Cato’s Neal McClusky ponders student loan reform: “How can you love an auction because it supposedly uses market forces, while simultaneously supporting the gargantuan market distortion that is the overall federal student aid system?” I feel like the answer has something to do with being neither a communist markets in some things nor a libertarian.
Or maybe there is no middle ground. Consider, after all, the totalitarian implications of the federal school lunch program.
Kenneth Walz: “To say that militarily strong states are feeble because they cannot easily bring order to minor states is like saying that a pneumatic hammer is weak because it is not suitable for drilling decayed teeth.”
Hat tips to Farley and Travis Sharp.
Chris Bowers notes that 59 percent of Democrats believe that John Edwards is proposing to withdraw all US forces from Iraq within nine months. 71 percent believe that Barack Obama is proposing to do this. And 76 (!) percent believe Hillary Clinton is proposing to do so. Needless to say, none of them are, in fact, proposing anything of the sort — though I wish they would.
I was pretty unconvinced by David Brooks Tuesday column about Iraq (watch me gripe here) but it did involve the innovative argumentative tactic of conceding that “The big change in the debate has come about because the surge failed, and it failed in an unexpected way.” Under the circumstances, and since Brooks has historically been a big John McCain booster, I wonder what his take is on this exchange from the GOP debate:
McCain was ready and eager to stress his muscular position in favor of the “surge” in Iraq, and he had plenty of opportunity to do so. The key moment came after Romney said the surge was “apparently working,” and McCain challenged him. “No, not apparently, it’s working,” McCain responded sharply.
To me, this is McCain, formerly the thinking man’s mindless warmonger, acting like a petty goon. But Fred Barnes sees McCain helping himself with these comments while “Mitt Romney hurt himself.” It seems like a really weird mentality on the right.
Bruce Ackerman was fretting the other day about the deployment of General Petraeus and other high-ranking military officers as political weapons by the White House. This, he felt, imperiled the idea of civilian control of the military. The New York Sun, by contrast, want to see Petraeus deliver a speech ending with this bold paragraph:
What I cannot countenance is for you today to commend my skill and bravery in Anbar and Baghdad and then tomorrow to hold votes on how futile this struggle is. So let me make this choice easy for you. I believe we have a good chance to drive Al Qaeda and Iran’s network from Iraq and stand up in due time a functioning democracy in Baghdad. I am prepared, even eager, to command our forces in this battle– but only on one condition: That you signal that you share my goal of victory. If you think I am mistaken and wish to continue your efforts to undermine me, then I cannot command. Absent that signal, I will resign, effective immediately, and take my case to the voters in a run for the presidency on a campaign to finish the work of winning the war and redeeming the sacrifice of so many Iraqis, allies, and our own GIs
Dave Weigel tries to point out that there’s no actual indication that Petraeus is a popular figure — his favorable/unfavorable split is 24/34 — but Dave’s missing the real point here which is that Petraeus is extremely popular among journalists and among think tankers who appear frequently on cable television.
UPDATE: Ooops! When I wrote the title to this post, my intention was to append a brief short story about David Petraeus appearing before congress to denounce the war, denounce Bush, and declare his intention to stage a coup. Then I decided it wasn’t nearly as witty as I’d thought it was and just left the post you read above. But I forgot to change the title, which is now hyperbolic and not really appropriate to the post I wrote.
A report released yesterday by a 20-member commission, headed by retired Marine Gen. James Jones, reported it will be at least 12 to 18 months before Iraq’s army and police can take charge.
The New York Times reports that “allies of the White House are likely to point to the report as evidence of the dangers inherent in any rapid withdrawal of American forces from Iraq, and a Pentagon spokesman said today that the administration remained committed ‘to stay as long as it takes to get the Iraqi Army back on its feet.’”
But a closer inspection of the report reveals that the Jones commission is hardly in favor of maintaining the escalation in Iraq. On page 128, the report explicitly warns that the “massive” U.S. military occupation of Iraq is conveying the impression of “permanence.” The report goes on to recommend “significant reductions” in the “size of our national footprint in Iraq”:
Perceptions and reality are frequently at odds with each other when trying to understand Iraq’s problems and progress. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the impressions drawn from seeing our massive logistics “footprint,” our many installations, and the number of personnel (military and civilian), especially in and around the Baghdad region. The unintended message conveyed is one of “permanence”, an occupying force, as it were.
What is needed is the opposite impression, one that is lighter, less massive, and more expeditionary. The decision to occupy Saddam Hussein’s former palace complex with our military headquarters, while expedient in 2003, has most likely given the wrong impression to the Iraqi population. We recommend that careful consideration of the size of our national footprint in Iraq be reconsidered with regard to its efficiency, necessity, and its cost. Significant reductions, consolidations, and realignments would appear to be possible and prudent. [p. 128]
The recommendations of Gen. Jones echo the comments made by White House “war czar” Gen. Doug Lute prior to his appointment, when he said: “You have to undercut the perception of occupation in Iraq. It’s very difficult to do that when you have 150,000-plus, largely western, foreign troops occupying the country.”
Disregarding the advice and concerns of these generals, Bush has said he plans to largely maintain troop levels, and the White House has aggressively pursued the construction of an “embassy-fortress” in Baghdad. Constructed with slave labor, it is of the “largest and costliest” embassies in the world. “The 65-acre compound will be largely a world unto itself, insulated as much as possible from problems that plague the rest of Baghdad.” Photos of the $592 million embassy below:
Frank de Libero put together the chart you see reproduced above. It compared GI deaths in Iraq in any given month of 2007 to the deaths in the corresponding month in 2006. In summary, January ’07 was deadlier than January ’06. February ’07 was deadlier than February ’06. March ’07 was deadlier than March ’06. April ’07 was deadlier than April ’06. May ’07 was deadlier than May ’06. June ’07 was deadlier than June ’06. July ’07 was deadlier than July ’06. And August ’07 was, well, deadlier than August ’06.
That shouldn’t come as a surprise, as the “surge” strategy specifically contemplated risking higher American death rates (and having Americans kill more people) in order to accomplish some larger political goals. Unfortunately, those goals weren’t achieved so we just have more dead people.
I don’t have a link, but in my inbox is Rep. Ike Skelton’s prepared statement for a House Armed Services Committee hearing at which David Walker, Comptroller General of the United States, is going to give testimony on the GAO’s dismal report on the state of things in Iraq. It’s nice to see an old bull like Skelton unintimidated by the surge of propaganda. He observes that “When the President announced the surge, it was intended to improve security to create space for political progress” and that hasn’t happened. Under the circumstances, he says “It is not clear to me why we should continue to move ahead with this strategy at the cost of American lives and dollars if the Iraqis are not stepping forward.”
Meanwhile, Skelton’s not representing some kind of hippie district. If he can say it, so can everyone else.
Powered by NewsWhip
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
About ThinkProgress | Contact Us | Donate
