraq was, and is, the easiest walkover since the Spanish-American War.

If it's so damn easy, how come it costs $90 billion a year? Iraq, in turn, is a much smaller country than Iran.

This is the schizophrenic mentality in certain circles, that I can also see has been handed down from the top. On the one hand, it's "Whoop! Whoop! Red Alert! Red Alert! World War! World War!" On the other hand, it's "Relax, our enemies are all pushovers." You would expect junior high school students, not adults, to swing between extremes like this. This is the sort of childish attitude that makes countries lose wars.

Posted by Mike Johnson at August 11, 2006 05:35 PM

Jay the answer to this question,

There is, however, the question of what motivates American baby boomers, who unlike every previous Idealist generation have not only the notion of apocalypse, but the methods to bring it about at their disposal.

IS that we have the ability to do so. We are the first generation who had the ability to blow up the entire world, several times over. We grew up with Kruschev banging his shoe, we grew up with missiles in Cuba, we grew up knowing the Nuclear Doom Clock was at 11:59 P.M. We grew up hearing about the Cold War, with a South East Asian war on the nightly news, every night for 12 years.

Because of that, and more, most boomers have the fatalistic, apocalyptic, end is near, mentality of a B-17 tail gunner. Everyday the news looks like our life is just mission number 13. Not to mention that when you're taught to "duck and cover" as part of the school day, you're also learning to look toward those mushroom clouds of death, as being inevitable.

Maybe that's why the left wants to appease the folks who have vowed to kill us, they're more ready to die than conservatives are.

Posted by Steve at August 11, 2006 05:39 PM

The left doesn't like being called the "raise taxes" party even though their solution to every problem is "raise taxes".

When a leftist proposes cutting spending to reduce the deficit, then I'll think that they care about the deficit. Until then, they're just looking for an excuse to, you guessed it, raise taxes.

Posted by Andy Freeman at August 11, 2006 06:05 PM

Andy,
it also allows them to say, "I blame George Bush!!" And that's said regardless of the issue or the situation.

Posted by Steve at August 11, 2006 06:41 PM

Quote from Mike Johnson: "This is the schizophrenic mentality in certain circles, that I can also see has been handed down from the top. On the one hand, it's "Whoop! Whoop! Red Alert! Red Alert! World War! World War!" On the other hand, it's "Relax, our enemies are all pushovers."

I believe the mental disorder you applied to your illogical statement is incorrect. Schizophrenia is not synonymous with Dissociative identity disorder or a "Split-Personality". In fact, I would describe some of your blather as better fitting a schizophrenic since that would more accurately diagnose your delusional logic, disorganized speech, and paranoia.

People are reaching out to the term "World War' in an attempt to more accurately describe our situation and setup an appropriate response where needed. I do not believe that simply altering our phraseology would have an impact on our military effectiveness.

It is this type of adolescent logic that speaks of someone who is unable to provide an informed and concise opinion.

Posted by Josh Reiter at August 11, 2006 08:14 PM

What do folks think about the pending ceasefire? A U.N. resolution to deploy French troops to protect Israel from Hezbollah rockets?

One view

Posted by Bill White at August 11, 2006 08:32 PM

Bad link. Sorry

Again or here:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/748536.html

Posted by Bill White at August 11, 2006 08:35 PM

Wikipedia predicts Benjamin Netanyahu will be the next leader of Israel after Olmert falls. Maybe it will soon be two minutes to midnight.

Wikipedia changes. Here is what it says now:

Binyamin Netanyahu, nicknamed Bibi (born October 21, 1949, Tel Aviv) was the 9th Prime Minister of Israel and is a leading figure in the Likud party. After the mishandling of the current conflict against Hezbollah by Prime Minister Olmert, it is widely anticipated that a no-confidence vote will lead to new elections with Netanyahu becoming the next Prime Minister of Israel.

Posted by Bill White at August 11, 2006 09:18 PM

"Maybe it will soon be two minutes to midnight"

I see you also own a copy of "Powerslave" Bill.

I prefer "Aces High" myself. Still, I think "Die with your boots on" from their prevous album most appropriate for this discussion.

