Abu Muqawama: Post
Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS. Abu Muqawama retains the right to delete comments that include words that incite violence; are predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass; or degrade people on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. In summary, don't be a jerk.
Three Views on the United States and Iraq
I want to highlight three op-eds on the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. The first is by Brett McGurk, an early supporter within the Bush Administration for the "Surge" who later helped negotiate the 2008 Status of Forces Agreement. (People in position to know about such things often credit McGurk, along with fellow NSC staffer Elissa Slotkin, as having been the U.S. official most responsible for the successful 2008 negotiations.) McGurk argues forcefully and persuasively against those -- such as Fred and Kim Kagan or Max Boot -- who have argued that an extension of U.S. forces in Iraq was possible or that Iran has won (and Obama has lost) the Iraq War:
[Our] trying to force an agreement through the Iraqi parliament would have been self-destructive. That had nothing to do with Iran and everything to do with Iraqi pride, history and nationalism. Even the most staunchly anti-Iranian Iraqi officials refused to publicly back a residual U.S. force — and in the end, they supported our withdrawal.
McGurk, bear in mind, is an interested party here, so caveat lector. All the same, knowing his reputation and experience, I trust the narrative he advances. Reidar Visser, meanwhile, argues that Chris Hill was the U.S. official most responsible for "losing" Iraq. I loudly voiced my own objections to Hill's appointment in 2009, but I am not sure I completely buy Reidar's arguments. Still, Reidar is an incredibly knowledgeable scholar on Iraq whose opinions are always grounded in fact and careful investigations.
Which brings us to the final op-ed, which I am only including because it highlights what a predictably partisan clown Charles Krauthammer has become in his advanced years. Krauthammer knows Iraq about as well as I know Washoe basketweaving traditions.* That doesn't stop him from weighing in, though, with typically thunderous certainty, about how the president lost the Iraq War. It's enough to have made Steve Metz wonder over Twitter whether or not Krauthammer is a secret Washington Post plot to discredit serious conservative thought.
*To clarify, I know nothing about Washoe basketweaving traditions. I'm sure they are great, though.
"....everything to do with
"....everything to do with Iraqi pride, history and nationalism"
Is this the same Iraqi pride, history and nationalism so many in the US political establishment and media so energetically tried (and still try) to persuade us does not exist?
Nice non-factual,
Nice non-factual, non-substantive attack on Krauthammer. What's it called when you don't attack someone's arguments, you attack them personally? Oh yeah, it's that pesky logical fallacy known as ad hominem.
It actually is ad hominem, my
It actually is ad hominem, my unnamed Visitor friend, but it is not fallacious. The problem of Krauthammer is Krauthammer himself: he is a smart guy, but he will not allow logic or facts to get in the way of the partisan message he wants to get across.
Ad hominem is a logical
Ad hominem is a logical fallacy if you attempt to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. That is exactly what you did. You did not even attempt to demonstrate that the logic and facts in his piece were incorrect, you merely dismissed him as a partisan clown.
I await your decisive refutation of Krauthammers claims...
ad hominem? Gee, is that
ad hominem? Gee, is that some type of an attack on Hummus? Flatulent in three languages?
Maybe a personal ball mashing.
I saw Krauthammer's opinion when it was first published. Few posts back I indicated that Obama did something right. It is just that you got to watch the other hand and his administration to see the whole picture.
Iraq was never about winning or losing. WMD was a sales pitch, Obama made a similar pitch in Libya with a slaughter that never happened. Iraq is one of those wars that we will not know the outcome for years to come. I just hope that one day the people of Iraq will understand the sacrifice and appreciate the opportunity.
As far as being out of Iraq, come on guys cut the bull, I presented the State's budget two posts back while talking about Military/Civilian relationships. The money for increasing the "diplomatic army" in Iraq was put in State's budget for 2012. Obama got the "troops" out, he got it half right. State pointed to the 2012 savings of the $4B increase of diplomatic expenses to $45B of the DOD. We all know that the DOD savings are being spent else where, there are no savings. Only an increase in State's contractors in Iraq. SOFA is a moot topic all it did was set the timing, troops was planned and everyone knew that the 2008 SOFA was a milestone in advance. The conflict matured and the US is still training and advising the largest army Iraq has, its police force.
