Richard Holbrooke On The Guns Of August

by hilzoy

Back when DaveC asked us to name a single Democrat who was strong on national security, the answer 'Wes Clark' seemed to do the trick. (Nothing like giving your adult life to the service of your country, being seriously wounded in battle, rising to four star general, and conducting a war in a volatile region with no US casualties to establish one's credentials.) Had anyone asked for more candidates, however, I was ready to offer a number, and at or near the top of the list would have been Richard Holbrooke, who has a truly frightening op ed in today's Washington Post:

"Two full-blown crises, in Lebanon and Iraq, are merging into a single emergency. A chain reaction could spread quickly almost anywhere between Cairo and Bombay. Turkey is talking openly of invading northern Iraq to deal with Kurdish terrorists based there. Syria could easily get pulled into the war in southern Lebanon. Egypt and Saudi Arabia are under pressure from jihadists to support Hezbollah, even though the governments in Cairo and Riyadh hate that organization. Afghanistan accuses Pakistan of giving shelter to al-Qaeda and the Taliban; there is constant fighting on both sides of that border. NATO's own war in Afghanistan is not going well. India talks of taking punitive action against Pakistan for allegedly being behind the Bombay bombings. Uzbekistan is a repressive dictatorship with a growing Islamic resistance.

The only beneficiaries of this chaos are Iran, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda and the Iraqi Shiite leader Moqtada al-Sadr, who last week held the largest anti-American, anti-Israel demonstration in the world in the very heart of Baghdad, even as 6,000 additional U.S. troops were rushing into the city to "prevent" a civil war that has already begun.

This combination of combustible elements poses the greatest threat to global stability since the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, history's only nuclear superpower confrontation. The Cuba crisis, although immensely dangerous, was comparatively simple: It came down to two leaders and no war. In 13 days of brilliant diplomacy, John F. Kennedy induced Nikita Khrushchev to remove Soviet missiles from Cuba.

Kennedy was deeply influenced by Barbara Tuchman's classic, "The Guns of August," which recounted how a seemingly isolated event 92 summers ago -- an assassination in Sarajevo by a Serb terrorist -- set off a chain reaction that led in just a few weeks to World War I. There are vast differences between that August and this one. But Tuchman ended her book with a sentence that resonates in this summer of crisis: "The nations were caught in a trap, a trap made during the first thirty days out of battles that failed to be decisive, a trap from which there was, and has been, no exit."

Preventing just such a trap must be the highest priority of American policy. Unfortunately, there is little public sign that the president and his top advisers recognize how close we are to a chain reaction, or that they have any larger strategy beyond tactical actions."

He then goes on to make a number of points and suggestions. One is that our policy in Lebanon is endangering our troops in Iraq, and that "if this continues, the U.S. presence in Baghdad has no future." Another is that this administration is making a huge mistake by not negotiating with Syria and Iran.

I want to elaborate on this briefly. Being willing to talk to someone does not show that you approve of them. It is not a good conduct prize or a certificate of merit. It's what you do when you have something to say to them. I would think we have a lot to say to the Iraqis and Syrians just now, and I would hope we would have some interest in what they have to say in return.

Some people might respond that it's not worth trying to negotiate with the Iranians and the Syrians, since we couldn't trust them to abide by any agreement they might reach. I am not at all sure that this is true, especially on the question of Iran's nuclear program, where possible agreements could include intrusive inspections. However, there's another more important point about the nature of diplomacy.

The point of diplomacy is not simply to reach agreements. It is to communicate with other countries. Especially in crises, it's important to make very clear to people, especially your adversaries, exactly what the consequences of their actions will be. You want to lay out very clearly what will happen if they do one thing, and what will happen if they do another. It is much better to do this directly than through intermediaries, for several reasons. First, when a given message has to be repeated from one person to another before reaching its intended recipient, it can get garbled, This is amusing when you're a kid playing 'telephone'; it can be lethal when you're a nation trying to avert war. Direct negotiations minimize this risk, and that's extremely important.

Second, it's important for your adversaries to appreciate that you mean what you say. There is much more room for doubt when your message is conveyed indirectly, since your adversaries do not have the opportunity to see how you say what you say, to question you about it, and in other ways to gauge your sincerity directly. Your intermediary may tell them that you mean what you say, but they will not be able to judge for themselves. Likewise, it's important for you to form a good first-hand opinion of your adversaries' sincerity and motives, which is much harder to do at second-hand.

If you think about diplomacy, it's clear that there are a lot of advantages to dealing with your adversaries directly, and that deciding not to talk directly to people you don't like is childish and counterproductive. We need to be talking to Syria and Iran right now. For that matter, we should have been talking to them all along, especially since, had we done so, we would not now need to worry about sending the message that the way to get the US to talk to you is to provoke a serious international crisis. This is much too important for us to be playing games.

Comments

[Gary Farber]

The crucial statement, Andrew, is that you say "The Republicans are worse now because they're in power," and I see no evidence for that, based on the actual record of the Democrats.

Nell: "But I care a lot about what voters think, and they think Republicans can't be trusted with national security"

I've quoted this latest poll, which includes the results for the previous poll, some three or four times in the past 24 hours, but this is a somewhat misleading statement.

There are a vast number of comforting numbers to take from the poll for people of our ilk, but what you're saying here is the shakiest.

It's true that the poll says that Democrats are trusted more than Republicans on these issues, but only within the margin of error -- just barely.

The actual numbers:

Which political party, the (Democrats) or the (Republicans), do you trust to do a better job handling the situation in Iraq:
Democrats: 43
Republicans: 40
Neither: 11
No opinion: 5

The next is better.

Which political party, the (Democrats) or the (Republicans), do you trust to do a better job handling the U.S. campaign against terrorism:
Democrats: 46
Republicans: 38
Neither: 11
No opinion: 4

But since the assertion is as regards "Four consecutive Post polls -- and seven of the last eight," the numbers get a lot more problematic in how close they generally were.

For instance, the previous poll, on 6/25/06, had these numbers:
Democrats: 39
Republicans: 46
Neither: 10
No opinion: 3

The 5/15/06 was better for Democrats again, by 46/41, but the previous to that, 4/9/06 was:
Democrats: 46
Republicans: 45
Neither: 6
No opinion: 1

And so on. This is good for Democrats, but not exactly a definitive argument to crow about. I wish it were, but I don't think it's fair to claim otherwise. I have tremendous respect for Digby, but while the assertions are technically true, the implications aren't as strong as I'd like.