Posted by Mike Puckett at August 11, 2006 09:21 PM

In other news today, Michael Yon gets hit with a massive clue: "Despite incredible progress in Iraq, we are now in great peril of losing the war entirely. At the current rate, we will witness genocide as a nation rips itself apart along sectarian seams."

Some "walkover". As I said, the war boosters are eager to change the subject from failure in Iraq to starting a new one in Iran. Since we can't seem to juggle six flaming pins in Iraq, let's try eight chainsaws and a pineapple in Iran instead.

But to give Bush a bit of credit, for now he has simply decided not to do it. (Maybe for no reason other than to deprive those darned leftists of an excuse to raise taxes.)

Posted by Mike Johnson at August 11, 2006 10:24 PM

"Brian, did you have anything useful to say? Any intelligent thoughts to refute the article?"

Yes, and I wrote them all in earlier discussions. Now I'm just having fun by making fun of the ignorant dittoheads who parrot NRO. Since its inception, National Review has been 100% convinced that war with the bugaboo du jour is inevitable, and they've not been right once. War with the Soviet Union was inevitable for decades, then war with China was inevitable for about a decade, and war with North Korea was inevitable for a period of a few years until 9/11. If the world were magically reduced to the US and Canada, we all know the very next issue of NR would be a mock-solemn treatise on the sinister plans of the Canucks. "The Maple Leaf Conspiracy: Curling Broom of Death." If we received an ET signal from Procyon that was nothing more than a recurring beep, we all know what the National Review headline would be that week: "ET Declares War on Earth: The Coming Genocide." Now, please understand I mean this only as a constructive criticism, but you people are batshit psychos. There's no reason or sanity to the paranoid schizophrenic screeds that get posted here under the guise of "war commentary," and every single sentence could have an entire paragraph devoted to why it's utterly ridiculous. Tracinski talks about Iran "pressing" an "advantage" that doesn't exist, and compares funding of proxy guerrillas waging limited attacks on a regional ally to Nazi Germany invading Europe. It's always the same straw man with you people--the inconveniencing of regional interests is compared to unlimited wars of invasion, but you get outraged when anyone compares George Bush to Hitler for actually invading another country. Iran's rhetoric hasn't changed since the Islamic Revolution, and they have never invaded another country in the 27 years since, so spare everyone the histrionics. The only analogy to WW2 that applies would be if you folks were the Germans and Iran was the Soviet Union.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at August 11, 2006 10:50 PM

Squidward,

People might give you credit of having at least a middle school level of mental development if you would learn what a PARAGRAPH is and how to use it with respect to the written english language.

As it is, it makes a nice blob of gibberish that is very convienent to ignore.

Posted by Mike Puckett at August 11, 2006 11:06 PM

"People might give you credit of having at least a middle school level of mental development if you would learn what a PARAGRAPH is and how to use it with respect to the written english language."

Nickelodeon Watcher,
I appreciate that you're incapable of disputing reasoned arguments, so your sophomoric quibble with the structure of my writing is understandable. In fact, it's actually quite adorable, not letting the absence of a point get in the way of expressing yourself. Maybe next week's episode of Spongebob will involve the concept of relevance, so hopefully then you'll return with something approaching it.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at August 11, 2006 11:22 PM

"I appreciate that you're incapable of disputing reasoned arguments"

When you provide a reasoned one, I will be more than happy to dispute it. Until then, I suggest you work on your grammar and punctuation.

BTW, I did not coin you Squidward, I simply decided that it was best to standardize.

I am more of an Adult Swim person myself. If I were to have christened you, I would have picked Stormy.

Posted by Mike Puckett at August 11, 2006 11:41 PM

Unfortunately, that's exactly the kind of shallow "analysis" that passes amongst the anti-war types.

And the pro-war types.

Actually, 'shallow armchair analysis' applies to just about every idiot on the internet with a blog whining about 'left' or 'right' partisanship.

Posted by Chris Mann at August 12, 2006 04:35 AM

Its one thing to place an IED inside a clustered urban area, its another to place one out on an open desert road between Central Iraq and Kuwait where you are under constant survelance.

I imagine with improved UAVs and autonomous surveillance systems that in the next couple of years it will be difficult to place them in built up areas too.

