The Prevailing Wisdom versus the Truth


James Kilbourne

Recommended Posts

The Prevailing Wisdom versus the Truth

We have been hearing a great deal about the incompetence of the Bush administration of late. Part of it is the normal carping found in all democracies. The opposition party needs to constantly redefine the differences it has with the party in power in order to redefine its own platform and become the party in power. It usually achieves this by applying incessant Monday morning quarterbacking to every minor blip that occurs in the flow of world events. With the current crop of Democrats, there is no hesitation caused by principles in claiming how different things would be if only they had been in charge. Unchecked by a vitriolic media, the prevailing wisdom seems to be that anyone but Bush would have done things perfectly. In foreign and domestic policy, this is the most successful administration since the Reagan administration, and although there are three more years to go, I still believe it will go down as one of the greatest in American history. From current perspective, it looks like we will have to wait for several years for this opinion to prevail, just as we did with Reagan.

When I say “we” here, I mean the small percentage of us who really understood what Reagan was trying to do and fought the pathetic band of 1980’s elite who thought everything he was doing would lead to the end of humanity. I remind you all that this later view was the prevailing view of the political intellectuals at that time, although it is now hard to find any of them that remember this. Someday, when I have the stomach for it, I will revisit the eighties, point out the issues, and name the names of those political analysts who still are getting it wrong on a daily basis and are still making seven figure incomes. Just as a teaser, since Time Magazine just came in the mail today, let me remind you of its summation of the 1980’s at the end of that decade; they named Gorbachev the “Man of the Decade”. Just like Gorbachev, Time, then and now, had the wrong analysis of the problem and opposed the giants of the era who truly understood what was broken and how to fix it. Gorbachev thought he was saving Communism, and from recent comments I have heard him make, it appears to me that he still isn’t quite sure just exactly what did happen. We are all glad that he was in charge of the Soviet Union back then, as his basic human decency helped to make the collapse of the Soviet system essentially bloodless, but to say that he was the pre-eminent shaper of the 1980’s world was a preposterous call. It is akin to naming the Titanic the victor over the iceberg. My reaction at the time that they announced it was to burst out laughing, quickly followed by a depressing feeling of how hopelessly unaware of the truth that the people who are supposed to know what is going on really are.

In viewing the cognoscenti’s current analysis of the world I have the same depressing feeling, but age has given me the comfort of knowing that stupidity is a passing phase, while truth is everlasting. I will continue to take my vitamins so I can be around long enough to hear the pundits tell us how they always knew that George W. Bush was a great man. Although I have written before about how much respect I have for the Bush team, friends frequently ask me if it is possible that I am still so deluded. So, as Reagan might say, “There he goes again.”

Not wanting to turn this into a book let me cover only the two main topics of foreign affairs and economic policy and put forth my case for the Bush administration in the broadest of terms. What was the state of the world when George W. Bush took office, what did he learn from the events of his time, and what will be the results of his policy decisions?

In January 2001, a decade had passed since the fall of communism, but America’s policy of mutually assured destruction (MAD) with the Soviet Union was still in place. Do you remember the prophecies of doom from the all-knowing class when he scrapped that anachronism and proceeded to align the policies of the United States with the reality of her new position in the world? Thankfully, the agonized cries of the omniscient only lasted for about a week or so. The nature of America’s place in the world and her true enemies in the 21st century were true on September 10, 2001, but for most of us, it took 9/11/2001 to understand them. And to a large degree we came to understand them thanks to the brilliant analysis and effective actions of the President of the United States, who understood them immediately and had worked out a lasting and effective response to them within days of that event.. Thanks to him, we put in place the necessary changes that will lead to a freer and more peaceful world over time. Just as importantly, he has had the courage to see his policies through a period when most of us have forgotten what our real choices are. To reiterate the steps Bush took after 9/ll:

Foreign policy

He grasped the fact that Islamic fundamentalism represented an entirely new kind of enemy for the United States, and that it would require a completely new set of rules to effectively fight it. He understood immediately that this was a war, not isolated criminal actions by individuals. This has allowed him to take the necessary actions to defend our country, and not get tied up in the criminal courts. This war would be protracted, and fought with few major confrontations, but rather persistent military pursuit of the perpetrators, vastly improved intelligence, and collaboration across many borders.Those who harbor terrorist are as guilty as the terrorists, and must be dealt with in a similar manner. Constant pressure needed to be applied against those who finance terrorism.

Technology had changed our options. We could no longer afford to wait for terrorists to commit a crime, as the consequences now would not be a handful of dead people, but, perhaps, hundreds of thousands. Defense would need, in some cases, to be “preemptive”.

The entire Middle East and its stunted political and moral growth was the long-range problem. This required several new approaches:

a. Democracy needed our help to develop, as it is the only political system that encourages tolerance and peace. Democratic examples needed to be created, and this would help create other democracies throughout the entire region.

b. The past efforts with Arafat were futile, and he would no longer deal with him. He would back Israel and wait for the Palestinians to offer a serious peace effort. As usual, with the Palestinians, we are still waiting.

c. The United Nations was feckless. A “coalition of the willing” – those willing to see the political realities and take the necessary actions, was needed in its place.

Economic policy

America was in a shallow recession when George W. Bush took office. Before 9/11, he instituted a tax cut that took effect just in time to allow a slow but real rate of growth to come back to American within a few months of 9/ll, despite anthrax scares and a complete burst of the tech bubble. Even with the bankruptcies of companies like WorldCom and Enron, and other ethical atrocities by several business organizations, he was able to get through a greatly more effective tax cut in 2003, which has resulted in the United States, once again, leading the world economy into a booming recovery. By taking a longe range view of helping China and India develop their economies and encouraging free trade everywhere, he has resisted the efforts of economic know nothings like Senators Schumer and Grahm to create another world recession through tariff idiocy, just as Senators Smoot and Hartley were able to do in the 1930’s.