Personally, I am more concerned about the overall WOT. This administration has spread the war and increased the spending. What is more troubling is that the CIA has militarized taking the spending and scope of operations out of public discussion. FARC's leader was just killed, not that we will miss him much, it is an indication that the WOT spending is not just in the Middle East. This administration has been admonished before for slow rolling FOIA requests, they are not as open as they campaigned. The visitor list to the WH might in public view, the one I would like to see is the one that the Secret Service keeps. Let the sunshine in.
Generally the left side of the political spectrum keeps the hawks of the right locked up in their cages. When the left turns war into humanitarian missions, it makes for a long long conflict. I am not hearing the anti-war chatter that filled the bandwidth during the Bush administration.
We have lost our freedoms, our balance of power, and if we are not careful our future.
BTW... I hope Fuller gets a
BTW...
I hope Fuller gets a raise and promotion like McChrystal did.
Go Fuller, he just said what every American wanted to.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/67653.html
“I said, ‘You guys are isolated from reality.’ The reality is, the world economy is having some significant hiccups. The U.S. is in this [too],” Fuller told POLITICO. “If you’re in a very poor country like Afghanistan, you think that America has roads paved in gold, everybody lives in Hollywood. They don’t understand the sacrifices that America is making to provide for their security. And I think that’s part of my job — to educate ’em.”
Civilian and Military relationship are getting better ! America is spending way too much for what we are getting out of the WOT. Take the total cost and divide by the Kill-Capture count, that is what it costs to kill one of the AQ/Taliban/FARC leaders. Hundreds of Billions to bust a cap. Then we pay for what we break.
They are not worth that much.
I hate to be a pessimist
I hate to be a pessimist hear. I really, really want to be wrong about this, but If Iraq turns into another Iranian puppet state Obama's decision to pull out all troops will be how it happened. Hope I'm wrong.
Krauthammer is indeed a
Krauthammer is indeed a partisan clown, and the republic would be infinitely saner if he would simply find some other line of work which doesn't involve inflicting his bizarre prejudices on the rest of us. "Visitor" above challenges Exum to address K's "arguments."
Well, let's start here: "Everyone involved, Iraqi and American, knew that the 2008 SOFA calling for full U.S. withdrawal was meant to be renegotiated."
That's an argument? I don't think so. It's an assertion of supposed fact, but, I think it's manifestly clear, it's absolutely false ("everyone"? You've got to be kidding. When on God's green earth does "everyone involved" in anything--from invading a nation to deciding what kind of pizza to have for dinner--agree on anything?
And from there, the entire thing unravels.
"Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him." Proverbs 26:4
@ Exum Here is a conservative
@ Exum
Here is a conservative you can get behind. George Will has a column up today with three questions he would like republican candidates to answer:
"The candidates should answer three questions: How many troops would they leave in Iraq? For how long? And for what purpose? If eight years, 4,485 lives and $800 billion are not enough, how many more of each are they prepared to invest there? And spare us the conventional dodge about “listening to” the “commanders in the field.” Each candidate is aspiring to be commander in chief in a nation in which civilians set policy for officers to execute."
Charlieford on November 6,
Charlieford on November 6, 2011 - 9:43am Agree that "everyone" is a large crowd. Article 24 is pretty much a get out of Dodge statement for US forces.
This is the 2008 SOFA, I am sure that you know what it says. Other folks many not have seen it. http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20081119_SOFA_FINAL_AGRE...
Guess the military and State knew that any troops in Iraq past 31Dec11 would be a rotten egg. Not too much survives the original agreement. Krauthammer's statement is just opinion. It would be nice if every American was tuned into what the US Government spends our money on. I would be happy if we could say that everyone in US Government knew where the money goes. Think the sad thing is, the ones that should know where the money goes don't, but they do know how much they get paid every week for the job American Taxpayer pay them to do. We can start with the Pentagon as an example. Do you think they are managing our money wisely?
WayneZ on November 6, 2011 - 1:46pm Think George Will needs to open his questions to include the WOT. Iraq is not about leaving troops anymore, it is about State Department contractors and training the Iraqi police force. I have yet seen a determination for how long and how many State Department employees will stay in Iraq above normal embassy staffing levels. The 2012 State Department budget says the OCO spending will sunset, but not when. Then there is the question about the number of combat troops that will be staffed up in the region. There are negotiations with a list of ME countries, Kuwaiti being one of them, were the US is planing to increase troop levels.
It is about the region, not Iraq. The Iraq argument is too myopic. I would hope that after eight years Iraq can take care of itself. How long have people been living in Iraq? How did Iraqis manage to get this far? They have been on their piece of turf for a lot longer than Americans have been in America!