Posted by Chris Mann at August 12, 2006 04:42 AM

Mike (Johnson), you made effective use of stats recently to show that Pakistan gets much less attention from the Administration than various countries beginning with the letter "I." You were correct. And I'm correct about $90B/yr being cheap. It's less than 1% of GDP. Less than 1/10 of our military is in Iraq. The marginal casualty rate over ordinary garrison duty is a bit under 1 death per day. Those figures simply do not compare with any major 20th-century conflict.

Development of anything resembling a healthy civil society there can still be a very messy process. There's no contradiction between Iraq being a military walkover and simultaneously a non-trivial challenge in terms of institution building -- or, in the wider context, the immense memetic-engineering challenge we face with Wahhabism. Breaking things and killing people is easier than what comes next.

I won't drag anybody over to Arcturus (can't directly link to anything on Bl0gsp0t anyway), but my posting for 4/7/03 at 7 AM expressed instantaneous skepticism regarding the aftermath of the fall of Baghdad. I may be a lot of things, but an Administration shill isn't one of them.

Posted by Jay Manifold at August 12, 2006 04:44 AM

"Who is in charge of the clattering train?
The axles creak and the couplings strain,
And the pace is hot, and the points are near,
And Sleep has deadened the driver’s ear;
And the signals flash through the night in vain,
For Death is in charge of the clattering train."

Just something Churchill quoted in the run-up to war. And it applies now as it did then.

But as then, the people who make the decisions shall not listen. And, soon, the mushrooms of agony shall rise over many lands, and our children and grandchildren shall curse our names, and ask just one question of us, sleeping safe underground, beyond all hurt:

"You could have stopped this, and did not. Why not? Why in God's name not?"

Posted by Fletcher Christian at August 12, 2006 05:40 AM

Mike (Johnson), you made effective use of stats recently to show that Pakistan gets much less attention from the Administration than various countries beginning with the letter "I."

No, just Iraq. Iran and Pakistan get comparably little attention, even though they talk about Iran more. But other than that detail, you certainly deserve credit for acknowledging the point.

And I'm correct about $90B/yr being cheap.It's less than 1% of GDP...

It just goes to show that you can make anything look small by dividing it by a big enough denominator. In comparing the war in Iraq to the entire GDP of the United States, you implicitly grant the government, not just the government but specifically the Pentagon, claim to the entire GDP. Which is not the way that things work. The government is funded by taxes, and what it cannot obtain with taxes it borrows from future taxes. 1% of GDP is the limit of what the feds can palatably provide to a completely new but chronic budget item, entirely on credit. The reason that some other wars could be larger is that they were paid for with contemporaneous taxes.

Which means, therefore, that this "world" war is simply not going to scale beyond one country with 1/10 of the population of the United States. It won't scale to Iran, in particular. It won't scale because the whole idea is to have a comfortable little "world" war that Americans don't much notice on April 15.

Less than 1/10 of our military is in Iraq.

Another exaggerated denominator. More than a third of the military is the Navy, but submarines are not too useful in the war in Iraq. The correct denominator is the Army. And it's not the entire Army, but only the third or so that could sustainably rotate in and out of combat. With the correct denominator, the war in Iraq is more like 2/3 of present capacity than 1/10. It will not scale to Iran, not if the idea is to have a comfortable little "world" war that most voters don't much notice.

Those figures simply do not compare with any major 20th-century conflict.

Except that the total cost to date, $300 billion, really is comparable to the Korean War and the Vietnam War. See http://www.cwc.lsu.edu/cwc/other/stats/warcost.htm . The annual cost is also more than the entire GDP of Iraq: we spend more to build their nation than they do.

I agree that it is tangential to complain about combat fatalities in Iraq. Lives have been replaced with money. The war in Iraq has consumed the lifetime income of more than 100,000 Americans.

There's no contradiction between Iraq being a military walkover and simultaneously a non-trivial challenge in terms of institution building

If indeed we are building their nation. There is also no contradiction between a walkover invasion and a complete debacle in terms of institution building. As Michael Yon is finally realizing, the entire $300 billion has been spent on a failure.