Should we have sent in more troops to Iraq in the beginning? Have we made many mistakes in the execution of the war? Undoubtedly, but that is always the case. If I had told you on September 12, 2001, that in the next five years America would liberate over 56 million people living under unspeakable barbarism, and form a beachhead on the shores of that portion of the world living under religious fundamentalism and totalitarianism known as the middle east, while staving off all attempts for terror attacks on her own shores, while managing to lose less soldiers in this five year war than civilians lost on that one tragic day in September, would you call the man who achieved this miracle a “miserable failure”, to generally summarize the Bush views of most of the press and the opposition party? Would you demand the resignation of the Defense Secretary who presided over this amazing accomplishment while modernizing the entire military bureaucracy at the same time? But the professional whiners hate Bush and Rumsfeld even more than they hated Reagan. There is no one on the left who can see any good in anything they do. The level of blind hatred is greater for Bush than for any mainstream politician in my lifetime. If you were a true feminist, would you not cheer the man who freed millions of the most brutalized women in history, and who had put in charge of the foreign policy of the most influential nation in human history an African American woman of such remarkable ability that no one seriously considers her “just a token black woman”? Of course you would cheer, but…silence.

Obviously, the loss of one American life is tragic and particularly that of a soldier, as they are our most courageous citizens. However, that can’t allow us to lose the bigger picture. If ANY war is justifiable, we need to understand that we will have losses; over 600,000 in our Civil War, 500,000 in WWII, 57,000 in Vietnam, approaching 2,500 in Iraq. The question is, what is the price of not taking action?

If you want to give yourself a real chill, imagine for a moment turning on your television on 9/12/01 to hear President Gore outline America’s response. He probably would have sounded pretty tough that day. But shortly, Bin Laden would have been right. America would have been the most cowardly nation on earth within a few months. Eventually, the American people would have realized their mistake, but at the cost of tens of thousands of lives and almost an unlimited fortune.

The price President Bush has paid for his vision and actions, particularly in Iraq, has probably cost him an effective domestic program in his second term. However, he will outline the truth about Social Security, Medicare, our ineffective tax system, and other major items that are sure to be a large part of the work future presidents will need to take on. The structures of social programs such as Social Security in the last century were collectively based and economically unsound. A move to a private sector fix for these programs is inevitable. More and more, you will hear how much easier things would be today, economically, if we had only listened to this man in the first decade of this century. Americans will have come to realize how much easier the war on terror was because of his swift, accurate actions and his principled steady course despite an outcry from the myopic majority. No matter what happens between now and January 2009, his prescient courage in response to 9/11/01 will secure his place among America’s greatest presidents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

James,

I have mixed feelings about Bush (it's that damn Patriot Act), but your impassioned article makes sense enough for me to reevaluate some of the popular opinions that are seeping into my brain through the news.

I was not in the USA during the Reagan administration, but the doomsday sayers were strong in Brazil. I remember this well, since I used to like Reagan and got into many arguments. (I especially liked that bit after the US air strike on Ghadaffi's palace in Libya: "We did what we had to do. And if necessary, we will do it again.")

You are 100% right about one thing. We are being misinformed.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish Bush had Reagan's ease with the public, but more often than not he looks terribly uncomfortable and sounds worse. The Democrat's "he lied to us" is rubbish. He did something much more heinous to them; he disagreed. I hope he is able to salvage something from his second term's agenda, starting with the Immigration bill this spring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

James,

Well done. There are so few people who share our evaluation of President Bush that your post was a very pleasant read for me. He has definitely been as good a President as can be elected to that office in America today. His tax cuts have allowed the economy to grow at a sufficient rate to make the larger than desirable deficits small in comparison. I do hope the tax cuts not yet made permanent will become so. His efforts to hold Islamofascists at bay have been admirable, though I do wish he had done a better job of explaining why the war in Iraq was needed.

It will be highly unfortunate that the Social Security System will not be privatized soon. The Medicare system is a disaster and it is not clear that President Bush has any will to address its problems. He has been an advocate of small business and entrepreneurship, which is itself important. He has not proven stalwart in reducing the size and scope of government in fact, though he sometimes suggests it should not be on our backs. He carries some baggage for the Christian right which is also a problem.

Our biggest problems are the war on terror, taxes, government regulation, Social Security, and Medicare. President Bush has done very well on the war on terror and taxes. He seems well disposed toward government regulation and Social Security, but has done little about either problem. Medicare he has made worse. His two presidential challengers would have wanted to do the wrong thing on all of the above. If President Bush had good men to back him in the House and Senate, he likely would have done better. The problem in our Federal government now is that we need better men in the House and Senate and in much of the Federal bureaucracy. The 12 year period between President Reagan and President Bush saw a lot of damage done at the bureaucracy level, which is really never very good anyway.

It is very convenient to blame every problem on the President. It should be remembered that the Federal government is so huge and has its hands in so many things, that it is unmanageable. It has no organizational focus. It is a conglomerate of everything. Of course, any President can be said to be doing many things wrong or inadequately. We put a President on a wild beast more unwieldy than an elephant and more cantankerous than a donkey. It has a voracious appetite for money and power. We surround him with demagogues wanting power, attention, and money and they prod the beast and incite the crowd (electorate). It is basically a Roman circus designed to entertain the masses, most of whom do not understand what is going on now, what went on in earlier American history, or that the Constitution was written to strictly limit the size of the beast, its appetite, and the size of its circus ring.

Now, if only this President would ignore things like the first World Trade Center bombing, the bombing of the African embassies, the state of the military, and concentrate on titilating activities with young women in the Oval Room which are not sex, he would be so much more entertaining to the masses. He should want good things for the poor, such as a higher minimum wage. Of course he should punish the oil companies for high gas prices with a windfall profits tax. Why, he would be accepted as human and one of them.

It is good to have a President with a good measure of common sense, some business experience, and who thinks a President should do the right thing, rather than simply play to the crowd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charles

What a pleasure to read your critique of my hasty article, which is on the money, for the most part (the critique, that is). Your quality of your writing far surpasses that of the article; in particular, I appreciated your elephant and donkey summations.