[Andrew]

Gary,

With all due respect, I suspect the Democrats would have to get significantly worse than the current crop of Republicans before you acknowledged that they were even approaching it, due to your own affiliation with the party. That's just human nature.

[Now the harder problem...am I doing the same with the Republicans? Something to consider.]

[Frank]

Andrew- You said: "I cannot prove a counterfactual...that's kind of why they're called counterfactuals. I hope you're right, and the Democrats can be trusted with power more than the Republicans can. But you have no more evidence for that contention, it will have to await the next time the Democrats hold both the White House and Congress."

And I said, "Andrew- No you have to wait for the Democrats to control both houses of Congress, the Presidency and to have appointed 7 of 9 Supreme Court Justices. Or look back at the last time that happened, for your equal temptation scenario. (i.e. not in the next 50 years or so.)

So [how] does a silly hypothetical balance out the horrible abuses of the Republican party?"

I was correcting you in regards to how much power the Republicans have, and there for how much power the Democrats would have to have in order to demonstrate to you in your terms that the Democrats can better be trusted with power than the Republicans. I also not that you appear to be saying that the past isn't relevant since obviously Democrats have had control of the House, the Senate, and the Presidency before.

I think you are putting the burden of proof on the Democrats to an absurd extent. And doing so to excuse and minimize the conduct of the Republicans. You say the Democrats would be as bad, and I say you are trying to "balance out" the Republican abuses.

Was that clearer?

[Gary Farber]

"Did I miss Kerry's spectacular, productive career as a Senator?"

How one figures how effective or not someone will be as President, based on what they can do in the Senate, is unclear to me.

What sort of "productive" do you have in mind, and what would the product have to do with effectiveness at being President?

Andrew: "I hope you're right, and the Democrats can be trusted with power more than the Republicans can. But you have no more evidence for that contention,"

Of course I do: their, you know, actual record. Both when in the majority and in the minority. The facts, as to how they've behaved.

"And, really, Gary, as far as your point that it would be the Republicans that started it...isn't that a little juvenile?"

No, because it's not that they "started it," it's the fact that they're the only ones who have ever behaved this appallingly.

"Does the fact the Democrats started all the foolishness with the judiciary somehow get the Republicans off the hook for the dumb games they've played?"

Objecting to extremists being nominated, who were thoroughly out of the mainstream of past Republican nominations? Sure.

If the Democrats had been nominating, say, Ramsay Clark to SCOTUS (a polar equivalent of Robert Bork), I'd have expected Republicans to have objected to him on ideological grounds, as well. I realize that you also want to roll back some seventy or ninety years of SCOTUS precedent and decisions, and that you're in a distinctly minority view her on this, so I don't want to see a pile-on on you on this, and I know that this is a difficult place for you to argue your position, so it's likely best we just agree to disagree on the issue of SCOTUS, but I think you do have to admit that your views are such that you desire a radical change from what, for instance, Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and George H. W. Bush's nominees to SCOTUS (other than Clarence Thomas) have generally held is sound law.

But I probably shouldn't bite on this at all, because you're bringing up a whole new point into the discussion. I guess you think that Democrats objecting to SCOTUS nominees is somehow relevant to the corrupt system that Republicans have instituted in Congress as regards passing laws, but I see it as a pretty separate issue, regardless of the rights and wrongs of that debate.

"I have no idea what you're talking about...and I'm beginning to fear you don't either.

What on Earth makes you think I am in any way attempting to 'balance' the abuses of the Bush administration?"

I see what he's talking about. You're taking 12 years of history of the Republicans controlling Congress, and claiming that the Democrats will be just as bad, without putting forth any evidence in the slightest for this projected equivalence. Frank is pointing out that to accomplish the devastation to our country that the Republicans have, they've controlled the Presidency, both houses of Congress, and the Supreme Court, and that even hypothetically you'd have no grounds for comparable worry until the Democrats had acheived the same level of control and held it for at least five years.

[hilzoy]

Andrew: "And, really, Gary, as far as your point that it would be the Republicans that started it...isn't that a little juvenile?"

Actually, I think there's a different point to be made here (which might or might not be Gary's; who can say, other than Gary?) Namely:

We have evidence that the Republicans are prepared to set all manner of horrible new precedents. It might or might not be true that once they do so, the Democrats will match them. But if so, we'd still have a compelling reason to vote for the mere imitators, as opposed to the inventors of entirely new forms of awfulness.

Moreover, I don't think that all the awfulnesses are likely to be imitated. The K street project, maybe, although that requires more of an ability to move in lockstep than the Democrats have yet shown. Other forms of abusing the campaign finance system to protect their own power, perhaps.

But I think we can be pretty certain that the Dems will not imitate the Republican performance on the deficit. We are not wedded to cutting taxes come hell or high water. In fact, our willingness to roll back the Bush tax cuts, despite the unpopularity of doing so, argues that we're concerned with fiscal sanity even when it's to our political disadvantage. (And there's also our record.)

We would never have been this bad on foreign policy. To the extent that the Democrats have a problem on foreign policy, it's a lack of self-assurance. Really truly screwing up foreign policy requires a conviction that you know best and "normal ways of proceeding" be damned. We will not do that for the foreseeable future, especially since we would have been tarred and feathered had we done anything resembling what the Republicans have done. I expect that political considerations, combined with its being a good idea, will drive us to try to demonstrate competence above all. -- We're just not positioned to make the Republicans' mistakes. They are the mistakes you make when you feel invincible on foreign policy, and we don't.

We will never, on principle, try to detain citizens without trial, and we will never, on principle, waive the Geneva Conventions. We just won't. We will also not try to assert unlimited executive power. This would also be on principle, but besides that, I think that the pendulum is about to swing sharply against the Republicans on that one, so political self-interest will be there as a backstop.

[Gary Farber]

"With all due respect, I suspect the Democrats would have to get significantly worse than the current crop of Republicans before you acknowledged that they were even approaching it, due to your own affiliation with the party."

I tend to think not, given my disillusion and distance from the Democrats during the Nineties, but you didn't know me then.

When the Democrats were in power, I didn't think much of them. But they simply didn't engage in anything remotely like the corruption and abuse the Republicans have. They were merely generally fairly unimpressive. Not exactly mirror images.