Posted by Mike Johnson at August 12, 2006 08:53 AM

Well, even with the war, latest figures out the Budget Deficit for FY06 at $260BN and less than 2% of GDP. This is a smaller percentage of GDP than any budget from 1980 to 1995 before the so-called peace dividend and the gutting of the military begain in earnest.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_shlaes&sid=ajyaAqlEVMtI.

Posted by Mike Puckett at August 12, 2006 10:41 AM

This is a hoot, given who the writer is, Brian Swiderski,

...will involve the concept of relevance, so hopefully then you'll return with something approaching it.

Relevance, I think, is not your strong point. It's lecturing someone else that makes this funny though.

Posted by Steve at August 12, 2006 01:31 PM

If we are going to have our WWIII, why not think out of the box and come up with more cost-effective approaches instead of pouring in more men in a bad place.

Would it not make more sense to have a series of X-prizes for the development of autonomous robotic systems (spiders, UAV, etc.) and use these to enhance the fighting capability of our military? These could be made modular with 3-D rapid prototyping systems that are themselves automated. This would allow rapid build-up using a minimal of human or financial resources.

I know that the DoD recently had a series of contest for autonous cars crossing the desert. The first was an abysmal failure. The second, a year later, was more successful.

Another approach would be to use those same rapid prototyping factories (which could be based on carriers) to make lots of UAVs. Have the UAV powered by the same nuclear isotope generators that NASA uses on its space probes. Then deploy those UAVs over the middle-east to "laydown" a genetic designer vector to get rid of the enemy. There are variety of vectors that could be cheaply developed (few million $).

The second approach stikes me as a far more cost effective approach for dealing the the existential problems of the middle-east than deploying zillions of people to fight a conventional war.

I bet donuts to dollars that my second strategy could be implemented for less than $1 billion, compared to the $500 billion that has been pour into that rat-hole with nothing to show for it.

Posted by Kurt at August 12, 2006 02:11 PM

"Relevance, I think, is not your strong point. It's lecturing someone else that makes this funny though."

Now THATS Irony Squiddy!!!

Posted by Mike Puckett at August 12, 2006 02:12 PM

"I laughed my butt off when I watched the video this morning, am I the only one to find it humerous?
"

No Chris, I found it both amusing and sad at the same time. Reminded me of a John Wayne quote:

“Life is hard; it's harder if you're stupid.”

Posted by Mike Puckett at August 12, 2006 02:19 PM

Why not just assassinate Ahmadinejad and his cronies? This could be done for $10-20 million with a small team of professionals.

Wouldn't that be alot easier than having a full-out conventional WWIII over this issue? Or am I making too much sense here?

Posted by Kurt at August 12, 2006 02:25 PM

Wouldn't that be alot easier than having a full-out conventional WWIII over this issue? Or am I making too much sense here?

Problem with this method is that BP and Exxon don't make $100 per barrel for their oil during the conflict.

Posted by Chris Mann at August 12, 2006 07:42 PM

I have been thinking a few strange thoughts;

In part this is not just a religious conflict, there is a Luddite back to the simple good old male ego stroking women oppressing days aspect to it. It is easy to overwhelm such throw back forces in open combat, (like Iran) – and send them underground, but this may make the problem even harder. Note the second generation Pakistani English terrorists in “civilized” Britain. I do not see this movement stopping for many generations at least, so unless we selectively emigrate to space, we are stuck with it.

Obviously modern societies have a technical edge in this fight – so a winning military strategy probably requires developing and maximising that advantage. An economic war against oil is also an obvious first step, middle east oil has to be bypassed and made worthless. This is not actually that expensive and cheaper oil substitutes need developing anyway for the continued growth of the rest of the world.

Another likely strategy is to change into a more distributed society. Replicating the terrorist tactic and making our societies less vulnerable to central attack. Get rid of large public trains, planes and busses and shift to more personalised transport like cars and small planes. Houses need to become more self sufficient with regard to food, energy, transport, sanitation and communications. For example, external walls might become automated green houses that help feed the inhabitants. This would also make societies much less vulnerable to natural disasters and OPEC like monopolies. Humanitarian crisis like that currently happening in Lebanon could be greatly diminished.

Posted by Pete Lynn at August 12, 2006 08:34 PM

"When you provide a reasoned one, I will be more than happy to dispute it."