I do think Bush has many flaws, but since the tsunami of evalutions concerning his presidency is negative, I thought it non-essential to spend much time on them. One thing I do want to say in his defense re: his medicare presciption plan:

We are all in agreement that the federal government should not be in the health business. However, it is, and anyone in charge of the government who is not blinded by ideology would recognize that he has an obligation to help make things work as well as possible, even if he is in philosophical disagreement with the establishment of a given program. This, I think, is where GWB found himself re: presciption drugs. It is obvious that the use of prescription medicine has greatly improved the health of people by helping to prevent numerous complications of many illnesses. The presciption drug program addresses that reality, and the surprise element of his program is that it introduces some market elements that are already proving to be money savers compared to the normal statist approaches. Perhaps (and it it a big "perhaps"), it may lead to further market solutions in health care in the future.

I realize that many free market people stress the need to be pure in philosophy to the point where society is made to suffer the consequences of every statist action. I am not of that school, however, because it causes real misery and real death to real people to make theoretical points. Fix the problem; make the point later.

GWB is much better at the fixes; it is up to us, therefore to later make the points. I believe that if the 21st century goes in our direction, it will be incremental in its improvements, just as the 20th century was incremental in the decline of the free market solutions. Those who are waiting for a libertarian cultural epiphany to occur on some slow newsday next week need their own epiphany concerning democratic evolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry guys, but I have to say that as a Republican for well over 30 yrs and having voted for a Republican POTUS every time except fro one ill-fated decision years ago, I am not very happy with one G W Bush.

He made a bad decision to get us involved in a war which I was against from the very start and for reasons which have been shown to be highly suspect if not outright fabrications.

For some reason that I have yet to fathom the American government through the years has a great penchant for blowing places all to hell and back which cost us dearly in lives and money, then turning around and trying to rebuild the same damn places we have just blew up at American taxpayers expense. There is no logical reason for us to be in Iraq. It did not present a "clear and present danger" to our country and we durn well knew it.

I was also hoping for a fiscal conservative with Bush and I guess that was just another pipe dream on my part.

L W

Link to comment
Share on other sites

James,

Thanks for your comments. I agree that there may be some savings for the rest of the Medicare program from the wise use of prescription drugs and I hope the government is able to manage the program in such a way as to actually benefit from such savings. We may see another example of such bad management that the potential value of the program will be lost. We shall see. It is also the case that the implementation of the Medical Savings Plans is a good move. Maybe Madeleine Cozman will prove right about how important that program is.

I fully agree with you that there is often a great deal of anger on the part of libertarians and objectivists that the candidate with the best chance to win the election and who is most favorable to Capitalism and limited government is less than perfect. They will reject the better man because he is not better than he is. This feeling seems to be related to the awfulness of a family feud or a civil war. It reminds one of the feud between the Nazis and the Communists. It is childish and foolish.

Particularly so because we can almost always carry on a conversation with George Bush and know he is listening. He may not agree, but he at least will think about our argument. He may not be a perfect Capitalist, but he admires Capitalism. He may not be emphatic about reducing government programs, but he does agree that government should have limits. He respects the ability of the people to be self-responsible and to lead productive lives. This is so much more important than whether there is some possible wire-tapping going on of calls from overseas terrorists which have not been court approved.

I think we both share an appreciation for the lessons of history. The political and cultural viewpoints of a nation evolve over a pretty significant amount of time, generally. If they do change fairly rapidly, it will only be due to a cataclysmic event or series of events. This is quite rare. The Civil War was something of such an event, but despite that wrenching experience, there was much that still changed only slowly. Few people who believed in socialism at age 30 do not now still believe in socialism. People do not give up their beliefs but with great reluctance. A libertarian general viewpoint will have to wait at least until the Baby Boomers are a small minority of the population and the Great Depression generation has passed.

Thanks especially for your comments on the Medicare issue. I admit that President Bush might yet prove right on that issue. That program is in an awful state in general and does need lots of fixing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

L. W. Hall,

I do not understand how virtually everyone has come to believe that it is perfectly OK for a dictator to shoot at American planes, not once, but almost daily for many months. This kind of act has always been cause for war. This same dictator said repeatedly that he was at war with the USA. He ran training camps for terrorists in which he trained thousands of them per year. He used terrible gas weapons on his own people. No, amend that. His own people were a tribe or two around Tikrit. The Kurds and the Shiites were his enemies. These gas weapons are at least at some level weapons of mass destruction. He was determined to pursue nuclear weapons when the embargo was ended. Recently translated documents have shown that he was indeed shopping for yellow cake uranium in Niger, as reported by British intelligence. There is reason to believe the Russians helped him to move some weapons of mass destruction out of the country not long before the 2nd Gulf War. This is actually a misnomer. The Gulf War started under the first George Bush and was never ended. An armistice was signed and Saddam violated it. George Bush the son simply recognized this.

There were many in the world who wanted the oil embargo of Iraq ended. The French, the Russians, the Chinese were especially prominent among these. It would not have taken Saddam long to create a dirty bomb and turn it over to terrorist groups to have them use it on us or Israel. With such a vicious and hateful man, this was a very reasonable concern.

Little of the damage in Iraq that affects the lives of the people there was caused by the Americans. Saddam caused most of it simply by taxing the people and spending the money on his palaces and unbelievably large weapons caches. He neglected the water supply and the sewers, the electric utilities, and the roads. He allowed the oil field equipment, the pipelines, and the refineries to fall into disrepair. He allowed the schools to deteriorate. He also degraded his people and caused them to lose hope. They became ineffective and lost their capabilities. This will happen after 30 years of dictatorship. Some damage was caused in the second part of the war, but then much more has been caused by Sunnis unhappy not to be the bullies in charge anymore. Do not attribute this act by them to America.

On the issue of fiscal conservativism: Sure, I wish government would so limit its scope that there would be no deficit and few taxes. President Bush seems to have made a bargain, which he should not have to make, but probably did have to make with the crowd in the House and Senate. They believe that delivering the goodies to their home districts is what gets them re-elected. They may be right in many, if not most, cases. President Bush gets tax cuts pushed through Congress and the economy grows handsomely in response. The government brings in more tax revenue with the lower taxes. The private sector has much more money to use productively than it had prior to the tax reduction. This generates still more wealth, a smaller part of which is taxed and is spent wastefully by Congress. Indeed, Congress spends even more money than the extra amount of tax income it now has. We run record deficits. Ah, but these are records in terms of the number of dollars. They are actually relatively small compared to the growth of the GDP or measures of the private sector economy.

