Click here to view/purchase all Roger L. Simon novels.

June 27, 2005: "Papa Mao Mao Mao, Papa Mao Tse Tung!"

That was the affectionate doo-wop number praising their hero sung by the SF Mime Troupe circa 1968-1970. (I was one of the Troupe's big fans and never missed them when they were in LA.) Wonder what Peter Coyote et al would make of this book just published in the UK?

UPDATE: Don't miss the review in the Japan Times.

(ht: Charles Martin)

Comments

Comments require registration through TypeKey. Abusive remarks may be deleted. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Roger Simon.

This is what worries me. The real strategic action is taking place in Southeast Asia. We are now training Vietnamese army officers(!). The parallels to Japan before WWII keep coming to my mind. Japan was resource poor, as is China. Japan used Roosevelt's cutting off the supply of scrap iron and the oil embargo as a casus belli. China is needs oil for continued development. The rest of this century is going to be spent dealing with China.

In 1940, Japan occupied French Indochina (Vietnam) upon agreement with the French Vichy government, and joined the Axis powers Germany and Italy. These actions intensified Japan's conflict with the United States and Great Britain which reacted with an oil boycott. The resulting oil shortage and failures to solve the conflict diplomatically made Japan decide to capture the oil rich Dutch East Indies (Indonesia) and to start a war with the US and Great Britain.

Tricky waters ahead. Lord, I hope it doesn't come to war. But there needs to be unity with all our western cohorts to help avoid it.

Posted by: chuck at June 27, 2005 12:41 PM

Oops, the link should go here.

Posted by: chuck at June 27, 2005 12:45 PM

The authors, Jung Chang, who wrote the best-selling "Wild Swans," and her husband Jon Halliday, estimate that Mao Tse-tung (Mao Zedong) was responsible for killing 70 million is own people in his determination to enforce his rule over China.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a new winner. Can the Bush/Mao parallelisms be far behind? Or is Mao too sacred a cow to have his reputation sullied by comparisons to George Bush?

A mime troupe that sings? That eliminates the one thing mimes had going for themselves.

Posted by: Kyda Sylvester at June 27, 2005 1:45 PM

Kyda,

I saw the number of killed put at 90 million in another review of the book. Guess I will have to read it myself. Gag, these horror biographies all get so old. And the people who really *need* to read them never seem to get around to it.

Posted by: chuck at June 27, 2005 1:50 PM

"A revolution is not a tea-party"--Chairman Mao Tse-Tung, as quoted by Stoopid Jerk in Robert Crumb's Frosty the Snowman.

Posted by: Pat Curley at June 27, 2005 1:50 PM

Nice review. Important book. Thanks Yukio-san (Charlie) and of course Roger.

China will either fall apart on its own soon, back into more natural pieces, or be taken apart later at great cost to life and treasure if it misjudges America, Japan and Taiwan. IMHO. It's doing its best, along with the lefty government in South Korea,
to keep its ally North Korea above water for the time being, and the lines are being drawn in the region. Look for the Senkaku Islands to be the place China tries to probe the will of the U.S.-Japan alliance if it chooses to start down the path to its eventual destruction. This blog's been critical of Armitage in the past, but the Armitage doctrine as it is called in Japan, namely that the security treaty between the U.S. and Japan extends to Japan's Administrative Territories such as the Senkaku Islands is one of the biggest differences between the Clinton years and the Bush years; and Armitage's lack of nuance just may help avert a war in my backyard. (Don't worry I got a sword, a bow and arrow, and a few baseball bats stored away somewhere if things turn South.)

I'm glad Kissinger wasn't spared too. Just a few weeks ago he was shilling for the tyrants in Beijing (after being wined and dined there for a week) in the Washington Post and various other newspapers.

Posted by: uranari at June 27, 2005 1:54 PM

It may be part of history now but it is amazing to think that between the years of 1920 and 1960 the communists in Russia and China killed at least 100 million people.

No wonder those right wingers were so nervous about communism. If Bush gets all this grief for Gitmo what would the folks at Amnesty have to say about someone like Mao?

Posted by: Terrye at June 27, 2005 2:34 PM

Uranari,

Which of China or Taiwan was the first to raise the claim to the Senkaku Islands? They seem much closer to Taiwan. I also seem to recall reading that the native inhabitants of Taiwan -- not the Chinese who arrived with Chang Kai Chek -- were more closely related to the Japanese than the Chinese. Do you know if that is true?

Posted by: chuck at June 27, 2005 2:38 PM

If you'd really like the hair to stand up on the back of your neck, try "The Private Life of Chairman Mao," by Zhisui Li, Mao's personal physician and witness to much of what went on in the imperial court. Fascinating.

Posted by: Cosmo at June 27, 2005 2:40 PM

If Bush gets all this grief for Gitmo what would the folks at Amnesty have to say about someone like Mao?

Not much, I suspect. There is a Maoist revolt going on in Nepal; I haven't heard anyone complaining about the bloodshed. I wouldn't be surprised if the folks who trek in the region think it is of no particular account.

Posted by: chuck at June 27, 2005 2:42 PM

Cosmo,

"The Private Life of Chairman Mao,"

You mean about the young girls digging the shit out of Mao's constipated butt and remarking how good it smelled? Yeah, I paged through that book at the store when it came out.

Posted by: chuck at June 27, 2005 2:45 PM

Another on-topic book is "The Claws of the Dragon", a biography of Kang Sheng, Mao's hatchet man, by John Byron & Robert Peck. I just picked it up and it opened at random to "[A]ccording to one meticulous analysis of growth statistics, from '16.4 to 29.5 million extra people died during the leap, because of the leap.'" And The Great Leap Forward was just one part of Mao's rule.

Posted by: triticale at June 27, 2005 2:49 PM

Today's Chinese leadership seems to be stoking the furnace of nationalism, and at the same time they're constructing the ability to project power far and wide, across the Pacific.

Now all that they (the Chinese) need, to give them confidence to act militarily (against Taiwan for example) is for Democrats in the US Congress to send the Chinese a clear message that America has no stomach for war, certainly not the sacrifices that go with war. Oh, that's right, too late ... the Democrats already have sent that message.

Posted by: RBMN at June 27, 2005 2:49 PM

Chuck:

I'd forgotten about much of debauchery in that book! Unbelievably decadence worthy of mythological capitalist robber barons.

Also may want to try "Hungry Ghosts," by Jasper Becker, an account of the famine which followed the certainly-misnamed Great Leap Forward. Sobering.

Posted by: Cosmo at June 27, 2005 2:50 PM

Chuck,

As for the Senkaku Islands, when they came back under Japanese control at the same time Okinawa reverted back to Japanese control, if my memory serves, both Chinas made claims. Which is why it would be strategically wise for China to go after them because doing so might also divide opinion in Taiwan, find South Korea supporting them because similar problems exist between Japan and S.K., not to mention test the resolve of the U.S. and Japan. Of course no one lives on these rocks, but their control changes the economic zones in the surrounding waters, and this is no small thing. Valid criticism aside, Armitage got this right.

As for the native inhabitants of Taiwan, there is a lot of ethnography out there, much of it politically tainted, and I really am not well enough informed (what's new!) to have an opinion. But many Taiwanese I know think of Taiwan more as a part of a long chain of islands with one end being Japan and the other end Taiwan than something connected to the continent.

Posted by: uranari at June 27, 2005 2:58 PM

Chuck--I read Gertz's piece this morning (maybe it's time to dust off my copy of Betrayal)--this business in the ME will look like child's play compared to confrontation with the Chinese. After all, they've got...stuff and a seemingly endless supply of manpower (and hasn't that bitten us on the butt before). Recall their provocative exercises in the Taiwan Straits in 1996. We responded by deploying two carriers, long-range missle equiped cruisers and other assorted warships. Gertz claims that had quite an impact on the Chinese and resulted in a steady military buildup "directly aimed at fighting a future war with the United States, both conventionally on the seas and with strategic nuclear arms".

So, perhaps, as uranari says, China's hand will be stilled by internal fragmentation. Or perhaps, as per our wishful thinking plan of the moment, China will prosper to the extent that military confrontation with it biggest trading partners would be unthinkable (American consumers last year spent 196 billion dollars backing that bet). Or perhaps we should just nuke them now and get it over with. Okay, so that's probably not such a good idea, but I hope in years hence we don't look back and wish we had exercised that option.