I mean, it's simple fact: the Democrats simply didn't abuse their powers and run roughshod over the Republicans even half as much as the Republicans have, or a quarter as much. Would you argue otherwise?

[Nell]

You're quite right, Gary. And Slarti's right that citing a poll as evidence is almost always a shaky proposition, since we live in a country where waaay too many people believe that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction when we invaded (36-50 percent), or can't correctly say what year the September 11 attacks took place (30 percent).

Those polls cause me to think that when even a population as distracted and anesthetized and uninformed about the rest of the world as ours becomes aware enough of Republican failures to move Democrats ahead on the security/terror question, the complete Republican failure must be pretty bleeping obvious.

So it's the trend that supports Frank's sweeping proposition. And, as the excerpt I quoted illustrates, that trend continues despite having to work against the powerful, persistent media narrative that pretends Republicans still own the issue.

[Gary Farber]

"...in a country where waaay too many people believe that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction when we invaded (36-50 percent), or can't correctly say what year the September 11 attacks took place (30 percent)."

It is mind-boggling, isn't it?

Of course, polls constantly show horrifyingly frightening stuff like this (for instance, how many people believe UFO aliens are kidnapping people, or in astrology, or that atheists can't be trusted, or that various provisions of the Bill Of Rights are bad, and so on and so on, which I'm sure you've seen, of course).

But, still. The sort of people that Jay Leno likes to make frequent fun of with his sidewalk questioning of people: they're why I've had unfortunate misanthropic, elitist, tendencies ever since I was a tiny child.

How problematic could it be to remember that September 11th was in 2001, for gawd's sake?

[Andrew]

Gary,

Ultimately, I don't care, to be perfectly honest. The Republicans are garbage. Perhaps the Democrats would be much, much better from the standpoint of corruption, etc. They'll still be statists. From my perspective, this is a lose-lose situation.

[Andrew]

hilzoy,

I certainly hope you're right about the Democrats. Your faith in your party is touching, certainly. And, as Gary points out, I certainly can't prove that you're wrong. So I will bow out. As I noted above, it's hardly the lady or the tiger for me. It's more a question of the tiger or the lion.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

Gary, "You're taking 12 years of history of the Republicans controlling Congress, and claiming that the Democrats will be just as bad, without putting forth any evidence in the slightest for this projected equivalence."

Well, there is the 1970s I suppose.

Hilzoy,

"We would never have been this bad on foreign policy. To the extent that the Democrats have a problem on foreign policy, it's a lack of self-assurance. Really truly screwing up foreign policy requires a conviction that you know best and "normal ways of proceeding" be damned. We will not do that for the foreseeable future, especially since we would have been tarred and feathered had we done anything resembling what the Republicans have done. I expect that political considerations, combined with its being a good idea, will drive us to try to demonstrate competence above all. -- We're just not positioned to make the Republicans' mistakes. They are the mistakes you make when you feel invincible on foreign policy, and we don't."

I'm not sure this is encouraging. "Really truly screwing up foreign policy requires a conviction that you know best and "normal ways of proceeding" be damned." has WWII as a counter-example I would think. Hitler was treated in the "normal ways of proceeding" and it didn't work out rather well. (Nod to Godwin's Law). The one serious flaw that democracies seem to have is their inability to take evil men seriously even when they tell us what they intend. I really seriously fear that in the Middle East in the near future. I am not kidding at all when I say that I fully expect Tel Aviv to be nuked if one of a various number of states gets access to nuclear weapons. They say they want to destroy Israel, and the West shrugs it off as "for domestic consumption".

Now I'm not going to say that Bush has handled things well. He clearly has not. But telling me that the Democratic Party (which by all appearances is going to be influenced by the Kos wing on foreign policy) is going to do better than generic non-Bush Republicans isn't something I'm convinced of. Especially since those Democrats who seem (to me) to be serious on foreign policy seem (to me) to be losing their voice to those who do not.

[Gary Farber]

"They'll still be statists."

True, but with some respect for civil rights, I like to think.

[radish]

They'll still be statists. From my perspective, this is a lose-lose situation.

Er, wait a minute. Do you identify yourself as a libertarian or as an anarchist? If 'statism' is a binary proposition rather than a spectrum then why bother with politics at all?

I suspect the Democrats would have to get significantly worse than the current crop of Republicans before you acknowledged that they were even approaching it

I doubt that very much. Even when Gary is wrong about stuff (which are the only times I disagree with him ;-) he's not an ex post facto kind of guy.

With apologies for repeating something that I say far too often nowadays, there is a well established solution to these sorts of problems. Just decide ahead of time what constitutes 'worse' or 'better', phrase it in a way which can be measured, verified or falsified, and only then apply the rules you've constructed to the question at hand.

You can't really have a conversation like that with people who are not on board with the whole post-enlightenment rationalist business, but that shouldn't be a problem in this context. And that way you don't have to worry so much about whether you're doing the selfsame thing that you're accusing Gary of doing.

I'm mentioning all this because of your earlier comment, which kinda rubbed me the wrong way:

There had to be some [Bush administration foreign policy successes], I should think, if only by the law of averages.

Why exactly is that so? This is a serious question I'm asking. If I had any reason to think that 'foreign policy outcomes' have a natural distribution curve or could be expressed in a way that allowed them to be tested against Benford's distribution then I wouldn't even bother bringing it up. But the kind of casual brushoff you're enagaging in here is, logically, the same as "Shape of the Earth: Views Differ."

Me personally I also doubt that the administration's 'desirable outcomes' bear any resemblance to yours in the first place, but that's just mind reading.

[Gary Farber]

"Well, there is the 1970s I suppose."

Sure, Sebastian; I recall them well. Do you have some events or practices of the Democrats in the Seventies to demonstrate that they were as bad now as the Republicans in Congress are?

[hilzoy]

Andrew: I don't mean for it to be touching. I mean: I always think that blogs are strange in that no one has any idea how any blogger thought before quite recently, so none of you know that I was at times scathing about the Democrats (and previous Republicans). But never in the same way as now.

My view of Democrats is sort of like my view of Kerry: like 90% of the population, he would have been a lot better than Bush; like 90% of (major) US political parties in any period I'm aware of, the Democrats would be less appalling than the current GOP. It's meant to be rising above a really, really low bar.

[Andrew]

why bother with politics at all?