The budgets and titles are being rearranged on the deck of the ship, America is still sailing the same direction.
"It's enough to have made
"It's enough to have made Steve Metz wonder over Twitter whether or not Krauthammer is a secret Washington Post plot to discredit serious conservative thought. "
No, you don't have to attack Krauthammer, even though he is a tool of the far right. It's just the decline of the WaPo editorial page, led by secret neocon Fred Hiatt, who has never turned down an opportunity to get more right-wing talking points into his paper.
"Iraq was never about winning
"Iraq was never about winning or losing. WMD was a sales pitch, Obama made a similar pitch in Libya with a slaughter that never happened. Iraq is one of those wars that we will not know the outcome for years to come."
LOL, if you have to say "it's not about winning or losing" and "we won't know the outcome for years" then you FUKKIN' LOST.
@Charlieford, you respond to
@Charlieford, you respond to the charge of ad hominems with... more ad hominems!
Truly I stand in awe of the mighty power of your facts and logic.
I think we're all missing the
I think we're all missing the point. Education.
Home sweet ad hominem.
http://www.onlinenevada.org/washoe_basket_weavers
Every cloud has a silver
Every cloud has a silver lining. Lee Smith sees this as a golden opportunity to bring the Iranian dog to heel: http://www.tabletmag.com/news-and-politics/81143/looming-threat/
"But the reality is that the United States can do something about it, if Washington wanted to. American taxpayers would be rightly aggrieved that our defense budget is so high if our elected leaders can’t stop an adversary that speedboats to harass a U.S. aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf and includes Toyota pick-up trucks in its order of battle. Surely the far-superior American military is capable of bringing Iran’s armed forces to heel."
Gods, I love the magical military. It can do anything! Hey, just speedboats and Toyotas, it will be a cakewalk! Roses in the streets!
Aasalaamu Aleikum, Father of
Aasalaamu Aleikum, Father of Lies. :)
Do you and your readers want to know the real reasons it was impossible to re-negotiate the SOFA?
imho there are two major reasons.
One, Muqtada al-Sadr is very skilled. He went off to hone his holiness in Qom, (just like Sayeed Ali al-Sistani did if i may remind you), and came back with a replacement hegemon (Iran) for the loathed and despised American Invader/occupiers.
And two, Julian Assange, Bradley Manning, WL and al-Jazeera. The Iraqi people actually got to see the Iraq document drop of American classified....and it wasnt pretty. And while Panetta was furiously lobbying Alawi and Maliki to renegoitiate the SOFA Muqtada was holding fridays of rage after mosque and collecting 2.5 million iraqi sigs to give America the bum's rush.
you see.....this is democracy
you see.....this is democracy in action. Maliki and Alawi would have loved to keep sukking the counter-terrorism tit.....but the Iraqi people were not going to let them......making nice with the invader/occupiers became political death for Iraqi politicians.
Rabi'a proves yet again that
Rabi'a proves yet again that the Quran is correct -- the judgment of a woman is worth only half that of a man because of the deficiencies of the female mind.
Vistor on November 8, 2011 -
Vistor on November 8, 2011 - 3:40pm
Good luck on getting a response.
BTW...there is another part to Proverb 26:4, it is 26:5.. It is a dual meaning.
1. This isn't about Iraq. 2.
1. This isn't about Iraq.
2. It's about Saudi Arabia.
3. Always has been.
4. We are increasingly willing to allow the locals to manage their affairs.
5. Ton of reasons for that. Not the point here.
6. Point is: as events play out, we are becoming glued to the bench on the sidelines.
7. Be interesting to see if the ME turns into a train wreck or if the players can manage workable solutions.
8. From here on in, don't expect too much but hot air from our side of the pond.
V/R JWest
V/R JWest. Think we agree,
V/R JWest. Think we agree, it is not about Iraq. Maybe a little about Iran. If you mean oil when you say Saudi Arabia, then we agree. If we are talking oil, then we really should include all the oil producing countries because it is a global market that sources from limited capacity. Any increase in pumping volume or decrease in demand would make the oil issue less limited to any one producing country. As far as being glued to the bench. That stickiness is only limited to the "combat troops", the guys that the politicians make promises to cut, reduce, or otherwise. Outside those campaign promises and the budget cuts in the news is the CIA, other alphabet organizations, and foreign military aid. That money is not visible on the campaign trail.