Posted by: Kyda Sylvester at June 27, 2005 2:58 PM

triticale,

"[A]ccording to one meticulous analysis of growth statistics, from '16.4 to 29.5 million extra people died during the leap, because of the leap.'"

IIRC, Khruschev became disillusioned with China when Mao dismissed the possible casualties resulting from nuclear war with something along the lines of "the Chinese people will get busy fucking and soon replace them".

I went to highschool with a nephew (I think) of Edgar Snow, author of Red Star Over China, the book that made Mao's reputation in the US. Just a remark, I don't recall that he ever said much about it.

Posted by: chuck at June 27, 2005 3:00 PM

uranari,

are you sure? I looked up a quick history after your first post, and the Japanese claim was made in 1895. The first Chinese claim was in 1972. Curiously, the islands weren't mentioned in the settlement of the Sino-Japanese War (1895-96). Nor were they mentioned at the end of WWII when Taiwan was transferred to China.

Posted by: chuck at June 27, 2005 3:08 PM

RBWN -- "Now all that they (the Chinese) need, to give them confidence to act militarily (against Taiwan for example) is for Democrats in the US Congress to send the Chinese a clear message that America has no stomach for war, certainly not the sacrifices that go with war."

Actually, Bush is sending the identical message by getting us bogged down in Iraq for the next 10+ years. This greatly undermines our ability to challenge North Korea and China militarily.

The other people sending the message that America has no struggle for undeclared, elective wars are the young men of America, not enough of whom feel "the calling" to enlist in the cause of perpetual war.

Posted by: markus at June 27, 2005 3:15 PM

chuck,

There is nothing about 1895, which is the date I remember too, and my post which contradict one another. I wrote "when they came back under Japanese control...." The U.S. took control of Okinawa after the war and held it until 1972. And the U.S. also had control over the Senkaku Islands and a lot of other places during that time. When the U.S. returned Okinawa to Japan the Senkaku Islands were part of the deal. And at this time China made their claim.

Posted by: uranari at June 27, 2005 3:18 PM

The other day in the comments on Gates of Vienna we had a discussion of the Chinese famine of 1958-1961. Dymphna had been asserting that the famine was more a miscalculation on Mao's part than a deliberate policy of starvation (like Lenin's). Mark Humphrys came over from his blog to disagree.

Miland at the World History Blog writes on the same topic.

Anybody on this thread have an opinion on this one? I admit to being ill-informed about it.

Posted by: Baron Bodissey at June 27, 2005 3:21 PM

They've also been making claims about Okinawa being theirs lately.

Posted by: uranari at June 27, 2005 3:21 PM

markus,

Iraq will settle out in a year or two. I would take you more seriously if I thought you cared about China or Japan or this country. But I don't think you do. *Shrug*. That's how I see it.

Posted by: chuck at June 27, 2005 3:26 PM

Terrye,

what would the folks at Amnesty have to say about someone like Mao?

Probably something along the lines of "Yes, sir, Mr. Chaiman, sir, how high and in which direction?".

Posted by: WichitaBoy at June 27, 2005 3:35 PM

Markus,

Here are the latest DoD recruitment and retention figures for your use.

Why would we want to challenge NK and China? China will come apart like a cheap watch in 15 years or less and NK is dependent upon China and Japan to fuel and feed its people now. Shoot, Bush just sent them 50,000 tons of food. Pardon me if I don't quake in my boots about a country dependent upon its enemies to feed its people.

Good luck with your efforts, sedition requires a constant flow of misinformation so make sure that you don't mention the Marines, Navy amd Air Force exceeding their recruitment goals. Especially the Marines if you want to stick up with the stupidity of claiming that young men are avoiding their "calling".

Posted by: Rick Ballard at June 27, 2005 3:42 PM

I am not sure if I have a stomach for another book about Communist crimes. There are pictures and descriptions etched in my brain I wish I could forget, but they never go away.
Pity the Mao worshippers will not even open this book, though. They are the ones who need to read it.

Posted by: Katherine at June 27, 2005 3:44 PM

Wichita Boy:

No doubt that is true considering their complete indifference to the fate of political dissidents in that country now. After all to them Gitmo is the gulag of our time, not the infamous prison system of China.

And markus, if the Democrats really give a damn they can call for a huge decrease in the size of our military and then write the Chinese Liberation Act.

Posted by: Terrye at June 27, 2005 5:49 PM

Terrye,

Brilliant! (as usual).

Posted by: Katherine at June 27, 2005 5:54 PM

Rick -- I've never been able to figure out why conservatives who hate big government are better than soviet apparatchiks when it comes to believing military spin.

Army recruitment has been way down for months, and it would have been down even more had the goals not been revised downward to "account for changed market conditions."

Nevertheless, according to Rummy, the Army "will, eventually, over time, get what we need. It's a matter of adjusting the incentives so that you can attract and retain the people you need."

Regarding NK, they have this little thing about exporting WMD's to whomever wants to buy them. Remember?

Posted by: markus at June 27, 2005 9:03 PM

I guess then, Markus, that should Dubya decide to go toe-to-toe with NK or the Chinese, you'll be right behind him all the way? Right?

It may be part of history now but it is amazing to think that between the years of 1920 and 1960 the communists in Russia and China killed at least 100 million people.

So, that would make communism second only to the Black Death?

Posted by: Kyda Sylvester at June 27, 2005 9:04 PM

So markus, you are among the 26% who do not believe the military. http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jun2005/20050603_1544.html. Not that I swallow whole either. But comparisons to "apparatchiks", come on, get a grip. You're sounding like Durbin. Plus, neat avoidance and lack of response to Marine, Navy and Air Force recruitment figures. So far as NK, what is your suggestion? War tomorrow? Let's go.

Posted by: Luther McLeod at June 27, 2005 9:24 PM

The NoKo nukes, what happened, did Madeline Albright's bomb-room EnforcementCam run out of videotape or somethin'?

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at June 27, 2005 9:31 PM

Bill Clinton had a chance to send another box of blank videocassettes over to Kim, but something came up, and it got blown.

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at June 27, 2005 9:42 PM

buddy -- your last comment really leaves a nasty taste in the mouth.

hey, markus: to assist in the war effort may i suggest you volunteer as a hostage?

Posted by: ex-democrat at June 27, 2005 10:03 PM

Ex--those boys down the hall still filing habeus jihadis down Gitmo way? Losing any vigor, reckon?

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at June 27, 2005 10:34 PM

bud - i've since moved on from that environment but am still in touch with many of them. they're still at it and i still wait for the decision-makers in our big corporations to tell their law firms that 'enough is enough.'
Meanwhile, i'd like to share with you an email sent to me today by one of the more sane young lawyers i know: he started by sending me a link to Ignatieff's piece, exhorting me to read it.
I sent him back a link to the Belmont Club's discussion of the liece and got this response:

"I like the fact that Ignatieff has doubts - we all should. Otherwise, we simply seek out more support for our existing beliefs, and stop learning.
I think all of our greatest leaders have (somewhat) openly questioned themselves and reversed course when they were brave enough to do so. Sometimes looking over the process of drafting the constitution and the bill of rights is like reading the rantings of a schizophrenic.
As for the article you sent, it seems fine to me, except that it ignores history prior to 1960 - as Ignatieff pointed out, once upon a time, democrats had a similarly messianic view of liberty. What's more interesting to me is that the article you sent is pushing
Ignatieff, who wrote a history-heavy article, to be more overtly political. But, we all know what his politics are, so what would be interesting about that? Anyway, I liked Ignatieff's article, particularly the fact that he raised the question both liberals and conservatives hate: it is currently totally unclear whether Bush has chosen the proper path
-- certainly neither side (both of which seem to me to have gone off the deep end) has convinced me."
Sigh.

Posted by: ex-democrat at June 27, 2005 10:53 PM

it is currently totally unclear whether Bush has chosen the proper path

Well, there is some truth to that, but when was it ever any different? The future is always unclear, and even after a success there is room for second guessing. But that is no reason for paralysis, nor do I see any reason to be pessimistic about success against the insurgents. The real war here, the one that can be lost, is at home.