Now, were we better off with higher taxes and smaller deficits or are we better off with a booming economy, few people on unemployment, fewer people in need of housing, a larger deficit which is a smaller part of the growing economy, and a lot of additional money being devoted to private sector productive work? If President Bush gave Congress a check to waste money up to and a little bit beyond the tax revenues in order to get the tax cuts, he may well have done a wise thing. If he manages to get them to give him additional tax cuts because they are fat and happy, this would be a good thing. Now, as it happens, Congress is so foolish, that they do not understand how good a thing the tax cuts have been for them, so it is not clear that President Bush will get his further tax cuts. We shall see just how dumb Congress can be.

I get angry too that government is not what it should be. I understand the frustration. American's idea of the nature of government is not very good. It has some healthy aspects, but many more disappointments. They do not understand their Constitution, they do not understand the nature of man, and they do not understand the effect of placing power in the hands of others to run their lives. They reap the consequences of their lack of understanding. Some politicians completely pander to this ignorance. President Bush sometimes bows to it, but he tries to find ways to do what he thinks needs to be done even in the face of it. The war in Iraq is a strong case in point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charles,

Bush himself said no Weapons of mass destruction were found. Whether or not Sadaam was trying to procure the necessary material to build nuclear weapons does not translate into him having them.

In regards the shooting at our planes over Iraq air space, that did not constitute the type of danger to us as a nation which calls for an invasion of the country because we were well aware of the inferiority of their air defense system as evidenced by the times we engaged the Iraqi military.

The training of terrorists could also be laid at the foot of Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Libya, and others such as North Korea which sells arms to said people. Yet, why did we single out Iraq? Why did we believe Iraq was any more likely to start passing out dirty bombs or constitute a nuclear threat to us than any one of several other unstable governments?

Human rights violations! How about North Korea one of the worst in the world? There are places in Africa where people are being slaughtered, but I don't see us making a military effort to stop any of that.

I also noticed you either missed it or made no effort to address the issue of the false pretenses which the war was sold to the American people on. I did not like it when Clinton lied to the people of our country, and a Republican doing it or manipulating data does not get a pass for it either.

I truly believe the whole thing about Iraq has a ring of poor planning coupled with poor intelligence to boot. So when we got there and found no WMDs we were not prepared, had no clear cut plan for disengagement and were facing a citizenry which was- just as I suspected- highly divided as to our prescence. The administration then changed it's so called reasons for invading to start with and from that point forward has been flying by the seat of it's pants.

The big problem with this debacle is the cost of American lives, not to mention the untold amount of money and yes unless you are living under a rock we destroyed one heck of a lot of their infrastructure which we are paying to rebuild. To come to what? In the end I don't see us as any more safe than pre invasion.

Fiscally

Bush is about as far from fiscally conservative as it's possible to be and still be called a Republican. His tax cuts were indeed a good idea, but coupled with indiscrimanate spending what we wind up with is a sure plan for disaster. You as a businessman know that if you cut your revenues, you must control or preferably cut your spending. If not your business will sink like the Titanic. And in answer to your question of which we would be better off with taxes vs deficit wise, I would opt for the third choice, which is lower taxes coupled with lower spending and lower deficits.

L W

Link to comment
Share on other sites

L.W.,

I hold ideals and I hope to influence others such that the society I live in will substantially share those ideals in time. Now, there are many ideals that Americans do not share. When it comes to advocating government policies, we should be realistic enough to recognize that fact. So, I want a very small and limited Constitutional government with very low taxes and no deficit spending. I am not able to see any way that the government will give me that with the present electorate, the present education system, and the present set of politicians. Hope for something better as hard as we may, we cannot change others until they opt to change themselves.

His tax cuts were indeed a good idea, but coupled with indiscrimanate spending what we wind up with is a sure plan for disaster. You as a businessman know that if you cut your revenues, you must control or preferably cut your spending.

Tax cuts such as investment tax cuts and cuts on the upper tax brackets do not result in less government tax revenue. They have always resulted in more government tax revenue. The socialist press insists that the tax cuts mean less revenue and this plays on the expectations of those who hold a static view of the economy. The economy is very dynamic. Investors invest their money with a keen eye to the tax consequences. They move money from highly taxed but otherwise productive purposes into less taxed and less productive purposes quickly and readily when taxes become too high. Lower the taxes and money is used more productively and more wealth is created. The lower tax rates then bring in more tax revenue both because money is moved into those spheres of activity where the rate is higher, but has been reduced from what it once was, and because more wealth has been created.

When Coolidge and Harding cut taxes, government revenue went up. When Hoover increased taxes and Roosevelt increased taxes, government revenue went down. When Kennedy cut taxes, government revenue went up. When Reagan cut taxes, government revenue went up. When Bush I increased taxes, government revenue went down. When Clinton cut taxes, revenue started up, then he increased taxes and it went down. When Bush II decreased taxes, government revenue went up. Do you see the pattern?

After entering Iraq, the weapons of mass destruction were not found and there was no explanation that would hold up under the barrage from the socialist press for that. Bush said that no weapons were found. This does not say that they were not there at an earlier time and that there was not good reason to think they were under on-going development. It does not say that many were not removed. It does not even say that they are not buried. Clearly the Sunni thugs still have access to many weapons caches we have never found. While weapons of mass destruction included a variety of weapons such as nerve gases, which Saddam had and used, but got rid of before the invasion, biological agents, and nuclear weapons for most people at the time of the discussion. You seem to ignore the nerve gases and maybe the biological weapons.

