Wow. You owe it to yourself (and the country) to watch these at least once. There's some laughs at least in the last one.
I mean, seriously? Seriously?
There's more...
And finally, this commentary from conservative (but straight-shooting) columnist David Brooks.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Regurgitating The Atlantic
There's a debate on Friday between Senators McCain and Obama. It's going to be on foreign policy, not the economy (which is the topic du jour).
The article "The Petraeus Doctrine" in this month's Atlantic provides an interesting, and I think important, subtext for this debate.
Put simply, does America's future hold more Iraqs or not?
If the world is a place where failed and rogue states will attempt to attack the US or its allies and interests, and we intend to defend ourselves, then we may end up trying to establish stability (the Petraeus Doctrine) to win hearts and minds in foreign countries. This worldview holds that Iraq is winnable and we are winning, and that perhaps even Vietnam was winnable. You just need enough force going in and enough subtlety (cultural and language training, etc) and patience to see it through. You can't bomb your way to security, but you can occupy and stabilize your way to security. In fact, you have to if you want to fight terrorism.
The other worldview holds that these kinds of fights cannot be won by the military, at least for an acceptable cost. Iraq's current stability should not be viewed as evidence of a repeatable strategy for successfully occupying conquered states. Rather, it is a result of a complex series of political calculations, including expected American withdrawal. The ability to successfully extract the America military without leaving a raging civil war, while to be welcomed, is not a blueprint for future military actions. In short, this is not a "win" we should look to repeat.
My sense is that John McCain takes the first view... you can win these things if you are patient and smart enough. It may require enormous sacrifice, but he has made enormous sacrifice and can marshal the country to do so. He sees a violent world where "there will be more wars", and you have to be smarter and more willing to fight than the other guy to win. If you're lucky, you may not have to fight. But you have to be willing to, and in an unstable world, the US's responsibility (with other countries) is to fight those fights.
A soldier's view.
My sense is that Barack Obama takes the latter view. That the military can tip the scales between two opposing power structures, but cannot nurture a power structure up from scratch. Or perhaps, that if such things can be done, the military is not the right arm of government to do so. And further, that with limited resources, the military should be used sparingly, and only when the objectives are more simply and conventionally defined. (In that sense, Obama is conservative while McCain is neoconserative.) The downside of this is, you have to both be willing to not fight some fights you could win (because they are too expensive) ... such as Iran or North Korea getting nukes, or more precisely you have to empower some bad guys (buying them off rather than fighting). Also, you have to believe that enough fights can be avoided.
This is where I suspect the worldview comes in. McCain has seen a world of conflict, was 3rd generation Navy with an Admiral father. His frame of reference has been conflict. He has seen cruelty up close. He knows sometimes you have to be willing to fight.
Obama has seen a world of diversity. He has preached understanding. He's never been in the military, and has based his campaign on overcoming traditional political infighting ("games" he calls them) to reach a common purpose.
In Obama's worldview, the Iraqs and Vietnams of the world can and must be avoided, and the military cannot fundamentally alter the reality on the ground. In McCain's worldview, the Iraqs and Vietnams of the world can't be avoided, only ignored as the cost grows, and a willingness to fight and persevere is required.
On the foreign policy side, that's the debate. The inital vote against Iraq is Obama's proxy for saying, "you have to be wise enough to see these things never go as well as you think and are a waste of precious resources." The success of the surge is McCain's proxy for saying "you have to be willing to have faith and persevere, and I have those traits."
What do you think?
The article "The Petraeus Doctrine" in this month's Atlantic provides an interesting, and I think important, subtext for this debate.
Put simply, does America's future hold more Iraqs or not?
If the world is a place where failed and rogue states will attempt to attack the US or its allies and interests, and we intend to defend ourselves, then we may end up trying to establish stability (the Petraeus Doctrine) to win hearts and minds in foreign countries. This worldview holds that Iraq is winnable and we are winning, and that perhaps even Vietnam was winnable. You just need enough force going in and enough subtlety (cultural and language training, etc) and patience to see it through. You can't bomb your way to security, but you can occupy and stabilize your way to security. In fact, you have to if you want to fight terrorism.