Posted by: chuck at June 27, 2005 11:09 PM

You know, ex, in some ways the holding back of support, on the idea that it's open-minded and fair to both sides, is a form of attention-seeking behavior, an arrogance, really, that is the very opposite of what the person might think it is.

"certainly neither side (both of which seem to me to have gone off the deep end) has convinced me."

My God. A young, fast-track big-firm lawyer, and he holds no higher value than "balance", no emotion more important than feeling superior to the less complex. Feh.

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at June 27, 2005 11:14 PM

Flamboyant rectitude.

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at June 27, 2005 11:19 PM

Army recruitment has been way down for months, and it would have been down even more had the goals not been revised downward to "account for changed market conditions."

Markus, for that response to make any sense, you either have to be unaware that the Navy, Air Force, and marines are not part of the Army's recruitment, or you have to have managed to miss the point in your desire to save your point, or you're simply hoping no one else reads you closely enough to see that you're pressing a straw man in the face of fact.

So which is it? Ignorant, fool, or propagandist?

Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) at June 27, 2005 11:22 PM

Ura-san, it's worth remembering that one bow and arrow at the right time were enough to keep the Mongols out of Japan once before.

And what better place to have swords and arrows than at Ura's senke?

Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) at June 27, 2005 11:23 PM

Chuck--it's like someone said about a movie line, movie set after WWI but before WWII, the line referred to "WWI". Before there was a WWII. maybe what you said about outcomes, about following situations where they go--maybe too much academy and too little life confuses people, makes them think that people in history always knew how everything was going to happen, how it was going to be a few pages hence.

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at June 27, 2005 11:26 PM

bud - remember that bit in Annie Hall where Woody pulls Marshall McLuhan into camera shot to tell some bloviator in the cinema line that he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about? I often wish i could do just that with my virtual (?) online friends.
lacking that ability, my (rather lame) response here was "the middle-ground is not always the high-ground, you know." and "what is Ignatieff's alternative to the administration's approach? what is yours?"

Posted by: ex-democrat at June 27, 2005 11:27 PM

Really. That's when you get the "I'm not saying Saddam wasn't a bad guy...."

As if uncertainty isn't a law of nature, but rather, somebody's fault.

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at June 27, 2005 11:43 PM

Ura's senke...the islands?

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at June 27, 2005 11:50 PM

My young friend thinks that critics of the administration's war efort serve a useful purpose and no more need to offer an alternative than do literary critics.
The nearest thing to an alternative approach he offered was "even if Iraq did/does pose a threat, we did a piss poor job of planning."

Posted by: ex-democrat at June 28, 2005 12:00 AM

Argh--that is SUCH a tautology...poor-planning compared to what? A tea-party? An enemy can screw even THAT up. Spill the tea! Stain the tablecloth!

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at June 28, 2005 12:29 AM

I can't find a good link on this, but Mao supported and encouraged the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.

Very short version:

The Killing fieds were an implementation of the policies Mao wanted to use in China, but couldn't get away with due to resistance from inside the party. He applauded the Khmer Rouge, gave them ideological and logistical support, and the Chinese took note. In 1976, incidentally the year Mao died, China was hit by a huge earthquake. A lot of people had to leave several destroyed cities, and move into refugee camps in the country side. They were afraid that the same policies Mao had helped introduce in Cambodia would now be used on them. It didn't happen, of course, but it was too close for comfort, and after the 'Great Leap Forward' and the Cultural Revolution it was the final straw that caused the Chinese to lose faith in Communism. That's why the Chinese Communist party is now trying to use nationalism as an uniting ideology to hold China together.

Btw, since Mao was sacrosant even after his death, so that the blame for everything that had went wrong with the countrywas cast on the Gang Of Four, consisting of Mao's widow, and three of Mao's confidantes. Because all four were extremely vile people, and revealed themselves as such at court, it was no trouble to make the charges stick.

Posted by: Ralf Goergens at June 28, 2005 4:55 AM

Charlie (Colorado) -- "Ignorant, fool, or propagandist?"

Just calling 'em like I see them, Charlie. Based on facts, and not wishes. Yes, the Air Force, Marines and Navy recruitment goals were exceeded. These branches, of course, are much smaller than the Army, and have correspondingly smaller goals. The fact they reached their goals is good, but it does not detract from the seriousness of the Army NOT reaching theirs.

From CNN article, "Army misses recruiting goal again" June 9, 2005:

"Lt. Col. Bryan Hilferty, spokesman for the Army's chief of personnel, said in an interview that despite the recent setbacks the Army remains cautiously optimistic that it will make up the lost ground this summer -- traditionally the most fruitful period of the year for recruiters -- and reach the full-year goal of 80,000 enlistees.

"'One number matters: 80,000,' Hilferty said. "The Army's fiscal 2005 goal was, is and remains 80,000 recruits.'

"Others, speaking privately, said the official optimism is sagging rapidly. They note that with only four months left in the budget year, the Army is at barely 50 percent of its goal. Recruiters would have to land more than 9,760 young men and women a month, on average, to reach the 80,000 target by the end of September.

"In other words, they would have to far exceed their official targets, which range from 5,650 to 9,250 a month."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/06/09/army.recruiting.ap/

Go ahead, blame CNN. I blame poorly planned, elective nation-building "wars."

I say bring back the draft, and pass a constitutional amendment instituting the War Powers Act.

Posted by: markus at June 28, 2005 7:17 AM

And I'm sure Saddam, bin Laden, al-Zawahiri,and wazziz name from Jordan all fully, fully, agree with ya, Markus!

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at June 28, 2005 7:55 AM

I say bring back the draft to render our military completely ineffective and to rile up the protest mobs. Marcus is a strategist whose talents are wasted on the wrong enemy.

Anyway, we can forget those definitive tomes on Mao, history, and any discrimination between the heroic and vile. Woody Allen may not be a mime, but he was the comedian who brought us Bananas, Sleeper, Manhattan, September, New York Stories, and Bullets Over Broadway who now reportedly tells Der Spiegel, "as a filmmaker, (he) is not interested in 9/11. 'It's too small, history overwhelms it"...

"The history of the world is like: He kills me, I kill him, only with different cosmetics and different castings. So in 2001, some fanatics killed some Americans, and now some Americans are killing some Iraqis."

In other words, nothing new, pussycat, merely Scraperdust Memories and an Annie Hall of Mirrors.

Posted by: c at June 28, 2005 7:57 AM

marcus: you write: "Go ahead, blame CNN. I blame poorly planned, elective nation-building "wars."

actually, i blame people like you.

Posted by: ex-democrat at June 28, 2005 8:06 AM

War Powers is no problem--no chance of needful emergency action getting stopped in the senate by bloated drunken gasbags who have no clue as to what they're even reading off the latest Soros memo.

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at June 28, 2005 8:06 AM

C, well, Sleeper and Bananas were great. I think Woody and Roman Polanski ought to do a joint project. But, you know, under supervision.

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at June 28, 2005 8:24 AM

All wars are elective. Every damn one of them. Ask the French. Surrender is always an option.

When we need help with a Vichy or Quisling solution markus, we'll give you a call.

Posted by: Rick Ballard at June 28, 2005 8:27 AM

Rick, Buddy, ex-dem, c., charlie -- yeah, i know it sucks having to fight a war with quislings like me on your back, and not be able to do anything about it but complain. You would be much less aggravated under with the enforced patriotism of a dear leader like Hitler, Stalin, Saddam himself.

Just remember, dissent enforces accountability. And dissent increases in situation in which accountability is not being enforced. There was next to no opposition to World War II, a non-elective, defensive war that in 1942 wasn't going so damn well for us either. And while there was some opposition to the war in Afghanistan, another defensive action, it was extremely marginalized.

Similarly, the vast majority of Americans, including Dems, would have been willing to put up with all the shit we're currently going through in Iraq if WMD's had been found.

You guys messed up, and so now you're stuck fighting a war supported by the Republican minority, and opposed by Democrats and most independants. Like I said, dissent enforces accountability.

Posted by: markus at June 28, 2005 8:52 AM

"You guys messed up, and so now YOU'RE stuck fighting a war..."
- A TRAITOR SPEAKS.