I provided several, and you ignored them all. Big surprise, but I guess that's just how right-wingers think: Ignore what you don't like, and it will go away; keep talking about things that don't exist, and they will magically materialize.

"BTW, I did not coin you Squidward, I simply decided that it was best to standardize."

So it wasn't you who made the original children's cartoon reference, but is you that's parroting it. Talk about going from sad to pathetic.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at August 13, 2006 02:55 AM

No doubt Rand will come up with some excuse for why He
should not be fighting in Iran, but, other people should be.
There is an old saying about money and mouth's.
I don't see Rand buying War Bonds, Giving to help
wounded vets or Joining up.

Posted by anonymous at August 13, 2006 09:04 AM

"I provided several, and you ignored them all."

No, you provided nonsense. You can call a tail a leg all day long be it only remains a leg in your fantasy world, not the real one.

"So it wasn't you who made the original children's cartoon reference, but is you that's parroting it. Talk about going from sad to pathetic."

If the tentacle fits, then wear it O' sad and pathetic one......

Posted by Mike Puckett at August 13, 2006 09:11 AM

"No doubt Rand will come up with some excuse for why He
should not be fighting in Iran, but, other people should be.
There is an old saying about money and mouth's.
I don't see Rand buying War Bonds, Giving to help
wounded vets or Joining up.

Posted by anonymous at August 13, 2006 09:04 AM"

While you remain safe in the knowledge that you are immune from any future conscription unless the military greatly lowers its acceptance standards for intelligence or mental stability.

Posted by Curtis LeMay at August 13, 2006 09:16 AM

I don't see Rand buying War Bonds, Giving to help wounded vets or Joining up.

You don't "see" me doing anything, you moron. This is a blog. How do you know who I contribute to?

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 13, 2006 09:51 AM

"No, you provided nonsense."

If it was nonsense, you could have addressed it specifically and explained your judgment. That you did not is proof that (a)you don't think it's nonsense, and (b)your claim to the contrary is nothing but bitter, cantankerous refusal to accept responsibility for acting stupid.

National Review's opinions on the inevitability of war with the Soviet Union were spectacularly wrong, they were often wary of if not openly against arms reduction talks and mutual inspection regimes, and having listened to them at certain key points in history would have led to the end of the human species. When the USSR collapsed under its own weight, which they would have described as "wishful thinking" had anyone predicted it even a few years earlier, they scrambled to find a new subject for the mindless conflict prnography they peddle.

Naturally they'd never predicted Iraq would become a regional threat, since prior to the invasion of Kuwait it had been a puppet of the Reagan administration, and illegally funded with laundered US taxpayer money. Anyone who had expressed concern at the time would of course have been tarred with having a "pro-Iranian" or "pro-Islamist" agenda by NR, until its GOP commissars turned the tables and made it a sacred duty to play up the threat from Saddam.

But in the interim between Bushes and oil wars, NR was in a bind trying to decide whom to please with regard to China: Shall they satisfy the war voyeur constituency and pretend the Middle Kingdom was a Leviathan rising out of the sea to destroy civilization? Or shall they pander to corporate America's lustful drooling and portray it as an inspiring example of capitalist potential? Why, obviously both! Shall they portray Bill Clinton's courting of China as an act of reckless appeasement, or the overwhelming support of the GOP for those policies as forward-thinking capitalist evangelism? Once again, the answer was "obviously both!" Who needs logic or consistency with such an audience?

But when neither the Horatio Alger scenarios or hysterical war fantasies came to be, NR began trawling for new enemies or combinations of enemies. Not surprisingly, Al Qaeda and Islamism were at the bottom of the list, seeming at the time a threat far removed from the minds of Americans, and therefore not a suitable topic for their entertainment purposes. North Korea held some promise, but for a time they preferred to fantasize about novel enemy menage-a-trois, drawing from a pool of Russia, China, North Korea, Pakistan, Iran, or even India.