Sometimes I wonder myself. :)

As to Bush foreign policy successes, it would just amaze me that in six years they couldn't have managed something...there has to be some low-hanging fruit in the foreign policy arena. But perhaps not; it was intended only as a throwaway line. I'm sorry it troubled you so.

To return to your first question, I suppose I get involved in politics because I have few other options. Republicans and Democrats both want to tell me how to live my life, they only disagree over the particulars. Since I'd rather live my life according to my own peculiar beliefs, I don't really have the option of opting out of politics, because politics has a way of butting its way into my life. As Trotsky put it, you may not be interested in strategy, but strategy is interested in you.

Gary,

Eh. Each party has some civil rights they consider important and others they'd be happy to throw under the bus. And since I happen to consider the right to property an important civil right, that makes the Democrats a problematic party for me.

[Gary Farber]

"Do you have some events or practices of the Democrats in the Seventies to demonstrate that they were as bad now as the Republicans in Congress are?"

Sorry: "bad then," of course.

[Andrew]

hilzoy,

Fair enough. I will concede that you are probably correct that a Democrat selected at random would probably make a better President than the current occupant. Still, Kerry was such an awful choice...he was about the only Democrat I just couldn't bring myself to vote for.

[radish]

The one serious flaw that democracies seem to have is their inability to take evil men seriously even when they tell us what they intend.

Oh for pity's sake Sebastian. It's not as bad as the bloodshed, but one of the things I hate about all this is seeing nice, decent, sensible people completely lose their sense of irony. Use of the word evil duly noted.

[Andrew]

It occurs to me that ObWings would do well to actually get a real Republican as a poster, as I think having someone who could explain that side of the fence would add a great deal to the discussion.

[Gary Farber]

"And since I happen to consider the right to property an important civil right, that makes the Democrats a problematic party for me."

Just out of curiosity, which lines in the Constitution do you point to as regards that right?

The Fifth Amendment, of course, says that we cannot "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The Fourteen extends that to the States: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Beyond that, Section III says that "The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States...."

Anything else? What do you define as the "civil right" as regards "the right to property"? Do Democrats, in your view, threaten to take away people's property "without due process of law"?

[DaveC]

A Federal Govt run by Democrats would be run as honestly and efficiently as Chicago.

They've outlawed fois gras in Chicago, and have proposed outlawing trans-fats in any restaurant food, statist maybe, but I don't eat grass.

Outlawing gun ownership in Chicago doesn't seem to have kept guns away from criminals.

Torture and corruption in the Chicago Police Department, judges on the take, aldermen thrown in prison, anyone hear anything about that?

Well, at least the campaign finance system in Chicago hasn't had needed an overhaul in a while. They like their elections just fine the way they are now.

[Gary Farber]

"It occurs to me that ObWings would do well to actually get a real Republican as a poster, as I think having someone who could explain that side of the fence would add a great deal to the discussion."

I've said for a long time that it would take approximately three new bloggers to balance Hilzoy. :-)

Incidentally, as regards the Airplane Plot, I don't recall the last time I've seen so much use of the word "thwarted." :-)

[Andrew]

Gary,

Please tell me your argument isn't that if a right doesn't appear in the text of the Constitution, it doesn't exist? Surely you haven't forgotten about Robert Bork's infamous ink blot, the Ninth Amendment?

[Andrew]

I've said for a long time that it would take approximately three new bloggers to balance Hilzoy. :-)

No argument here. If anything, you understate the case.

[Gary Farber]

"A Federal Govt run by Democrats would be run as honestly and efficiently as Chicago."

Or, perhaps more plausibly, as it did under Bill Clinton. Which was hardly perfectly, Democrats certainly not being saints, but not remotely so abusive of Republicans or the country as the current gang.

And I'd rather live under Daley than DeLay.

[hilzoy]

What is Charles: chopped liver?

[Andrew]

Well, Charles doesn't post a lot. So I amend the suggestion to perhaps we should add a more active Republican.

[Gary Farber]

"Please tell me your argument isn't that if a right doesn't appear in the text of the Constitution, it doesn't exist?"

No, I didn't say that; I just asked. I'm a big fan of the 9th Amendment, and, for that matter, I don't forget about the 10th, either. I'm a Democrat who thinks that "State's rights" got a bad name when abused first by Democratic racists during Reconstruction, and then during the latter portion of the 20th century by Republican racists, but that the States remain important laboratories for democracy.

So there. 8-p ;-)

[Andrew]

Well, then, we're agreed on something. Too bad 'states' rights' are deader than Julius Caesar. My only hope is to live long enough to see us put people into space.

[John Thullen]

"They've outlawed fois gras in Chicago, ...."

AND

"What is Charles, chopped liver?"

I've nothing to add. I just thought that was pretty cool.

[Nell]

ObWings would do well to ... get a [more active] Republican as a poster

Getting tougher to find. These days, fewer and fewer people able to discuss these kinds of things within the ObWi posting rules are willing to identify themselves as Republicans.

[Ugh]

The war ended with a truce negotiated by Kofi Annan, who ordered shots of Jaegermeister and Red Bull for the warring parties. A lengthy period of calm followed, interrupted only by the occasional dry heaves of small arms.

My life fades. The vision dims. All that remains are memories. I remember a time of chaos. Ruined dreams. This wasted land. But most of all, I remember the Jaegermeister. The potion we called "Yager". To understand what it was, you have to go back to another time. When the world was powered by Budweiser. And the desert sprouted great cities of Miller Light and Bud Light. Gone now, swept away. For reasons long forgotten, two mighty light beers went to war and touched off a drinking binge which engulfed them all. Without beer, they were nothing. They built a house of cans. The thundering brew pubs sputtered and stopped. Their foremen talked and talked and talked. But nothing could stem the stale beer advance. Their world crumbled. The bottles exploded. A whirlwind of looting, a firestorm of fear. Men began to feed on wine coolers. On the roads it was a drunk driving nightmare. Only those mobile enough to scavenge, brutal enough to drink Guiness would survive. The gangs took over the breweries, ready to wage war for a tank of gin and juice. And in this maelstrom of decay, ordinary men were sh!t-faced and smashed. But drinks like Yager. The warrior Yager. In the roar of a shot glass, it lost everything. And became a shell of a drink, a burnt out, desolate drink, a drink haunted by the demons of its past, a drink who wandered out into the wasteland. And it was here, in this blighted place, that beer learned to live again...