Posted by: ex-democrat at June 28, 2005 8:57 AM

Ex-Dem: "A TRAITOR SPEAKS"

...and when you live in a democracy and start an elective war that goes badly, there will be more and more of us -- and NOT A DAMN THING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT, 'cept complain.

On the other hand, elect a commander-in-chief committed to war as a last resort, and committed to not exploiting war and patriotism for partisan gain, and our traitorous ranks diminish to almost nothing.

Posted by: markus at June 28, 2005 9:04 AM

Good letter, Markus. You actually make a point wrt accountability. I could've done without the dictator crack--dictators would long since had you and your 20% of the electorate behind barbed wire. But overall, decent tone, light on the sarcasm, and while loaded with weird interpretations, on the whole, not bad. Good that you guys aren't running things, though--and I'm pretty sure you already suspect that.

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at June 28, 2005 9:06 AM

Marcus: "Just remember, dissent enforces accountability"

A college coed came to my door the other day to solicit monies for an environmental organization, and while we were speaking, she declared that "dissent is the highest form of patriotism". I challenged her to support her statement, and found out that it IS true, but only when Dems are tearing down the Repubs, their policies, the military, and this country. She couldn't cite a single instance of GOP dissent and disagreement with Democrat thinking and policy that was "patriotic".

well, Sleeper and Bananas were great

Yes, you're right, Buddy. The others movies mentioned just reminded me of Allen's New Yawk-centric grandiloquent, epic big picture thinking as opposed to the small stories of terror attacks and war that are too trifling for him to bother about.

Posted by: c at June 28, 2005 9:13 AM

Re your next post, there's really no way to know the size of the traitorious ranks, nor us flag-wrapped Patton-caricature ranks, other than thru elections. Come 2006 and 08, when the Repukes have 65 senators and another 50 house seats, you'll change your appreciation of the separation of powers, and be glad to have a strong executive that can damp the ardor of the legislative branch.

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at June 28, 2005 9:14 AM

Hmm . . . sometimes war as a last resort literally is a last resort, as one sees the whites of the enemy's eyeballs. By then, it's already too late, n'est ce pas?

Posted by: Lola at June 28, 2005 9:15 AM

Ha ha, Lola...that's exactly right...Saddam was well-trained during thwe 90s to think that our last resort would simply never arrive...like moving from point A to point B by half-steps. You never get there.

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at June 28, 2005 9:31 AM

Buddy,

Maybe a little hyperbolic. I've got it at 6 Senate and 18 Representative seat pickups in my optimistic scenario and 3 and 11 in my likely scenario. The moderate Dems are running away like scalded cats from the Guantanamorons. The fringe has the money at the moment so Howlin' Howie and Turban Durbin have to dance like the little marionettes that they are but ole markus is going to have a real hissy next summer when the stampede to the center marginalizes the lefties.

Posted by: Rick Ballard at June 28, 2005 9:33 AM

Buddy and Rick -- not sure what your confidence is based on, aside from the fact that Republicans are likely to continue to be more effective political tacticians than the Dems.

Certainly, its not based on support for GW's choices as commander-in-chief.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/?ci=17074

Posted by: markus at June 28, 2005 9:49 AM

Rick, unless they can get their quagmire--their only hope is their quagmire. That's why Senator Quagmire is squawking so loudly from way down there inside his rolls of bright red blubber. He need for Zarkawi-the-Knife to hear him, and coordinate.

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at June 28, 2005 9:55 AM

Rick--

You give some interesting #s re the 2006 elections. What are the particulars of each scenario? Where are the winners/losers coming from?

Posted by: Dymphna at June 28, 2005 9:57 AM

Markus, I want you to stretch yourself here--really--and try to imagine a CiC who'd rather do the necessary than the popular thing. That is not a miraculous or unique thing for a CiC. We've had many of them in our two-plus centuries. Just, none lately. I'd imagine you're in your 30s and see the 90s as the normal. Try to do some reading. The 90s were not normal.

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at June 28, 2005 10:02 AM

Condemning OIF and the CiC because they're not poll-popular at any particular time, is okay I guess, for partisan politics (apart from the operational sensitivity of the enemy to our public discourse--and the practical effect that has on the deployed troops), but a CiC running the country on such things is no way to protect the now and future nation.

Again, take a look at what built up against the interests of the world's people under such American leadership in the 90s.

A corrupt UN and top-levels of national governments, huge corporate scandals which robbed tens of thousands of our most vulnerable Americans of their life-savings, nuke programs burgeoning in foreign countries, the eruption of Al Queda, the embassies, the attack on the navy, 911, twenty thousand innocents terror-murdered and maimed, not counting the million Rwandans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

And there's so much more, really, that soured and went pathologically horrific, under the leadership of the free world gone popularity-mad.

Open your mind, Markus. Why do you think there's so many ex-liberals these days? It's NOT politics or follow-the-herd (even tho, follow-the-herd might also be away from the cliff), it's the record.

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at June 28, 2005 10:22 AM

Dymphna,

Optimistic scenario:

Senate pickups - FL, MN, NE, WA, MD, MI

House pickups - CO-03, IL-08, LA-03, OH-06, TX-17, GA-12, IA-03, KS-03, MO-03, NY-27, OR-05, SD-SW, TN-04 and UT-02, ND-SW, OR-01, GA-03, IN-07

Probable scenario:

Senate pickups - FL, MN, MD

House pickups - CO-03, LA-03, OH-06, TX-17, GA-12, IA-03, KS-03, MO-03, SD-SW, TN-04 and UT-02

The main focus in '06 will be the economy. The Reps will run an "ownership" campaign and do well if they can keep their damn snouts out of the trough with the spending bills. There is no internal reason for the current economic gains to slow. If oil goes to $80, then the probable scenario plays, otherwise the optimistic scenario will hold up barring the unknowable. On the FA side, the Reps will have another elected gov in Iraq with a new constitution to give it validity. I expect some new proposals for an institution composed of democracies that will be intended to supplant the UN.

It's hard to get a read on the Dems. If the Quisling faction keeps the upper hand in projecting public image then my optimistic scenario becomes probable and I'll create a new optimistic scenario. I don't see how the moderates can get ahold of the public image and I have some sympathy for them but if you take the Quisling money you dance the Quisling dance. If the AFL-CIO splits (about a 70-30 probability) then the Dems will lose about 40% of the union dough. That won't help much at all as it will give the Quisling faction even greater control.

Posted by: Rick Ballard at June 28, 2005 10:36 AM

Buddy -- Not all ex-libs become dyed-in-the-wool neo-cons. And not all conservatives and moderates become neo-cons. I'm an ex-lib myself, or at least an ex- ultralib, now on the on the Clintonite center-left of things.

My only point in bringing up the Gallup polls was to note that support for the war, and its commander-in-chief, is slipping. Why else would risk-adverse politicians OF BOTH PARTIES are suddenly less afraid to express misgivings, concerns, etc.? Walter Jones (one of the most conservative members of Congress), Hagel, Luger, McCain...did all of these "traitors" forget to read your memo counseling them that that staying the course in Iraq and uncritical support for GW/Cheney/Rummy is key to a Senate supermajority in 2006?

Posted by: markus at June 28, 2005 10:41 AM

Yes, the word is the Dems have all but given up Gitmo as an issue. However some House Dems will contine to flog the celebrated Downing Street Memos (can you do a song for them, too?). BTW, this Sen. Crapo of Idaho must be a real shrinking violet as Senators go--I don't believe I've ever heard the name before and it's a name one would tend to remember.

I second Dymphna, Rick; give us the details of your prognostications.

Richard Johnson has a particularly snarky comment at the end of his Page 6 blurb on Allen. I once was a major Woody Allen fan. IMO his talent "as a filmmaker" began to seriously decline just about the time of the whole gag-me Allen/Farrow/Soon Ye train wreck (Bullets Over Broadway a noted exception). They say he still is puzzled over his significantly eroded fan base.

Markus, if you put faith in such things (God knows I don't), a new poll shows that only one in eight Americans want to pull out of Iraq immediately and 52% believe the war has contributed to the long-term security of the US. And, Markus, as our President impressed on us over and over again, once the threat becomes imminent, once you actually can see the whites of their eyes, it's too late to act and you're relagated to merely reacting. Forgive us for not wanting to join your suicide pact.