The Iraqis shooting at our planes constituted a violation of the armistice and a clear and present danger to our pilots. Because some idiot has inferior weapons and inferior fighting skills, this does not mean that we are obligated to even the odds by giving him an infinite number of potshots and the assurance that the Iraqi leadership will suffer no consequences. Francisco and Dagny sure did not follow that policy. Actually, Dagny was downright ruthless. If you value American lives, you should include the value of the lives of our pilots. You should also remember that thugs who get away with violence, resort to it more and more and escalate its scale. It is commonly good to nip it in the bud, which is a job Clinton should have performed with a higher priority than Kosovo.

You have made the standard media argument that if we do not simultaneously attack every thug and every terrorist harbor at once, we have no business attacking any. Interesting. So if the world has many thugs, we should appease them all? We should then simply give the world to them? Or should we set an example of at least one or two (say Afghanistan and Iraq) and send a lesson, which at least Libya paid some attention to? There is evidence that Iran, Syria, and N. Korea have paid some attention also, though they continue on irrational courses encouraged by our press and media criticism of Bush.

You refer to the war being sold under false pretenses. Please enumerate those false pretenses. Try to be precise about what the weapons of mass destruction were, among other things. You might also pay some attention to noting that the debate was too largely with Europe and the UN, so that the discussion with the American people was short-changed.

The invasion was handled very well in its phase. The occupation of the Sunni held areas was clearly more difficult than expected. However, our military and our intelligence services suffered great deterioration during the Clinton years. He and his admistration were very anti-military. They treated the military with obvious disdain and they systematically put numerous wrong people in power positions. This has serious consequences, which it takes years to fix. The intelligence limitations are no surprise. They clearly needed to be addressed. A relatively new President cannot instantly address all problems and his efforts often take years to take effect.

As for a clear-cut plan for disengagement, war is commonly so complex that such plans never work. In this case, more should have been known about the internal affairs in Iraq and more thought should have been given to the many possible consequences. Then one has to proceed with a great willingness to be flexible. This means one has plans, many plans based on various contingencies. Unfortunately, we did not have the intelligence on the ground that was needed. This has been true for many years, wherever we have had conflicts.

You consistently over-estimate the power of the President. Our Federal government was substantially designed to limit his power. In addition to Congress and the ever more powerful courts limiting his power, the instant spread of news and the pundits discussions of policy also serve to limit his power. Another limit is the now huge bureaucracy, which was not envisioned by the Framers of the Constitution. It lumbers along with ideas of its own, which are usually in strong correlation of the power of the persons and the agencies themselves, rather than how they will serve the rights of man.

You do not see us as any safer than pre-invasion? Perhaps you could prescribe that course of action which would be more successful than the zero deaths that have occurred due to terrorists in the US since 9/11? Apparently, if terrorists were not flocking to Iraq, you figure they would not produce deadly attacks in the US. How do you know that? It seems they have in England and Spain.

Remember WWII? Clearly we would have had fewer deaths for years to come if we had simply ignored the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Had we moved what troops we could back the US and sat here, we would likely have had few deaths until maybe 1950. After Hitler defeated the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union, which he may readily have done without America providing them the benefit of our massive production capabilities, the results would have been many more deaths.

You and the media do not seem to have come to grips with the threat that the Islamofascists present to our living in an open society with free enquiry and speech. They are attempting a total war with the West and modernity. We are unwise to ignore this effort and we cannot simply count the deaths of some of our troops and say they are too many. Civilizaton is being challenged by ruthless men who not only enjoy cutting people's heads off, but who are very willing to take the world back to 1000. This is pre-Renaissance, let alone pre-Enlightenment.

You should pay some attention to what our soldiers in Iraq think they are accomplishing. You are not paying the primary cost of the war, they are. Do they want to stay home or do they want to challenge the Islamofascists?

In an economy of $13 trillion, the cost of the war is not untold. It may be substantial, but it is cheap compared to Vietnam and really cheap compared to WWII. But it is a lot if you really dislike the war. So is the amount of money going into unconstitutional activities a lot of money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charles R. Anderson has responded as I would have, only with better writing and much more patience. Let me just add one thing; Iraq was singled out because of the Bush administration's remarkable competence and understanding of recent history. After 9/11, it was essential that America respond consistently, decisively, and with justification to the islamic fundamentalist threat. It picked Iraq because its recent history of atrocities made it obvious to all (except those willing to twist themselves into pretzels in order to attack Bush) that it was a criminal nation. I won't restate the UN resolutions, acts of war against others and horrors perpetrated on its own citzens of which Iraq was guilty. You all know them. America needs to consistently show that it will not sit back and take terrorist attacks. When the next one occurs ( and it will), I hope we have someone in the White House that understands this as well as GWB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charles,

On the tax cut issue we are both in agreement that it was a good move, the real difference is it will take time to see if the revenues will balance out, but even if they do not go up I believe it is necessary for us to get spending more under control in this country and Bush has not shown any sign he is willing to do that which would include the massive deficit spending and borrowing that is going on at this time. The use of the veto pen may be his best weapon in dealing with congress, yet I see no real sign he wishes to make full use of it.

In reference to what I consider the misleading of America by the Bush administration for invasion of Iraq it comes down to one of a few possibilities.

a) The evidence presented was intentionally shown in a biased way to build a case with the belief that WMDs would be found and thus their position vindicated ( the most probable)

b) Bad intelligence led them to the wrong conclusions (a definite possibility, but more likely could be linked in with the above)

c) Inability to interpret the available intelligence and thus total incompetence.

I believe the first is by far the most liklely and some data mining was used to present a case to get congressional approval. The biggest problem of course was when we got there no WMDs were found and so the administration had to fall back on other secondary reasons.

What we really have is an administration which either believed the means justified the ends or even more scary was totally in the dark from the onset of hostilites. That the initial invasion went so well is more a indication of the competence of our military than our civilian leadership.

You make the same case I have heard before that because we have not been atttacked again you can use that in proving a justification for invasion of Iraq( and remember I am not talking about Afghanistan which was absolutely necessary due to Bin Laden, Al Qaeda and the Taliban). That in itself is proof of nothing in relation to Iraq due to the fact we ousted the Taliban, and caused disruption in Al Qaeda prior to the attack. We also know that Bin Laden is still at large and it took several years to plan the last attack.