[John Thullen]

Although it occurs to me that outlawing fois gras in Chicago seems to keep the fois gras out of the criminals' hands, but outlawing guns doesn't seem to work.

What we need are more discriminating criminals.

I would agree that the Federal government should overrule the right of Chicago to outlaw fois gras. Laboratories are all very nice unless they make things wurst for me...

[Andrew]

Nell,

Or, perhaps, Republicans simply don't see much point in walking into a situation where at best a small fraction of readers will give their points a hearing as opposed to simply searching for ways to tear them down.

[John Thullen]

Ugh, you've got me there.

Here's to you and Mel Gibson. ;)

[Ugh]

Surely you haven't forgotten about Robert Bork's infamous ink blot, the Ninth Amendment?

Well, the 9th amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Is certainly commendable. As is the 10th:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

But they both depend on what powers have been granted to the federal government, and to determine that you look to the other portions of the Constitution and interpret the words there. And so if you interpret the power to lay and collect taxes to include the power to tax income at a 99% rate, then the 9th's disparagement or the 10th's delegatment (not a word, I know) don't matter.

It reminds me of something my professor in a copyright class said of "reserve" clauses in licensing contracts that purported to "reserve all other rights not granted to the other party to this contract." In such a case, what you've reserved depends on what you've licensed, so you interpret the words granting the license, which really has nothing to do with the "reserve" clause.

That said, I certainly want courts to lean towards more individual rights and less government powers, I just don't think the 9 and 10 amendments get you there, absent some sort of "the courts will construe the powers of the federal government narrowly" provision in the constitution.

[Andrew]

Ugh,

Fair enough. Which gets us back to Constitutional interpretation, of course. But that's a subject for another day, as it's closing time at Panera Bread which means my internet connection is shutting down for the night.

[Gary Farber]

"These days, fewer and fewer people able to discuss these kinds of things within the ObWi posting rules are willing to identify themselves as Republicans."

This is a problem. Any nominations/suggestions, Andrew, or anyone? Obviously, they should be reasonably thoughtful, and articulate, as well as interested in reasonably respectful and courteous interaction. (And remember, Andrew, if you feel you're getting responses that are particularly out of line as regards that, you're free to object, and you should.)

Being able to write adequately is the other obvious quality to look for.

[John Thullen]

"Or, perhaps, Republicans simply don't see much point in ...."

Fair enough. I hadn't realized the extent to which Obsidian Wings has become a refuge from the rest of the known political world.

Why do you keep addressing me as Nell?

[Francis]

Andrew: besides Volokh, OTB and QandO, what Republican / libertarian blogs extend the courtesy you have received here to their readers who disagree?

not Tacitus. certainly not Redstate. BalloonJuice is leaning more left every day. ProteinWisdom? no. MichelleMalkin? [does she even allow comments?] Instapundit? no comments. Asymmetrical Info? Barely.

i'm still looking forward to seeing your favorite blog list posted here.

[Random Wings]

I mean, exactly how seriously was "both sides"Clark wounded? I mean, we know for a fact that the military handed out Purple Hearts for skinned knees and and mosquito bites in Vietnam, right? And can we be absolutely certain that Clark didn't just smack himself upside the head with a 2x4, with an eye to concocting a nice narrative for his future in politics?

Uncle Kvetch, check out Clark's American Son video if you haven't. Clark was wounded by gunshot wounds in four different areas of his body by snipers. He was carried home on a stretcher. And it took him an entire year of physical therapy to get better. The doctors warned he might be crippled for life.

A quarter of his leg's calf muscle was missing from the bullet damage and subsequent surgery when they cut out a chunk of flesh from his leg. His index finger is a couple of centimeters shorter to this very day, even after all the reconstructive surgery. He even had a prosthetic hook grafted to his thumb for a while. You can see the scar of a bullet hole in the flesh connecting thumb to forefinger. He was passed from hospital to hospital, as they sent him up the chain because his injuries were too severe, from Vietnam to Japan and finally back to the States.

He was with a forward scouting squad, and his commanding officer was in a helicopter that flew to the scene to watch the end of the engagement when a call for reinforcements went out, as Clark yelled out orders to regroup his squad and routed the snipers even while he was wounded and collapsed on the ground, his hand unable to grip a weapon.

So yea, this ain't no 2x4. Clark even jokes that he was jyped because he suffered major damage to four different parts of his body and only got one purple heart instead of four. Coming home on a stretcher, tons of reconstructive muscle/tendon surgery to prevent permanent disability, and an entire year of physical therapy to learn how to walk again. Does that sound like a 2x4 to you, Uncle Kvetch?

[John Thullen]

By the way, Andrew, you do a great job.

You are fois gras by me.

Sebastian and Von and Slart are great, too.

Charles is great, in a chopped sort of way.

O.K. Back to the normal give and take.

[Gary Farber]

Random Wings, you might want to adjust your Sarcasm Reader just a tad, and read a bit more carefully, perhaps.

[Andrew]

John,

You both have four-letter names and you post on ObWings. You're like twins...how can I tell you apart?

Gary,

I don't spend a great deal of time surfing other blogs at all, so I really don't have a feel for who might be a good addition.

[Frank]

Andrew- If you can think of someone who would be a good fit by all means say so.

I was gratified that some people here agree with me that the Republicans lack credibility on foreign policy and fiscal responsibility. I've been feeling depressed but Nell and Gary and Hilzoy and Christmas and Ugh and Anarch have bucked me up.

Its too bad that you feel ganged up on Andrew, but on the plus side you just have to argue better than the rest of us. Alternatively you could try to take negative information about Republicans less personaly. Though I know that can be hard for an active duty Libertarian.

[Andrew]

Frank,

Glad I could at least help cheer you up. :)

I take everything personally. It's a terrible character flaw.

And I'm not really a Libertarian, either. I'm my own party. Just like Joe Lieberman. :)

[Andrew]

Well, only less sanctimonious. I hope.

[Anarch]

The Republicans are garbage. Perhaps the Democrats would be much, much better from the standpoint of corruption, etc. They'll still be statists. From my perspective, this is a lose-lose situation.

No offense, Andrew, but you sound like a German voter earnestly explaining why the Social Democrats are indistinguishable from the Nazis.

NB for the clue-impaired: yes, that was hyperbole. Deal with it.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

Radish, you are going to have to be clearer. I don't understand what you are trying to say to me.