John Kerry has some advice for the President tonight:

The administration must immediately draw up a detailed plan with clear milestones and deadlines for the transfer of military and police responsibilities to Iraqis after the December elections. The plan should be shared with Congress. The guideposts should take into account political and security needs and objectives and be linked to specific tasks and accomplishments. If Iraqis adopt a constitution and hold elections as planned, support for the insurgency should fall and Iraqi security forces should be able to take on more responsibility. It will also set the stage for American forces to begin to come home.

Idiot.

And, finally, can anyone explain what the hell is going on with this?? Could it be keeping your friends close, but your enemies closer?

Posted by: Kyda Sylvester at June 28, 2005 10:45 AM

Roger:

I may have missed it but did marcus ever give his plan for NK. He seemed to be calling for invasion but I could be mistaken. He seems to bring up NK to critque the current administration but doesn't seem to offer any suggestions . As far as the war powers act the Congress can stop the war anytime they want by withholding funds.

Kevin Peters

Posted by: Kevin P at June 28, 2005 10:55 AM

Thanks, Rick. I concur with your probable Senate pickups. I don't know enough about the individual states to comment on the House gains, but GA-12 and TX-17? Yikes.

Posted by: Kyda Sylvester at June 28, 2005 10:56 AM

There's Kerry again, studying up on Bush's plans and then giving a speech advising him to "follow his plans". Insufferable idiot.

Markus, I guess you've just exploded your own theory of "dyed-in-the-wool" neo-cons being imprisoned on the rote-auto-herd following the GOP party leader--or else.

Thank you. You often--almost invariably as a matter of fact--discover the flaws in your own positions. When you stay with it, that is.

That, plus the fact that you enjoy the center-righters on this site, makes me think there is a conflict inside your political world-view, and that you are trying to resolve it.

Good for you. The welcome mat is out for you, in the big-tent movement.

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at June 28, 2005 10:58 AM

Kyda,

can anyone explain what the hell is going on with this?

I suppose we could hope for Bubba cum Chum but that's not likely. The RNC is probably buggin' his clothing. Now, if they could just find a way to get him to keep his trousers on...

Posted by: Knucklehead at June 28, 2005 11:12 AM

Kyda, at the very moment, Dymphna was remarking of Elder Bush over on Wretchard's site. I'd just speculated that even now he tries to bring the country together, on the personal plane where people can see each other's humanity, through his hanging out with someone (Bubba) he knows is so highly symbolic that he can be yet made to do good. Even if not on a net basis, as going forward is all we can do.

It's a gesture, made easier by Bubba's bonhomie (or however ya spell it), perhaps?

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at June 28, 2005 11:21 AM

Buddy -- I had become a fairly solid liberal hawk myself by January 2003, and remained one for at least for the next six months of 2003. Then reality intruded.

But I'm still more comfortable with the way Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton talk about our role in the world than the way Howard Dean talks about it.

I'm not sure what big-tent you're welcoming me to. If it's full of people who hate mass transit, think universal health insurance is a terrible idea, and call the estate tax a "death tax", then I'll just have a few glasses of wine and split.

Posted by: markus at June 28, 2005 11:31 AM

Roger:

Getting back to the original topic, the book on Mao highlights the MSM driven need for self loathing for America and our allies while ignoring far worse crimes. Look at Japan and China. There is no question that the crimes of Imperial Japan before and during the war were horrid. But is this behaviour going to make a comeback in modern Japan? Of course not. It is a Democracy, it barely has enough of a defense force to protect itself and she has no ability to return to her imperlialist past, nor does she have the desire to. Yet the western press went into convulsions because of a tribute to dead soldiers and because some history books were not complete enough in their self flagelation. They ignore the fact that any Japenese citizen has complete access to multiple histories of the war and because they have freedom of speech there is no chance that a historical whitewash can be achieved.

Now look at China. Their history of death and murder is at a minimum equal to Japan's and it can be argued that they are far worse. The shrines to the dead soldiers in no way compare to the cult of personality dedicated to Mao. And here is the most important point. In the geographical area that Japan and China share, who has the strongest milatary? China. Who has made the most noise in regards to expansionist conquest of territory in the region? China. Since WWII which countyr has been involved in more wars and who has backed the most evil regimes? China. Which country has shown by there actions to be the biggest threat to peace in the area? China. Yet who does the MSM and some of the political left focus on? Japan. This makes perfect sense doesn't it. Of course if you ask the critics to choose which of those two countries they would choose to live in which country do you think they would choose?

Posted by: Kevin P at June 28, 2005 11:40 AM

Buddy--Peggy Noonan in her excellent 2001 inaugural piece nailed it with He called himself Citizen Clinton with his usual false modesty and faux bonhomie. I agree that it rings false more often than not.

I understand it from Clinton's POV. When you look at the whole Blythe/Clinton/Kelly/Rodham nexus, you certainly can understand why Bill is drawn to the warmth and accomplishments of the Bush clan. It's a struggle, though, to understand it from the other end. The Bush's are famously magnanimous (just look at how gracious they are to James Carville for Mary Matalin's sake). Maybe they feel sorry for him. Maybe they're accustomed to taking in strays. Heck, maybe George H.W. and Barbara just plain like the guy. Or, maybe they're keeping an eye on the opposition--you know how loose lips can get on 3-engine ships.

Knucklehead--LOL

Posted by: Kyda Sylvester at June 28, 2005 12:08 PM

Getting back to the original topic...

What? There was an original topic on this thread?!

Posted by: Kyda Sylvester at June 28, 2005 12:11 PM

Right, Kevin, we're wearing it out--so quickly, Markus, the bill in the senate puts estate @15%over a 5mm exclusion--that's palatable. It's the 50% over 2mm that is killing so many family businesses. Mass transit & universal health insurance are waves of the future, I'll bet most here are for them on principle--the problem is to shut out the exploiters and crooks (see "The Big Dig" in Boston Harbor to see the combinations that sicken conservatives). You latterly segue'd to practical political matters that are in the rightful domain of compromise. Your cognitive error is in treating the war likewise. There should be a different politics in debate over existential emergencies.

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at June 28, 2005 12:28 PM

Kyda,

Did you happen to catch Lileks's take on the matter?

As they say, ouch!!

Posted by: WichitaBoy at June 28, 2005 12:30 PM

Kyda,

Re: TX-17 - Edwards spent 2 mil to win by 51-49 in '04. His COH (cash on hand) was $183,000 in May.

The Dems have 31 seats that are contestable while the Reps have 18. It's more expensive to attack than defend but the Rep money edge is really going to come into play in '06.

I think more moderate Dems will retire come Nov-Dec as they see the lay of land. There's more money to be made as a lobbyist if you retire undefeated.

Posted by: Rick Ballard at June 28, 2005 12:31 PM

"Then reality intruded"...why fiddle with rhetoric, when you can use a simple declarative "then the enemy defeated me".

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at June 28, 2005 12:35 PM

Kyda:

You caught me! Instead of respecting the democratic flow of this thread or just simply posting my idea's and relying on them to stear the thread in my direction I let my inner dictator show by throwing up a scolding opening line. Trying to install petty rules on a site that respects freedom of speech is a sign of a controll freek. That is one of the best aspects of Rogers site. Other then outlandish foul language or radical thread hijacking he lets the battle of idea's reign supreme. Mea Culpa.

Posted by: Kevin P at June 28, 2005 12:36 PM

Admitted “traitor” Markus writes “I had become a fairly solid liberal hawk myself by January 2003, and remained one for at least for the next six months of 2003.”

(I just love that “fairly” qualifier: exactly the sort of commitment you’d want from the guy next to you in a foxhole, no?)

so what happened between those two dates?

Jan. 16, 2003: UN inspectors discover 11 undeclared empty chemical warheads in Iraq, and on Jan. 27, 2003 the “UN's formal report on Iraqi inspections is highly critical, though not damning, with chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix stating that "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament that was demanded of it." ” (source: http://www.infoplease.com/spot/iraqtimeline2.html)

“Right” says Markus, “I’m getting on this bandwagon before it’s too late!”