Not sure how you are trying to tie the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in with shooting at some of our planes in a no fly zone as reasons for war, but try to keep in mind that we were not attacked on our soil by Sadaam and his crew who were secular by nature, but rather a consortium of different nationalities with one thing in common and that is religious fanaticism.

You also might take note that even though our military is willing to do their job and put their lives on the line does not equate to a good reason for doing so and when speaking of no casualties since 9/11 keep in mind the over 2000 service people who have lost their lives in Iraq.

You ask should we appease every thug in the world and my answer to that is when did we decide we needed to the be the police force for the entire world at the great expense of people and money. Are we going to invade all the countries I listed plus even more that are known for harboring terrorists? We need to start using more intellect in dealing with these people unless we are willing to fight simultaneous wars on many battlefronts.

I am 100% for fighting these fanatics. but I believe Iraq was a bad decision and one which took away a lot of the drive the American people had for dealing with this threat after 9/11. It may well be in the long run that we suffer even grerater damage because of poor leadership and personal vendettas.

L W

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LW,

I fully agree with you that I would like to see a reduction of government spending and deficits. I do wish Bush would use the veto on a substantial number of spending bills inconsistent with the Constitution. I suspect that he thinks that there is such a desire on the part of both Republicans and Democrats in Congress that he cannot sustain a veto. Or, maybe there was a deal made on the tax cuts.

I think the intelligence on many things, other than the disposition of Saddam's troops, was very poor. I think that was a long time legacy, rather than something that occurred under Bush. This is not to say that Bush had yet moved to address these problems. I think his initial attention was on things such as tax cuts and addressing problems in the military. The intelligence agencies of several other countries also appear to have had less than adequate information. I do think that Saddam had some weapons that were considered weapons of mass destruction earlier and had them moved out of the country with Russian help, but we have less than certain information on that to my knowledge. If the Russians did this, it would not be surprising that the administration would simply not want any information they now have released for public examination. I grant that because we are all given limited information on our intelligence collecting and interpreting capabilities, there is room for rational disagreement here.

I am not saying that because we have not been attacked at home that it is clear that the Iraq War is the cause of this. I am suggesting a caution that the package of things that Bush is doing has not failed in preventing such attacks and that given our relative lack of knowledge of what is going on, it might be wise not to excessively second-guess Bush. Part of Bush's realization of the nature of the War on Terror was that if you are to get most of the nations of the world involved in eliminating terrorists, then you need to go after all of the terrorists. Iraq was training and supporting terrorists, including some Al Queda. They may have been secular by Middle Eastern standards, but they were using the Muslim radical unrest to Saddam's advantage. And, a point I make over and over, Iraq did attack us many times. Every time Saddam attacked an American plane, he attacked America. It is a terrible mistake not to respond in most such cases. We learned the advantages early in our history when we did not give ransom to the Barbary pirates.

As I pointed out, we do not want to attack and overthrow every dictator in the world. We want to keep them under control by at least making an example of those who really get out-of-control. Saddam was probably the most out-of-control dictator around at the time. The fact of his atrocities at home and the frequent firings on American planes demonstrated this.

There is another thing we have to remember. The discussion of our reasons for the war was unfortunately carried out mostly in the context of trying to get UN approval of supporting resolutions. Bush had to frame the discussion for maximum effect on the UN. I believe that this greatly distorted the rational reasons for the war and contributed heavily to the perception that Bush was lying to the American people. He could not tell the UN the things that would have an effect on them and then turn to the American people and give them a different and more sound assessment. This may be a very good reason to oppose the UN. We do want the President of the USA to be able to be as candid as possible about wars with the American people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charles,

It does not seem we are really that far apart in respect to many of the main issues which this country is faced with and with which the Bush administration has had to deal.

Do not get me wrong I am not sorry I voted for Bush and if the election were held again tomorrow I would still pick Bush over Kerry, but I sometimes get the feeling things are not all that above board with this administration and I am adamant in my beliefs of integrity in the conduct and responsibility to the American people which the office entails.

I will leave it at this as far as Iraq goes: I would have much preferred we had used our air superiority coupled with the likes of cruise missiles and Predators to further degrade Saddam's ability to wage war without a coomitment of ground troops and occupation forces.

I liken occupation of a country to slave ownership. While you may have the upper hand in calling the shots (no pun intended), you are just as bound if not more so to their well being and preservation as they are to you and it makes for a poor symbiotic relationship.

L W

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for sharing your political viewpoints. LW's views mirror many of my own and I also agree with Charles in many respects. I suppose my political views fall somewhere between Libertarian and Republican, but I think all three parties totally miss the mark. In a nutshell: D=Socialism, R=Theocracy and L=Anarchy. So I guess I am a cynic more than anything.

I think that we should have been told the truth going in to the war. Back around 9-11, it seemed like Bush was confusing Saddam with Osama and I pretty much lost respect for him. He came off as either incredibly dishonest or a complete idiot. Why the WMD BS to pander to the UN? Saddam broke the agreement that ended the first Iraqi war and shot at our planes. That is plenty justification to go back in and finish the Iraqi war. Didn't we declare victory long ago? This does have the potential to turn into WWIII or Vietnam if they don't outline some clear objectives, including a clear exit strategy to get out. What is it going to take for our troops to come home?

I also have issues with the fact that we are expected to rebuild a country that we just fought a war with. That reeks of altruism. Are we fighting for our sake or their sake? The Middle East has always, and will always be at war. Unfortunately, they are an oil rich region ruled by religion. That will not change. The older I get the more I come to believe that religious fanaticism is at the root of all evil.

Also it is not our job to fix foreign governments, or be Israel's (or any other country's) rent-a-cop. Our military should protect America, and do whatever it takes to kill Osama bin Laden and his ilk. When it comes to terrorists, they don't follow the rules, so why should we? Put a big enough price on his head and someone will take him out.