[DaveC]

Well, Charles doesn't post a lot. So I amend the suggestion to perhaps we should add a more active Republican.

Andrew, he was quite pointedly asked not to post here ever again. I think Gary, among others, wanted him banned or excommunicated or something. I guess you missed that.

[Gary Farber]

"I think Gary, among others, wanted him banned or excommunicated or something. I guess you missed that."

I missed that, too.

Please get help, Dave. Whatever's needed. I'm at the point where I'm ceasing to hold your words against you, because something is clearly very wrong.

[Jesurgislac]

Slarti: And so of course, the Democrats had to match him with their own giant underachieving doofus.

For all I know Kerry may be an underachiever: I don't know him at all, so how can I say? But if we simply compare Kerry and Bush's respective careers, which of course I don't doubt you never did, Slarti, you would see that Kerry did in fact achieve a good deal. I have no idea if he was the best possible candidate for 2004: but given that Republicans were sufficiently worried about him as a candidate to attempt to steal the 2004 election, and given that thanks to the illegal activities of Republicans no one now knows who got the most votes in 2004, I think it's not really wise for someone who supported Bush in 2004 (as you did, I recall) to decry Kerry.

Because, you have to know: no matter what you think of Kerry, you know he'd have made a better President than Bush.

[CharleyCarp]

And of course Kerry would have served with both houses of Congress held by the opposition, an actively hostile press, and well funded continuing-campaign-opposition-research. We've all seen the movie before -- the odds of anything wackily statist happening were astonishingly low, much lower than with the current configuration.

But I guess we wouldn't have gotten Alito and Roberts to save us from the ravages of the Clean Water Act.

[Slartibartfast]

I'm not comparing Kerry to Bush. I'm comparing Kerry to what it is that Democrats say they want in leadership. You know, it was just in the last couple of days that I heard someone moan about how Republicans are so reflexively anti-intellectual, and look who you nominated for the Presidency. Although if he'd been elected, the current situation in Lebanon never would have happened.

I guess it's possible that Kerry was chosen so as to court the Republican vote, though, but that's a different kind of sin.

[ThirdGorchBro]

Wow, this thread got a little hostile since the last time I peeked in. Here's a few random thoughts in no particular order:

That the Republicans currently hold the belt for Most Corrupt Party, I do not deny. However, I don't think they are inherently more corrupt than any of the great American political machines of the past, both Republican and Democrat. It might discourage some of you to think that massive government corruption can still find ways to exist despite all the efforts of past reformers, but since I'm a conservative I've never believed in the inherent improvability of human nature anyway. Eventually, all political machines overreach themselves and come undone, and this one will too.

I have to agree that the current Republican leadership (as opposed to all Republicans, everywhere) simply cannot be trusted to competently manage our national security. And I say this with a heavy heart, as someone who voted almost straight Republican ever since I was old enough to vote (1992) up through the 2000 elections. Henry Kissinger, where are you now?

I must also admit that the Democrats are no longer the party of George McGovern and Ramsey Clark. At the very least, I have to think they couldn't possibly do worse than Bush has.

Gary, I think Andrew has actually done a fine job of balancing hilzoy when it comes to the volume of posts. As for ideological balance, I think this place is always going to lean a little left. But Andrew, Charles, Sebastian and Slarti all comment pretty regularly (though Charles does seem to have a much lower profile these days).

For the record, I didn't vote in 2004. I could not, in good conscience, vote for Bush. But I couldn't bring myself to vote Democratic either. I may do that this year, although it would pretty much be a protest vote, since I live in a Republican area of Houston.

Maybe I'll join the Voter Apathy Party.

Fry: Now here's a party I can get excited about. Sign me up!

V.A.P. Man: Sorry, not with that attitude.

Fry: (downbeat) OK then, screw it.

V.A.P. Man: Welcome aboard, brother!

Fry: (excited) Alright!

V.A.P. Man: You're out.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

Not to try to drag things back on topic (does that ever really work?) but seriously, if we had never invaded Iraq, what would be the serious things we could say to Syria and Iran that we couldn't say now? Threaten to invade either of them with Saddam sitting next door? I don't think so. Invade Lebanon? What?

[Andrew]

Seb,

We could more reasonably threaten strikes against Syrian and Iranian targets if we didn't have 130,000 troops in Iraq where they are easy for either to strike back at. If we're not in the region, Syrian/Iranian retribution for U.S. strikes requires a lot more reach. Not impossible, particularly for Iran, but certainly more difficult.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

But what Iranian or Syrian targets would we be striking? Would we shoot their supply planes to Hezbollah out of the sky and risk the claims that it was 'civilian'? Would we bomb truck convoys? Would we risk a shut down of the Strait of Hormuz? It seems unlikely unless we adopt a very different understanding of culpability for proxy wars.

[Andrew]

Seb,

That's a different question. I'm not sure what we'd be willing to do, to be honest. Given the apparent expectation that war be damn near bloodless these days, there probably still isn't a great deal we'd be willing to do.

[Phil]

Torture and corruption in the Chicago Police Department, judges on the take, aldermen thrown in prison, anyone hear anything about that?

Wow, suddenly DaveC expresses concern over somebody torturing someone. What's the big deal, Dave? If it prevents a few crimes on the streets of Chicago, isn't it worth it?

Anyway, as far as Andrew's dilemma re: the Republicans and the Democrats, I'm mildly sympathetic to his POV. Everyone knows I identify as libertarian, and I certainly have my problems with many exercises of government power, intrusions into our personal lives, court decisions that enrich and support the power of government over citizens, and so forth. Been there, done that -- those who pay attention to me at all remember my vocal disagreement with the Kelo decision, which is one where I'll bet Andrew's and my opinion coincide.

(Though I, personally, am not a big fan of the concept of "state's rights." Certainly not the perverted notion of them expressed by neo-Confederates and Consymps (Is that a new coinage?); but beyond that, I feel that states don't have rights -- people have rights. States have powers, duties, responsibilities and restrictions, but not rights. I understand its usage as shorthand for a minarchist/local control view of things, but still.)

So I've frequently been in the "a pox on both their houses" camp. A view through my own internet history will show it; in December 2001 and even up to the runup to Iraq I was defending the Bush administration's responses to 9/11 and to terrorism generally. And following the 2000 election, I was busy telling people expressing concern over the future of Bush-led America that they were crazy, that it couldn't be anywhere near what their fever dreams produced. Yes, I was an early vectorer of the BDS meme.