Venezuela produces a lot of oil, they support the FARC and countries that do not like the US. Oil, drugs, and politics south of the boarder are all mixed. FAST TEAMS are not stuck to a bench or even Afghanistan. HLS gets closer everyday to equating the WODrugs to the WOT, all the lines are getting blurred.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/07/world/americas/united-states-drug-enfo...
Resources are going to be limited to how well the spending can be kept at the noise level. Right now the politician's lips are saying cut, their hands are still counting out the cash. The State Department is a shining example of the dual message coming out of Washington. The Budget Super Committee is a wild card, they are not going to act aggressively. If the automatic cuts happen, they will be changed. Europe is getting worse every day and we have a sitting President whose party controls the Senate.
Predictions.
Iraq.....Will get their police force. The Sunni and Shi'a will keep fighting.
Iran.....Will never have the chance to be a nuclear power.
Egypt....Unless the Military finds a supporter within Civilian Leadership, the military will rule.
Libya...Will be a Cluster for a long time. There will be "the Government" and "the other" rule in Libya. Neither will be responsible for the other. They are smart enough to stay aligned with the Western Powers, it is money.
Israel/Palestinians.....The core of the UN will not risk US funding, the UN knows how to drag out an issue. Israel is not going to back off to '67, Gaza is a learning model. Palestinians will continue to be victims. Hamas is going to keep launching stones. Neither will be responsible for the other.
Somalia???? It is a money sink hole.
I didn't advance an argument,
I didn't advance an argument, per se. I made an assertion of my own. Krauthammer's a hack. A primarily political sophist, who's columns are shaped not in accord with an honest struggle to understand our world, but with an eye to political advantage.
My assertion is either correct, or it's not. If it's correct, there's not much point to arguing with him, because there is no common respect for facts and evidence to allow for a resolution.
For him, the facts, when marshaled, get fixed around the point he wants to make.
When there are no facts, he makes stuff up. As above.
His refusal/inability to source his bizarre claims is the clue that he's a sophist, and he's simply not worth engaging.
I mean, why don't we just tackle some of Glenn Beck's theories and analyze those? That would make about as much sense. Or maybe Lyndon LaRouche? Or Jerome Corsi?
1. HP: agree to an extent. 2.
1. HP: agree to an extent.
2. Focused on the region, not international oil.
3. Saudi Arabia is a lynch pin.
4. Huge, developed oil production facility.
5. Large geographic area with small population. Leadership very vulnerable.
6. Prestige generated by guardianship of important religious locations and symbols.
7. Surrounded by nascent regional powers (Iran and Turkey, f. Iraq and Egypt).
8. Major instigator and player (policy level) in Gulf War I. Elephant in the room vsv OIF.
9. The US and Nato are backing away from active engagement.
10. Question how much the lettered agencies and elite forces can do. Holding ground or viable threats of use of force are where it's at.
11. Suspect the hot air generators in DC, NY and Brussels will be pretty much it, from here on out.
12. Can we really afford to do anything else but point fingers and yap?
13. Will be pleasantly surprised if the balance of power in the ME is somewhat like today's, five years down the road.
14. From your pov, the corollary is that oil production would be continuing at similar levels.
V/R JW
Charlieford Thank you for
Charlieford Thank you for sharing. We all have our communication filters turned on. Not supporting Krauthammer, people like him tend to spark the debate. That is what Proverb 26:5 is about, debating issues. I am all for finding a solution, finding one is harder when there are more ideas in the room.
JW....Point on, if we limit the discussion to the region. Agree the ME balance of power is up for grabs, the Arab League has a vest interest. I always felt that the oil will be up for sale no matter who owns it. What we are doing is negotiating the price of crude. It is not that simple because people are involved. Spoke to a Mexican national who worked for Schlumberger, talking about Mexican drilling and the future. He felt we have 60 years of production left world wide, I think it is more, then that is about consumption. Don't get me wrong, it is not just about oil. Oil is the wind setting the sail, the rudder control comes from a different level of energy. Right now the teams are about leadership attrition. The book is still being written on how much an effect that will have. If anything, that effort disrupts the planing on their side. Long term it is a grudge match, it does not lead to a solution. The only win is for the population to reject terrorism and they have to deal with it at their level. It is what happened in Libya, we saw Sharia Law played out with Gaddafi. The million dollar questions is how to get the factions to agree at the ground level. The answer is in their economies, the devil in the detail is control.