Kat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There has been a constant drumbeat that Bush lied, Cheney lied, Rumsfeld lied..THAT is the big lie perpetrated by the Democrats and other leftist groups. This is the most competent and honest administration in my lifetime; competent and honest, not infalable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course this is a complicated matter and dependent upon one's ability to judge the character of the President and his advisors though we do not have any personal contact with them. I have never met George Bush or Bob Chaney or Donald Rumsfeld. However, from listening to them speak about issues, they seem to me to be the most knowledgable, the most sound thinkers, and the most concerned with the truth of any set of leaders we have had at least since Eisenhower, when I was too young to make anything like a comparable judgment.

George Bush tries to be honest. He makes mistakes as any President will in the overwhelmingly expanded presidency. If you run a small company or if you are a parent, matters are already so complex that you will make mistakes. It is not reasonable to believe that a President will not make some substantial mistakes. President Bush and his advisors are trying hard. They are commonly quite candid as well, though the constant attacks of the media have caused them to not share information they would rather share. Put yourself in their shoes.

Bush is more honest than Clinton, Reagan, Nixon, Johnson, and Kennedy for sure! How ironic that he has to bear the brunt of so many accusations that he lied. He had some intelligence information which was out-of-date and this information came both from American sources and from European sources. To be wrong about something is not to lie.

I really think a terrible injustice is being done to a very decent man. There are significant differences that I have with George Bush, but those are fewer than I have had with other Presidents in my lifetime. A number of these relate to religious views of morality, with which I disagree. However, while there is talk about the government making us be more moral as the Christians interpret it, there is very little in the way of additional action to make us do so. I have been careful to point out my disagreements with Bush and the Republicans on a number of such issues at my blog, primarily at the time of the last election.

The idea of bombing Iraq from the air would mostly have been symbolic. It would not have closed down Uday's terrorist training camps, I expect.

On rebuilding Iraq, I think I would put the emphasis on getting the oil flowing again. This would help to bring down the cost of oil and reduce the power of those nasty leaders of many other oil-rich countries. It would produce a great deal of money for the Iraqis. Put them back to work and let them build their own infra-structure with the new wealth that would be available to many. One of the biggest problems in Iraq is the fact that half of Iraqi men have no jobs. With a surging economic prosperity, most of them would lose interest in hating Americans and gain an interest in finding ways to protect property and getting along with each other. My main criticism of the occupation is that it has failed to do this.

I would also be inclined to allow Iraq to separate into 3 parts, if those parts do not soon learn to cooperate. The Sunnis have been the source of most of the problems. Let the Kurds and the Shia have autonomy and take their oil with them. Leave the Sunni with near nothing. Take the American troops out of the hot Sunni areas and leave them to squabble over nothing. They had their opportunity for a better future and if they choose not to take it, let suffer the consequences. Their actually are many Sunnis who are coming around, though one would have hoped they might have understood their interest sooner.

Kat, I am very happy to have your company on the proper and sufficient reason for war, which was the one reason never given. This has aggravated me to no end. Iraq failed to honor the armistice, Saddam declared war on the US verbally, he fired on our planes frequently, he allowed terrorists safe-haven, he trained terrorists, and he provided money to terrorist. I sure would think this was sufficient reason for finishing the job of hunting him down. I would also be happy to see us offer, say, $100 million for Osama bin Laden's head.

LW, you are quite right that occupation does bring with it some of the same problems faced by a slaveholder. It is a very uncomfortable business. Best to keep it short and move on. We really could have used the oil to help this happen more quickly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There has been a constant drumbeat that Bush lied, Cheney lied, Rumsfeld lied..THAT is the big lie perpetrated by the Democrats and other leftist groups.

True. I regard Bush as the worst president in my conscious lifetime - yet I think even him saying Iraq had WMDs was a colossal, sincere screw-up rather than preplanned deceit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 years later...

I'm a newbie.

I did NOT read all the post, nor all the replies, so what I have to say is only from a general scanning of that material, and more, from my general impression of all Objectivist material I have found anywhere on applied politics. I am not criticizing anyone in particular, but only expressing a general feeling of dismay on my part. Maybe I'm wrong.

It seems that the writing I have seen on some political topics reflects more whether the writer comes to Objectivism from an old "liberal" point of view or an old "conservative" one, with little or no fresh Objectivist analysis of the matter, save some isolated, out of context principles thrown about; such as "we have the right to defend ourselves", or "they hate us just because we're good", or "tax cuts are what are needed to really stimulate the economy", etc. A fresh Objectivist analysis of something begins with an accounting of ADDITIONAL FACTS- ALL the things that HAPPENED !

Did I detect the same old "pro-con" approach in the postings and replies above with the same old arguments? What if some issues are not that simple and need a somewhat more deep or nuanced approach. Again, I did not read all the material above, so does anyone want to step up and point out something I missed that is a particularly fresh insight?

I'll start by throwing something out.

Regarding the whole mid-east thing. Nobody was more proud than I when our military took out Saddam. Those people

were HAPPY and grateful. But on the other hand, the columnist Jack Anderson said, after 9-11, that "They are over here because we are over there", and then proceeded to DOCUMENT a long list of meddlings, over many years, by our country, that give ample excuse to foreigners to at least blame us for their problems. Just because the American people were "mistaken" to allow things to be done on their behalf doesn't mean that we can wash our hands of them and pretend they never happened!! The U.S. has not set a very good example to the world of how a constitutional republic is supposed to work. Now someone wants to ignore that fact and just invade totalitarian countries and set up governments?

Fresh analysis taking more facts and principles into account. That's what I'm talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rodney:

I also just scanned the prior posts.

You asked some interesting questions. The US has not been acting as anything close to how a constitutional republic is supposed to work since the early 1900's.

In terms of Iraq and Iran, we have been involved for decades. Global power politics creates the need for our interests in the Turkey to Iran area. The WMD's in Iraq existed.

They were used on the Kurds. There is some credible intelligence and testimony that whatever viable WMD's that were still in Saddam's possession were removed with Soviet assistance to the Bekaa (sp?) Valley in Lebanon.

As Kat mentioned, we had ample justification for going into Iraq because of Saddam's multiple violations of the Armistice from Gulf War I, but those violations existed pre 9-11.

I have always believed that going into Iraq was part of our long range plans to isolate Iran because we were going to have to take that government out sooner or later.