July 7, 2003: Bush administration concedes that evidence that Iraq was pursuing a nuclear weapons program by seeking to buy uranium from Africa, cited in January State of the Union address and elsewhere, was unsubstantiated and should not have been included in speech. Over summer Tony Blair faces even stronger criticism than his American counterpart concerning flawed intelligence.

“Right” says Markus, “I’m getting off this bandwagon before it’s too late!”

How Kerry-esque.

Posted by: ex-democrat at June 28, 2005 1:05 PM

"I'm not sure what big-tent you're welcoming me to. If it's full of people who hate mass transit, think universal health insurance is a terrible idea, and call the estate tax a "death tax", then I'll just have a few glasses of wine and split."

Please do stay for a glass or two. And be assured that, unlike the programs you ascribe to, no tax payer will be footing the bill for your imbibing. It will have been paid for voluntarily.

I don't hate mass transit, it's simply a boon-doggle and an inefficient black hole that eats taxes faster than we can pay them. It's as over-loaded with bureaucrats and superfluous "workers" as is the education system.

Universal health insurance has such a great track record. One has only to talk to all the Canadians in Michigan at any given moment seeking the health care they can't get at home to know how that's going to play.

As for the estate taxes...well, Mundell didn't win his Nobel Prize for nothing. The more you take out of the citizens and put into the gummit maw, the more you lower productivity and economic health.

But, hey, stop at the big tent and have a few glasses on us. It's 'free' booze.

Posted by: Dymphna at June 28, 2005 1:36 PM

Rick--

Thanks for the break-down. I've cut and pasted it to show the Baron. This should be an interesting dinner table conversation. Or two.

Posted by: Dymphna at June 28, 2005 1:41 PM

Right--estate tax makes sense on a P&L only, a good balance sheet--with an opportunity cost line--shows clearly it results in a net loss of federal revenue. the only way to balance the books off a true balance sheet is to add in a push number for "class-warfare scalp", against the opportunity-cost.

And at that, the money has already been taxed corporately, and individually via capital gains/dividends, income, state & local, etcetera.
The left-over dollars are fully taxed, as property of a live person.

Then the owner dies, and up to half of the poor terrified surviving dollars get marched out the the door to IRS HQ, to be de-efficientized back into quarters, or at best fifty-cent pieces.

Where does the lost value go? It's the cost of operating the value-stripping system. A negative perpetual-motion machine. Stop waste and fraud, the value goes back to a dollar of good, for the public. THEN, a confiscatory estate tax wouldn't be quite so wrong.

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at June 28, 2005 1:59 PM

Of course, to be fair, the value-stripping system is operated by civil-servants and private tax professionals, who do then spend the stripped value back into the economy. So, macro-wise, the tax is just a "success" penalty. Except, much of what becomes spending would remain savings otherwise, forming a pool of available capital to finance future growth. But, we run a two-thirds consumer-spending economy, so, well, who knows. Sorry for the rant.

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at June 28, 2005 2:10 PM

Buddy:

Ura's senke...the islands?

It was an attempt at an in-joke pun: it's means, roughly, "Ura's place", and the joke is that "usasenke" is also the name of a style of tea ceremony that was popular with samurai.

Sadly, Uranari-sensei needed it explained too, but he was very kind about it afterwards.

Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) at June 28, 2005 2:21 PM

I'd love to continue this conversation, but it'll have to wait for awhile -- I've gotta work for a living!

For the moment, just know this: if I'm a "traitor", so are a good half of American citizens. So you're left with a situation in which we are in a difficult, unpopular war with no foreign popular support (aside from Blair and other leaders deliberately going against the popular will)...and now you're down to the forties when it comes to support right here in the good old USA.

But somehow, I get the feeling that Bush and his rapid supporters thrive on such antipathy. In fact, they wouldn't have it any other way.

Posted by: markus at June 28, 2005 2:23 PM

But somehow, I get the feeling that Bush and his rapid supporters thrive on such antipathy.

If this is true, then we're in luck, because the Islamists and their western sympathists and fellow illiberals in academia and the media sure provide enough antipathy toward the US and our policies to keep Repubs thriving for a very long time.

Posted by: c at June 28, 2005 2:29 PM

Why is it that Republicans are against unearned wealth in the form of individual welfare or government benefit, while they the idea of eliminating the tax burden on UNEARNED wealth, even though this requires a corresponding increase in the proportion of government revenue that must be raised through taxes on working people?

Seems contradictory to me.

Posted by: markus at June 28, 2005 2:31 PM

YOU were my work today, Markus--the market boomed and I missed something i'd meant to do, arguing with your ass. And, did Kyda's 10:45 AM mean nothing to your poll analyses?

Charlie--thanks--I thought y'all were back on those islands, which I'd meant to contribute earlier that there's a nearby natural-gas potential, which has added a certain grimness of inevitability to the dispute.

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at June 28, 2005 2:35 PM

It's about keeping it in the family, marcus, whether it's the family farm or sentimental treasures or riches. Redistributed tax monies for those who don't share your life, aspirations, and values and who aren't your progeny or dear ones just ain't the same.

Posted by: c at June 28, 2005 2:37 PM

Markus, Americans are all for helping those who need--it's creating unhappy dole-dependent locked-in pro-dole voters that bothers fair-minded people. And as far as workers making up the money that heirs get, did you think I was lying about the net federal revenue effects? You've got the relationships 180 degrees bass-ackwards. Once again, you've got theory trumping facts. Finally, if you rightfully believe in helping those in need, what did the Iraqis, and other future beneficiaries of release from tyranny, do to get excluded from your magnanimity?

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at June 28, 2005 2:46 PM

Hard to be sure, but if I had to guess, I'd say it's because they can tell the difference between "unearned" income made by providing the capital on which the economy is based in free exchange, and "unearned" income obtained at gunpoint.

Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) at June 28, 2005 2:51 PM

Buddy -- I supported a war against Saadam to liberate Kuwait in 1991, and to take away Hussein's WMD's in 2003, whatever cost in lives, dollars, international prestige, whatever the risk of failure.

I also support wars for humanitarian purposes, in Bosnia, Kosovo, Rwanda and Iraq. And I'm such a sucker and liberal idealist that I'm even willing to consider a war to test out someone's pet theory that popular support for radical Islam abates when Muslims live under a pro-american regime. But in each these cases, my support is much, much more conditional. The people we liberate have to want to be liberated. The country being liberated has to have a real history as a unified entity, as opposed to a history as a battlefield of warring clans. The cost, in life and dollar has to be minimal. The chance that our intervention could actually make things worse, much worse, must be low.

Otherwise, we are on a fool's errand.

You may think this distinction is stupid, but I guarantee you have a similar one. If Kim il-Sung lobs a nuke at Hawaii, you'll support whatever it takes to overthrow him and occupy North Korea. But, unless you're an absolute nut, you are going to dismiss the idea of liberating North Korea today, or liberating Hungary in 1956, or Czechoslovakia in 1968, as fool's errands.

Posted by: markus at June 28, 2005 3:30 PM

nice try, markus.

YOU revealed yourself to be a traitor (perhaps unintentionally) by stating that "You guys messed up, and so now YOU'RE stuck fighting a war..." In other words, YOU refuse to participate in or contribute to this WAR that is being fought by YOUR country.

But the claim that YOUR treachery is shared by all americans with misgivings about the war is nonsense. Unlike YOU, the vast majority of them can tell the difference between LOYAL and DISLOYAL opposition.

Posted by: ex-democrat at June 28, 2005 3:34 PM

ex-democrat -- and what have you done to contribute to the war effort?

Posted by: markus at June 28, 2005 3:36 PM

Markus, the idea--one of the ideas--behind OIF wis based on a vision of what NoKo, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia might have been like had they (or their occupying USSR) never become so heavily-armed in the first place, to the point that they could enslave their own or neighbor's populations with impunity.