All politics is local. Tip O'Neal.
Charlieford, you are nothing
Charlieford, you are nothing if not consistent and predictable.
After I pointed out that you responded to the charge of ad hominems with more ad hominems... you piled on even more ad hominems.
"Krauthammer is a hack and a sophist who is simply not worth engaging!" -- a severe indictment of his alma maters (Harvard and Oxford) and the Board that awarded him his Pulitzer Prize, if true. But I hope you don't think that is a logical, intelligent response to anything he said.
Actually, no exclamation
Actually, no exclamation points were used in my post.
And yes, it fails as a logical intelligent response if Mr.Krauthammer isn't, in fact, a hack and a sophist.
As for his pedigree, lot's of people used to be good and go off the rails. Norman Podhoretz. Juan Williams. The Bee Gees.
Others get better as they go along: Goldwater. Reagan. Melville.
Visitor on November 10, 2011
Visitor on November 10, 2011 - 12:09pm
Do you have an opinion on the withdraw from Iraq? I would like to read it.
I fell off my chair and
I fell off my chair and busted a gut, laughing.
http://www.haaretz.com/polopoly_fs/1.394953.1320995388!/image/1419963507.jpg
Always toyed with the theory that the further that the left goes left and the deeper the right heads right they would actually meet. Then that might be too simple.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XEA3k_QIKo
All people want the same thing, to take care of their own.
.....would that be empirical evidence?
You can highlight the above
You can highlight the above .jpg and right click to open or you can try this link to get to the comic section of the Haaretz.
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/unesco-files-complaint-against...
Still gives me a chuckle.
Sorry you angsting Yanks, but
Sorry you angsting Yanks, but the war was won when the people of Tunisia raised their purple fingers last month (Iraqis did same in Jan 2005 remember?) after voting in their first democratic election under a power-sharing proportional representation system for a parliament that will draw up their democratic constitution. Just like Iraq, thanks to you guys, the Brits and the brave Iraqis themselves. And gonna be another election like that in Libya. Again, just like Iraq. That's what the war was about, fellas. To create the first so the rest would be inspired to follow.
Now can the Iraqi democracy withstand a renewed Iranian subversion after the withdrawal?
Maybe, maybe not. But it's a democratically elected Iraqi government that set its conditions in negotiations with the democratically elected government of the United States of America, led by its President George Obama.
Also what the war was about. You did well, and should stop whingeing, as we would say in Australia.
SMG on November 13, 2011 -
SMG on November 13, 2011 - 2:05am
Not sure us Yanks are whining about Iraq. It is more like we are negotiating who pays for future actions; this war has been going on too long, mismanaged in many ways by all administrations, the cost too high for the returns to American taxpayers.
There is a lot of wealth in the ME region, it is time the region uses that wealth to determine their future. That wealth should pay for Africa’s problems. One hundred US dollars for a barrel of oil is enough cost sharing. Some say the ten-year war cost is one trillion; others say four trillion US dollars. If you labor the cost of war materials with future military healthcare, benefits, the monies used to develop foreign police; I believe the four trillion number. The US DOE web site says the US imports 10M barrels of crude a day; multiply the usage by the number of days in a year. Figure the total oil imports for ten years. Now take the $4T war cost and divide that by the number of barrels of oil the US imports over a ten-year span. It figures to about a $109 war tax on each barrel of oil imported. Americans are paying over $200/barrel of oil!!!! Americans are idiots to let that happen.
If putting 10,000 US State Department employees in Iraq and a surge in Afghanistan is an investment, then I want to sue my investment broker for Fiduciary Liability or better yet fire him without pension. There has been a major breach of contract.
For US Democrats in Congress, this is a major win. Two hundred dollar oil pushes their energy agenda. Obama is on another vacation in Hawaii hosting APEC to set up another free trade agreement. He has to agree to what the Debt Super Committee creates, that does not happen in a vacuum, the paychecks come from the same source as for Congress. Democrats are for free trade and war, especially humanitarian wars because it enables to nation building. Since Clinton in the 90's, the Democrats have been on a binge to spread the wealth to the third world. It is about World Jobs, not US Jobs the agenda is funded by American tax payers, many who are now unemployed, many are loosing their home in the mortgage crisis. Humanitarian wars and free trade have been the tools of choice, nation building; there is synergy with the Republican agenda, which enables a debate free ride on growth's coat tails. Anything security related gets front row funding. What the Oakland protesters do not get is, the 1% live in the Democrat party. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, some of the largest 1%er in history coop the Democrat Congress to amplify their Foundation Giving http://www.gatesfoundation.org/leadership/Pages/warren-buffett.aspx .