I never expected the incredibly myopic and incompetent occupation of Iraq to be so inept.

I also never expected us to once again hold back our troops and limit the full use of our power once again.

However, we did accomplish a stable semi democratic Muslim/Arabic state right in the heart of the Middle East.

I do not know if this answers any of your questions.

Also, I believe that I found the Buckley Rand Anarchist quote you were seeking.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see at least one thing in my original reply that I should clarify. I did not mean to imply that since the U.S. has been a poor example of our potential to the rest of the world that we wouldn't now have the moral prerogative to assist in establishing new free governments. We do. What I meant was that by failing to be a good teacher before hand we were more likely doom our costly efforts to failure.

I also want to emphasize that I don't claim to know, for certain, the best position on any, and all, complex issues, such as this one.

Now Adam, just this simple question to anyone, to further illustrate my original reply. Before going to war, after 9-11, did most people, Objectivists included, adequately reflect on the reasons why many people in the world feel about us as they do, in general, and why some people attacked us, in particular?

I'm the devils advocate. My temptation is always to try and point out that which I see was left out of the discussion.

Edited by rodney203
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now Adam, just this simple question to anyone, to further illustrate my original reply. Before going to war, after 9-11, did most people, Objectivists included, adequately reflect on the reasons why many people in the world feel about us as they do, in general, and why some people attacked us, in particular?

I'm the devils advocate. My temptation is always to try and point out that which I see was left out of the discussion.

Rodney:

I cannot speak for others, but I did. Unfortunately, from way back in the fifties, there has been a coordinated effort to advance the image of the "Ugly American"*.

Certain aspects of American foreign policy played right into that image. In too many cases we sided with vicious dictatorships to "halt" or "block" the spread of

Communism.

All too many of the ambassadors that we appointed were barely competent political hacks who knew virtually nothing about the political and social situations of the countries they were assigned to. Some did not even speak the country's language!

Furthermore, the class envy card of the greedy Americans that has been the drumbeat in our own universities, as well as globally, for the last half century has taken its toll.

Including the current despicable leader of the US who consistently advances the anti-colonialist narrative about the US, as well as the global warming, climate change narrative which underlies the anti west anti industrial narrative. We use to many of the planets resources per capita and we have to achieve the marxist ideal of the great leveling through the redistribution of income.

I hope that helps to answer your devils advocate question.

Adam

*The term originated as the title of a 1958 book by authors William Lederer and Eugene Burdick. In 1963 the book was made into a movie directed by George Englund and starring Marlon Brando. The best-selling, loosely fictional account provided contrasting characters with different approaches to opposing Communist influence in Southeast Asia, and the use of foreign aid in particular. The majority of the Americans exhibit a range of blundering, corrupt, and incompetent behaviors, often concentrating on impractical projects that will serve more to benefit American contractors than the local population. A minority are effective because they employ knowledge of the local language and culture, but most of these are marginalized and some even considered suspect. As a result, their influence is more limited than it should be.[30]

The title character, Homer Atkins, is introduced late in the book. The "Ugly American" is an engineer whose unattractive features, rough clothing and dirty hands are contrasted with the bureaucrats' freshly pressed clothes, clean fingers and smooth cheeks. Their behaviors have the opposite contrast: the engineer wants to provide practical solutions to day-to-day problems faced by the populace; the bureaucrats want to build highways and dams that are not yet needed, and with no concern for the many other projects that will have to be completed before they can be used. [31] The book led to a move by President Dwight Eisenhower to study and reform American aid programs in the region.[32]

In the book, a fictional Burmese journalist wrote, "For some reason, the people I meet in my country are not the same as the ones I knew in the United States. A mysterious change seems to come over Americans when they go to a foreign land. They isolate themselves socially. They live pretentiously. They're loud and ostentatious. Perhaps they're frightened and defensive, or maybe they're not properly trained and make mistakes out of ignorance."[33]

The idea of the ignorant or badly-behaving American traveler long predates this book. Mark Twain wrote about The Innocents Abroad in the nineteenth century, and Algonquin Round Table member Donald Ogden Stewart wrote Mr and Mrs Haddock Abroad in 1924.[34]

http://en.wikipedia....i/Ugly_American <<<< wiki link - the movie poster is worth a quick look! lol

Edited by Selene
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel I must again clarify something I said in a reply. It is so easy to be sloppy in my thinking and writing.

I earlier stated how important I thought it is was for the U.S. to have been a proper example for the people of the world, but that regardless of our past domestic performance it was appropriate for us to "assist" in establishing other free governments (when appropriate opportunities arise).

Please note that I did not mean to imply it was ok for our GOVERNMENT to do this, with taxpayer supplied money and resources. Our government was not granted the power to do this. It is not now, nor has it ever been, ok for our government to participate in establishing or supporting other states. Such assistance would be a matter for private action. The fact that our government has violated this principle has lead to one of the major complaints that foreigners have against us.

There is another observation I have about the way I see things, and the topic of foreign policy is probably the best place to mention it. This idea is a version of the old "two wrongs don't make a right" adage.

As I see it, it can be that after a number of irrational choices are made by an individual, or by a society, a point is reached where there may no longer any "good", or "acceptable" choices for action available! A point where one has "painted oneself into a corner", as it were, where all further action is lose-lose. For example; one has a number of children with a miserable partner and is consequently damned if he stays OR leaves; or for example, the world fails to solve its problems of international peace and a nuclear blackmail ensues.

It may be that the 9-11 attacks are such an example, or at least close to it, with everyone groping for the "right" answer. If I had been president at 9-11, and with balls the size of watermelons, I would like to think I would have not made a broad scale military attack, but rather something like the following 1) beefed up our defenses 2) demanded a deep soul searching by our society as to why people have such hate for us, and 3) Engaged in a more "covert", targeted search for the attackers and planners of the bombing.

I want to emphasize that my tentative solution is not the "right" solution. There may not have been a "right" solution. The solution we did follow was certainly extremely expensive, and in the end, what will it accomplish beyond the "solution" I suggested? I am patient. Time will tell what's actually been accomplished. Look at what it cost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now