As far as your first paragraph, an awful lot of very smart folks think your conditions WERE met. What you layb out here was oddly enough GWB's position vis "nation-building", AKA the Powell Doctrine, and is imminently sensible. But 911--which aside from the horror of death and demoralizing shock--cost several trillion dollars, and the nation's currency, trade, markets, employment, the entire system which creates almost miraculously our way of life, simply could not withstand a series of 911s. Not without a change in the whole reality of America, which would've meant a change in the reality of the world, and the direction of mankind's journey to a better life for all people. Drastic measures--including proceeding without perfect information--were not elective but mandatory--duty. And fast--no time to dither with a clipboard and checklist of conditions--to turn us back outward and toward overcoming the attack's psychology.

That you can now second-guess everything that has been done, is itself a measure of the success of the campaign. If you still had your wear-face on, it would be an indicator that the world behind was in worse shape than it in fact is. That you criticize Bush for "going it alone" is a validation that he did the right thing. Your own admitted serial epiphanies are indisputable proof of that.

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at June 28, 2005 4:00 PM

"wear-face"--frodoian slip...war face.

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at June 28, 2005 4:03 PM

And there's nothing intrinsically wrong with your going back to politics-as-usual. it's the American way, politics ain't beanbag. But--this is the crucial point--you went back to politics-as-usual a little too soon. You jumped the gun. We're in danger here, this thing may be a lot more serious than you apparantly think it is. You need to stay in the afghanistan mode long enough to take the confidence out of the enemy. The charge from the right--why ex-dem uses the word ttraito--is that you guys are in fact re-invigorating the enemy, stretching the war--and, yes, that means raising the casualties among friend AND foe--and making victory all the harder. you could even prevent victory. You could royally f**k up the planet. And for what? To keep the GOP from getting credit for a victory? That's NOT respectable thinking. It's juvenile and lethally wrong. Suck it up and forget parties for awhile--let's win this war. Thenj you can turn us out of office--just like the Brits diod to Churchill after WWII. No sweat, take it awhile--just don't lose this war for us. "Us" meaning, people the world over who don't want to go to back to dark-age jungle-rule.

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at June 28, 2005 4:20 PM

Backing OIF until yiour country was inside and engaged, then changing your mind on the WMD basis is not respectable either. For one thing, it cartoonizes the issue, forgets that your entire leadership agreed with the same intell, and just *poofs* away the accepted knowledge that Saddam was a proven WMD-user, and would have them soon enough at any rate. The "no-fly" containment--expensive and endless--was breaking down, as was the UN Blix-deal.

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at June 28, 2005 4:32 PM

markus:

In your first post on this thread you stated that the war in Iraq was harming our "ability to challenge North korea and China milatarily". Now you are saying it would be nuts to attack Nk. So we need the troops home so we can threaten them with something we have to be "nuts" to try. If you know it's nuts so does the dear leader. And if NK lobs a nuke at any portion of the U.S. the bulk of North Korea will be flattened within 1 hour.

Ask the Kurds and the Shia's if Milosevic was a greater threat to humanity then Saddam and that they are not worth a "humanitary war" And ask my Brother who is stationed at Camp Bondsteel near Pristina, Kosovo about ethnic and tribal hatreds.

Kevin Peters

Posted by: Kevin P at June 28, 2005 4:53 PM

Kevin P -- I was not contradictory on Korea. It WOULD be nuts to challenge Korea militarily now -- unless they attack us first, or provide WMD's to terrorist groups, or invade South Korea, or some other intolerable crisis/scenario that leaves us with no choice. And in any of THOSE cases, our Iraqi commitment truly does limit our options, short of the nuclear one.

Saddam was a much bigger monster to the Kurds and Shia's than Milosevic was to the Kosovars. The problem is the cost of liberating them and creating a new country. Lower the cost, in blood and money, or increase the necessity, and I'm with you, and them.

Don't you feel the same way about, say, the Burmese? You up for liberating them?

Buddy -- I'm still pulling for OIF to be a success. And I'd be willing to provide the slavish, uncritical suppport of dear leader that you seem to expect from all Americans, if I thought it would make a difference in the prosecution of this war. That is, if I saw any real evidence the insurgency knows about or gives a damn about U.S. public opinion. As if Dear Leader himself gives a damn about U.S. public opinion on this particular matter! (He is a man of conviction after all, right?)

Here's the major problem. We have some shitty facts to face. Here they are, you've heard 'em before, they're still true:
1. Saddam didn't have anything to do with 9/11
2. He had no meaningful ties with Al-Qaeda
3. His WMD's, and his weapons research programs, did not exist. And while prewar U.S. intelligence was not certain of this, the Blix inspections in all likelihood would have established this had they been allowed to continue.
4. Mainly due to its internal divisions, Iraq is a poor candidate for building a democratic, pro-Western state in the region. It's not impossible, but it is a real longshot.

If even ONE of them were not true, it would change everything, and make all the blood we are shedding, REALLY WORTH IT, because it would mean this war wasn't a crapshoot, but a strategic and/or moral necessity.

Posted by: markus at June 28, 2005 7:36 PM

Markus, it's late, but later, tomorrow maybe, I'll provide you with any number of links from credible sources that will change your mind--if that is possible, if you will respect the idea of truth being important--on all four of your points. To start, enough for tonight, let me background the first, #1: this is pretty intriguing, by a top flight--if conservative--think tank. Thanks for being (somewhat) civil and (slightly) open-minded. ;-)Later!

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at June 28, 2005 7:52 PM

4. Mainly due to its internal divisions, Iraq is a poor candidate for building a democratic, pro-Western state in the region.

So, the best candidate for building a democratic, proWestern state in the region would be (fill in the blank, please)?

Keep in mind that, if we are going to expend life, limb, treasury and political capital in our attempt to transform the Middle East, your goals should also include removing a totalitarian regime that's hostile to the US; liberating a country whose politics and economy would actually impact the region; reaping geopolitical benefits for us wrt to SA, Iran and Syria with one intervention; and resolving our ongoing state of war and no-fly zone hostilities with said country.

Posted by: c at June 28, 2005 8:01 PM

Markus:

What were you going to do with Saddam? China, France and Russia were already negotiating post embargo reconstruction contracts with Saddam so we know that the UN was going to bug out after Blix was finished. Our no fly authority was involved with UN approval. Turkey would never allow a independent Kurdish state. Are you suggesting a permanent air occupation of Iraq by England and the US alone? saddam had opened up negotiations with Al queda and was supporting Palestinian suicide bombers at $25,000 a pop. wasn't it Clark,no fan of Bush, who said that OBL would head to Iraq eventually? Do you really think that Saddam, once he got full controll of his oil revenue, wouldn't help fund OBL and let him use Iraq as a staging ground. saddam's biggest enemy was the US and he would have done anything to help 9-11 style attacks on the U.S. A enemy of my enemy can be a friend. Remember we were allies with the Soviet Union, a al Queda and Iraq temporary alliance is hardly anymore bizzare.

U.S. policy since 1998 has been regime change in Iraq. How were you p
lanning to do it. Do you think that Saddam or his evil son's were going to hand over power without milatary intervention. Since the UN was planning to bug out do you think Saddam should have been left in power. If not what would have been your plan to remove him. Do you really believe that once Saddam had his oil revenue under his thumb he wouldn't have given 50 to 100 million to OBL to fund terror attacks on America. How many 9-11's would that have bought?

Posted by: Kevin P at June 28, 2005 8:25 PM

markus, nice of you to engage in the conversation, and too much vino to be verbal, but...

To your points:

1. So what?

2. So what?

I say this because those where never given as a reason for OIF.

3. Not true, and I am too lazy to give you the links.

4. Perhaps true, but what better candidate would you have chosen?

No crapshoot here, good reasons, good missions.

Just think 'one at a time', maybe for the next 50 or so years. Freedom will win out in the end. Its not just about you.

Posted by: Luther McLeod at June 28, 2005 8:33 PM

There's been half a dozen plus great regional changes as a result of OIF. Prominently, Libya, Lebanon, Syria wrt Lebanon, Egypt, KSA, Ukraine, and most happily, Palestine. AQ tracks have been found all thru Saddam's regime--despite Saddam placing a high premium on presenting Baath as secularist and not a terror state, for the UN classification which expedited what we now know to've been a conspiracy between the two organizations. No great parades featuring OBL and Saddam together--but that was Rule One, secrecy and deniability, cover for the UN. There are WMD signs and clues everywhere, former scientists involved in the programs have come forward, we have the evidence of past and future plans and equipment--plus the fact of the thousands of Kurds nerve-gassed to death. Plus the torture chambers, murder programs, and mass graves literally everywhere, mark the man himself as a WMD. And Iraq does have a record of civil society, a middle class and and good education system, with many professionals, in the era preceding Saddam's coup. All this info is only a google away. Saddam did '93 WTC for as certain as we'll be--and the jihad that he was supporting elsewhere coming back to the WTC in '01 assigns technical motive and intent. Actual direct personal involvement? They can't even find that teenager on Aruba--law enforcement is statistically nearly helpless against a good conspiracy. Let us lose another city center over legal courtroom rules of evidence? Maybe Kerry would.