Then 9/11 happened because of the culture of hate allowed to fester unchallenged in two countries (Saudi Arabia and Egypt) widely supported by the US government, and suddenly we were in a "clash of civilizations" as if the Saracens were on our doorstep. But since neither of those countries could be sold as enemies, given the submissiveness of their governments, and Afghanistan was too low-key an operation to satisfy their audience, they simply wrote "War on Terror" on a Post-It and stuck it on Iraq. Finally, a country with a virulently anti-American, brutally aggressive regime that fit their mold for the enemy role! Ahh, how rapturous.

We would waltz into Baghdad as heroes, roses falling from windows, American flags flying from rooftops across Iraq; they would name their children George and Condoleeza instead of Mohammed and Fatima, fastfood restaurants and Gap stores would dot the Euphrates, and the Frankenstein pastiche of ethnicities cobbled together by the British Empire would spontaneously fuse into an Arab Turkey...

OOPS. Quick, Buckley, find a new enemy before they notice! So now it's "Five Minutes to Midnight," AGAIN, and once again that means...exactly...nothing.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at August 13, 2006 02:21 PM

If it was nonsense, you could have addressed it specifically and explained your judgment.

I could have, had the nonsense not been so obvious, and the fact that I have other, better ways to spend my life than in responding to your nonsense.

That you did not is proof that (a)you don't think it's nonsense, and (b)your claim to the contrary is nothing but bitter, cantankerous refusal to accept responsibility for acting stupid.

I don't think that the word "proof" means what you think it means. I do find this amusing, though. Perhaps you should consider getting a life, yourself.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 13, 2006 02:27 PM

Lurking Observer says: One variant floating around for years has been that if only Poland had been willing to be absorbed by the USSR, then the USSR would've opposed Hitler in '39.)

Thus, WWII was avoidable, and appeasement really wasn't necessarily a bad idea.

So, we appease the expansionists by handing over a sovereign nation. "Oh, here you go, Poland doesn't mind, go ahead and take it."

That works wonders to prove appeasement works.

Posted by Mac at August 13, 2006 02:52 PM

Squidward says: Yes, and I wrote them all in earlier discussions. Now I'm just having fun by making fun of the ignorant dittoheads who parrot NRO.

Earlier discussions....you know, that really doesn't help out your cause. If we're really as stupid as you think we are, you should reinvigorate your arguement and shore up your point by providing the points again. I know you've thought of that being as brilliant as you are. I'm just assuming that you forgot to reprint them...unless of course, they never existed.

Posted by Mac at August 13, 2006 03:04 PM

Squidward says: So it wasn't you who made the original children's cartoon reference.

Nope, that was me. Alarmingly on target though, ain't it?

Squidward says: Ignore what you don't like, and it will go away; keep talking about things that don't exist, and they will magically materialize.

Wow, must be fun to talk about yourself. Ignore what you don't like and blame everyone else for it, plus be the victim. Keep talking about things that don't exist....defeat in Iraq. Wow, so right-wingers and left-wingers think alike? God, you're good. I can be a Squidward too!!!

Posted by Mac at August 13, 2006 03:08 PM

"Hitler started a war well before his economy or his military (most especially the Kriegsmarine and particularly the U-boat force) was ready for it. Had he waited even a few years, the results might have been quite different indeed."

This is a very popular meme - and it's utterly false. Had the war been delayed a even a few years - the US and UK (and to a lesser extent France and the USSR), would also have a larger and more prepared military. (Even more so in the case of the US - because it's likely the Pacific side of the conflict still goes off on schedule.) In the end, the results were unlikely to be different - absent aid from Alien Space Bats, Germany is still short of natural resources and industrial capacity.

Posted by Derek L. at August 13, 2006 03:20 PM

"I could have, had the nonsense not been so obvious, and the fact that I have other, better ways to spend my life than in responding to your nonsense."

Rand,
Your retorts are the feeblest, most cravenly evasive and non-responsive drivel of anyone who posts here, and this is your place. I have no cutely-named blog of my own ("Transterrestrial Musings"--real clever, Rand), nor do I intend to start one, but I showed up here on a lark and started feeding you your lunch within days. Aren't you the least bit ashamed, or maybe a tad chagrined that you can't defend your own ideas in the face of even the mildest challenge? Do you take no lesson at all from watching me easily dismantle the Lego scarecrows that dominate your thinking? Or is your "war commentary," finally, just a bunch of one-handed typing?

