A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics
|
|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics | |
|
November 18, 2007Does Iraq Have A Long-Term?I think things are likely to work out long-term, though I'm putting the probability at only 60%. Contrary to what many other commenters say, I DO see political alongside the progress in bringing order to the streets. The most important political thing, as I see it, has happened. Before the Surge started, heads of Mob-like extremist groups were in Parliament (the ultimate in a rotten district - they control EVERYthing going on in some regions) and important parts of in-parliament political coalitions. The Surge hasn't gotten far enough to free all their imprisoned voters yet, but the ruling coalition has reformed in Parliament to exclude them from being able to gum up moves against them. No, the bill to distribute oil money to all residents hasn't passed. But, though it seems like a good idea to me, I'm not seeing why anybody thinks it can make all the difference. And, ordering democracies to do things (which is effectively what we did), is rarely a good approach. That's why we only saw the truly vital stuff (Iraq's part in the Surge change of tactics) passing. This post was inspired by a Tyler Cowen article in the Washington Post grumbling about Iraq's cost, Bush' vast underestimates, and the poor return so far. I think he has a good point. Bush has been living the whole war in stark denial of what kind of financial effort a modern war is. He still is. Of course, if you believe you can can skip out early without one of those annoying occupation things, that could help explain it. He warned at the outset that we could be there a long time, but apparently thought it was unlikely (just like Clinton in Kosovo). He suggests that instead of going into Iraq we would've had more money to spent on upgrading seaports. I think we would've gone into Darfur sans Iraq. That'd be cheaper than Iraq, but probably alot harder to make work out given the limitation of the peacekeeping game. If we couldn't make an occupation work, I'm skeptical that would've worked out better, especially since peacekeeping is as unfashionable in the Pentagon as occupation. Being an engineer, I'm not seeing how more than low-capacity statistical seaport cargo checking could be remotely cost-effective with current technology. The more so since no seaport attack has happened. To me, we have a really effective counerattack in place - the global financial transactions scanner, which HAS deglobalized al'Qaeda , and I'm not seeing why bother with any but the cheapest and least intrusive measures - cockpit doors good, intrusiveness at airports, bad. A thorough seaport search would cost tens of billions in costs and slowdown results to stop an attack that's only happened in the imagination. Posted by Jon Kay at November 18, 2007 01:58 AMComments
I think you are right. However the reason that you don't see why we bother with all the intrusiveness at airports is that you are looking at it like an engineer. (Which I, as another engineer, think is generally a good thing. Just the wrong tool for this particular job.) As you have doubtless heard, even after being in place for years, inspectors still find it almost laughably easy to sneak contraband past TSA's screening system. But then, it isn't really designed to find contraband, except in the most egregious cases. No, what airport screening is there for is to keep in the public eye the fact that steps have been taken to deal with terrorists. Not necessarily useful steps (like cockpit doors and air marshals were), but visible ones. In short, airport screen serves a political purpose, not a security one. And for that political purpose, it is effective -- possibly even cost-effective. Posted by: wj at November 18, 2007 11:39 AMIt bears notice that even flawed security procedures act as a deterrent. Say a procedure is only 1 in 2 likely to stop an attempt. That's still a 50% chance of being caught, and even terrorists hate throwing away their efforts. Especially when it means zero glory. Posted by: Tully at November 19, 2007 09:28 PMOh, and Cowen is willfully ignoring both the opportunity cost of NOT invading (it would NOT have been zero) and the verifiable benefits to date, such as Qadafi's abandonment of his nuclear ambitions. Tsk tsk. Cowen certainly knows better. Posted by: Tully at November 19, 2007 09:38 PMCertainly there is some deterrent effect. On the other hand, there is a cost/benefit trade-off as you increase the level of screening. And the costs include not only the large TSA staff but the additional time passengers spend standing in lines. I think there is a pretty good case that the current system goes way, way beyond the break-even point. Posted by: wj at November 20, 2007 10:19 AMWhat price do you place on lives saved by deterrence? Because that's the metric for cost/benefit tradeoffs in this case. I don't disagree with your take on the political purpose. There's another extension of that, though. If security were seamless and NOT a pain in the butt, it would be underestimated by terrorists rather than overestimated. IOW, it would have less of a deterrent effect. There would be more attempts, which would mean more chance for terrorist successes. But I don't fly commercial if I can avaoid it, and haven't since long before 9/11. I've always had a deep dislike of the cattle cars of the sky. Posted by: Tully at November 20, 2007 07:01 PMInteresting take by Guiliani which echos some remarks I have made. I think Clinton and McCain also based earlier records on Iraq proving to be less weight by election time. Rudy does make some reasonable assumptions. His spin on immigration is another matter entirely. Had he pressed forward on stemming the tide to NYC, many Middle Class wouldn't have been forced to other job markets. Posted by: Maxtrue at November 27, 2007 03:44 PMOn the issue of Iraq, there is much blogging about Hillary the hawk pretending to be a dove. There has also been some concern about Berger's role in the Clinton camp. Here is another person playing a leading role in Foreign Policy for Hillary. It is clear than many of Bill's experts were in favor of removing Saddam. The underlying issue of Clinton "lying" appearing on the Left centers around her views on Iraq, Sudan, Iran and even Syria. I mentioned Rudy above and his speculation about Iraq. It is clear, that should Rudy be right, Clinton is the only Democrat with a record to stand on with regards to taking the battle "over there". While she is loath to be more frank with the anti-war crowd now, I can sympathize with her present position. I am no fan of Berger, but I suspect she has more intention of holding the front lines than any other Democratic candidate and hopefully any role Berger has will be minor. As for Iraq, should the situation improve even more, I believe Hillary will build upon that rather than follow the lines of Obama and Edwards who still dismiss and gains. She can say, see, I was right. It was about our planning and not about the mistake of removing Saddam. Obama has a script he is set upon following, no matter how much events on the ground tell him he is dead wrong. Posted by: Maxtrue at November 27, 2007 08:23 PMNeed buy runescape gold, runescape money, runescape gp? We sell runescape gold, Runescape money, runescape gp, 24/7 online support and fast delivery. |
Archives
February 2008
January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003
Recent Entries
Three Quotes
The Choice, Based on Iraq Policy Even More Of A Surprise Castro Bows Out Kosovo Declares Independence Will Obama Take McCain's Funding Dare? Global Poverty Act Preservation Friday Band Taking on Obama Electoral Results Came Out As Expected?!?
|