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at June 28, 2005 8:58 PM

c: So, the best candidate for building a democratic, proWestern state in the region would be (fill in the blank, please)?

Afghanistan, Lebanon, Palestine, some of the small Gulf States. Syria would be a better candidate than Iraq, with its predominance of liberal Alawite Muslims.

Kevin P: Containing Saadam was indeed problematic. It would have necessitated making him an offer along the lines of Gaddafi, and letting him continue to brutalize his people. He likely would have accepted, but it would have been hell for the Iraqis. And it would have necessitated keeping American troops on Saudi soil for some time to come. All reasons why I initially supported the war, on balance, initially. There's been a lot that has gone wrong to make the Gaddafi option seem like it might have been better, both strategically and morally.

But regarding saadam's adverserial relationship with Israel (funding the intifada, etc.) was irrelevent to the US decision to go to war, wasn't it? Or did Rep. Moran have a point after all?

Buddy: sounds good.

Posted by: markus at June 28, 2005 9:03 PM

c: So, the best candidate for building a democratic, proWestern state in the region would be (fill in the blank, please)?

marcus: Afghanistan, Lebanon, Palestine, some of the small Gulf States. Syria would be a better candidate than Iraq, with its predominance of liberal Alawite Muslims.

Let's look at your answers, Marcus.

Afghanistan: That intervention alone was not enough to shake up and reorient the ME.

Lebanon: Are you proposing that we should have intervened militarily into Lebanon without casus belli, or are you saying we could have successfully leaned on Assad to pull out his forces without the pressure of the Iraq War and our troops on his doorstep? At any rate, Lebanon's democratization, while desirable, could not alone have sufficiently impacted the rest of the region to lessen simultaneous threats from Saddam and the Islamist movement.

Palestine: terrific answer! Why didn't Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan or Carter think of solving the Palestinian problem? Are you suggesting we should have militarily intervened into the Territories, excuse us Israel, and that the Palestinians would have been receptive to an American presence there and capable of quickly transforming from a gangster to a successful civil society? Or, do you think some additional diplomacy and bribes to sickman Arafat would have been the ticket without sandy boots on the ground?

Small Gulf State: What justification and to what end? What major security benefits to the US and transformative ripple effects might we expect from intervening in a small, insular and deeply conservative Gulf State, especially with Saddam's regime still intact nearby?

Syria: Wow. To begin with, an intervention there by the US would inflame the entire Arab world and be couched in terms of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The US would be cast quite credibly as a Zionist aggressor acting on Israel's behalf. Can't think of ANY country that would have partnered with us on such a reckless venture. Second, were we to succeed in our intervention with the entire region and Europe against us, we would have succeeded only in removing Saddam's chief competitor in the region and the Syrian Baathists. The Iraqi Baathist branch in Syria would be strengthened and succored by Saddam, and the Iraqi dictator would have played the Arab card to maximum effect. Certainly, Damascus is being squeezed by our intervention in Iraq, but in your reverse scenario Baghdad would have been boosted and Saddam given greater stature as leader of the Arab world. Remember, too that there is no cowing of that man- we had Coalition troops amassed at his border, and he didn't blink because of his self-grandiosity and the support of his friends on the UNSC. These days, Chirac may be cooperating a bit more with us wrt to pressuring Syria, but French "help" has come only after our forcible removal of their butcher-friend and, one has to believe, our subsequent collection of all sorts of damning evidence on French duplicity and complicity in the region.

Most obviously, given any of your preferred interventions, we would still have the Iraqi no-fly zone hostilities, OFF corruption and leaky sieve "containment" of Iraq false security and, worst of all, the strong probability of sanctions being lifted that would enable Saddam to spend more aggressively on his military and weaponry- of all kinds. Marcus, you're not looking at the big picture- at simultaneous goals and the map. Your way would have gained us precious little geopolitically and security-wise, or even have hurt us significantly, and left a hideous megalomaniac in power to exercise his dominance in the region and his hostility toward the US once we slacked off.

Posted by: c at June 29, 2005 8:13 AM

Yes, markus, neocons, neo-neocons and we old-fashioned just plain cons all agree: the road to a transformed Middle East runs directly through Baghdad. Pay attention to Carlotta--she is brillant and also wise.

Posted by: Kyda Sylvester at June 29, 2005 9:42 AM

c: very interesting. I respond to your question about which Middle Eastern countries are most ripe for democracy, and you ASSUME I am argueing for a US INVASION of those countries. LOL.

FYI, there are things the US can do to encourage democratic transformation short of sending in the infantry...FORCING such a transformation anywhere is much, much more problematic, as we are finding out.

Regarding alternatives to war that would keep Saadam in power, I have seen no evidence that he would not have been amenable to a Gaddafi-type deal involving lifting sanctions in exchange for future good behavior. The only losers in such a deal would have been the Iraqi people, forced to live under the thug, albeit without sanctions. But my understanding is that the U.S. that made it clear, under that traitor-pinko President CLINTON, that we would not accept such an outcome, and that we would oppose all moves to lift sanctions unless Saadam was removed.

By the way, aside from it being another positive consequence of OIF, what do you think of the deal to drop Libyan sanctions in exchange for ex-terrorist Gaddafi giving up his WMD program. Do you feel safe with the thug in power? Do you think his continued rule helps to further Arab democratization?

You seem to expect me to come up with a non-problematic counter-scenario to invading Iraq, when in fact, non-problematic counter-scenarios DO NOT EXIST.

Posted by: markus at June 29, 2005 10:04 AM

So, bad to trust Gadaffi (as we are doing), but good to trust Saddam (as you say we should've)?

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at June 29, 2005 10:13 AM

Alas, I fear that although markus may be trainable, he is not educable. Nice try though, everyone.

Posted by: Kyda Sylvester at June 29, 2005 10:15 AM

Kyda -- sweetie, how about a substantive response?

Posted by: markus at June 29, 2005 10:23 AM

Take him up on it, Kyda--see if he can make one!

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at June 29, 2005 10:25 AM

Sorry, Markus--I'm trying to be nice...but that was too much a softball. ;-)

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at June 29, 2005 10:27 AM

Buddy -- I don't think it is bad not to trust Gaddafi. My question is, why don't YOU think it's bad not to trust Gaddafi? Or are you saying that our willingness to invade Saadam acted as a "word to the wise" to Gaddafi, making him trustworthy thereafter? In that case, haven't our post-reconstruction Iraqi occupation struggles encouraged him to think yet again?

Posted by: markus at June 29, 2005 10:28 AM

Meant to say "I don't think it's necessarily bad to trust Gaddafi. But why don't YOU think it's bad to trust him?

Posted by: markus at June 29, 2005 10:36 AM

markus:

Qaddafi made a deal because of Iraq. Do you believe Syria left Lebannon after 20 years of occupation because of the bad press? And you were going to trust any deal with Saddam? This is a man who, even though he had Foreign troops surrounding him, who's Army had been humiliated in the first Gulf war, attempted to assasinate a American ex President. This is someone we can make a deal with! The idea that we would leave the security of this country dependent on a deal with this madman is unique in the annals of naivete. We have and will make some shady deals with some shady rulers. But physcotic murderers with illusions of Pan Arab domination with him at the top of the heap would not be my first choice as a secure partner, even in a world where sometimes you have to hold hands with despicable tyrants.

Kevin Peters

Posted by: Kevin P at June 29, 2005 10:45 AM

The trick will be to inspire Libyans to reform their government. This is happening--google the story of Gad's son, lately--the pro-American movement he is sheparding along in Libya. The "America" he is "pro" is the America whi