Boy, was I wrong. I will always oppose the unnecessary consolidation of power to the Federal government. I will always oppose erosions of our personal liberties. I will always oppose unchecked government growth and excessive taxation. But I never, ever, ever imagined that this crew would make as bad a hash of things as they have. I never imagined that in six years they could make the Fourth and Fifth Amendments relatively obsolete. I never thought I would see a major political party pushing for, for all practical purposes, a monarchical presidency. I never imagined that I would see the appointment of Supreme Court Justices whose views are in such bad faith and so far outside the boundaries of enlightenment thought.

No government, Andrew, is going to be perfect. Governments are by their nature statist -- it's what they do, and it's our job as citizens to un-elect them when they get too pushy or intrusive. But this crew is more than merely statist. I can handle mere statism, and I can fight it. This crew is poisonous. Their threats aren't just to personal liberties; their threats are to the entire concept of just governance, of checks and balances, of healthy debate and dissent, and so forth. They make me LONG for the days when my representative, Mary Rose Oakar, was abusing the fershlugginer franking privileges in the House.

It amazes me that we spent years investigating and impeaching a President over whether he lied about a blowjob in a deposition for a civil lawsuit; but the current President can argue in all seriousness that he has the power to imprison US citizens forever without any due process, and half the country rolls over and says, "Save us from TEH TERRORISTS, Daddy Bush!"

There are ways to fight the intrusions of statism, both big and small, that can be expected from any large federal government, either through the election and lawmaking processes, or through tiny acts of civil disobedience. How do you fight a government which explicitly says it has the power to set aside the law to do what it wants?

Look at it this way: Diabetes and the Ebola virus are both "bad." One can be treated, fought and mitigated; the other is going to liquify your organs and kill you. Nobody in the right mind would say, "Eh, Ebola, diabetes, what's the diff? They're both diseases." Given the choice, I'll take diabetes, thanks.

PS: About that mindreading machine . . .

[Phil]

Torture and corruption in the Chicago Police Department, judges on the take, aldermen thrown in prison, anyone hear anything about that?

Wow, suddenly DaveC expresses concern over somebody torturing someone. What's the big deal, Dave? If it prevents a few crimes on the streets of Chicago, isn't it worth it?

Anyway, as far as Andrew's dilemma re: the Republicans and the Democrats, I'm mildly sympathetic to his POV. Everyone knows I identify as libertarian, and I certainly have my problems with many exercises of government power, intrusions into our personal lives, court decisions that enrich and support the power of government over citizens, and so forth. Been there, done that -- those who pay attention to me at all remember my vocal disagreement with the Kelo decision, which is one where I'll bet Andrew's and my opinion coincide.

(Though I, personally, am not a big fan of the concept of "state's rights." Certainly not the perverted notion of them expressed by neo-Confederates and Consymps (Is that a new coinage?); but beyond that, I feel that states don't have rights -- people have rights. States have powers, duties, responsibilities and restrictions, but not rights. I understand its usage as shorthand for a minarchist/local control view of things, but still.)

So I've frequently been in the "a pox on both their houses" camp. A view through my own internet history will show it; in December 2001 and even up to the runup to Iraq I was defending the Bush administration's responses to 9/11 and to terrorism generally. And following the 2000 election, I was busy telling people expressing concern over the future of Bush-led America that they were crazy, that it couldn't be anywhere near what their fever dreams produced. Yes, I was an early vectorer of the BDS meme.

Boy, was I wrong. I will always oppose the unnecessary consolidation of power to the Federal government. I will always oppose erosions of our personal liberties. I will always oppose unchecked government growth and excessive taxation. But I never, ever, ever imagined that this crew would make as bad a hash of things as they have. I never imagined that in six years they could make the Fourth and Fifth Amendments relatively obsolete. I never thought I would see a major political party pushing for, for all practical purposes, a monarchical presidency. I never imagined that I would see the appointment of Supreme Court Justices whose views are in such bad faith and so far outside the boundaries of enlightenment thought.

No government, Andrew, is going to be perfect. Governments are by their nature statist -- it's what they do, and it's our job as citizens to un-elect them when they get too pushy or intrusive. But this crew is more than merely statist. I can handle mere statism, and I can fight it. This crew is poisonous. Their threats aren't just to personal liberties; their threats are to the entire concept of just governance, of checks and balances, of healthy debate and dissent, and so forth. They make me LONG for the days when my representative, Mary Rose Oakar, was abusing the fershlugginer franking privileges in the House.

It amazes me that we spent years investigating and impeaching a President over whether he lied about a blowjob in a deposition for a civil lawsuit; but the current President can argue in all seriousness that he has the power to imprison US citizens forever without any due process, and half the country rolls over and says, "Save us from TEH TERRORISTS, Daddy Bush!"

There are ways to fight the intrusions of statism, both big and small, that can be expected from any large federal government, either through the election and lawmaking processes, or through tiny acts of civil disobedience. How do you fight a government which explicitly says it has the power to set aside the law to do what it wants?

Look at it this way: Diabetes and the Ebola virus are both "bad." One can be treated, fought and mitigated; the other is going to liquify your organs and kill you. Nobody in the right mind would say, "Eh, Ebola, diabetes, what's the diff? They're both diseases." Given the choice, I'll take diabetes, thanks.

PS: About that mindreading machine . . .

[Andrew]

Phil,

Excellent analogy. Democrats...they're better than Ebola. I've found my slogan for 2006. ;)

[Slartibartfast]

[Marvin]Oh, goodie.[/Marvin]

[hilzoy]

Seb: back on topic again, I'll make a few points that I didn't make before, when it seemed as though the threat had moved on.

First, I agree with Andrew's points above.

Moreover, in general, I think that we have all sorts of things to say to countries who are considering doing something we seriously oppose. There are trade deals in need of approval, economic interests of various sorts, a wide variety of concerns that we are in a position to use, or not, not to mention various forms of military and diplomatic threats. So I think that the normal state of affairs is that we have lots of cards to play, and that the interesting question is: which of them do we think it's worth playing on a given occasion, for a given purpose.