For Republicans in Congress, this is a major win. Defense and free trade is a perk for Corporate CEO's and defense company shareholders. It is about enabling cheap labor markets, some of the cheapest are in http://www.apec.org/ . Jeffery Immelt and David Cote each would give their left nut to give their share holders access to the populations of China and India, that is why they follow Obama around like wet puppies. Boeing's CEO is in Hawaii at APEC. Boeing has trained, at their customer’s expense (that means US taxpayers buying Boeing), 30,000 Chinese aircraft technicians. Alcoa is teaching the Chinese how to do high tech Aluminum alloys that historically have been produced here http://www.alcoa.com/locations/usa_davenport/en/info_page/home.asp . Many US companies that got tired of China's regulations and intellectual property issues are now in Vietnam.
Trickle down economics has been corrupted into trickle OUT economics. Lower US interest rates and US stimulus packages for infrastructure now support CHINA and the third world. The San Francisco Bay Bridge is being built by China; wind turbines are built by China. China hoards its rare earths and manipulates its currency. Congress sits on their thumbs.
http://www.theworld.org/2011/10/manufacturing-china-us/
For working Americans, it means shopping at Wal-Mart and flat wages. Corporate America did not pass on all the savings to retail customers. I have shopped auto parts; the Chinese parts cost more than Union American made parts (if you can find them anymore)! How do you think share value increased and CEO pay skyrocketed, those bonuses are based on profits. Long term, Social Security will be cut because FICA is not collected on offshore wages. The American middle class is paying for both the Republican AND Democrat agendas!
The bottom line
Congress is part of the Peace Corps and Corporate legal teams. Congress is pushing free trade agreements for corporations and funding nation building. POTUS is Corporate America's salesman of the year!
Who is paying for this?
Today Offshore income tax is deferred. Republicans want to tax offshore income at 5.25%. Democrats, the taxes that they propose do not pay the costs of their nation building agenda. The State Department is costly; DOD keeps shipping lanes open and stabilize emerging countries to enable markets. Look at DOD’s budget and you will see how expensive.
Where are the jobs? Where are the wage increases? Where is the Social Security? Where is the growth?
Americans should not be paying for the agenda unless they get a return on investment. Bankers do not take risks they are FDIC insured. Investors use derivatives to mitigate their risks as the taxpayer found out with AIG, those derivatives are risk free. POTUS is paid $400, 000 for the rest of his life. Congressmen have similar golden parachutes.
What guarantee is given to American taxpayers that jobs will be produced?
None.
Why? Cause government cannot force the public sector to produce jobs! There is not enough tax revenue generated to put every American on the government dole. Not even for Veterans. Government can only produce the environment for jobs. From where I sit in America, that environment is being produced offshore at my expense.
You should be pissed. It should be about American BASED jobs, where we live.
What to stop it? Buy “Made in America”, that is the only golden parachute you get as a taxpayer. Onshore jobs pay FICA, those profits return 20% to the treasury to pay for war toys non-deferred.
You say it is not a zero sum game. This is just isolationism. We can not stop globalization. All I want to do is to leave a future for our children, IN America.
BTW.. David Cote, Honeywell’s CEO, said it is not a zero sum game. For him that is easy to say, he gets a bonus for it. For the American Honeywell employees that have been off shored, it is not so easy to see the gains.
It is the way we do business today. Veterans are looked down at, PTSD does not fit into HR's happy employes make more money business model. That goes for all health care issues, it is a negative on the spread sheet.
Ahmed Abdel Hadi Chalabi and
Ahmed Abdel Hadi Chalabi and the Oil Companies of Kurdistan and investors in the United States are laughing all the way to the bank. The war was a nice distraction, but in the end, this was all about natural resources. Nothing more.
http://www.rudaw.net/english/kurds/3383.html
The Bush administration lost
The Bush administration lost Iraq by deciding to invade. End of story. Obama, like all the king's horses & men, cannot put it back together again. No blame falls upon him. None. This is all George W. Bush's doing.
Visitor on November 13, 2011
Visitor on November 13, 2011 - 12:25pm
Good story about Kurdistan. Natural Resource? Yes. Think there is a higher level which would be Economic Growth which is fueled by natural resources.