Posted by Brian Swiderski at August 13, 2006 05:33 PM

"Nope, that was me. Alarmingly on target though, ain't it?"

I wouldn't know, but I'll defer to your superior knowledge of children's programming.

"Wow, must be fun to talk about yourself."

Translation: "I know you are, but what am I?" Try not to waste all that witty repartee on my account, Nickelodeon Watcher.

"Keep talking about things that don't exist....defeat in Iraq."

Defeat? What defeat? Iraq is a flourishing, thriving, prosperous, free, tolerant, bountiful, multi-ethnic democracy, where children skip and prance through the streets with arms linked, and sing "The dunes are alive with the sound of music." Hard indeed is it to find an unsmiling face in Baghdad these days, where gleaming new skyscrapers rise into the air, freshly paved roads safely conduct the happy people to their homes and jobs, the marketplaces roil with commerce and overflow with fresh produce, and at night the city lights up the sky like a Tokyo on the Tigris.

But that can't compete with the small-town charms of places outside Baghdad, like Karbala and Haditha, where the locals enjoy their quiet down-home lives in Rockwellian serenity. Nations throughout the world look with envy on the smashing success that is Iraq, and ask "How can I make my country more like that?" The only people who say otherwise are traitorous enemies of the Glorious Leader, and want to tear down his heroic triumph with their disloyalty and subversive lies. But you know the truth, comrade, unlike all those impostors the liberal media hired to pose as Iraqis.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at August 13, 2006 06:11 PM

I showed up here on a lark and started feeding you your lunch within days.

Hope you're having a good time on your planet.

Aren't you the least bit ashamed, or maybe a tad chagrined that you can't defend your own ideas in the face of even the mildest challenge?

I might be, it that were actually the case. You again mistake an inability to respond with an indifference to nonsense. Do you seriously fantasize that you've persuaded anyone here of anything, other than that you're a leftists tool, and not a very bright one at that?

Iraq is a flourishing, thriving, prosperous, free, tolerant, bountiful, multi-ethnic democracy, where children skip and prance through the streets with arms linked, and sing "The dunes are alive with the sound of music."

Gee. Sounds exactly like Michael Moore's (your soulmate?) description of Iraq under Saddam, as depicted in his crocumentary on the topic. What a moronic strawman.

As I said, you're amusing at best, and not worth my (or really, anyone's) time, though some may further entertain themselves by sparring with a fool. Consider--if I were really concerned about what you write, I'd ban you, as so many leftist web sites ban anyone who tries to talk sense to them. Why do you suppose I don't?

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 13, 2006 06:17 PM

Derek L:

I sort of agree with you. Except for the probable fact that in another five years Hitler would have had nukes and the Allies would not.

I have heard an opinion that Hitler's doctor won the war for the Allies - by making him a junkie. Not a good condition in which to make strategic decisions.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at August 14, 2006 12:58 AM

Squidward says: Try not to waste all that witty repartee on my account, Nickelodeon Watcher.

Why not? You respond to it in your general childish manner. Its fun to read.

Squidward says: Iraq is a flourishing, thriving, prosperous, free, tolerant, bountiful, multi-ethnic democracy, where children skip and prance through the streets with arms linked, and sing "The dunes are alive with the sound of music."

Cute, but once again you show your inability to understand that changes within a country of this magnitude take time. I'm sure for the weed worshipping, tree hugging, branch biting left out there, our military is suppose to crush the opposition, teach the locals how to keep the peace, bring about elections for a new government, and sing kumbaya all before tea time.

Squidward says: but I showed up here on a lark and started feeding you your lunch within days.

I think Rand's eating well, but not off the menu you mention. Brian, your posts are full of huge words, which even to your left leaning friends in psychology should be a warning sign of a childish reaction. Your points are not well met, and even less backed up. All the facts you have presented represent maybe 40% (at most) of available resources. You take that small section of info and blow it up to encompass our other ideas that are completely ignorant. When called on it, you lash out with flame and bite, trying to maintain a high ground. Your slinging the mud, yet trying to be pure.

Posted by Mac at August 14, 2006 06:51 AM

Post a comment