By invading Iraq, we prevented ourselves from using a lot of these cards, either by giving them up (e.g., we do not now have the same sorts of credible military threats as we would have if we were not in Iraq), or by putting Iran in a position to counter them (e.g., the fact that our troops are conveniently stationed within easy reach of Iran means that a lot of the military threats we might still make, like airstrikes, can be countered by Iran with a credible threat of harm to our troops.)

We also strengthened Iran's position immensely, not just by giving them levers to use against us (see above), but by undoing a policy of containing Iran's influence that we had spent decades on, and that was doing rather well.

The result of all this is that we have a lot less to say to Iran than we would have, and they have a lot more freedom of action than they would have if Saddam were still in power. This is, of course, not meant to be an argument against toppling him; just a set of costs that need to be considered.

Much earlier, you said:

"Clinton had trouble getting useful smart sanctions to work throughout his second term. The drum-beat to end all sanctions in Iraq was going to strong by 1998. I don't think there is a chance under any US administration for sanctions to have continued all the way to 2006."

I was using 'smart sanctions' to refer to the proposal made by Colin Powell in 2001, and described (for instance) here and here. It would, basically, have lifted a lot of the sanctions on non-defense-related imports, but only if Saddam allowed inspections back in. It would also have kept control of oil revenues out of Hussein's hands.

Essentially, it was a way of meeting the concerns of people who thought that sanctions were just hurting the Iraqi people, and were therefore in favor of ending them, while preserving the really important thing (bans on defense and dual-use imports), and getting something very important (inspections) in return for the change. I thought it was quite good.

Anyways, the point is: since this was a 2001 proposal, Clinton wasn't using it in 1998 etc.; it would have addressed the pressure to end sanctions, and also the lack of inspections.

About NK, you say: "In order for any technical timeline to make sense, they had to have been building nukes at the time." I'm not sure I understand this. As far as I know, we don't actually have proof that NK has nuclear weapons today. We certainly don't know that they had them at whatever point you're thinking of.

What we do know is that until Dec. 2002, the plutonium at Yongbyon was under IAEA seal, and could not have been used; and that removing those seals allows them to make many more bombs much more quickly than they could have done otherwise.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"It would, basically, have lifted a lot of the sanctions on non-defense-related imports, but only if Saddam allowed inspections back in. It would also have kept control of oil revenues out of Hussein's hands.

Essentially, it was a way of meeting the concerns of people who thought that sanctions were just hurting the Iraqi people, and were therefore in favor of ending them, while preserving the really important thing (bans on defense and dual-use imports), and getting something very important (inspections) in return for the change. I thought it was quite good."

But it wouldn't allay the concerns of people who thought sanctions were just hurting the Iraqi people while also getting inspections because there is no reason that Saddam had to allow that linkage.

He had already won the propaganda war against sanctions by starving his own people. He next transformed attempts to alleviate that into a UN-funded bribery machine under his control. Why would he allow inspections? He had already shown a willingness to let his people starve for propaganda value for more than five years. Why not merely continue it and let people like Hans von Sponeck (former UN humanitarian coordinator) make the case against sanctions for him?

Furthermore, historically smart sanctions didn't clear the Security Council until Bush had actually sent a vast number of troops into the Gulf area (May 2002). They wouldn't have passed without Bush explicitly threatening war. Nor did they have any effect on inspections--it once again took the actual threat of war to do that.

It is clear what "smart sanctions" were advertised to do. What that has to do with their actual effect on Saddam, given his willingness to disallow inspections while letting his people starve under regular sanctions, is completely lost on me.

[Slartibartfast]

the plutonium at Yongbyon was under IAEA seal, and could not have been used

Um...call me uninformed, but wasn't that the same plutonium they wound up using?

I don't know what an IAEA seal is made of, but it's got to be something truly mythical to deter the determined.

[hilzoy]

Slarti: it was the same plutonium. While it's under IAEA seal (and the IAEA is allowed to inspect), it cannot be used without the IAEA knowing. My point was that it was not used before NK announced its intention to break the seals, which was (I think) what Seb had suggested.

Its being under seal, and inspectable, was one of the points of the deal reached under Clinton. About which I agree with one of its negotiators:

"We did a deal with North Korea called the Agreed Framework, and it stopped the plutonium program. If we hadn't done the deal, North Korea would have, without question, more than 100 nuclear weapons.

Did they cheat on it? Absolutely. They cheated on it. And that's a lesson, too. They will cheat. They cheated by having a secret uranium enrichment program because they're still not confident their security will be guaranteed. Now, it may be that they're unalterably committed to acquiring nuclear weapons, in which case, we gotta deal with that fact, if it is indeed a fact.

I think you have to assume that they're committed to nuclear weapons. And you have to do deals that make sense, even if that's true. There's no trust here. It's not just a line, "trust but verify." It's "No, you don't trust, and you get as much verification [as possible.]" Those who criticize the deal because they cheated on it, I think are not understanding the nature of international politics. We have done deals with people who we expected might well cheat. And indeed, the Soviet Union cheated on all kinds of deals, massively in the biological weapons convention. You look at the deal and say, "Okay. What can you monitor? What can you watch? What can you verify?" And if they cheat, will you catch them? And if you don't catch them, are you still better off with the deal, than without it?"

The question for this administration is, what do you do now? Do you say, "Wait a minute. They're a rogue regime. You can't talk to them." I wouldn't think that would be the best answer."

[Francis]

if we're going to start arguing counterfactuals, then I believe that Nasrullah would never have started the most current war if we hadn't attacked Iraq.

voila. i have assumed away the whole problem.

what if Kennedy had supported the Cuban rebels and avoided the Bay of Pigs?

what if Carter had sent a Marine Expeditionary Force to recover the Iranian hostages?

what if the butterfly ballot design had been rejected?

what if the Confederate forces had taken DC after the First Battle of Bull Run?

WHO CARES! I can hypothesize a world where Americans have universal access to health care and where median wage stagnation is a pressing concern for the government. Sebastian and Andrew can hypothesize a world where the American economy is crippled by high taxes, excessive regulation and over-generous entitlements.

ooh those were good dreams. who's going to change the sheets?

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

The whole basis of this post is based on the counterfactual of not invading Iraq.

[Francis]

actually, no. Holbrooke's point is that not talking to our enemies is a good way to make bad situations worse.

[Anarch]

The whole basis of this post is based on the counterfactual of not invading Iraq.

I thought the whole basis -- not of the OP but of the counterfactual you posed -- was that of an extended Clinton presidency?