The other worldview holds that these kinds of fights cannot be won by the military, at least for an acceptable cost. Iraq's current stability should not be viewed as evidence of a repeatable strategy for successfully occupying conquered states. Rather, it is a result of a complex series of political calculations, including expected American withdrawal. The ability to successfully extract the America military without leaving a raging civil war, while to be welcomed, is not a blueprint for future military actions. In short, this is not a "win" we should look to repeat.
My sense is that John McCain takes the first view... you can win these things if you are patient and smart enough. It may require enormous sacrifice, but he has made enormous sacrifice and can marshal the country to do so. He sees a violent world where "there will be more wars", and you have to be smarter and more willing to fight than the other guy to win. If you're lucky, you may not have to fight. But you have to be willing to, and in an unstable world, the US's responsibility (with other countries) is to fight those fights.
A soldier's view.
My sense is that Barack Obama takes the latter view. That the military can tip the scales between two opposing power structures, but cannot nurture a power structure up from scratch. Or perhaps, that if such things can be done, the military is not the right arm of government to do so. And further, that with limited resources, the military should be used sparingly, and only when the objectives are more simply and conventionally defined. (In that sense, Obama is conservative while McCain is neoconserative.) The downside of this is, you have to both be willing to not fight some fights you could win (because they are too expensive) ... such as Iran or North Korea getting nukes, or more precisely you have to empower some bad guys (buying them off rather than fighting). Also, you have to believe that enough fights can be avoided.
This is where I suspect the worldview comes in. McCain has seen a world of conflict, was 3rd generation Navy with an Admiral father. His frame of reference has been conflict. He has seen cruelty up close. He knows sometimes you have to be willing to fight.
Obama has seen a world of diversity. He has preached understanding. He's never been in the military, and has based his campaign on overcoming traditional political infighting ("games" he calls them) to reach a common purpose.
In Obama's worldview, the Iraqs and Vietnams of the world can and must be avoided, and the military cannot fundamentally alter the reality on the ground. In McCain's worldview, the Iraqs and Vietnams of the world can't be avoided, only ignored as the cost grows, and a willingness to fight and persevere is required.
On the foreign policy side, that's the debate. The inital vote against Iraq is Obama's proxy for saying, "you have to be wise enough to see these things never go as well as you think and are a waste of precious resources." The success of the surge is McCain's proxy for saying "you have to be willing to have faith and persevere, and I have those traits."
What do you think?
Monday, September 22, 2008
Oh hell
Those library books? That I was going to return? That weekend? When the storm was going to hit? Before I got moved to Dallas? Like two weeks ago?
The books that were already overdue?
Oh hell.
The books that were already overdue?
Oh hell.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
The Financial Crisis, Pt 1
Quote
Unquote
Although I agree broadly with Hatzius, I quibble with his idea that the goal is to avoid a sharp contraction in lending. The US needs to wean itself of unsustainable overconsumption, and since consumption has come to depend on growth in indebtedness, a reversal, however painful, is necessary. Our excesses have been so great that there is no way out of this that does not lead to a general fall in living standards (note that the officialdom in the UK is willing to say that, but since perpetual prosperity is a God-given right in America, admitting we will be getting poorer is verboten). Thus, a sharp contraction in lending seems inevitable; the trick is to prevent it from crossing the tipping point into a vicious, accelerating downward spiral.
Unquote
Another letter to Congress
This email is regarding the proposed legislation to bail out the financial markets. I appreciate that there may be no good options, and that avoiding moral hazard here may lead to unacceptable impact on "Main St."
But with this administration's poor record of following the rules (Justice Dept for example), and with news of bankrupt Lehman keeping $2.5B for their best and brightest, the Congress should NOT be issuing blank checks and retroactive pardons to those raiding the taxpayers' pockets (however necessary the raiding).
There has been too much unaccountability already.
Please insist on the Congress and courts' proper role of oversight and review.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