Steering that growth is what the political agendas are about. The dark side of growth is who gets to control it and who gets to pay for it. How the natural resources are obtained.
The American government could be corrupt and the growth would still stay on shore, the benefits washed the ethics of it. Chicago politics would be an example of that system. Now that communication has enabled managing offshore business assets, Congress does not know how to keep the political grease it hands out to lobbyists within the US anymore (Look what happened to the last stimulus). The historical model was support large business and it would produce American jobs, people looked the other way if it was not above the table. That is why small business is important, small business does not have the critical mass to offshore operations. Problem is, if small business is successful it gets purchased by the big guys or private equity takes it over and off shores operations to return 40% returns to investors, that is what has been happening to the auto subcontractors in America for the past ten years. What Congress is doing today is a shotgun approach, they spew American Tax Dollars and HOPE some if it benefits Americans. POTUS is about the Global Order, he is using American money to pay for it.
For me, that is not good enough. Congress is spending American tax dollars !! American taxpayer's children are not Chinese, they live in America.
If the spending is called an INVESTMENT, where is the return to the investors?
(He did not tell us the fine print, did he).
"And yes, it fails as a
"And yes, it fails as a logical intelligent response if Mr.Krauthammer isn't, in fact, a hack and a sophist."
Do hacks and sophists have 30-year careers writing opinion columns for the WaPo and 275 newspapers? Do hacks and sophists win the Pulitzer Prize?
In short, yes you have failed to provide a logical intelligent response.
Visitor 3:40 that may be
Visitor 3:40
that may be true, but im still worth twice a male conservitard. Because of Salam-Douthat stratification on cognitive ability.
what did i tell you Exum? When muslims are democratically empowered to vote, they vote for moar Islam, not less, and never for missionary democracy with freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech is incompatible with quranic law (shariah). The Noble Quran forbids proselytizing the poor and ignorant-- freedom of speech legalizes proselytizing everyone, including the poor and ignorant.
OIF and OEF were doomed from the start.
Missionaries with guns are still missionaries.
;)
Hackiness and sophistry--or
Hackiness and sophistry--or the lack thereof--are best determined by examining content. But if it's easier for you just to judge by encomiums and venues, go for it.lysteryd means
1. Forbids proselytizing the
1. Forbids proselytizing the poor and ignorant.
2. More paternalistic and authoritarian crap.
3. Sounds like the stuff coming out of the mouths of our elected leadership.
4. Maybe those clowns are deriving inspiration from your noble text.
JWest
Charlieford / JW, Pull back
Charlieford / JW,
Pull back and look at the “region”. I will define the region as from the West Coast of Africa to Indonesia, bracketed by Turkey and Congo. The reason I say “region” is because that is were America is operating, it is not just one country. Some say the budget spending is reduced in Iraq, I really see it as shifting. Forty-five billion in DOD spending in Iraq is offset by the State Department $4 Billion in Iraqi diplomatic expenses, DOD dollars become additional spending the region, more in Somalia, Kenya, Sudan, Libya, Yemen, and increased US troop levels in Australia.
What are America’s interests in the “region”?
Without explaining in terms of motherhood statement like culture, security, energy, and/or 9/11 what are American interests in the “region”? I do not feel threatened living in America. Man made it to the 20th century without gasoline or diesel. America purchases raw materials; the commodity market sets those prices. If I want to experience ME culture, it has moved into America’s neighborhoods.
Why should Americans spend their money on the “region”?
The ME countries have oil wealth. India has become a boomtown; American jobs have been off shored. What is it that America can offer the “region” that they cannot do themselves? I am talking about prioritizing Federal spending on shore. vs. off shore.
I look at the balancing of China’s power by the actions of APEC, if Americans had not moved manufacturing to China and ran a trade imbalance, not sure US troops in Australia would be necessary.
America tends to make its own problems, Atoms for Peace in Pakistan and the war in Afghanistan in the 80’s.
"Hackiness and sophistry--or
"Hackiness and sophistry--or the lack thereof--are best determined by examining content."
ROFLMAO, examining content is EXACTLY what you have CONSISTENTLY REFUSED TO DO.
Cheap Hip Hop Jewelry on
Cheap Hip Hop Jewelry on sale,hot fashion and powerful,sure you will like it.
Cheap Hip Hop Jewelry on
Cheap Hip Hop Jewelry on sale,hot fashion and powerful,sure you will like it.
Add your comment